80759 Knowledge PAPERS Urban AGRICULTURE Findings from Four City Case Studies Urban Development The World Bank and resilience unit Urban Development Series Produced by the World Bank’s Urban Development and Resilience Unit of the Sustainable Development Network, the Urban Development Series discusses the challenge of urbanization and what it will mean for developing countries in the decades ahead. The Series aims to explore and delve more substantively into the core issues framed by the World Bank’s 2009 Urban Strategy Systems of Cities: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Alleviation. Across the �ve domains of the Urban Strategy, the Series provides a focal point for publications that seek to foster a better understanding of (i) the core elements of the city system, (ii) pro-poor policies, (iii) city economies, (iv) urban land and housing markets, (v) sustainable urban environment, and other urban issues germane to the urban development agenda for sustainable cities and communities. Copyright © World Bank, 2013 All rights reserved Urban Development & Resilience Unit World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/urban This publication is a product of the staff of the World Bank Group. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This note is provided for information only. The World Bank has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs and citations for external or third-party sources referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Knowledge PAPERS Urban AGRICULTURE Findings from Four City Case Studies July 2013, No. 18 Table of Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1.. Introduction and Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The Approach and Structure of this Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 What is Urban Agriculture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 The Challenges of Sustainable Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 The Role of Urban Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Key Findings from the Four City Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. . 2.1 Farming in the Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Urban Agriculture’s Contribution to Livelihood and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3 Constraints on Urban Agriculture Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.. Recommendations for Decision-makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1 Integrating Urban Agriculture Into the Broader Urban Development Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2 The City Level: Promoting Local Food Systems in Integrated Urban Land Use Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 The Value Chain: Strengthening Each Link Within the Urban Agriculture Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 The Broader View: Beyond the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Annex A: Methodology of the Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Annex B: Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Annex C: A Note on the Challenges of the Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Annex D: Bangalore (India) Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Annex E: Accra (Ghana) Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Annex F: Nairobi (Kenya) Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Annex G: Lima (Peru) Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Boxes Box 1.1: Urban agriculture in city climate change strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Box 1.2: Urban forestry in Curitiba, Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Box 1.3: Farming with wastewater irrigation in Hyderabad, India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Box D1: Survey methodology for the Bangalore case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Box D2: Indications of urban agriculture in Bangalore’s Master Plan 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Box D3: General state of dwellings of producers and non-producers in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Box E1: Urban agriculture studies in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Box E2: Backyard farming provides food security in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Box E3: Survey methodology for the Accra case study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Box E4: General state of dwellings of producers and non-producers in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Box F1: Survey methodology for the Nairobi case study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Box F2: General state of dwellings of producers and non-producers in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Box G1: Survey methodology for the Lima case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Box G2: Description of sites surveyed in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Box G3: General state of dwellings of producers and non-producers in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Figures Figure 2.1: The area of Bangalore’s airport in 2004 prior to construction, and with the airport in 2013. . . . . . . . . 19 Figure D1: Land use patterns in Bangalore sub-districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure D2: Size of land holdings in the transect areas in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure D3: Length of residence of producers and non-producers in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure D4: Major types of crops grown by producers in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure D5: Fertilizers and other inputs used for crop production in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure D6: Primary occupation of household heads in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure D7: Secondary occupation of producers in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure D8: Proportion of income from agriculture in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure D9: Proportion of income from rearing animals along the transect in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure D10: Distribution of household expenditures for producers and non-producers in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure D11: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Bangalore . . . . . . . 49 Figure D12: Map of Bangalore showing survey sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure D13: Map of India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure E1: Crops grown by subsistence and commercial farmers in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure E2: Type of land owned by producers in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure E3: Farm size by location in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figures (continued) Figure E4: Location of space used by producers in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure E5: Types of fertilizers and other inputs used for crop production by location in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure E6: Primary occupation of household heads in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure E7: Secondary occupation of producers in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure E8: Proportion of income from crop production along the transect in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure E9: Proportion of income from rearing animals along the transect in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure E10: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Accra. . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure E11: Map of Accra showing survey sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure E12: Map of Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure F1: Trends in growth rates of households in Kenya and Nairobi, 1979 – 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure F2: Length of residence of producers and non-producers in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure F3: Main crops grown by producers in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure F4: Current land use by area in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure F5: Type of land owned by producers in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure F6: Location of space used by producers in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure F7: Types of fertilizers and other inputs used for crop production in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure F8: Primary occupation of household heads in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure F9: Secondary occupation of producers in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure F10: Proportion of income from crop production along the transect in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure F11: Proportion of income from rearing animals along the transect in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure F12: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . 75 Figure F13: Map of Nairobi showing survey sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure F14: Map of Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure G1: Average length of residence of producers and non-producers along the transect in Lima . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure G2: Type of land used by producers in Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Figure G3: Primary occupation of household heads in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Figure G4: Secondary occupation of producers in Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Figure G5: Proportion of income from crop production along the transect in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure G6: Proportion of income from rearing animals along the transect in Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure G7: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Lima . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure G8: Map of Lima showing survey sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure G9: Map of Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Tables Table 1.1: Contribution of urban agriculture production to employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2.1: Overview of urban agriculture in the four case studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2.2: Selected socio-economic variables of case study cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3.1: Legal and policy elements favoring or disfavoring urban agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table A1: Food groups consumed and the types of food in each group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table D1: Key facts of Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table D2: Demographics of the sub-districts in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table D3: Distribution of producer and non-producer groups along the transect zones in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table D4: Types of animals owned by producers across the transect zones in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table D5: Sources of income for producers and non-producers in Bangalore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table D6: Household expenditures along the transect in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table D7: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Bangalore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table E1: Key facts of Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table E2: Administrative districts and capitals of the Greater Accra Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table E3: Main employment sectors in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table E4: Geographical sources of food in Accra’s retail markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table E5: Summary of the types of urban agriculture practiced in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table E6: Common crops grown by households along the transect in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table E7: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Table E8: Household expenditures along the transect in Accra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table E9: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Accra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table F1: Key facts of Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table F2: Districts and divisions in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table F3: Information about the areas selected for the study in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Table F4: Livestock owned along transect zone in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table F5: Inputs used for livestock production in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table F6: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table F7: Household expenditures along the transect in Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table F8: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Nairobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table G1: Key Facts of Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table G2: Information about the municipal districts selected for the study in Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table G3: Top 20 crops grown for sale and home consumption in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table G4: Primary animals raised and their consumption by households in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table G5: Use of fertilizers and other inputs across transect zones in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table G6: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Lima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table G7: Household expenditures along the transect in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table G8: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Foreword i Foreword Urbanization is one of the defining phenomena of the 21st century. More people live in cities today than ever before in history, and by 2050 as many people will live in urban areas as the total world population in 2000. Cities enable economic progress, promote innovation and social cohesion, and improve access for millions of people to healthcare, education, safe drinking water and electricity, in addition to promoting diversity and cultural activities, such as theater, music, and art. In short, cities are the crucibles of improved standards of living, in economic, social, and cultural terms. Along with the numerous benefits that cities provide come challenges, particularly to cities in the developing world, to ensure the provision of basic services while at the same time maintaining economic growth and protecting the environment. In this context, urban agriculture offers multiple benefits to cities and their residents. From an economic angle, urban agriculture provides employment opportunities, supplements household income, and generates monetary savings. It particularly enables the urban poor to better withstand rises in food and fuel prices. From a social point of view, urban agriculture can provide a sense of community, improve the lives of women and youth, and promote rural-urban linkages. The production and consumption of food enables improved nutrition for children. Urban agriculture contributes to the environment by providing ways to reuse wastewater and organic solid waste, reduce use of fertilizers and pesticides, and make cities more resilient to climate change. The Urban Development and Resilience Unit of the World Bank is pleased to present this report showcasing four cities where urban agriculture is present. It provides an in-depth view of the impacts of urban agriculture on income and expenditure, food security and nutrition, and social impacts. It also provides an overview of the benefits of introducing and encouraging agricultural practices in urban areas to build cities that are green, inclusive, and sustainable. Sameh Naguib Wahba Sector Manager Urban Development and Resilience Unit Sustainable Development Network The World Bank ii URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Acknowledgments This report is a product of the Urban Development and Resilience Unit of the World Bank and benefited from the support of the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD). Preparation of this guide involved a core team at the World Bank that included Marcus Lee (Task Team Leader), Perinaz Bhada-Tata, Claudia Henriquez Gallegos, and Rana Amirtahmasebi. Content for chapters 1-3 were contributed by Ir. Marielle Dubbeling (RUAF Foundation), Dr. Gordon Prain (CIP-Lima), and Ir. Henk de Zeeuw (RUAF Foundation), and also draws upon an earlier FAO-World Bank paper on urban agriculture, Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security (2008) and an FAO-RUAF report on Cities, Agriculture, and Poverty: Challenges and The Way Forward (2009). Content from the case study of Bangalore was provided by Amalendu Jyotishi (Amrita School of Business, Bangalore), Priyanie Amerasinghe (IWMI, Hyderabad), Sreedhar Archarya (IWMI, Hyderabad), Vikas Kumar (Amrita School of Business, Bangalore), C. G. Yadava (IWMI, Hyderabad), and R. S. Deshpande (ISEC, Bangalore). The case study of Accra is based on a report authored by Dr. George T-M. Kwadzo (University of Ghana, Legon), Dr. John Baptist, D. Jatoe (University of Ghana, Legon), Dr. Olufunke Cofie (IWMI), Philip Amoah (IWMI), and Gerald Forkuor (IWMI). The case study of Nairobi is based on work by Mary Njenga and Nancy Karanja of University of Nairobi and Gamma Systems. The content of the case study on Lima was provided by Mary E. Penny, Hilary M. Creed-Kanashiro, Miluska Carrasco, Margot Marin from the Instituto de Investigación Nutricional, and Gunther Merzthal and Alain Santandreu at IPES Promoción del Desarrollo Sostenible. RUAF Foundation, through Ir. Marielle Dubbeling and Gordon Prain, coordinated the activities of the various case studies and prepared an overall synthesis report. Valuable comments and inputs were received from the peer reviewers Ademola Braimoh, John Morton, and Jonas Parby. The original concept and TFESSD proposal for this work was developed by Anjali Acharya, Christa Anderson, and Daniel Hoornweg of the World Bank. Gisela Campillo and Meena Anvananthan contributed to the development of the final report. Claudia Henríquez provided valuable support for analysis of the original data. Much appreciation is due to Xiaofeng Li, Laura De Brular, Adelaide Barra, and Vivian Cherian for their excellent support to the World Bank team. Finally, thanks go to Zoubida Allaoua, Sameh Wahba, Abha Joshi-Ghani, and Daniel Hoornweg for their leadership, guidance, and support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii Executive Summary Urban agriculture contributes to local economic Data on age, education, and migration show that development, poverty alleviation, the social inclusion of urban agriculture provides a stable occupation and the urban poor and women, as well as to the greening of income strategy for a vulnerable sector of the population the city and the productive reuse of urban wastes. While that tends to be older, less well educated, and settled there is a growing awareness about the role of urban in urban areas earlier than non-producers. Urban agriculture in the context of food security and poverty agriculture generally also provides occupation and income alleviation for urban populations, urban agriculture largely for households that migrated to cities earlier than non- remains an informal sector that is not well integrated producers. This does not support commonly held ideas that into agricultural policies or urban planning. Gaps in the urban producers are typically recent migrants who are still availability of good quality, current and comparable data transitioning towards integration into (non-agricultural) on the benefits and constraints of urban agriculture limit urban society. the design of relevant policies and interventions that There is some hard evidence to support the claim that would enhance the positive impacts for urban livelihoods urban agriculture is highly compatible with other kinds of and public health, as well as for the environment. employment, particularly informal business or even casual Urban agriculture encompasses a wide variety of labor. This apparent adaptability of agricultural activity production systems in both urban as well as peri-urban with other concurrent occupations also facilitates access areas. These systems include crops, fish, and livestock to multiple income sources. Such diversification of income production, as well as herbs, medicinal and ornamental sources is important as a risk management and adaptation plants for both home consumption and for the market. strategy. The role of urban agriculture as an income source Urban agriculture contributes to a substantial portion of is thus considered of greater importance than as a direct food consumed in cities in many countries around the source of additional food, except in Nairobi where the world. opposite is true. This study examines the contribution of urban Another important benefit from urban agricultural agriculture to livelihoods, food security, health, and the production is in the cash savings from self-produced food urban environment through an assessment of existing that would otherwise have to be purchased. Although the urban agriculture activities among poor households foods purchased with savings depend on local food cultures in four selected cities. Urban agriculture, as defined in to some extent, there are commonalities, primarily in the this report, encompasses both “intra-urban� as well important use of savings to purchase local staple foods. as “peri-urban� agriculture. Through data collected in The vast majority of staple foods are typically produced in surveys, focus group discussions, and city consultations, rural areas and facilitating their purchase through savings this study comparatively analyzes the social and economic from own production is a key contribution. Savings are effects of urban agriculture on the urban poor. The case also important for covering higher-value items in the diet, studies of Accra, Ghana; Bangalore, India; Lima, Peru; and such as micronutrient and protein-rich animal foods and Nairobi, Kenya were undertaken to help bridge existing supplementary vegetables. knowledge gaps and to help inform policy makers about urban agriculture. iv URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES In terms of food groups consumed, there were no profitable urban agriculture production systems. Readily major differences between producers and non-producers, available market demand and increasing support by policy though some differences were found for particular food makers at local and national level do, however, offer real groups, such as green leafy vegetables and beta-carotene opportunities to current and future urban producers. rich foods. The diversification of food sources reduces the The role and importance of urban agriculture will vulnerability of producer and non-producer households likely increase with urbanization and climate change, so and enhances their coping capacities by increasing the integration of urban agriculture into development the stability of household food consumption against strategies and policy decisions would be important seasonality, disturbances in food supplies from rural areas for long-term sustainability. The integration of urban or imports, increases in food prices, and losses of income. agriculture should be relevant and customized to the As food prices have doubled in the last five years and objectives and circumstances of individual cities. City- are expected to continue to rise in the coming decades, level decision-makers can be the primary facilitators leading to a further deterioration of food security in cities, for such integration, with appropriate support from the role of urban agriculture in this respect may become the national level, and action and engagement at the more important than is currently considered. local and community level within cities. Doing so offers In terms of ownership of the land that producers use the opportunity to address multi-sectoral and multi- for rearing animals and/or growing crops, a common disciplinary issues, including crop and livestock production, pattern is seen across the four cities, where the rate of aquaculture, agro-forestry, in the overall context of proper land ownership is higher among producers than non- natural resource management. producers. In the case of Accra, there is also a significant To further enhance the potential positive impacts of proportion of producer households who rent or lease urban agriculture, this study makes recommendations plots; in urban areas publicly available land is used for to strengthen urban agriculture as an income source, urban agriculture activities. In Nairobi, too, the use of and promote local food systems and integrated land-use publicly available space is important in urban and peri- planning. Specifically, these recommendations include urban transition areas. the integration of urban agriculture into urban planning The development of urban agriculture is generally and city-based climate change strategies and action constrained by the loss of agricultural land, specifically plans; support for urban agriculture through improved in peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas, as well as market infrastructure, training and extension programs; the lack of secure tenure. Lack of access to safe irrigation strengthened producer organizations, value-chain water, credit and capital were also identified as constraints development and direct marketing, and increased access by producers across the four cities. In addition, the to finance; promotion of more local and regional food agricultural extension system is generally weak, and cannot systems; and integration of agriculture and food culture respond to the need for training on more sustainable and into nutrition education programs. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v Acronyms and Abbreviations ABWI Asset-based Wealth Indicator ADMA Adentan Municipal Assembly AEA Agricultural Extension Agents AMA Accra Metropolitan Assembly AU Administrative Unit BBMP Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palika BDA Bangalore Development Authority FGD Focus Group Discussion FI Financial Institution GAMA Greater Accra Metropolitan Area GDP Gross Domestic Product ha Hectare IT Information Technology IWMI International Water Management Institute JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission LC Lurigancho-Chosica MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Accra) RUAF  RUAF Foundation: International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security VMT Villa María del Triunfo WHO World Health Organization 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Introduction and Overview The year 2008 marked a critical event in world history: for proportion of their disposable income to food, between 54 the first time, the world’s urban population outnumbered percent and 76 percent in Sub-Saharan capital cities. The its rural population. According to United Nations Population higher the proportion of income spent on food by low socio- Fund, the world’s urban population is expected to double from economic groups, the more precarious their food situation is 3.3 billion in 2007 to 6.4 billion by 2050, and it is predicted likely to be, although food budget shares in different cities that by 2030, 60 percent of the world’s population will live may not be directly comparable (FAO 2008b). in cities (UNFPA 2007). It is expected that by 2020, 85 percent In many developing countries, urban and peri- of the poor in Latin America, and about 40-45 percent of the urban agriculture is an activity in which the poor are poor in Africa and Asia, will be concentrated in towns and disproportionately represented. Food production in and cities. around the city is in many cases a response of the urban poor As cities expand, so do the food needs of urban families. to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food, and The urbanization process in many developing countries goes the lack of purchasing power. Engagement in farming in closely together with increasing urban poverty and growing urban areas has also been shown to be associated with greater food insecurity and malnutrition especially of the urban dietary diversity in most countries (WHO 2003). Malnutrition poor. Their situation is particularly difficult in the context of in all its forms is a growing concern in cities. While there are volatile food prices and financial, fuel and economic crises, certainly more foods available year round and more jobs and since urban consumers are almost exclusively dependent on social services in urban areas, not everyone is able to benefit. food purchases and the urban poor are the most affected. Poverty and food insecurity have often been considered It is therefore essential that appropriate strategies be put to be largely rural problems. In urban settings, however, lack in place to ensure availability and affordability of safe and of income translates more directly into lack of food than in healthy foods, promoting the production of such foods in rural settings. Vulnerable groups in cities often have fewer urban and peri-urban areas, and thus enhancing livelihoods informal safety nets, including kinship and community of actors along the value chain. The contribution of urban networks. Their dependence upon purchased food is further and peri-urban agriculture to food availability and healthy compounded by their incapacity to access and use natural nutrition for the urban population is one of its most resources to produce most of their own food. Disadvantaged important assets, in addition to providing a source of income urban households may have to devote an extremely high and livelihood to its participants. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 2 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. PERU Peruvian women buying fresh vegetables from area growers 3 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 1.1 The Approach and Structure of this Report expenditure, dwelling and food consumption profiles of residents. This report seeks to examine the contribution of urban agriculture to livelihoods, food security, health, and the urban environment, through an assessment of existing urban 1.2 What is Urban Agriculture? agriculture activities among poor households in four selected Urban and peri-urban agriculture—collectively referred to cities: Accra (Ghana), Bangalore (India), Lima (Peru), and in this report as ‘urban agriculture’—is an industry located Nairobi (Kenya). In so doing, it aims to provide some practical, within (‘intra-urban’) or on the fringe (‘peri-urban’) of a evidence-based information that city-level decision-makers town, a city, or a metropolis, that grows and raises, processes use in considering how urban agriculture can be part of the and distributes a diversity of agricultural products from both policies, plans and programs for sustainable development plants and animals, using human, land and water resources, in their city­‑—particularly for developing country cities with products, and services found in and around that urban area. low-income populations. Other readers interested in urban Urban agriculture can be practiced in gardens, rooftops, development or agriculture more broadly would also likely empty public land, cellars or field plots by urban residents find this information useful. from various backgrounds. The orientation and scale of such The hypothesis underpinning this work is that urban activities may vary from subsistence-oriented cultivation, to agriculture can contribute to sustainable urban development more recreational types of agriculture at the micro scale, and urban poverty reduction, by functioning as a source of through small-scale semi-commercial gardeners and livestock livelihoods and income, and by increasing the availability of keepers, to medium and large-scale commercial enterprises. and access to food in cities. This report also has the perspective Urban agriculture already provides a substantial contribution that urban agriculture offers a range of co-benefits for the to the food for the cities in many countries. Yet, with the local and global environment, including for natural resource rapid growth of the urban population and the low nutritional management and climate change mitigation. At the same levels of the urban and peri-urban poor, there is tremendous time, it is recognized that the development and expansion scope for increasing this source of supply. of urban agriculture is constrained by a range of issues, and Benefits of urban agriculture include: that addressing these challenges would contribute towards • Non-market access to fresh, nutritious food for poor the achievement of overall development goals. consumers, and income generation (especially for This report is structured according to the basic framework women); mentioned above. The rest of this chapter provides a definition and examples of urban agriculture, summarizes • Supply of food to urban markets, street food and food processing, providing additional employment and some of the sustainable development challenges that cities income; face, and provides an overview of the role of urban agriculture in contributing to poverty reduction, food security, and • Productive reuse of water and urban waste to provide environmental sustainability. Chapter 2 then summarizes water, animal fees and fertilizers for the demands of the key findings from the four city case studies, analyzing urban agriculture; the profiles of urban agriculture in each city, including the • Integrating urban agriculture with urban greening agricultural practices pursued, access to and use of urban programs, which can provide fuelwood for urban land, as well as examining the available data for evidence residents, reduce urban pollution and temperatures, of the importance of urban agriculture for livelihoods and and offer recreation opportunities to improve quality food security. Chapter 2 also discusses the main findings from of life for all urban residents, and in particular for the case studies on the constraints facing urban agriculture. youth and elderly people; Chapter 3 then provides various recommendations for • Providing an opportunity for participation of urban strengthening urban agriculture and addressing these residents to benefit from the implementation of constraints, recognizing that these need to be considered urban agriculture within the broader context of in light of the broader urban development agenda and the urban greening programs, specifically stimulating the many competing priorities that cities face. The annexes to this involvement of women as complementary activity; report describe the methodology used for the city case studies, and provide detailed information on each city, including a • If practiced sustainably, urban agriculture clearly aligns general city profile, the urban agricultural practices in each itself with the key goals of inclusive green growth, city, the inputs used and outputs produced, and the income, which are clean, resilient, efficient, and inclusive, as INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 4 defined by the World Bank (2012). In this way, urban large proportion of their household expenses (often over agriculture can advance the objectives of inclusive 60 percent) and urban consumers are almost exclusively green growth and vice-versa; and dependent on food purchases. Variations in income or food prices have a significant and direct impact on their diets • Helping cities become more resilient to climate change by reducing vulnerability of urban residents, (lower food intake, turning to cheaper / less nutritious food) particularly the poor, diversifying urban food sources and may also lead to reduced expenditures in healthcare and income opportunities, maintaining green open and schooling or sale of productive assets (FAO 2008a). It spaces and enhancing vegetative cover, which has is estimated that the rise in food prices between early 2007 important adaptation (and some mitigation) benefits. 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 percent (Baker 1.3 The Challenges of Sustainable Cities 2008). 1.3.1 Urban Poverty 1.3.2 Food Insecurity and Malnutrition The high rate of urbanization in many developing Increasing urban poverty goes hand-in-hand with growing countries, particularly in low-income ones, is taking place at food insecurity and malnutrition in cities. Urban food a time when the availability of non-farm jobs is limited. In insecurity often is overlooked since at the aggregate level, fact, non-farm productivity in the least developed countries economic and social conditions in urban areas are much declined 9 percent from 1980-83 to 2000-03 (UNCTAD 2006). better than those in rural areas. (Satterthwaite and others As a result, the urbanization process is accompanied by a 2010) But aggregate figures do not account for inequality phenomenon referred to as the “urbanization of poverty�: within the urban population that is generally much greater rural-to-urban migration combined with limited employment than within the rural areas (World Bank 2000). Unlike in rural opportunities in cities, which leads to a shift in the locus of areas, food insecurity problems in urban areas are strongly poverty from rural to urban areas. In addition, the recent related to inadequate purchasing power of the urban poor, global financial crisis and rising food, fuel, and energy prices which limits their access to food of adequate quantity and have affected developing countries, with a disproportionately nutritious quality. large effect on the urban poor. FAO data indicate that the number of people with chronic food insecurity has risen to 1.3.3 Climate Change Impacts over 100 million people in two years from 2007 to 2009, the The challenge posed by climate change and its interaction majority of whom are urban poor (FAO 2009b). with urban poverty and food security is globally recognized. The urban poor are particularly vulnerable to changes in UN-HABITAT (2009) states that “Cities are a major part of the food prices and variation in income since food makes up a cause, suffering the most impacts and therefore play a primary 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES role in finding the appropriate solution.� According to UN- world are recognizing the role of urban agriculture in their Habitat, slum areas are anticipated to be the most vulnerable responses to climate change. to the effects of climate change, given the paucity of shelter and the absence of public services (UN-HABITAT 2009). In parts 1.3.4 Natural Resource Scarcity and Waste Disposal of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, it is common for as much as In most cities, land is a scarce—and thus valuable— half a city’s population to live in informal settlements, lacking resource. Cities concentrate people, assets and economic piped water supply, paved roads, sewers, storm drains, and activity; it is this density that contributes to the vibrancy of household waste collection. Many such settlements are often cities, offering opportunities for greater efficiency and for located in marginal areas that are not suited for construction responding to challenges such as climate change (Glaeser and are vulnerable to natural disasters, such as on steep and 2011, Hoornweg and others 2011). Urban planning thus has a unstable slopes (landslides after prolonged rain fall) and fundamental role to play in fostering sustainable and livable low-lying areas like reclaimed swamp areas and river beds cities, including through making choices on the optimal use (flooding), leaving their inhabitants at greatest risk from of land within a city. However in many cities, particularly in storms and floods. developing countries, urban planning and related policies are Climate change is expected to put 49 million additional weakly designed, or else poorly implemented—exacerbating people at risk of hunger by 2020, and 132 million by 2050 (IFAD the challenges of rapid population and economic growth in n.d.). City economies will suffer as agricultural production in cities. In this context, urban agricultural activities are often the surrounding rural areas is impacted by storms, floods, or ignored or not well integrated into planning processes constraints on water availability. The decline in agricultural and policies, with little attention paid to the benefits and productivity will thus not only affect the rural population tradeoffs of urban agriculture. but also affect the urban poor. Maxwell and others (2009) The urban demand for fresh water is quickly rising due state: “Urban and peri-urban areas are similarly impacted, to population growth as well as increasing supply, coverage as natural causes can lead to increased (temporarily or and overall urban economic growth, while the availability of sustained) higher food prices, food shortages, epidemics, and fresh water is becoming a serious problem. There is growing sudden settlement of those displaced by the shock. To make competition among industrial, energy, and domestic uses of matters worse, natural causes of food crises are often cyclical, water and the agricultural use of water, which is exacerbated repeatedly affecting the same regions or agro-climatic zones.� by water scarcity in arid countries. When faced with water Box 1.1 describes several examples of how cities around the scarcity, central and local governments often tend to restrict Box 1.1: Urban agriculture in city climate change strategies Across the world, cities in both developing and developed countries are including urban agriculture and forestry in their climate change strategies and action plans. • In Sierra Leone, Freetown has zoned all wetlands and low-lying valleys for urban agriculture to increase water infiltration, reduce flooding, keep the flood-zones free from (illegal) construction and promote urban agriculture production for food supply and job creation; • In Canada, Toronto’s climate change plan includes financial support to community based urban agriculture projects, e.g., community orchards and gardens, home gardens; promotion of composting of organic wastes and rainwater harvesting; reduction of the city’s “Food print� by requiring shipping distance on food labels, promotion of regional products, supporting farmers’ markets and preferential procurement of food; • In South Africa, Durban is promoting productive green roofs for stormwater management, biodiversity, and food production, is testing possible replacement crops for maize to adapt to lower rainfall and is promoting community reforestation and management; • Brisbane, Australia included both urban agriculture and green roofs in an action plan to meet predicted global climate change challenges; • Makati City in the Philippines promotes tree planting in open areas, road medians, and roadsides to reduce air pollution, for city beautification, prevention of landslides and carbon dioxide sequestration; and • Casablanca, Morocco is investigating the role of local food production as a strategy for climate optimized development Source: De Zeeuw 2011. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 6 agricultural water use in favor of urban industrial, energy on employment generated through urban agriculture in a and domestic uses, with important negative consequences for number of cities. food production. At the same time, water demand for food Although production levels and turnover of individual production is increasing due to growing populations and urban producers may be small in many cases, a high number of changes in food consumption patterns that go along with urban producers in a city can make their overall contribution urbanization. Shifts toward richer and more varied diets such to the urban economy relevant by generating employment as from tubers to rice and from cereals to livestock, fish, and for many poor urban households and generating incomes high-value crops all require more water for production (UN- equivalent or higher than the official minimum wage rate Water and FAO 2007). (Moustier and Danso 2006). In addition to either growing Contamination of groundwater and pollution of freshwater crops or rearing animals, urban agriculture provides other resources have important negative effects on public health employment opportunities, such as: and urban ecology. Water treatment capacity in most cities in • Production and sale of processed products such as developing countries is limited and existing treatment is often meals, jams, street food, and other products; and ineffective. Moreover, the quantity of solid organic wastes • Production and sale of agricultural inputs, such as the generated in cities is increasing dramatically. In many cities, production of compost or animal feed from collected solid waste collection is often restricted to the central district organic wastes, irrigation equipment from recycled and the wealthy neighborhoods and much of the organic materials, and provision of services such as transport wastes is left to rot in the streets or dumped along riverbanks and animal healthcare. or on open land near the city limits, leading to contamination of soils and water. These and other urban environmental Food often makes up one of the major expenses for problems are discussed in detail in various literature, such households, with poor households spending proportionately as McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2002), Satterthwaite and more of their income on food than others. Either producing Mitlin (2011), Stephens (1995), and Hoornweg and others one’s own food or benefiting from cheaper food produced (2010). locally can result in monetary savings and free up cash for other household expenses, such as water, medicines, rent, 1.4 The Role of Urban Agriculture schooling, and clothing. 1.4.1 Livelihoods and Employment for the Urban Poor 1.4.2 Food Security Smit and others (UNDP 1996) estimate that 800 million Food security, broadly defined, includes food availability, people worldwide are involved in urban agriculture, of as well as access to food, and the ability to use and consume which 200 million are full-time. Table 1.1 summarizes data food safely. In the context of this report, this term is used Table 1.1: Contribution of urban agriculture production to employment City Urban Producers Dakar, Senegal 3,000 family vegetable farms (14,000 jobs) of which 1,250 are fully commercial (Mbaye and Moustier 2000) (9,000 jobs); 250 poultry units. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 15 to 20 percent of all families in 2 city areas have a home garden. UA forms at least 60 (Sawio 1998) percent of the informal sector and is second largest source of urban employment (20 percent) in 1997. Havana, Cuba 117,000 direct and 26,000 indirect jobs in urban agriculture. (Gonzalez & Murphy 2000) Shanghai, China 2.7 million farmers, representing 31.8 percent of all workers, contribute 2 percent of (Yi-Zhang and Zhangen 2000) the city’s GDP through urban agriculture. Manila, Philippines 120,000 low-income households depend on local jasmine production—including (IPC 2007) jasmine farmers, garland makers, garlands sellers—for their livelihoods. 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES primarily to refer to availability and access. The contribution Environmental Co-benefits and Responding to the 1.4.3  of urban agriculture to food security and nutrition in cities Challenges of Climate Change and/or of urban farming households has been the subject Urban agriculture is increasingly mentioned for the role it of many articles and research papers. Often, the literature might play in disaster management in urban areas and the differentiates between production for the market or for actions of cities to mitigate the effects of climate change home-consumption (Cole, Lee-Smith and Nasinyama 2008; De through climate compatible city development (Mitchell and Zeeuw and Dubbeling 2009; Mougeot 2006; Redwood 2009; Maxwell 2010). More broadly, urban agriculture contributes Van Veenhuizen, 2006). Many such reviews seem to indicate to environmental sustainability by offering a range of that the direct food security purpose prevails, but that a potential co-benefits for the local environment, including substantial number of urban farmers also produce for the through the re-use of wastewater and organic waste. In this market, and more so in Asia and Latin America than in Africa vein, urban agriculture itself can be made more sustainable (Zezza and Tasciotti 2010). and ecological—rather than using fresh water or artificial Self-production of food by poor urban households can fertilizers as inputs, sustainable urban agricultural practices represent 20 to 60 percent of their total food consumption, can emphasize the re-use and recycling of waste water and and is generally fresher, more nutritious, and diverse than organic waste. food bought in shops, markets or street restaurants. This Urban and indoor farming can be a response to climate is particularly important for young children, elderly, or sick change and a way to build more resilient cities (WMO 2007). household members, particularly in poor households. Urban A review of broader literature (Dubbeling and de Zeeuw households that are involved in some sort of farming or 2011; Acharya, Hoornweg and Dubbeling 2011) indicates gardening generally have a better and more diverse diet and that urban agriculture is credited with multiple climate- eat more vegetables than non-farming households of the related benefits. This can be understood in two main ways: same wealth class. These households are in most cases more a. Reducing the vulnerability of urban residents and food secure than households not practising urban agriculture strengthening community-based adaptation (Purnomohadi 2000, Foeken 2006, Yeudall and others 2007, management: Zezza and Tasciotti 2008, Motunodzo 2009). • Diversifying urban food sources, enhancing access Urban agriculture not only benefits self-producing of the urban poor to nutritious food, reducing the households, but can also increase the availability of fresh, dependency on imported foods and making the city healthy, and affordable food for a large number of urban less vulnerable for periods of low food supply from consumers, when the food produced by urban farmers is rural areas due to floods, droughts or other natural bartered or sold locally. It is estimated that 15 to 20 percent of or human made disasters; and the world’s food is produced in urban areas (Armar-Klemesu 2000). The volume of crops and animal products produced • Diversifying income opportunities of the urban in urban and peri-urban agriculture often represents a poor and functioning as a safety net in times of substantial part of urban annual food requirements, as much economic crisis. as 8 percent in Nakuru, Kenya (Foeken 2006), 10 percent in b. Maintaining green open spaces and enhancing Dakar, Senegal (Mbaye and Moustier 2000), and 44 percent in vegetation cover in the city with important adaptation Hanoi, Vietnam (Mubarik and others 2005). (and some mitigation) benefits, such as: Urban agriculture also improves access of the urban poor • Reduction in the urban heat island effect by to fresh and nutritious food by reducing the costs of food, providing shade and enhanced evapotranspiration, since locally-produced food involves fewer intermediaries and thus more cooling and less smog; and less transport, cold storage, processing, and packaging. • Less flooding and reduced impacts of high rainfall As a consequence, the price differential between producer by increasing water storage, interception and and final consumer, which may be as high as 1:10 in rural infiltration in green open spaces; urban agriculture agriculture, is lowered to 1:2 or 1:3 in urban agriculture keeps flood-prone zones free from construction; (Moustier and Danso 2006). reduces rapid stormwater runoff; and replenishes ground water; INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 8 • Improvement of water quality in low-lying 1.4.4 Environmental Co-benefits agricultural areas through natural or constructed Decentralized reuse of grey wastewater and composted wetlands, and aquaculture in maturation ponds; organic wastes in urban agriculture can help to reduce the • Reducing fertilizer use and energy consumption by competition for freshwater between agriculture and domestic productive reuse of urban organic wastes, as well and industrial uses. The local reuse of wastewater reduces its as reducing the amount of organic waste sent to discharge into rivers, canals, and other surface water, and landfills, thus reducing methane emissions; decreases pollution (see Box 1.3). Urban food production also contributes to reduction of the ecological footprint of the city • Capturing carbon dioxide and dust, thus in terms of the energy and water needed to transport the contributing to mitigating the impact of cities on food consumed by a city. By producing fresh food close to climate change emissions through urban (agro-) the city, less energy use is used in transport, cooling, storage, forestry (see Box 1.2); and processing and packaging. • Reducing the “food miles� of energy consumption Urban agriculture can also help maintain biodiversity in the and associated greenhouse gas emissions to city and thus protect a wider base of plant and animal genetic transport food from distant locations, by producing diversity (Santandreu and others 2002). In larger cities, one fresh food close to urban markets. sometimes finds many more species of indigenous vegetables than in rural areas or smaller towns due to the diverse tastes of its residents. In addition, urban agriculture can provide habitat and refuge for many invertebrates and bird species. Box 1.3: Farming with wastewater irrigation in Box 1.2: Urban forestry in Curitiba, Brazil Hyderabad, India Curitiba is known beyond Brazil’s national borders for its In Hyderabad, every day about 600 million liters of policies on well-ordered urban development, a sophisticated wastewater enters the Musi River, which is dry for a large public transportation system, and environmental part of the year. This wastewater is subsequently used conservation. Curitiba has thus earned the status of a modern for irrigating para grass (used as a fodder grass), leafy model city in Latin America. For the last 30 years, Curitiba vegetables and paddy along the Musi River Corridor. has focused on its urban planning. A master plan for orderly A number of small- and medium-scale industries also urban development was implemented beginning in 1971, release their untreated effluents into the river. According supported by the IPPUC (Research and Urban Planning to Landsat imagery from February 2005, about 2,108 Institute of Curitiba) and ample civil society consultations hectares of para grass in and around Hyderabad and (“Tomorrow’s Curitiba� seminars). approximately 10,000 hectares of paddy along the Musi Today, the city is moving forward to extend its solutions to River Corridor is irrigated with wastewater. Preliminary the whole metropolitan area through, for example, zoning studies conducted by IWMI show that there is a very small and land use with timelines for execution. A significant part area under wastewater irrigated peri-urban vegetable of the population is involved in Curitiba’s environmental production, mainly by women farmers. However, fodder programs, with success seen in the community tree planting and vegetable production contributes significantly to project Plantios Comunitários. In this project, people in a livelihoods and food security of resource-poor urban and given locality plant native fruit trees with the support of the peri-urban women and men. In and around Hyderabad, Environmental Education Department. When suitable areas women constitute the majority of both vegetable producers are found, the Department contacts local representatives and (they rent the land) and vendors. Women tend the involves them in the planning process. The areas designated buffaloes and men harvest or purchase the fodder. The for planting are always public areas, usually steep slopes use of wastewater in fodder and vegetable cropping or riparian zones threatened by erosion or inundation. The systems has been shown to be beneficial for farmers as a people are also provided with information about the tree result of the reliability and fertilizer value of wastewater. or shrub species to be planted. In a project called Cesta Households that produce vegetables saved 20 percent Metropolitana, fruits are sold at 30 percent below market of their total food expenditures by retaining part of the price especially for poor people from peri-urban areas. produce for household consumption. Furthermore, para These activities are not restricted to the city center, but grass production and sale contributes an estimated annual have a particular emphasis on the periphery of the urban income of USD 4.5 million or INR 202 million to the local agglomeration. economy of Hyderabad. Source: FAO 2002. Source: Buechler and Devi 2003. 9 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES References Acharya, A., D. Hoornweg and M. Dubbeling. 2011. “Urban Agriculture is Climate-Smart: Thinking Outside the Box on Climate Change.� In Chapter 7.2 Low Carbon Cities. World Bank publication for the Government of China. Washington, DC: World Bank. Armar-Klemesu, M. and D. Maxwell. 2000. “Urban Agriculture as an Assist Strategy, Supplementing Income and Diets. A Case Study of Accra.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw, 183-205. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Baker, J. 2008. “Impacts of Financial, Food and Fuel Crisis on the Urban Poor.� Directions in Urban Development, Urban Development Unit. Washington, DC: World Bank. Buechler, S. and G. Devi. 2003. Farmer Innovations Among Groundwater Users in Wastewater Irrigated Areas Near Hyderabad, India. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Water Conservation and Reuse of Wastewater. India Water Works Association. Cole, D., D. Lee-Smith and G. Nasinyama, eds. 2008. “Healthy City Harvests: Generating Evidence to Guide Policy on Urban Agriculture.� CIP/Urban Harvest and Makerere University Press. Lima, Peru. De Zeeuw, H. and M. Dubbeling. 2009. “Cities, Food and Agriculture: Challenges and the Way Forward.� RUAF Working Paper 3. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Working%20paper%203%20%20 Cities%20Food%20and%20Agriculture.pdf Dubbeling, M. and H. De Zeeuw. 2011. “Urban Agriculture, Advances, Opportunities and Application.� In International Handbook of Urban Policy, ed. Geyer H.S, vol. 3: Issues in the Developing World. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2002. “Expert Consultation on Enhancing the Contribution of Trees Outside Forests to Sustainable Livelihoods.� Rome, November 26-28, 2001. Proceedings. Rome: FAO. ____. 2008a. “State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008: High Food Prices and Food Security – Threats and Opportunities.� Rome: FAO. ____. 2008b. “Urbanization and Food Security in Sub Saharan Africa.� Information paper for the FAO 25th African Regional Conference. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/012/k1915e.pdf ____. 2009b. “Follow-up to the High-level Conference on World Food Security: FAO Contribution to the Implementation of the Comprehensive Framework for Action.� Document for FAO Council 136th Session, June 15-19. Rome: FAO. Foeken, D. 2006. “To Subsidise My Income: Urban Farming in an East African Town.� Brill, Leiden. Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Press. Gonzalez Novo, M. and C. Murphy. 2000. “Urban agriculture in the City of Havana: a Popular Response to a Crisis.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw, 329-347. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Hoornweg, D., L. Sugar, M. Freire, C. Anderson, P. Bhada, C. Trejos, R. Dave and M. Lee. 2010. Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda. Urban and Local Government Development Unit. Washington, DC: World Bank. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). “Climate Change: Building the Resilience of Poor Rural Communities.� IFAD. http://www.ifad.org/climate/factsheet/e.pdf IPC (International Potato Center). 2007. “Impacts of urban agriculture. Highlights of Urban Harvest Research and Development 2003-2006.� Lima, Peru. Maxwell, D., P. Webb, J. Coates, and J. Wirth. 2009. “Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian Response.� Paper presented to the Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian Response International Forum. Rome, April 16–18. Mbaye, A. and P. Moustier. 2000. “Market-oriented Urban Agricultural Production in Dakar.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw, 235- 256. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). McGranahan, G. and D. Satterthwaite. 2002. “The Environmental Dimensions of Sustainable Development for Cities.� Geography. Vol. 87. No. 3. pp. 213-226. Mitchell, T. and S. Maxwell. 2010. “Defining Climate Compatible Development.� Policy Brief Climate and Development Knowledge Network, London. Mougeot, L. 2006. “Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development.� In-Focus collection. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. Moustier, P. and G. Danso. 2006. “Local Economic Development and Marketing of Urban Produced Food.� In Cities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities, ed. Veenhuizen, R van. RUAF Foundation/IDRC/IIRR, Leusden/Los Banos. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 10 Mubarik, A., H. de Bon, and P. Moustier. 2005. “Promoting the Multifunctionality of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Hanoi.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 15. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. Mutonodzo, C. 2009. “The Social and Economic Implications Urban Agriculture on Food Security in Harare. Zimbabwe.� In Agriculture in urban planning, Generating livelihoods and food security, ed. M. Redwood. Earthscan. Purnomohadi, N. 2000. “Jakarta: Urban agriculture as an alternative strategy to face the economic crisis.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. N. Bakker M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw, 453-466. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Redwood, M., ed. 2009. “Agriculture in Urban Planning: Generating Livelihoods and Food Security.� USA: Earthscan and International Development Research Centre. RUAF Foundation. 2010. http://www.ruaf.org/node/507 Santandreu, A, A. Gómez Perazzoli and M. Dubbeling. 2002. “Biodiversity, Poverty and Urban Agriculture, in Latin America.� In Urban Agriculture Magazine 6, Transition to Ecological Urban Agriculture: A Challenge. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. Satterthwaite, D., G. McGranahan, and C. Tacoli. 2010. “Urbanization and its implications for food and farming.� Philosophical Transactions B. Vol. 365 No. 1554. Royal Society. Satterthwaite, D. and D. Mitlin. 2011. “Recognising the potential of cities.� BMJ British Medical Journal 2011. 343:d7979. Sawio, C. J. 1998. “Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam.� Paper presented at the Workshop on Cities Feeding People: Lessons learned from projects in African cities. IDRC. Nairobi, June 21-25, 1998. Stephens, C. 1995. “The urban environment, poverty and health in developing countries.� Health Policy Plan. 10 (2): 109-121. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2002. “The Least Developed Countries Report: Developing Productive Capacity.� http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ldc2006_en.pdf UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2006. “Human Development Report 2006: Beyond scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis.� New York, NY: UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2003. “Water for People, Water for Life.� The United Nations World Water Development Report, France. UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). 2007. “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth.� http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2007/695_filename_sowp2007_eng.pdf UN-Habitat. 2009. “International Tripartite Conference on Urban Challenges and Poverty Reduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries.� Nairobi, Kenya. June 8-10, 2009. UN-Water and FAO. 2007. “Coping with Water Scarcity – Challenge of the Twenty-first Century.� World Water Day, 2007. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/escarcity.pdf Van Veenhuizen, R., ed. 2006. “Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities.� RUAF Foundation and IIRR, The Philippines. http://www.ruaf.org/node/961 WHO (World Health Organization). 2003. “Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases.� Report of a Joint WHO/ FAO Consultation WHO Technical Report Series 916. Geneva. World Bank. 2000. “World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty.� Washington, DC: World Bank. Hoornweg, D., M. Freire, M. J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata, and B. Yuen, eds. 2011. Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2012. “Inclusive Green Growth in Latin America & Caribbean.� Washington, DC: World Bank. WMO (World Meteorogical Organization). 2007. “UN Agency Calls for Urban Agriculture.� WMO press release. December 7, 2007. Yeudall, F., R. Sebastian, D.C. Cole, S. Ibrahim, A. Lubowa, and and J. Kikafunda. 2007. “Food and Nutritional Security of Children of Urban Farmers in Kampala, Uganda.� Food and Nutrition Bulletin 28 (2 Suppl.): S237-S246. Yi-Zhang, C. and Z. Zhangen. 2000. “Shanghai: Trends Towards Specialized and Capital-Intensive Urban Agriculture.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw, 467-476. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung. Zezza, A. and L. Tasciotti. 2008. “Does Urban Agriculture Enhance Dietary Diversity? Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Developing Countries.� Rome: FAO. 11 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Key Findings from the Four City Case Studies This chapter provides a synthesis of information from four city 2.1 summarizes the variations in urban agriculture in the four case studies that were undertaken in: Accra, Ghana; Bangalore, cities of this study, while Table 2.2 summarizes selected socio- India; Lima, Peru; and Nairobi, Kenya. The overall objective economic variables of these cities. of the case studies was to determine the contribution of urban agriculture to livelihoods, urban resource use, and the 2.1 Farming in the Cities environment in each city. The case studies explicitly focused The poverty focus of the case studies, site selection along on poor households in order to better understand the role the peri-urban to urban transect, and the complexity of of urban agriculture in poverty reduction, food security and sampling producers and non-producers meant that it was not livelihoods among the poorer urban residents. The work of possible to extrapolate the number of households involved the case studies included primary data collection through in farming in specific locations to estimates of the total surveys and also focus group discussions. urban farming population in each city (see annexes). Previous Further information on the case study work is provided in estimates, some based on first hand, rigorous data collection, the annexes to this report: Annexes A, B and C describe the some on estimates, give an average figure for African cities approaches and questionnaire used for the case studies, and of 35 percent of urban populations involved in agriculture, the constraints faced with collecting and using available data, two thirds of whom are women (Prain and Lee Smith 2010). while annexes D through G provide detailed information on Earlier data from Lima and Nairobi indicate average figures each case study city. of between 25–30 percent of the urban population involved The key findings from the case studies, featured in this in agriculture. It is also clear from this study that farming is chapter, are broadly divided into three sections: Farming in widely practiced in the low income populations studied, to the Cities, on urban agricultural practices in these cities; the the extent that in Lima, one of the challenges encountered Contribution of Urban Agriculture to Low-Income Livelihoods, was establishing a sample of “non-producers,� since so which includes a summary of how urban agriculture many households practiced container gardening or kept contributes to household incomes and creates cash savings some poultry, both of which were included in the broad for its practitioners; and Constraints and Drivers of Urban definition of “urban agriculture.� Data collected between Agriculture Development, which examines some of the key 1998 and 2005 by the FAO on the participation rate in urban factors affecting the long-term evolution of the sector. Table agriculture give an extremely varied picture (Zezza and KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 12 Agriculture in the urban area is mainly a secondary or tertiary occupation. Mostly leafy vegetables and millet are grown for home consumption as well as for the market, with livestock rearing as more of an income-earning strategy. INDIA Family tending their crops outside a residential area 13 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Table 2.1: Overview of urban agricuture in the four case studies ACCRA BANGALORE LIMA NAIROBI Agricultural land N/A 11,463 (2009) 12,680 (2006)* 650 (2008) (hectares) Main water sources - Rain water - Rain water - River water (peri-urban) - Rain water for agriculture - Wastewater (urban) - Bore wells - Municipal drinking water - Wastewater (urban) - Wastewater Food staples - Maize - Rice - Maize - Maize - Rice - Sorghum - Rice - Roots/Tubers - Roots/ Tubers - Tubers - Millet/Sorghum Main types of - Container gardening - Container gardening - Container gardening - Container gardening low-income urban - Homestead gardening - Homestead - Homestead agriculture - Homestead agriculture and peri-urban -Open space commercial gardening - Community gardens -Open space gardening (on agriculture in the horticulture - Commercial -Institutions (e.g., public land) city -Subsistence and horticulture and colleges, meal centers) - Commercial horticulture commercial livestock cereals - Commercial horticulture - Commercial livestock - Fisheries - Commercial livestock -Livestock and fish farming Main crops grown/ - Vegetables - Rice - Vegetables - Vegetables animal species - Maize - Sorghum - Fruits - Maize reared by low- - Cassava - Maize - Aromatic plants - Poultry income households - Poultry - Vegetables - Forage - Sheep and goats - Sheep and goats - Fruits - Ornamental plants - Cattle - Fish - Poultry - Sheep and goats - Cattle and buffalo * This does not include the areas irrigated with wastewater nor small-scale urban areas Tasciotti 2010): “The shares of urban households that earn an the most important production system in urban Accra, with income from agriculture vary from 11 percent in Indonesia to a smaller percentage of the producers growing staples or almost 70 percent in Vietnam and Nicaragua. However, in 11 keeping small livestock. Crops produced in peri-urban areas of the 15 countries in their dataset, the share of households are mainly staples (maize, cassava, and plantain), while over a participating is over 30 percent.� quarter of producers keep sheep and goats and/or poultry for commercial purposes. Livestock production is more dominant 2.1.1 Urban Agriculture Practices in the peri-urban areas as the free-ranging system of animal Location is a crucial element in understanding the diversity rearing can more easily be practiced there, whereas theft and of styles and types of urban agriculture. This is most clear restrictive city by-laws limit livestock keeping in urban areas. in Accra, where the difference between “on-plot� (in the Farming plots range from very small plots (1 m2) to very large household space) and “off-plot� (use of publicly available plots of 10 hectares or more. Nearly half (42 percent) of the or private open spaces in the city) is often the difference first and second plots reported were less than 500 m2 with between subsistence and commercial farming. The largest portion of farming in the urban areas in Accra is located away about 70 percent of plots smaller than 8,000 m2. Farm sizes from the house, with 26 percent on highly insecure public generally increase along the urban-peri-urban transect. spaces with risk of eviction, whereas in the transition areas, In Bangalore, urban agriculture practitioners were farming is predominantly done in homestead gardens, with found within the city limits and in a 5 km area around the less commercial focus. Vegetable and maize production is city, engaged in both crop and livestock production. The KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 14 importance of agriculture is especially seen in the peri-urban sample) to two cases with over 40 hectares. The crops grown area, where more than three-quarters of the producers in these urban areas are mostly vegetables, while two-thirds farm on larger areas (between 1 and 4 hectares) of privately of producers also have some form of small livestock (chickens, owned land and consider agriculture as their primary activity. rabbits, and guinea pigs). Agriculture in the urban area is mainly a secondary or tertiary In Nairobi, almost 300,000 households—perhaps as many occupation. Mostly leafy vegetables and millet are grown for as 1.18 million people—partly depend on urban agriculture home consumption as well as for the market, with livestock for food and nutrition security and income. It is estimated rearing as more of an income-earning strategy. that more than 650 hectares of land in Nairobi is under urban In Lima, urban agriculture is widely practiced, though on and peri-urban production. Agriculture in peri-urban areas is different scales and for multiple reasons. Livestock raising mainly practiced on privately owned land (though not always is more popular than growing crops in the peri-urban area with a formal land title). The main crops produced include and the urban area of Callao. In the densely built-up urban maize, beans, potatoes, banana, and leafy vegetables. Poultry, areas, two distinct types of producers were identified. In goats, sheep and dairy products are forms of commercial crowded areas of Villa Maria de Triunfo (VMT), for example, livestock raising. Agriculture in the urban areas is mostly producers mainly use small private spaces (patios, backyards) off-plot, mainly on public or private institutional land and or institutional, rented or public land. In the centrally located, unconstructed municipal or state-owned land designated for but more open areas of Callao (around the international public use or for future industrial or housing development. airport), more commercial horticulture is practiced on privately In urban areas, the median area cultivated is 150 m2, though owned or rented land. With these marked differences, plots a number of larger plots pushes up the mean to 916 m2. in the urban area range from less than 5 m2 (20 percent of the Average areas cultivated by women-headed households were Table 2.2: Selected socio-economic variables of case study cities* ACCRA BANGALORE LIMA NAIROBI Type of city  National capital State capital National capital National capital Night-time Greater Accra 6.5 million (2009) Metropolitan area: 8.29 3.1 million (2009) population Metropolitan Area million (2011) (GAMA): 3.9 million (2011) Area (km2) GAMA: 894 (2010) 741 (2009) Metropolitan area: 2,821 696 (2009) (2008) Annual population 3.4 (2010) 3.6 (2011, based on 1.1 (2008) 4.2 (2010) growth rate (%) decadal average) Poverty rate 11 (2007) N/A 29.2 (2009) 44 (2005) (percent of total city population) Unemployment rate 13.4 (2000) N/A 28.3 (2009) 12.2 (2010) (%) Population involved 9.1 (2000) N/A 28 (2006)** 30 (2010) in urban agriculture (%) * Note: These data have been mostly taken from the case studies, but in some cases have been supplemented from other sources. Data on many of these variables are sometimes inconsistent, so this table includes approximations/estimates where necessary. ** Based on generalizations drawn from a series of surveys conducted by Urban Harvest (Arce and others 2007). 15 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES considerably less than men (300 m2 versus 500 m2). Where no In all case study cities, producers were found to have lived land is available as is the case in the densely built-up slum in the survey areas longer than non-producers had. In Accra, areas, container farming is widely practiced by poor urban 64 percent of producers were either born in the location or households. The crops most frequently grown in the urban had been there since before 2000, compared to 56 percent of area include: vegetables, tomatoes, beans, cowpeas, maize, non-producers. In Nairobi, 38 percent of producers had been Irish potatoes and sweet potatoes. The majority of the urban living in the location since 1980 or earlier compared to just 14 producers also keep some small livestock, principally poultry. percent of non-producers. In Lima, producer household heads settled in most locations of the city earlier on average than 2.1.2 Ownership, Location, and Use of Space non-producers. Also in Bangalore, most of the producers are Many factors conspire against achieving security, with the long-time residents compared to the non-producers and many prevalence of crime and vulnerability to disasters being the are still resisting the pressure to sell their land to developers. ones most commonly cited (UN-HABITAT 2007). House plot Many producers were those who had been around in the ownership and housing tenancy are less visible factors that same locality, and have become part of the urban landscape influence stability and security. In Accra, about 38 percent of with the expansion of the municipal boundaries. In other both producers and non-producers own their houses with a words, the “urban myth� mentioned above—that producers title, though there is a higher percentage of non-producers are recent ex-agriculturalist migrants from rural areas who who lease (25 percent versus 15 percent for producers), have not yet transitioned into urban lifestyles is, based on again probably reflecting the somewhat longer period that this data, indeed a myth. These four city studies suggest producers have been located in their area. As might be that producers may be more settled in the locality than non- expected, the very poor have a very high incidence of leasing producers with agriculture providing them with some level (75 percent) compared to the less poor (23 percent). of stability. A quite different picture emerges in Nairobi, where there In addition to asking about ownership of the space or is very low incidence of ownership among both producers plot used for urban agriculture, the surveys also included and non-producers in urban areas (zero with title, 4 percent without title) and also in the transition area, with the questions regarding the location of plots. Here, the responses difference that insecurity is even higher in the transition zone were more varied across the four cities and also across the where 40 percent of producers in non-owned housing (65 transects in the cities. In Bangalore, most respondents did percent of all producer households) are squatting. By contrast, not answer the question; those who did said that they had an in peri-urban areas, producers have almost 95 percent urban plot away from the home. In Lima, most respondents ownership (72 percent with title), but only 15 percent of non- use either homestead containers or home plots. In Accra producers own their house. This means that both urban and and Nairobi, as mentioned above, most urban producers use transition producers have considerable instability in their publicly available space; others use plots around or away living arrangements, and unsurprisingly this is reflected in from the house. The pattern in the two African cities is of a high incidence of “off-site� cultivation (95 percent and 67 intense use of public and sometimes private land off-site by percent in urban and transition areas, respectively). urban and in some cases transition producers, with greater It is often assumed that urban agriculture is primarily levels of ownership and/or private leasing in peri-urban areas. practised by rural-urban migrants who are relatively recent Thus in Accra, about two-thirds of plots are either leased or arrivals in cities. Certainly, for individuals or families who are public lands occupied with or without permission. Almost have recently arrived in an urban area, achieving stability and 50 percent of the main plots cited by respondents were security is of major importance. Yet, not all urban growth is cultivated on public lands. The transition area, which is more due to migration—in Africa, for example, most urban growth small-scale and homestead based, shows higher ownership is due to natural growth. Within cities, there are households (50 percent). Peri-urban cultivation is relatively evenly divided which have very unstable living arrangements, and may have between ownership and leasing, with minimum access to to move their accommodation frequently, but within the public land. Although specific data on tenancy arrangements same area. Cultivation of off-site plots appears to provide in Nairobi was not available, there was very high reported an important level of socio-economic and perhaps cultural fear of eviction, especially in the urban area (85 percent). stability in these circumstances. As mentioned above, most of this agriculture is off-site, on KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 16 public locations with no ownership, which explains this level urban households where the household’s main declared of concern. occupation is farming.1 Producers were also asked how they used their space in The data on secondary occupation is also significant, in terms of whether the space was primarily used for growing two ways. First, it shows generally low levels of secondary crops, raising livestock, or both. The responses were unique employment by household heads in all cities (27 percent for each of the four cities. In Accra, the plots were used overall) which seems to suggest a change in employment mostly for growing crops, whereas it was the opposite in availability in recent years, at least compared to descriptions Lima. In Nairobi, surprisingly more crops were grown in the of the informal sector in cities like Accra and Lima over urban area compared to the peri-urban area; in the peri- the past thirty years or so (Hart 1973, Lloyd 1980). Second, urban area it was common to find producers using their across all cities, there are significant differences in the space for both crops and livestock as well as just to grow incidence of secondary employment between producers crops. In Bangalore, the majority chose not to respond to and non-producers. Agriculture seems to combine well with this question. other occupations and offers the chance to retain multiple employments for household heads to a much greater degree 2.1.3 Other Non-land Inputs Used than for those not involved in agriculture. Again this is of Manure was the most common type of fertilizer used, high importance to women and women-headed households, except in Accra, where chemical fertilizers are used mostly especially if agricultural activities are located close to the in the urban and peri-urban areas. Chemical fertilizers and home and allow for combining with other household chores compost were used to a lesser extent in the other cities. Use and childcare. of wastewater varied across and within the cities; for instance, Urban agriculture is an important livelihood strategy for it is commonly used in the urban area of Nairobi and in the some groups. It is clear from this study that urban agriculture urban area of Callao and the peri-urban area in Lima. In is attractive to households with older, less educated heads. Accra, more fertilizer is used in the urban areas than in areas This was consistent across all four cities, and in at least surrounding the city, while in Bangalore it is the peri-urban two cities, it was shown that age and education were area that uses the most fertilizers. Seeds/seedlings were independent, meaning that agricultural production offers purchased in all cities, but in terms of other inputs, there was benefits and advantages to households where the head is greater variation. In Bangalore, inputs such as hired labor, older or has received less education. As these are among the water/irrigation, and pesticides, were used in roughly equal more vulnerable groups living in cities, this makes agriculture proportion across the transect, but seeds slightly more so than a particularly important contribution to urban livelihoods. other inputs. In Lima, paid labor and pesticides are seldom Women are often more vulnerable given their level of used in VMT and to a slightly greater extent in the peri-urban education compared to men, and farming is thus of even area. In other areas in Lima the use of other inputs is fairly greater relevance for them. consistent. Accra and Nairobi had more variations along the transect. The findings also show that the advantage of agriculture in combining with other occupations also enables producers 2.2 Urban Agriculture’s Contribution to to benefit from more diversified income sources, thus reducing vulnerability and enhancing the economic resilience Livelihood and Food Security of low income households, even if producers do not obviously benefit from higher incomes overall. With over 30 percent of 2.2.1 Urban Agriculture is a Provider of Employment and the producers (except for Lima) considering urban agriculture Income an important source of income and if we conservatively Among producer households, farming is very significant estimate 20 percent of the overall population to be involved as a primary occupation in the case study cities, with the in urban agriculture, this would imply that over 1,346,000 exception of Lima. In just Accra and Nairobi, the two cities in Sub-Saharan Africa, if the figure of 35 percent of urban populations farming is accepted, there are some 230,000 1 Considering 35 percent of the two populations of Accra and Nairobi, divided by respective average household size of producers and then taking the percent of those households reporting agriculture as a principal occupation. 17 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES households in the four cities generate an important share of Differences in food diversity do exist between different their income from urban agriculture.2 locations within cities (urban, peri-urban transition, and peri- Another important contribution to income from agriculture urban zones) both overall and for certain food groups. This comes from the cash savings arising from producing one’s can be explained by differential access by producers in these own food, which would otherwise have to be purchased. different locations to resources and opportunities, such as High percentages of respondents in most cities reported that the commercial horticulture producers in the transition areas the savings coming from own food production enabled them of Lima having the feed resources and space to raise small animals for home consumption, which helps explain their to purchase other types of food, especially staples (Bangalore, higher consumption of this food group. 56 percent; Nairobi, 69 percent; Lima, 73 percent; Accra, 84 percent) or cover for other non-food household needs. In contrast to the unclear picture about the nutrition and dietary benefits of urban agriculture from the 24-hour 2.2.2 Urban Agriculture Provides Food Security recall data, the perceptions data reveal producers with From the case study findings, the contribution of urban clear recognition of the benefits they gain from agriculture agricultural production to food availability and access is production, especially access to extra food and saving of perhaps less clear than its important role in employment and money to buy other food, but also a more varied diet and diversified income generation. Using 24-hour recall data, savings for non-food purchases. Diversification of food the surveys found no significant differences between the sources reduces vulnerability and enhances the coping nutritional status of producers and non-producers in Accra, capacity by increasing the stability of household food Lima and Nairobi.3 A difference was noted in Bangalore consumption against seasonality, disturbances in food supply between very poor producers and non-producers, suggesting from rural areas or imports (due to climate change or other that farming enabled the very poor to diversify their diet. factors) or other temporary shortages, increases in food prices In other cases, significant differences were only noted in and (temporary) losses of income. For example, households in Accra that consume a high proportion of their own farm levels of consumption of particular food groups, especially produce (both crop and livestock, i.e., more than 50 percent leafy vegetables and orange-fleshed vegetables which may of production) perceive that they are much less prone to high be attributable to better access to these foods by both those food insecurity than their non-producer counterparts. producing as a principal occupation and those for whom agriculture was of subsidiary importance as an occupation, 2.2.3 Urban Agriculture Contributes to Social Capital but seemingly made a key contribution to food security. The case studies also revealed information on the contribution of urban agriculture to another, less tangible, 2 These figures are consistent with those found in the study done aspect of livelihoods: levels of social capital. It was found that by Zezza and Tasciotti (2010). They found that “For between 18 and 24 percent of all urban households in the African counties in producers benefited relatively little from macro-level social the sample agriculture constitutes 30% percent of total income capital, particularly involvement in agricultural extension or more.� This figure is lower for households in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Vietnam. By decomposing participation rates and services. In terms of micro-level social capital built up through income shares by quintile of expenditure levels, the study also exchanges of goods and services between neighbours and found confirmation that urban agriculture is an eminent activity relatives in both urban and rural areas, a greater volume of practiced by the poor. Data from a recent AFSUN study (Crush, Hovorka and Tevera 2011) however found much lower num- exchange was conducted with both relatives and non-relatives bers of households deriving an income from urban agriculture. in urban areas rather than with distant relatives. Food was Reasons for this may include that the incorporation of urban found to be the most common item exchanged, if we consider agriculture in (in)formal markets in southern Africa is much more limited. In addition, the study focussed only selected areas and both fresh and prepared food together. These exchanges are did not provide insights into the relevance of urban agriculture clearly a significant part of urban food systems across all of across the city as a whole. the cities studied and they are a form of redistribution of local 3 The 24-hour recall data has certain limitations, especially in rela- production to non-producers (which may partly explain the tion to absence of quantification of portion size. The Zezza and limited differences in food consumption between producers Tasciotti study (2010), having applied two measures of dietary diversity (one based on food groups and the other a count of and non-producers). There are inconsistencies in the data food items consumed in a 2 week–1 month recall period) did find between responses on food exchanges and responses on the evidence that engagement in urban farming is positively associ- ated with greater dietary diversity in 10 of the 15 countries where sources of food consumed during the previous week, which this was measured. need to be better understood. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 18 Cash loans were also very important items exchanged, for the IT industry and an international airport has converted reflecting the limited access to credit among the populations thousands of hectares of agricultural land. Figure 2.1 shows surveyed. Overall, there was clear evidence that producers satellite images of the area in and around Bangalore airport are more intensively involved in these exchanges than non- in 2004, prior to the construction of the airport, compared producers, probably because of the wider range of goods and to 2013, when the airport is fully functional and is being services that they have available for exchange, or need to expanded. The Bangalore Master Plan for 2015 proposes obtain from others. This suggests that agricultural production a conceptual diagram for the future city development, can be a strong basis for strengthening local organization envisioning five spatially organized concentric belts, with and integrating local voices in governance systems. agriculture pushed to the outer perimeter (outside the 5 Income generation is considered of greater importance km zone). (See Box D2 for more information on the master than access to additional food as a reason for farming in plan.) This vision will affect all producers currently engaged cities, even though this differs for individual households or in urban agriculture. locations. In Accra, 51 percent prioritize income compared Similarly, in Lima 23 municipal districts modified their to 41 percent who prioritize food security or an additional territorial planning priorities in 2010 towards urban source of food, with the more commercial urban producers development above other land use. As a consequence, the having a higher percentage. For those growing crops for growing peripheries of the Lima and Callao Metropolitan additional food, the highest proportion is in the transition Area are seeing not only construction on uncultivated area. Those raising livestock (sheep, goats, poultry, and grass- areas but also the development of areas that have been cutters) mainly do so to access additional food. Urban and dedicated to farming. A good example of this is Lurigancho- peri-urban transition dwellers more frequently keep livestock Chosica, which between 2002 and 2006 lost 305 hectares of for food, while in the peri-urban area access to additional agricultural land due to changes in land use, much of it to income is the main reason. quarrying and brick-making for the construction industry. For 58 percent of the Bangalore producers and over 45 However, preserving existing agricultural areas in and around percent of producers in Lima, urban agriculture constitutes cities is important to safeguard their food production and an important source of additional income. In Nairobi a environmental functions. greater proportion of producers (78 percent) indicate that In Accra, finding larger areas of land seems to be the most they cultivate for household food supply, while 22 percent common problem by producers, especially those located in mention additional income or income diversification as an the urban and peri-urban transition areas. This would call for important reason. Employment provided by urban agriculture (technical) support to help farmers in these areas to intensify is for many of them more reliable compared to casual labour land use to increase production per unit area in addition to opportunities, which are not guaranteed. promoting the adoption of high value crop and livestock enterprises. 2.3 Constraints on Urban Agriculture Apart from availability of and access to agricultural land, Development there is also widespread absence of secure tenure. Where agriculture is practiced on public, community, or institutional A number of key constraining factors for sustainable urban land, the use of these spaces is often not regulated and lacks agriculture development emerged in this study that are legal protection for producers. In Accra, for example, most common to the four cities. of the open spaces on which urban agriculture is practiced 2.3.1 Lack of Access to Land belong to government institutions and to a lesser extent, A major challenge to the viability of urban agriculture, as individual owners. Farmers usually do not pay for the use of highlighted by all four case studies, remains land availability such lands. There is no security of tenure as they are allowed and access. Urban growth intensifies competition for land to farm as long as the owners do not need the land. More among industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural than a quarter of urban producers in Accra reported fear of uses, especially in the peri-urban transition and peri-urban eviction from the plots that they are currently cultivating. areas. For example, high levels of in-migration and urban In Nairobi, where the predominant tenure system is growth in Bangalore have resulted in increased land prices individual leasehold, the fear of eviction for urban producers and pressure on agricultural land, with many converting is 85 percent. Where owners have freehold titles, such agricultural land to non-agriculture uses. Recent construction land parcels are converted to leaseholds upon sub-division. 19 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES The area of Bangalore’s airport in 2004 prior to construction, and with the Figure 2.1:  the urban agriculture occurring airport in 2013 in different parts of the city is technically illegal. Insecure tenure inhibits farmers from making investments to improve production. To increase security of tenure, the integration of urban agriculture into urban development and master plans, urban land use and zoning plans, as well as active maintenance of protected agricultural zones are crucial. 2.3.2 Lack of Access to Safe Water for Irrigation Rainfall is not sufficient for urban agriculture in desert areas such as Lima or during dry periods in other cities in general. Supplementary water from other sources such as the municipal water system, or from boreholes and rivers, is needed. The strong competition for water use in Lima among industry, agriculture, and human consumption is aggravated by the expected reduction in available water resources. This has already led farmers in Lima to increasingly make use of wastewater in agriculture. A study carried out by IPES and RUAF as part of the SWITCH Project (Moscoso and Alfaro 2008) for the Lima and Callao Metropolitan Area identified 37 examples of wastewater use in agricultural and green areas. Even though treated wastewater is used in most of these sites, the three sites that irrigate vegetables with untreated wastewater cover 40 percent of the total area of land Moreover, once urban areas are extended, all land within this irrigated with wastewater, demonstrating the importance of jurisdiction is subject to laws that limit access and user rights. this resource for urban and peri-urban agriculture in Lima. Farmers in the intra-urban areas thus mention insecure tenure Given the erratic nature of rainfall in and around Accra, and express fears of eviction. Nairobi land use and zoning producers use water closest to them (e.g., streams or regulations do not properly account for urban agriculture, wastewater outlets), which may be contaminated. Some of meaning that—as per the zoning ordinances—most of the farmers, especially vegetable farmers, have constructed KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 20 hand-dug wells to irrigate their crops when the rains are A key conclusion of the study in Accra, that is applicable delayed or fail completely. Others use wastewater to also to the other cities, is that “most … financial institutions do benefit from the nutrients in such waste. The use of such not have special products for agricultural activities, especially polluted water, especially on vegetables that are not cooked those related to growing crops on small farms and raising before eating, poses potential health risks to consumers. small livestock such as sheep, goat, grass cutter and fowls� The WHO expects that “urban agriculture, with urban (Egyir 2010). In Accra, most of the vegetable farmers indeed wastewater as a common resource, will play a more important use their own funding or make an arrangement with market role in supplying food for the cities� (WHO 2006). The last sellers to provide them with some advance payments. two decades have seen a strong move towards alternative, Next to the focus on larger-scale agricultural enterprises, decentralized and low-cost wastewater treatment that allows Cabannes (2011) identified other problems constraining reuse of wastewater and nutrients or even includes aquaculture producers from obtaining more formal micro-loans: or agriculture as part of the wastewater treatment process. • Limited awareness among financial institutions (FIs) of Where only partial or no wastewater treatment is available, urban agriculture; health risks of productive reuse of wastewater can be reduced • The perception that financing agriculture, especially through complementary health risk reduction measures as small-scale production, is risky—small-scale urban explained in the latest WHO guidelines for safe use of excreta agriculture is seen as unprofitable and doubts exist and wastewater (WHO 2006). These new guidelines assist about the ability of farmers to repay their loans; decision-makers to plan how to achieve the required levels of pathogen reduction by choosing and combining a number • Inflexible nature of the rules and regulations of some of different health risk reduction measures and entry points FIs; for action along the “farm-to-fork� pathway, depending on • Lack of proper land title deeds and/or collateral among what is feasible locally. As the new WHO guidelines allow for producers; and incremental and adaptive change (in contrast to the earlier • Lack of viable projects among poor urban producers strict water quality thresholds), they are a cost-effective and to qualify for borrowing and lack of proper record realistic approach for reducing health and environmental risks keeping by them. in low-income countries (International Water Management Institute 2006). A central finding is that finance institutions justify their lack of interest to offer financial products to urban producers 2.3.3 Lack of Access to Capital and Credit because of risk. These perceived risks might also be linked to In all cities, farmers complain about a lack of access to the possibility of crop failures resulting from adverse climatic affordable micro-credit and financing that would support events such as droughts and floods. The expectation of future more capital investment to improve their production systems. climate change effects is likely to strengthen this perception. Overall, only 25 percent of producers access some form of The influence of the current financial crisis is leading FIs to banking or money-lending service, according to the surveys. be even more cautious. However, various municipalities have In Bangalore, local saving and credit systems and self-help come up with innovative approaches such as guarantee groups are currently the major sources of financial support, and insurance mechanisms. The formation of producer especially for women farmers. The surveys also show that the organizations and enhanced tenure security are two other major type of exchange existing among urban neighbours strategies with positive effects. These incipient experiences and relatives, and with rural relatives, involves small-scale could serve as examples to other cities (Cabannes 2011). financial loans. A credit and financing study on urban agriculture 2.3.4 Lack of Access to Appropriate Training and implemented by RUAF in 17 cities (2009-2010), including the Extension Services cities of Lima, Accra and Bangalore, also shows that micro- Urban agriculture is performed under specific conditions credit for small-scale urban farmers is generally limited in that require technologies and organizational and marketing scope and in number. It was found that credit is more common models different from those used in the rural agricultural for commercially-oriented activities such as raising animals, context. Most available agricultural technologies need agro-processing or marketing and much less for production adaptation for use in urban conditions, whilst new of vegetable crops (Cabannes 2011). technologies have to be developed to respond to specific 21 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES urban needs, such as space-confined production methods, large amounts of land. In Bangalore, input suppliers who are non-soil production technologies for use on roofs, and private businesses play a key role in giving advice and closing development of safe and economic practices for productive the gap created by lack of extension services. There are no use of wastewater. producer networks that offer support other than the self-help A systematic characterization of the various urban and groups among women who come together to discuss small- peri-urban farming systems has not yet been done in any scale business ventures. Likewise, there is limited provision for of the cities in order to guide the urgent need for capacity extension and training services in Nairobi or Lima, where only strengthening. The city consultation in Bangalore underlined 9 percent and 5 percent respectively of the producer sample the lack of visits or other support from extension services has accessed extension services. In Lima, the vast majority of in the neighborhoods and this was confirmed in the survey, agricultural information is obtained from input suppliers and especially in the peri-urban transition area. This is because the farm shops. government concentrates more on rural farmers who have KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 22 References Arce, B., G. Prain, R. Valle, and N. Gonzales. 2007. “Vegetable Production Systems as Livelihood Strategies in Lima-Peru: Opportunities and risks for households and local governments.� Acta Hort. (ISHS) 762: 291-302. http://www.actahort.org/ books/762/762_28.htm Cabannes, Y. 2011. “Financing Urban Agriculture, Current Challenges and Innovations.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 25: 32- 35. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/node/2372 Crush, J., A. Hovorka and D. Tevera. 2011. “Food Security in Southern African Cities: The Place of Urban Agriculture.� Progress in Development Studies 2011, 11-285. Sage. Egyir, I. S. 2010. “Applied Study on Local Finance for Poor Urban and Peri-urban Producers in Accra, Ghana.� IWMI Ghana and RUAF Foundation (unpublished). Hart, K. 1973. “Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana.� Modern African Studies 11 (1): 61-89. International Water Management Institute. 2006. “Recycling Realities: Managing Health Risks to Make Wastewater an Asset.� IWMI Water Policy Briefing 17. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/Landing_Pages/WPB17.aspx Lloyd, P. 1980. “The Young Towns of Lima. Aspects of Urbanization in Peru.� Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moscoso J. and T. Alfaro. 2008. “Panorama de Experiencias de Tratamiento y Uso de Aguas Residuales en Lima Metropolitana y Callao.� Cuaderno de Agricultura Urbana 6. Lima, Peru: IPES, RUAF Foundation, MVCS and SWITCH. http://www.ipes.org/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=179 Prain, G. and D. Lee Smith. 2010. “Urban Agriculture in Africa. What has been learnt?� In African Urban Harvest: Agriculture in the cities of Cameroon, Uganda and Kenya, ed. Prain, G., N. Karanja and D. Lee-Smith. Springer, New York / International Development Research Centre, Ottawa / International Potato Centre/Urban Harvest, Lima. UN-HABITAT. 2007. “Enhancing Urban Safety and Security — Global Report on Human Settlements 2007.� Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Program on Human Settlements. WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. “Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater.� Geneva. Zezza, A. and L. Tasciotti. 2010. “Urban Agriculture, Poverty and Food Security: Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Developing Countries.� Food Policy 35: 265-273. Elsevier Ltd. 23 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Recommendations for Decision-makers The case studies from the four cities offer a number of key and integration of urban agriculture into development findings and conclusions, based on the data gathered, and strategies are necessary for the efficiency and long-term generally validating the basic hypothesis underlying this sustainability of urban agriculture programs. report, as mentioned in section 1.1. First, in general terms, urban agriculture contributes to local economic development, 3.1 Integrating Urban Agriculture Into the poverty alleviation, social inclusion of the urban poor Broader Urban Development Agenda and women, as well as to the greening of the city and the Given the contributions that urban agriculture can make productive reuse of urban wastes. Second, urban agriculture to urban livelihoods and food security, as well as the local provides a stable occupation and income strategy for and global environmental co-benefits that it offers, what can vulnerable segments of the urban population. It is also highly local and national governments, the research community, compatible with other kinds of employment, particularly and international organizations do to guide and enhance the informal business or even casual labor, thus facilitating access development of urban agriculture? In attempting to answer to multiple income sources. Such diversification of income this question, it is essential to recognize that urban agriculture sources is important as a risk management and adaptation on its own cannot be a panacea for urban problems; neither strategy. should it be seen a niche activity that does not have broader On the other hand, the development of urban agriculture relevance. Rather, urban agriculture should be viewed as a is generally constrained by the loss of agricultural land, useful part of an integrated approach to sustainable urban specifically in peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas, development—in other words, it can be ‘mainstreamed’ into as well as the lack of secure tenure. Lack of access to safe urban policies and programs. irrigation water, credit and capital were also identified as Urban agriculture that is mainstreamed into broader constraints by producers across the four cities. In addition, urban development strategies should also be customized the agricultural extension system is generally weak, and to the particular needs and circumstances of the city and cannot respond to the need for training on more sustainable country in question. There is thus no blanket prescription for and profitable urban agriculture production systems. Urban what any given city can or should do with respect to urban agriculture largely remains an informal sector that is often not agriculture. Ideally, governments and policy-makers would well integrated into agricultural policies or urban planning. clearly identify specific goals in relation to the promotion of Yet, the importance of urban agriculture will likely increase urban agriculture. For example, a local government concerned with the urbanization and climate change, policy decisions about growing food insecurity or malnutrition among the RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS 24 Agriculture can be particularly imporant to the livelihoods of urban women, who are among the more vulnerable groups living in cities. NAIROBI Urban gardening enables mothers to introduce nutritional foods to their families 25 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES urban poor in urban areas may specifically support forms of be set up, facilitating access of interested producer groups, backyard gardening or low-space gardening (as practiced and specifically women-headed households, youth, or HIV- by many households in Kibera, Nairobi) or promote the AIDS infected families to abandoned plots (Dubbeling and production of crops and livestock that are nutritionally and Pasquini 2010). culturally important. Another city that is mainly interested Next to the preservation and protection of existing in boosting local economic development and employment agricultural land, governments can optimize the use of creation may instead focus on the development of small- vacant and non-built land areas up for food production. scale commercial urban agriculture in larger open spaces in Institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons, offices) could utilize the urban, peri-urban transition or peri-urban areas; support all their free spaces in this way and serve the food grown input-supply, processing, or marketing enterprises; and seek in the premises. Urban agriculture could also be integrated to stimulate well-performing subsistence farmers to move into in social housing and slum upgrading programs by including the market sector. Local authorities mainly concerned with space for home gardens or community gardens, street trees improving general urban living conditions and reducing risks for shade and fruits, “productive parks,� as done in the Villa from climate change and associated disasters may promote Viva and Drenurbes housing schemes in Belo Horizonte, Brazil greening and agricultural use of open spaces, promote a shift (De Zeeuw and Dubbeling 2009). Priority could also be given from high-input commercial agricultural production towards to using land that is earmarked for other uses but not yet in more sustainable and ecological forms of agriculture, and use as such, land that is not fit for construction, e.g. flood carefully consider the possibilities of (agro-)forestry on steep zones, and land under power lines or buffer zones (such as slopes and in floodplains. those along airport strips as found in Lima and Accra). Cities can also address the issue of tenure by acknowledging 3.2 The City Level: Promoting Local Food the legal status of the producers growing on open public land Systems in Integrated Urban Land Use through tacit approval of occupancy and short- or medium- Planning term lease arrangements. They could offer multi-annual leaseholds or occupancy licenses, specifying that the land is In order to build more resilient regional or local food occupied with the consent of the local government. Often such systems, land use and urban planning policies can be developed arrangements or contracts with farmers include conditions to be favorable toward urban and peri-urban agriculture, regarding land, crop, and waste management practices and and preserve existing agricultural areas in urban, peri-urban include certain restrictions. Even limited acceptance by a transition, and peri-urban areas. Formal recognition of urban agriculture as a legitimate use of urban land and of its value to government can influence the status of urban farmers in two city livelihoods and liveability would be a crucial step towards ways. First, it encourages a sense of security that will lead the effective planning, regulation and facilitation of urban them to make more improvements to their farming system agriculture. The inclusion of urban agriculture as a separate and, secondly, it allows urban farmers to access credit and to land use category in municipal development, land use and use their land occupancy license as collateral for small loans, zoning plans is an important question to consider (Dubbeling, thus overcoming the barrier of not having formal “property.� de Zeeuw and van Veenhuizen 2010). Moreover, in order to An on-going experience developed in Freetown, Sierra take advantage of urban waste streams by utilizing municipal Leone is a good example of how to address this bottleneck organic waste and wastewater as production inputs, land (Cabannes 2011). could be zoned so that irrigation activities can take place next Cities may also provide fiscal and tax incentives for land to treatment plants to allow use of treated sewage (Acharya, owners who lease out vacant private land to groups of urban Hoornweg and Dubbeling 2011, Dubbeling, De Zeeuw and poor people willing to produce on this land, while idle land Van Veenhuizen 2010). could be taxed. Since land is a valuable resource, combinations There is a clear need for mapping and land surveying, to of different forms of land use (multifunctional land use), for identify actual and potential food production areas in and example by combining agricultural land use with recreational, around cities and in rural hinterlands and to relate these to water management/flood protection, green space, or other health facilities and outreach centers. This will require much functions could also be required (Dubbeling and de Zeeuw greater precision than existing agricultural surveys, which have 2010). systematically under-recorded homestead plots in general An integrated approach is thus needed for urban and most urban cultivation. Following the model of Rosario, agriculture within wider urban planning and management Argentina, a municipal land bank for urban agriculture could processes. Table 3.1 illustrates the challenges that the case RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS 26 study cities face with providing a conducive environment for these groups needs to be enhanced, it is important to ensure the development of urban agriculture. Coordination among transparency related to the integration of food systems in various government levels, structures, and departments is one urban decision-making processes (FAO 2011). of the conditions for operationalizing local and regional food systems, especially between agricultural and environmental 3.3 The Value Chain: Strengthening Each Link agencies on the one hand and health and educational Within the Urban Agriculture Sector agencies on the other. Land-use planning for local and regional food systems can be considered at various scales: 3.3.1 Improving market infrastructure, capacity at the neighborhood level (with varying urban, transition, strengthening, and agricultural extension services or peri-urban characteristics) and at city and metropolitan In order to increase the income and employment benefits or city-region levels. This integration of agriculture and of urban agriculture, infrastructure needs to be improved food systems at the various levels of planning can then be so as to better connect local farmers to urban markets. supported by urban, metropolitan and regional/national Support is also needed to help increase the productivity and management, incentives and governance measures. In terms profitability of urban agriculture. Productivity in small-scale of urban management, special attention needs to be paid to urban agriculture is still generally low as result of a lack of (or health control, storage and processing, land legislation, land inappropriate) support services (extension, access to credit, tenure systems, use of vacant land and ensuring access to infrastructure development), limited access to productive water. In terms of urban governance, it is important to ensure resources and secure land tenure. This would require the inclusion of vulnerable groups, with special attention for improvement in technical capacity and extension capability gender, youth and migrant workers. Finally, while the voice of in most cities. Table 3.1: Legal and policy elements favoring or disfavoring urban agriculture Accra Bangalore Lima Nairobi National policy Urban agriculture included National policy on Incidental support by Draft national urban support in the national agriculture urban horticulture being Ministry of Agriculture and agriculture and livestock policy formulated and urban the Ministry of Women policy developed (2010) agriculture included in and Social Development the 12th 5-year plan on agriculture Overall policy By-laws regulating the The overall vision is to Several districts with Neither clear local policy environment at local urban agriculture practice maintain agriculture only a facilitating urban guidelines exist, nor level in a greenbelt around the agriculture policy. operationalization of city Recent urban agriculture the Nairobi 2030 Metro programs set up under the Strategy that calls for Metropolitan Municipality preservation of agricultural of Lima land use. City-level policy By-laws on urban - - No city level policy  rban agriculture -U Urban agriculture - support agriculture for the Accra to promote urban included in municipal included in the Nairobi Metropolitan Assembly agriculture development plans Metro 2030 Strategy District food and -  pecial municipal -S Nairobi has no - agriculture officers structures for urban agricultural department provide technical agriculture set up No specific resources are - assistance and financing  unicipal budget -M allocated to urban farmers allocated to urban agriculture Institutional Low level of support to Low level of support to Broad NGO and academic Broad NGO and academic framework urban agriculture urban agriculture support for urban support to urban agriculture agriculture 27 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES The development of good crop and livestock practices • Better quantification of the demand for credit and among urban producers requires capacity strengthening and finance among small urban producers; technical assistance in the following areas: • Better information about producers’ repayment • Small-space intensive technologies for intra- capacity. Lessons could be learnt from successful urban producers involving combined, coordinated small-scale loan schemes such as in Bangladesh, government and NGO support; especially about methods for handling small loans and • Improved processing and marketing capacity, strengthening repayment; especially for commercial peri-urban farmers, including • Producer training in business development skills, identification of and shifts towards more profitable preparation of business plans, assistance with loan production systems in response to market demand and/ applications and record-keeping; or adding value to primary produce (Nyapandi and others 2010), the provision of entrepreneurial training • Specific (municipal) guarantee schemes to financial to build reliable and sustainable markets to facilitate institutions providing loans to small-scale urban the sale of local products, and promote regional producers; organic green markets (Prain and others 2010); • Establishment of a co-funding facility for multi- • Artificial insemination services, balanced feeding stakeholder urban and peri-urban agriculture projects advice and guidelines and requirements for hygiene to encourage local financing of urban agriculture and safety for livestock farmers; by local authorities, credit institutions and private enterprises; and • Appropriate technologies for constraints such as limited land holdings, unavailability of clean water • Crop insurance schemes for producers and guarantee for irrigation and poor waste management, as funds for credit institutions to reduce risk, as in Beijing, recommended by the Kenyan draft National Urban China, for example, where the local government set Agriculture and Livestock Policy (2010). Such support up an insurance system for 18 different types of crops would also promote the adoption of high value crop and animals that engaged over 1,600 urban farming and livestock enterprises, for example, horticulture and households in 2007 (Dubbeling 2011). small livestock; • Quality control methods such as in-feed formulation 3.3.3 Strengthening producer organizations and integrated crop management practices to reduce A low degree of organization hampers producers’ efforts or eliminate use of agrochemicals; to obtain a stronger market position, undertake processing • Regular and effective inspection and control on the use and engage in direct marketing and limits the capacity of agrochemicals and veterinary drugs; to represent the political interests of producers. There have been many calls for the strengthening of existing • Use of treated wastewater, together with information for producers and consumers on how to manage producer organizations and promoting the formation of potential health risks related to use of untreated new ones, so as to enhance their participation in policy wastewater (e.g., adapting crop choice and/or lobbying and marketing. The formation of viable farmer irrigation practices; washing and cooking of produce groups and farmer-based enterprises with gender equality before eating); and can be promoted to enhance their knowledge, skills, and access to resources, and for stronger bargaining power in • Gender equity issues regarding access to extension, inputs, marketing and access to financing. Empowerment land and financing. of women farmers requires priority attention. Formation of women farmer networks to deal with agriculture-related 3.3.2 Increasing access to financing activities can further strengthen the household economy. Access to credit and other sources of financing (e.g., The strength of women’s social networks and co-operative subsidies and grants) are crucial to further investment in efforts offer opportunities for development strategies in the agricultural production and/or processing and marketing urban agriculture sector (Hovorka and others 2009). Women’s activities. Government grant schemes can be revised so that groups and their urban agriculture collective practices can be urban producers can apply, as is proposed in countries such as promoted and supported, and thus recognized as social and Brazil and India. Other needs include: political actors. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS 28 3.3.4 Promoting value-chain development and direct and Beijing, China, Amman, Jordan and Sana’a, Yemen producer-consumer marketing (an example is the “Responsible Production Protocol� Several supermarkets and hypermarkets in the cities of used in Amman and Sana’a, which provides guarantees Accra, Nairobi and Lima have started to link up with urban on production location, ecological quality and ethical vegetable producers to source supply for their customers, production standards). including for organic vegetables in Lima. As this relationship expands, employment will be created and income levels of 3.4 The Broader View: Beyond the City producers will rise. The results of a major RUAF Foundation project to promote value chain development and direct National level and broader sectoral policies can also help marketing in 17 cities around the world (De Zeeuw 2010, to strengthen urban agriculture’s role within the city. So, for Dubbeling 2011) show that local urban agriculture value chains example, although typically general agricultural policies and that link local producers more directly to urban consumers do plans do focus on linking production with (urban) markets, have a place in the urban food system, even though global these aspects are dealt with in a general way and do not products, markets and corporations increasingly dominate differentiate between different types of production systems, it. Local, safe and healthy production is the main reason for such as rural, peri-urban and intra-urban. They therefore urban consumers to buy produce that addresses their social easily underestimate the contribution of urban and peri- and health concerns. This is best done by establishing direct urban production to income and employment generation. At relations with consumers and selling products: the same time, commercial urban agriculture, agro-processing • Vegetable box schemes delivering urban farm produce and value addition activities are often not well addressed to schools, hospitals, international organizations and (Dubbeling and Pasquini 2010). Yet the fact remains that offices, as is done for example in Cape Town, South the food needs of cities will always need to be met through Africa and Freetown, Sierra Leone; rural agricultural production, supplemented to varying extents – and as illustrated through the case studies in this • Producer kiosks, fairs, and markets as in Lima and report – by urban agriculture. In setting broader sectoral and Accra; and national policies, governments can recognize the role that • Direct sales to restaurants and supermarkets, including urban agriculture plays in cities, particularly for food security, use of marketing strategies that emphasize that the income generation, and livelihoods. Where possible, such produce is local (or local varieties/breeds), produced policies could also facilitate urban agriculture, particularly by low resource producers/women, organic, safe, and for those aspects of inputs (financing, extension services) and that make use of logos that stress product qualities, as market linkages mentioned above. in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe; Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso 29 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES References Acharya, A., D. Hoornweg and M. Dubbeling. 2011. “Urban Agriculture is Climate-Smart: Thinking Outside the Box on Climate Change.� In Low Carbon Cities, chapter 7.2. World Bank publication for the Government of China. Washington, DC: World Bank. Cabannes, Y. 2011. “Financing Urban Agriculture, Current Challenges and Innovations.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 25: 32- 35. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/node/2372 De Zeeuw, H. 2010. “Strengthening Urban Farmer Organisations and their Marketing Capacities: The RUAF “From Seed to Table� programme.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 24: 11-16. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www. ruaf.org/node/2265 De Zeeuw, H. and M. Dubbeling. 2009. “Cities, Food and Agriculture: Challenges and the Way Forward.� RUAF Working Paper 3. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Working%20paper%203%20%20 Cities%20Food%20and%20Agriculture.pdf Dubbeling, M. 2011. “The RUAF “From Seed to Table� Programme; an Approach to Participatory Innovation in Small-scale Urban and Periurban Agriculture Production, Processing and Marketing.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 25: 51–53. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/node/2377 Dubbeling, M. and H. De Zeeuw. 2010. “Urban Agriculture and Climate Change Adaptation, Ensuring Food Security Through Adaptation.� In Resilient Cities: Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change—Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010, ed. K. Otto-Zimmermann, chapter 44. Springer Science and Business Media B.V. Dubbeling, M. and M. Pasquini. 2010. “The Growth of Cities in East-Africa: Consequences for Urban Food Supply.� Paper developed for the World Bank. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. Dubbeling, M., H. De Zeeuw and R. Van Veenhuizen. 2010. “Cities, Poverty and Food, Multi-Stakeholder Policy and Planning in Urban Agriculture.� RUAF Foundation and Practical Action Publishing. http://www.ruaf.org/node/2387 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. “Food, Agriculture and Cities, Challenges of Food and Nutrition Security, Agriculture and Ecosystem Management in an Urbanising World.� Food for the Cities multi-disciplinary initiative position paper. Rome, Italy: FAO. Hovorka, Alice, Henk De Zeeuw and Mary Njenga. 2009.� Women Feeding Cities- Mainstreaming Gender in Urban Agriculture and Food Security.� UK: Practical Action Publishing, Rugby. http://www.ruaf.org/node/2290 Nyapendi, R. et al. 2010. “Identifying Market Opportunities for urban and Peri-urban Farmers Kampala.� In African Urban Harvest: Agriculture in the cities of Cameroon, Uganda and Kenya, ed. Prain, G., N. Karanja and D. Lee-Smith. Springer, New York / International Development Research Centre, Ottawa / International Potato Centre/Urban Harvest, Lima. Prain, G., N. Gonzales, B. Arce, J. Tenorio. 2010. “Organic Vegetables on the Peri-urban Interface: Helping Low Income Producers Access High Value Markets in Lima, Peru.� Acta Hort. (ISHS) 881:117-123. http://www.actahort.org/books/881/881_11.htm\ ANNEX A 30 Annex A: Methodology of the Case Studies Objectives urban agriculture benefits poor urban consumers who may or may not produce their own food. The poverty reduction The overall objective of the case studies was to determine effects of these exchanges and the relative importance of the contribution of urban agriculture to livelihoods, urban different channels needs further study. resource use and the urban environment by assessing urban agriculture activities in the selected cities (Accra, Nairobi, Selection of the case cities Lima, and Bangalore). The four case cities were selected for their representation The specific objectives included: of different geographic locations and a diversity of urban a)  Analyzing the presence, forms and roles, of urban agriculture systems. They were also selected because of the agriculture in contributing to food security, nutritional presence of experienced local research teams, secondary data health and economic and social livelihoods; availability on urban agriculture and for being considered b)  Evaluating a standardized inter-disciplinary data (moderately) supportive of urban agriculture. collection protocol in order to facilitate more Random sampling of study areas and respondents systematic data collection in cities in the future and to enable comparisons to be made across cities and over As outlined, the study sought to assess the contribution of time; and different types of urban agriculture to poor households that are involved primarily in growing crops or rearing animals for c) Building a better understanding of the constraining and home consumption or in earning income from agricultural facilitating factors for development of successful urban sales to markets. agriculture programs and making recommendations for city- and country-level policy makers. To capture this variation between different types of urban agriculture, a sample was drawn from administrative units Study Design (AU) of the city located along a transect from the inner city to the peri-urban interface in the following areas: This section describes the design of the overall case studies, • Urban, characterized by either inner city, heavily built selection of cities, sampling areas, and study methods used in up area or more recently built up areas with more this survey. open spaces (two AUs); Focus on the urban poor and direct poverty alleviation from • Peri-urban transition, referring to areas on the city agriculture fringe experiencing intensive urban development (1 The study focuses on urban agriculture practiced by AU); and poor urban households and its direct poverty reduction • Peri-urban, including areas with strong agricultural effects through improved food security (i.e. availability and presence mixed with limited development (1 AU). access) and nutritional health and as a source of income. It also identifies the factors constraining and facilitating the The “transect� is not a literal straight line from city core to development of pro-poor urban agriculture. periphery, but intends to capture the historical and physical The study thus excludes urban agriculture that is practiced development of cities which is very variable, but which often by and benefits better-off households, especially urban leads to similar patterns of high density settlement in the livestock keeping in some locations (Karanja et al 2010). In older part of the city, and newer, medium density urban some cases poor urban households earn income as laborers settlements and declining density on the periphery, where in these household or commercial enterprises. Such casual nevertheless intensive urban developments are often also employment benefits are not captured in this study. found. A second type of potential indirect poverty reduction “Target Settlements� were selected in the AU’s and random effect of urban agriculture excluded from this study relates samples of producer and non-producer households were to price impacts, such as when cheap food produced through taken (a minimum of 600 producer households and 300 non- 31 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES producing households per city). To reflect likely distribution income streams. Household vulnerability perceptions were of overall population, it was proposed to distribute the collected in relation to environmental and economic stresses sample across the three areas of the city mentioned above and shocks. Through a food security survey, data on food in the following way: 300 producer and 150 non-producer consumption and perceptions of food and nutrition security households from the urban area and 150 producer and 75 and vulnerability data were collected. This included food non-producer households in each of the peri-urban transition recall and consumption of various food items, data on cash and peri-urban areas. savings from crops and livestock, seasonable variability, etc. A household was defined as a “producer� if at least one b) Focus group discussions: Separate group discussions family member was currently practicing urban agriculture. were conducted with women and men producers and Here, urban agriculture refers to either growing crops or with women non-producers to supplement information rearing animals or both, which could be for sale or personal from the surveys. Information especially targeted in these consumption. If there was no family member involved in any discussions was related to seasonal and longer term changes form of urban agriculture, the household was referred to as in agricultural and food security issues and more qualitative a “non-producer.� perceptions of agricultural and food-related practices and their income effects. Study Methods Used c) Secondary texts and numeric data: The studies also drew Each city case study describes in greater detail the on national household survey data as well as specific urban methodology followed and the variations in each city. household surveys and urban agriculture project data where available. a) Primary survey data collection: Households were selected randomly within the “target settlements� d) Geo-spatial datasets and images: The study drew on distributed along the urban to peri-urban transect to capture available GIS and maps to help construct “city anatomies� variability in practices under variable geographical and land and select the administrative units to be sampled as well as use conditions. Six hundred producers were interviewed, to understand the ecological, topological and socio-economic and a sample of 300 non-producers was taken along the contexts under which urban agriculture is practiced in the same transect in the same or close-by settlements as a different cities and in different neighborhoods of each city. control group. Through use of a livelihood survey, data were e) Food groups: Table A1 shows the classification of food collected on existing physical infrastructure and services at groups and the types of food associated with each of these the household level; on occupations of both the household groups. Respondents were asked to list the foods consumed head and the household; on different indicators of social in the 24-hour recall which were then categorized into various capital and on the role that agriculture plays in household groups. Table A1: Food groups consumed and the types of food in each group Food Group Types of Food Cereals and grains Rice, bread, noodles, maize, sorghum, or other cereal or grain Yellow/orange vegetables Pumpkin, carrots, yellow/orange sweet potatoes or orange vegetables Tubers Potatoes, cassava, yam, white sweet potatoes, cooking banana or other tubers Green leafy vegetables Spinach or kale Other vegetables Cabbage, celery, leek or tomatoes Yellow/orange fruits Mangoes, papayas, coconut or yellow orange fruit (excluding oranges and lemons) Other fruits Citrus fruit, bananas, passion fruit, apples or grapes Other meat Beef, pork, goat, lamb, chicken or other offal Eggs Eggs Fish Fresh or dried fish or shellfish Legumes Beans, peas, lentils, peanut or nuts Milk or milk products Cheese, yogurt, milk or other milk products ANNEX A 32 References Karanja, N., M. Njenga, K. Gathuru, A. Karanja and P. Muendo Munyao. 2010. “Crop-Livestock-Waste Interactions in Nakuru’s Urban Agriculture.� In African Urban Harvest: Agriculture in the Cities of Cameroon, Uganda and Kenya, ed. Prain, G., N. Karanja and D. Lee-Smith. Springer, New York / International Development Research Centre, Ottawa /International Potato Centre/Urban Harvest, Lima. 33 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Annex B: Survey Questionnaire Part 1: Livelihoods Survey C04-05. Marital status C06-07. Primary occupation over the last one year Section A: Interview Details C08. Days a week devoted to occupation A01. ID C09-10. Secondary occupation over last one year A02. District C11. Days a week devoted to occupation A03. Target Settlement (YesGo to A11) C12-13. Highest level of education A04.-06 Date (day/month/2010) C14. How many years has the household head studied in A08. Are you household head? total? A09-A10. Who is the household head (HH) in relation to you? Section D: Physical, natural and financial capital A11. How many people live in this household? D01-02. Material used for walls in the residential main house (majority of the walls) Section B: Human Capital – Household Head D03-04.Material used for flooring in the residential main house B01. Age D05-06.Material used for roofing in the residential main house B02. Sex D07. State of the dwelling B03. When s/he arrive at this site? D08. How many rooms are in the house? B04-05. Marital status D09. Do you have access to a latrine/toilet? B06-07. Primary occupation over the last one year D10-11. What type of toilet facilities do you use? B08. Days a week devoted to occupation D12-13. During the dry season, what is your primary source of B09-10. Secondary occupation over last one year water for household use? B11. Days a week devoted to occupation D14-15. During the wet season(s), what is your primary source B12-13. Highest level of education of water for household use? B14. How many years has the household head studied in total? D16-17. What is the main source of fuel for cooking in this household? Section C: Human Capital – Household D18-19. What is the main source of lighting in this household? C01. Age D20-21. What is the ownership of this house and the land on which located? C02. Sex D22-23. Is there allocated space/housing for animals? C03. When s/he arrive at this site? ANNEX B 34 D24-37. For the following assets, please tell me how many D50. Shelter__ D51. Education__ D52. Food__ D53. Loan/ assets the HH has access to at the present time, and whether debt repayment__D54.Clothes__ D55.Health__ D56. Family your HH owns them, or if they are shared with others events__ D57. Transport__ D58. Household utilities__ D59. (relatives, a group etc.). Domestic help__ D60.Other:__________ a. Current access (How many?) D61. Does your household have access to any land, including in the homestead (zero-grazing of animals, use of containers b. Ownership for crops) or around it, that has been used to grow crops or D24. Manual farming tools__ D25. Cows__ D26. Bulls__ D27. raise livestock? Other draught animals__ D28. Sows__ D29. Boars__ D30. D62. Can you use this land for growing crops or raising Piglets/young pigs (up to 30kg)__ D31. Finishing/Fattening livestock without fear of eviction? pigs (above 30kg)__ D32. Goats-Sheep__ D33. Poultry (mainly as layers)__ D34. Poultry (mainly as broilers)__ D35. Guinea D63-66. Please list for me any household space or plots of pigs__ D36. Rabbits__ D37. Other specify:_________ land (including in/around homestead, off-site plots, public areas etc) that you have used for growing crops or raising D38-47. Please tell me if your HH gets monetary income from livestock in the past two years. the following sources (or others): a. Current use a. Practiced by household? b. Plot size b. Approximate proportion of total annual income c. Ownership D38. Agriculture (livestock)__ D39. Agriculture (crops)__ D40. Regular, salaried employment (with benefits)__D41. Regular d. Location paid employment, no benefits__ D42. Professional__ D43. D67. Did your household grow any crops in this space or on Medium size enterprise__ D44. Informal business (mainly these plots in the past six months or last planting period if no family labor)__ D45. Casual laboring__ D46. Relatives/friends recent planting because of seasonal factor? (Yes  Go to D69- outside HH__ D47. Other: ______________ 70/NoGo to D96). D48-49. What was your household’s approximate monthly D68-75. Why did household cease to use these plots for crop income last month? production? D48. If amount known, enter here: _______ D68. Not the season for production__ D69. Illness in D49. If not, circle approximate income (categories should be household__ D70. Household members took other work__ expressed in local currency) D71.Crop production not profitable/useful for family__ D72. Land no longer available__ D73. Lack of cash for inputs__ D50-60. Please make a classification of your expenditures over D74. Waiting to sell the land__ D75. Other:___ last 12 months D76-77. What is the main reason for starting to grow crops on a. Cost (number of units) these plots? b. What priority does X expense have for your family? D78-D82. What (main) crops did you grow in last six months or c. Approximate percentage of total expenses of the two last planting period if no recent planting because of seasonal highest expenses. If food is not included in these two, factors? also estimate % of total expenses in food. 35 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES a. Total production; b. Measure; c. What percentage of D115-119. Please list for me any inputs associated with production was consumed by this HH?; d. What percentage of livestock raising you used in the last 6 months. production was sold/traded by this HH? D120-123. In the last six months, who in the HH is mainly D83-87. Please list any fertilizers you used in crop cultivation responsible for the following crop related tasks? in last planting period. D120. Buying__ D121. Feeding/grazing__ D122. Illness D88-92. Please list any other inputs for crop cultivation in last treatment__ D123. Selling planting season. D93-95. In the last six months, who in the HH is mainly Section E: Physical, natural and financial capital responsible for the following crop related tasks? E01-09. Which services from the following have you used D93. Planting-cultivation__ D94. Harvesting__ D95. during the past year? Marketing of products E01. Dept. of Agriculture/Livestock Advisory/Extension D96. Did your household raise livestock in the past six months services__ E02.Banking services__E03.Private money- on these plots? (YesGo to D98-99) lending services__ E04.Health facilities__E05.Social support programs__ E06.NGO/CBO support services__ E07.Local D97-103. Why did household cease to raise livestock? government services__ E08.Local savings/self-help groups__ D97. Illness in household__ D98.Animals became sick__ E09.Other:___ D99. Household members took other work__ D100. E10-13. Does your household receive any products or services Livestock raising not profitable/useful for family__ D101. from relatives or neighbors? Land for livestock no longer available__ D102.Lack of cash for animal replacement/inputs__ D103. Other:__ E14-17. Does your household give products or services to other households? D104-105. What is the main reason for starting to raise livestock on these plots? E18-28. What kinds of exchange of goods or services have you had with rural relatives? D106-109. What principle livestock products (five or less) did you produce in the past six months? E29-39. What kinds of exchange of goods or services have you had with urban relatives/neighbors? a. Total production; b. Percentage consumed by this HH; Section F: Vulnerability and coping c. Percentage sold by this HH F1-17. In the past year, how many times has your household experienced the following problems/crises? What were your D110-114. What principle livestock products (five or less) did coping strategies? you produce in the past six months? (Example: eggs, milk, meat (specify type), manure, etc.) a. Number of times; a. Total production; b. Coping strategy b. Percentage consumed by this HH; F1.Crop loss due to bad weather__ F2.Damage to crops by animals__F3.Failed harvest due to pest/disease__ F4.Failed c. Percentage sold by this HH harvest due to harassment__F5.Price collapse__F6.Household food shortage__ F7.Serious illness of HH member__ F8.Death ANNEX B 36 of HH member__ F9.Arrest of HH member__ F10.Divorce__ 01. Cereal or grain__ 02. Yellow/orange vegetables__ 03. F11.Abandonment__ F12. Loss of job__ F13.Eviction__ F14. Tubers__ 04. Green, leafy vegetables__ 05. Other vegetables__ Confiscation of assets__ F15.Loss of land__ F16.Theft of 06. Yellow/orange fruit__ 07. Other fruits__ 08. Liver, kidney, livestock__ F17.Killing of livestock by police__ F18.Theft of heart, or other organ meat__ 09. Other meat__ 10. Eggs__ 11. household goods__ F19. Illness of non-HH family__ F20. Fish__ 12. Legumes__ 13. Milk or milk products__ 14. Food Other:___ made with oil, fat, margarine, or butter__ 15. Sugar__ 1.7 Is the respondent involved in own agricultural production? (YesContinue with section 2.1, NoGo to Section 3). Part 2: Food Security Survey Section 2 Section 1: Food consumption and food sources 2.1 How does the consumption of your own food production 1.1 Food consumption during previous 24hrs. affect your family? (Choose all answers that apply) a.Type of “meal� or “between meal,� b. Time of eating, 01. It saves money for purchase of other types of food__02. c. Name of food preparation, Can you put a value on savings of food purchases?__03. Approximately how much money is saved?__ 04. It saves d. Name of ingredients used money for other household purchases__ 05. Can you put a value on savings for other household purchases?__ 06. It 1.2 Self-produced food items consumed in previous 24hrs. provides extra food__ 07. It provides a more diverse diet__ a.Domestic space, plot or coral; b. Own plot away from the 08. In has an effect in another way?__ 09. Little or no effect house; c. Plot or coral in rural area; d. Approximately how many times were the sel-produced foor items comsumed Section 3: Food Security during the previous week? 3.1 Which of the following statements best describes the 1.3 Of all foods eaten last week, were some of the food food situation at your home in the last four weeks? preparations/ítems: 2. We always eat enough of what we want__ 02. We 01. Bought fresh and prepared in the house? __ 02. Bought eat enough but not always what we would like__03. We from a restaurant, eatery, kiosk, autonomous food kitchen, on sometimes do not eat enough__ 04.We frequently do not the street, etc.?__ 03.Obtained through a Government social eat enough program such as subsidized community kitchens, children’s milk programs, food for work, etc.?__ 04.Received as a gift 3.2 Why do you not eat enough or eat what you would like at (from relatives neighbors, etc.)?__05.Other:___ home? (Choose all answers that apply) 1.4 What was the most important source of food during the 01. We do not have enough money to buy food__ 02. It is last week? (Insert one of codes from above in 1.3) difficult to access the store__ 03. We are dieting__ 04. We do not have a stove that works__ 05. We cannot eat/cook 1.5 What was the second most important source of food due to health reasons__ 06. We have not stored enough during the last week? (Insert one of codes from above in 1.3) food for the year__ 07.Other:___ 1.6 Mark in the space if the family ate or drank any of the foods in each of the food groups listed below. 37 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES 3.3 In the last 12 months..... a. Yes/No; b. How often this happen? 3.3.1 Did you ever worry that your household would run out of food before you would be able to get more money to buy or could acquire more?__ 3.3.2 Were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you want because of lack of money?__ 3.3.3 Did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of money?__ 3.3.4 Did you or any household member have to eat some foods that you did not want to eat because of a lack of money to obtain other types of food?__ 3.3.5 Did you or any household member have to eat less (portion size) in a meal than you wanted because there was not enough food?__ 3.3.6 Did you or any household member have to reduce the number of meals eaten a day because there was not enough food?__ 3.3.7 Was there ever no food to eat in your household because of lack of money to get food?__ 3.3.8 Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food?__ 3.3.9 Did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food?______ 3.4 Were the children in the household also affected or was it just the adults? ANNEX C 38 Annex C: A Note on the Challenges of the Survey Data The results shared in this study should be considered with peri-urban transition, and peri-urban sampling areas within a degree of caution due to inconsistencies detected in the this district. Similar problems arose in Accra, though not in different stages of the survey process. Some of these problems Nairobi, where the urban site is located in the central part of are related to limited representativeness of the case cities, Nairobi Province, the peri-urban transition site on the fringes differences in definitions, simplification of sampling design, of that province and the peri-urban site in the adjoining complexity in questionnaire design, and extrapolation of Central Province, which is being steadily absorbed into the results. economic, social, and ecological fabric of the city, if not yet the administrative. In Lima, the province-level administrative Limited representation of the case cities structure incorporates districts, which exhibit urban, The four study cities are all national or state capitals and transition, and peri-urban characteristics. are representative of large cities. Nevertheless, the study does not capture the rapidly changing conditions in smaller urban Definition of urban agriculture used centers and their surroundings that highlight even more The definition of urban agriculture presented some acutely the issues of sustainable urbanization and development variations among the four cities. In the case of Nairobi and their integration with rural surroundings. Capacities and Bangalore the definition of Luc Mougeot was used: of smaller cities for planning and implementation can be “An industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe weak, while in some countries processes of decentralization (peri-urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows and devolution are loading them with increased roles and or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and responsibilities. (Tacoli and Satterthwaite 2003). non-food products, re-using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that Problems related to the selection of research sites along the urban area, and in turn supplying human and material urban, transition, and peri-urban transect resources, products and services largely to that urban area� Another problem faced in this study was the difficulty (Mougeot 1999). Though the notions of both “intra-urban� in defining certain key concepts. The study proposed three and “peri-urban� are used in the definition, for simplicity this different locations—urban, peri-urban transition, and paper sticks to the standard expression �urban agriculture� peri-urban—in each city in order to capture the dynamism encompassing both forms. The Accra study uses a similarly of cities in relation to the practice of urban agriculture. broad definition, but without the ecological dimension (“… However, definitions of “urban� were not always evident, the practice of farming within and on the boundaries of especially in Bangalore and Accra, as “urban� is used both towns or cities…involves crop cultivation, animal rearing, and as a geographic as well as an administrative concept. In both fish farming. A person or household is classified a producer these two cities, efforts were made to solve this problem by even if he or she has one plant of plantain or one fowl in using administrative units to define each of the locations. In the survey area…within compound, outside the dwelling, on Bangalore, the Greater Bangalore municipal body (BBMP) open spaces within the city owned by the public or private refers to an administrative category relating to Indian institutions or individuals�). The Lima study refers to having “metropolitan cities� (cities with over 4 million inhabitants), used a wide definition, “of (agricultural) producer, which but are geographically quite narrowly defined. The researchers varied between households growing a few herbs in a pot to for the Bangalore study use this administrative unit to define commercial farmers with large plots.� the urban sampling area. In parallel with this unit, there also exists a state-based administrative structure, which divides Comparison between groups states into districts. In Karnataka, where Bangalore is located, Another definition that introduced some complexity was there are 30 districts, one of which is the “Bangalore Urban the comparison between producers and non-producers. District� which is geographically much broader and includes Particularly in Lima, the large number of households with the BBMP and its hinterland. The study includes the urban, micro-scale production reduced the likelihood of finding 39 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES significant differences in food security, vulnerability, or the results were instead framed to see how families income between the two groups. prioritized their expenses under each category, which were then interpreted as trends. Similarly, in the section about food Sample design security the lack of data on portion size of foods consumed The sample design presented another problem in this study. during the previous 24 hours was not captured in the 24-hour In each city, a higher number of households were chosen to recall. Some questions also had a high “no response� rate, be surveyed in urban areas than in the peri-urban transition which may reflect the complex questionnaire design. Finally, and peri-urban areas as the former tend to have a much although the surveys were led by teams consisting of senior higher number of residents than in the other locations, and researchers and data were collected by enumerators/students this stratification would ensure proper representation of the or other persons with ample experience in food security and sub-population groups. Random sampling was chosen as the income data collection in low-income areas, problems in data methodology for this survey design; however, the same sample collection were presented. size was maintained for all cities. If considerations about the differences in populations and the characteristics of each city Extrapolation of results to city level had been taken into account, the sample size would probably Although administrative units and target settlements in have varied. Therefore, if this study was performed again each city were selected based on their representativeness, with new samples, the results would probably be somewhat this was only for a segment of the total population, namely different. This also makes it harder to draw conclusions about where low-income households were concentrated and these the wider population. were purposively located where some form of agriculture was being practiced in different (urban and peri-urban) locations. Questionnaire design This means that direct extrapolations to the city level cannot The design of the questionnaire presented other difficulties be made regarding total numbers of households engaged for the analysis of this study. Some questions appeared to in urban agriculture activities and types of practices, but be complex for the respondents to answer, especially those we can cautiously draw solid generalizations based on the related to expenditures, as many could not recall expenses quantitative data collected. and calculating proportions proved to be difficult. Therefore, References Mougeot, Luc J.A. 1999. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N. et al. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Tacoli, C. and D. Satterthwaite. 2003. “The Urban Part of Rural Development: The Role of Small and Intermediate Urban Centres in Rural and Regional Development and Poverty Reduction.� Rural-urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies, Working Paper 9. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. ANNEX D 40 Annex D: Bangalore (India) Case Study Bangalore, also called Bengaluru, is the capital of the Bangalore was the fastest-growing city in India after state of Karnataka in south India. It is the sixth largest New Delhi between 1991 and 2001, with a growth rate of urban agglomeration in the country (Thippaiah 2009) with a 38 percent during the last decade. A large proportion of this population of over 9.6 million (2011 census), and an estimated growth can be attributed to migration. As with many other population density of approximately 4,300 people per square large cities in the world, Bangalore absorbs a large population kilometer. (Bose 2011). Some key facts of Bangalore such as of migrant workers, who constitute 6.2 percent of the city’s population and climate are summarized in Table D1. population. Women constitute 47.5 percent of Bangalore’s population. Bangalore has the second highest literacy rate Table D1: Key facts of Bangalore (83 percent) in an Indian metropolis after Mumbai. Area (km2) 741 (2009) Approximately 20 percent of the population lives in slums. Population density (inhabitants/km2) 7827 (2009) (CIRJE 2008) This is considered relatively low compared to Annual population growth rate (%) 3.6 (2011, based on other cities in India and in cities with the same socio-economic decadal average) characteristics elsewhere. The slums are home to families % of national population 0.6 who have lived there for several generations. The slums are recognized by the city, which provides them with basic % of urban population 1.8 services. Furthermore, there are many informal settlements Poverty level as % of total city N/A and slums on the periphery of Bangalore that are occupied population mostly by temporary migrant workers and are not recognized Climate Tropical savannah as slums by the city. Major geographical features Plateau Elevation (m above sea level) 920 Administration Average annual rainfall (mm) 970 Bangalore-Urban district is one of 30 districts that together Average low/high temperatures (°C) 15/34 form the state of Karnataka. This district is further divided into four smaller administrative units (Bangalore North, Economy Bangalore East, Bangalore South, and Anekal) referred to as Bangalore was a cantonment of the British Empire in taluks, as shown in Table D2. Bangalore city is an area carved India and the capital of the Princely State of Mysore. Once out of the four taluks, and as the city has expanded over known as the “Garden City� of India, the city has experienced time, it has spread across the taluks. The population density immense economic growth over the past two decades, mostly of 8,300 persons per square kilometer in Bangalore city is attributed to the Information Technology (IT) sector, and considerably higher than the four taluks, which each have is now known as the “Silicon Valley of India.� Bangalore about 500 persons or less per square kilometer. contributes approximately one-third of India’s total IT exports and also has a growing biotechnology industry. In 2012, Based on data provided in Jyotishi, A., P. Amerasinghe, S. Acharya, Bangalore had a GDP of $83 billion, and is ranked fourth V. Kumar, C. G. Yadava, R. S. Deshpande. 2011. Urban Agriculture: A Sustainable Solution to Alleviating Urban Poverty, Addressing among the top cities contributing to India’s GDP. the Food Crisis, and Adapting to Climate Change— Case Study Bangalore, India. (Unpublished). Table D2: Demographics of the sub-districts in Bangalore (2001 census) (Government of Karnataka 2009) Population Total Rural Urban Taluk Area (km2) Density Sex Ratio Population Population Population (per km2) Anekal 532 298,580 240,312 58,268 561 883 Bangalore North 490 196,131 196,131 - 400 930 Bangalore South 381 91,800 91,800 - 240 925 Bangalore East 96 53,346 53,346 - 556 929 Bangalore City 709 5,897,267 - 5,897,267 8,318 908 41 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES The city of Bangalore is under the jurisdiction of the Water Resources and Land Use Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) or the Greater There are no perennial rivers in Bangalore although a Bangalore Municipal Corporation. The city is divided into major river, the Cauvery, is about 140 km away. Bangalore eight zones and 198 wards for administrative purposes. receives 80 percent of its total water supply from the Cauvery. There are several natural lakes in the city and its vicinity, Climate which impound rainwater and contribute to groundwater Bangalore is situated on the Deccan Plateau, at an recharge. Some of these lakes were designed in cascades elevation of 900 m (2,953 ft), which provides the city with a from higher to lower elevations and constructed in the 16th moderate climate throughout the year. The hottest month is century to meet the city’s water needs. In the early part of April with an average temperature of 28°C (82.4°F) and the the 20th century, the Diwan (administrative head) of Mysore coolest is December with an average of 21.1°C (70°F). The city commissioned the Nandi Hills waterworks to provide a water experiences rainfall during both the northeast as well as the source for the city. Over the years, unplanned urban growth, southwest monsoons and gets an average of 974.5 mm (38.3 encroachments, and pollution have reduced the number of inches) of rain a year. lakes. Furthermore, indiscriminate discharge of domestic Land use patterns in Bangalore sub-districts (Government of Karnataka 2009) Figure D1:  Land use Patterns in Bangalore taluks 250,000 30,246 219,367 7,746 2,099 2,741 200,000 17,310 55,924 350 60,814 12,287 2,716 3,735 35,841 150,000 19,508 78,652 1,345 17,643 19,661 11,599 100,000 5,769 40,478 116,347 54,545 1,145 50,000 21,120 3,094 5,398 22,718 2,215 5,055 0 Anekal Bangalore North Bangalore South Bangalore East Total Forest Land not available for cultivation Other uncultivated land Fallow land Area Sown ANNEX D 42 sewage and industrial effluents in to the lakes has resulted in production and concluded that the high cost of initiation of high levels of contamination. urban agriculture activities is one reason for such a pattern. The Bangalore-Urban district has a total area of 219,367 Farmers and agricultural laborers do not constitute a ha of which 5,055 ha is forest. A large portion of the land significant percentage of the labor force in Bangalore. (116,347 ha) is neither zoned nor is available for urban Understandably, Bangalore City only has a small percentage and peri-urban agriculture. A considerable amount of land of agricultural laborers (1.2 percent) and no cultivators, which remains uncultivated or fallow in the district. Figure D1 shows brings down the average for the whole urban agglomeration the land use classification in the various taluks that make up to 2.6 percent. (Government of Karnataka 2009) There are Bangalore-Urban. many more cultivators and, to a lesser extent, laborers, in the four other administrative units. Of these, Anekal has the Urban Agriculture in Bangalore highest percentage of agricultural laborers (34 percent) and As with the other three case studies, Bangalore was chosen Bangalore North has the most number of cultivators. due to the strong presence of urban agriculture in its urban The majority of the landholdings range from one to four and, particularly, peri-urban areas (Box D1 provides details hectares (see Figure D2). Hence, most agricultural laborers of the survey methodology used in Bangalore). The study work on marginal and small land parcels. Given that land-use specifically targeted the disadvantaged groups involved in patterns in Bangalore are changing due to increasing land urban agriculture and discovered that involvement in urban values and real-estate development pressures, agricultural agriculture seems to have a positive effect on their livelihoods. land is frequently converted to non-agricultural uses. For The study showed that families who are more established in instance, construction of an international airport a few years the area are the ones involved in agriculture and sericulture ago took over 1,000 hectares of agricultural land. Box D1: Survey methodology for the Bangalore case study Bangalore’s urban development has radiated outwards from the city center along five major roads. The research team chose sites and target settlements along these main roads based on this urbanization trend, census data, and Bangalore’s Master Plan for 2015. The Master Plan envisions structured continuity in five spatially organized concentric belts, with agriculture pushed to the outer perimeter (refer to Box D2 for more information about the Bangalore Master Plan 2015). The research team conducted transect walks to understand the nature of the distribution of potential target settlements. Target settlements were chosen by walking north and south of each of the arterial roads, starting from the center of the city and moving towards the perimeter of the district boundary. In the team’s opinion, this was the only way to capture all types of food production systems linked to urban agriculture. The municipality of Bangalore, referred to as the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), has all the characteristics of an urban area and was thus designated as such. Beyond the BBMP boundary the density of buildings decreased and more land was found under cultivation. After carefully studying land-use patterns and changes in density, the research team established buffer zones of 2 km and 5 km to designate the peri-urban transition zone and the peri-urban zone, respectively. Target settlements were then chosen randomly in the BBMP and buffer zones and classified as urban, peri-urban transition, and peri-urban based on the classification and boundaries defined by the team. Next, a random sampling of producer and non- producer households was undertaken in the target settlements. As expected, producer households were farther apart in the urban zone and a larger number of areas had to be sampled. Moving away from the city center, more households per square area could be found engaging in urban agriculture. Overall, 68 percent producers and 32 percent non-producers from similar socio-economic backgrounds were sampled. An Asset Based Wealth Index was used as income information was not always reliable. In addition and for the qualitative evaluation of urban agriculture activities, 15 focus group discussions, comprising 24 males and 61 females, were held in the areas where sampling was carried out. Table D3: Distribution of producer and non-producer groups along the transect zones in Bangalore Urban Peri-Urban Transition Peri-Urban Total Type/Region (28 settlements) (11 settlements) (9 settlements) (48 settlements) Producers 361 168 181 710 Non-producers 141 90 99 330 Total 502 258 280 1,040 43 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Reasons for Participating in Figure D2: Size of land holdings in the transect areas in Bangalore (ha) Size of Land holdings in the Transect Areas Urban Agriculture According to the producers 0.7 surveyed, the main reasons for engaging in urban agriculture Peri-Urban 71.1 19.0 7.0 2.1 are to gain additional income (58 percent) or have an additional source of food (27 percent). Peri-Urban 67.8 17.4 9.1 5.8 When asked why they had ceased Transition production, the majority of respondents said that it was not the season for production, which Urban 74.1 14.5 6.1 5.3 may indicate that they would re-start agricultural activities in the growing season. Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 significant reasons for stopping Percentage were illness in the family, lack of cash for inputs, and lack of profitability. <1 1-2 3-4 5 - 10 > 10 Length of Residence More producers have always lived in the area compared Types of Animals Reared to non-producers in Bangalore, as is shown in Figure D3. The In terms of animals, farmers raise cattle, buffalo, sheep, survey showed that respondents who had moved to Bangalore goat, pigs, and poultry, both for their products as well as for 15 years prior or less tended to take up non-farming jobs selling the meat. The types of animals owned by farmers vary. compared to those who had moved to Bangalore earlier. As shown in Table D4, 60 percent of farmers had cows and bulls, followed by goats/sheep (17 percent) and poultry (14 Types of Crops Grown percent). Cows and bulls contribute to household income Urban and peri-urban farmers in Bangalore are primarily active in agriculture, including sericulture, and to a lesser extent in livestock rearing. Bangalore has a Length of residence of producers and non-producers Figure D3:  considerable amount of open area in terms of fallow in Bangalore Length of stay by type of producer and wasteland especially in the peri-urban areas, which provides an ideal opportunity to rear animals for meat Non-Producers Producers 100 production and other products. However, most producers in Bangalore grow crops only, followed by those who are engaged in both crop production and animal rearing, 80 Percentage of households by years and finally a small number who only rear animals. 100 Crops grown in Bangalore come under two main 60 categories: agricultural or horticultural. In terms of 52 agriculture, farmers mostly grow cereals (paddy, ragi, 40 jowar, bajra), maize, minor millets, oil seeds, fruit, and vegetables. Horticultural crops include all perishable vegetable crops, plantation crops (areca nut, coconut, 20 and fruit), and flowers. The most commonly grown crops include ragi, a type of millet commonly found in south 0 India, grown by over 60 percent of producers, and various 0 30 100 Share of households by type, percent vegetables. The main products grown by producers are summarized in Figure D4. Sericulture is also relatively 5 years or less 6 - 15 years Above 15 years Always here well established. ANNEX D 44 Box D2: Indications of urban agriculture in Bangalore’s Master Plan 2015 Under the popular national funding structure known as the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), Bangalore prepared a Master Plan 2015 which defines the city’s development beyond the BBMP boundaries and identifies the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, under the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Bangalore’s 2015 plan organizes the city’s development in five concentric belts. The first belt includes the core city, the historic district and the administrative center and the central business district. The second is the peri-central area, which includes the older planned residential areas. The third belt includes recent extensions and includes some of the disadvantaged areas in need of improved infrastructure and services. The fourth belt encompasses the up-and-coming settlements and some agricultural land, while the fifth belt is the green belt, which includes small villages and agricultural production areas. This shows that while Bangalore’s IT industry accounts for 15 percent of its economy, city officials are also aware of the importance of the informal sector, which contributes 60-70 percent to the city’s economy; urban and peri-urban agriculture is one of such informal sectors. The 2015 plan also categorizes the city into five different zones or areas of development: old urban areas, urban redevelopment areas, residential areas, industrial activities areas, and green areas. Green areas comprise protected land zones, restricted development areas, and agricultural zones. This is another indication of the awareness of the city towards its agriculture sector. Major types of crops grown by producers Figure D4: Major types of crops grown by producers in Bangalore and consumption in a significant manner. Goats/sheep are considered 0.7 0.7 profitable as they double or triple Peri-Urban 79.4 2.8 2.1 5.7 3.5 5.0 in price within a short period of time and do not require much care and attention. Across the transect, Peri-Urban 56.9 12.1 4.3 8.6 3.4 4.3 9.5 urban producers had the most Transition number of draught animals (26 0.9 percent) compared to the other areas (15 percent). In terms of products Urban 33.0 18.5 16.0 12.5 5.0 5.0 8.5 from animals, milk was mentioned as a major livestock product by 96 1.5 percent of the producers surveyed, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 followed by manure (24 percent), Percentage eggs (22 percent), meat (13 percent) and chicken (1 percent). Sheep Ragi Flowers Fruits Leafy vegetables rearing, wool production, and ghee Vegetables Paddy Coconuts Other were also stated as income sources by a small number of producers. Livestock rearing is especially rare in households headed by females. Types of animals owned by producers across the transect zones in Bangalore Table D4:  (percent) Space Available for Growing Crops Peri-Urban Animals Urban Peri-Urban Total and Rearing Animals Transition In India producers are generally Cows 25.9 14.2 14.7 54.8 categorized into five types based on Bulls 1.3 0.9 2.0 4.1 the size of the land owned. These Other draft animals 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 include: marginal (<1 ha), small (1-2 Boars 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ha), semi-medium (3-4 ha), medium Piglets/Young pigs 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (5-10 ha) and large (>10 ha). By Mature pigs 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 analyzing responses of 491 out of Goats/Sheep 8.0 3.7 5.6 17.3 710 producers, it was possible to Poultry layers 7.6 3.5 3.1 14.2 understand the distribution of the Poultry broilers 3.9 0.4 0.6 4.9 types of producers. Land ownership Guinea pigs 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 and classification showed that a majority of producers sampled (72 Rabbits 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 45 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES percent) belonged to the marginal category, owning land vegetable compost and wastewater, is low. Often, producers less than 1 ha. Figure D2 illustrates that the highest number used a combination of different fertilizers. Since animal of marginal land holders (74 percent) is in the urban area, manure is freely available, its usage is not surprising. Often whereas farmers with larger land holdings (above 2 ha) were manure was obtained from the producers’ livestock or from located in the peri-urban transition area followed by the peri- the neighborhood. Other inputs include purchased seedlings/ urban area. seeds and pesticides. Producers use land that is primarily owned by them. Livelihood Gathering information on land size and ownership proved to be difficult as some producers were not sure of the size Most of the producers interviewed in Bangalore are of their land holdings and figures referring to communal involved in urban agriculture as their primary occupation. As land skewed the overall data. Of 710 producers surveyed, Figure D6 illustrates, 13 percent of producers consider casual 602 provided full or partial information about the current labor to be their primary occupation. On the other hand, use of the land for crop and livestock production, size of the more than 30 percent of non-producers consider themselves plots, ownership and location. The majority of plots were to be casual laborers. Other non-producers were involved in away from the homestead (39 percent). Container plot areas informal business or regular employment. Eighty-nine percent were high in number (14 percent), a finding that could not be of households who practice urban agriculture as a primary completely verified during the survey. occupation do not have a secondary occupation, while 6 percent work as casual laborers as a secondary occupation, as Inputs Used for Urban Agriculture shown in Figure D7. Only 44 percent of producers have farm tools. Ten percent Table D5 describes the different sources of income for of non-producers also reported having tools, perhaps for producers and non-producers. For those producers whose gardening, as in the case of Accra. Of those producers who primary occupation is urban agriculture, the majority are have tools, the most were in the peri-urban transition area involved in growing crops and to a lesser extent in rearing (41 percent), followed by the peri-urban (40 percent) and livestock. On the other hand, the reverse is true for those urban (33 percent) areas. producers whose secondary occupation is farming: They are Figure D5 summarizes the fertilizers and other inputs used mainly involved in raising animals rather than growing crops. for crop production. For fertilizer use, animal manure was Along the transect, there are no significant differences most common (82 percent), followed by chemical fertilizers in the sources of income for producers except in the case of (64 percent). Preference for other types of fertilizers, such as income from agriculture from both crops as well as livestock. and other Figure D5: FertilizersFertilizers inputs and use crop used for other inputs production in Bangalore by location Chemical Fertilizer 64 Wastewater 21 Fertilizer Vegetable Compost 44 Animal Manure 82 Pesticides 63 Water/Irrigation 52 Other Inputs Hired Labor 56 Purchased Seedlings/ 71 Seeds 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage ANNEX D 46 Primary occupation of household heads Figure D6:  Secondary occupation of producers Figure D7:  in Bangalore in Bangalore (percent) Primary and secondary occupation of household heads Secondary occupation of farmers 100 0.6 0.1 11.6 90 80 39.8 13.1 2.8 70 3.2 0.1 1.4 3.5 60 5.9 Percentage 50 40 31.5 69.2 88.8 30 20 14.5 10 13.6 0 Non-Producer Producer No secondary occupation Casual labor Farmer Casual labor Informal business Regular employee Other Medium enterprise owner Informal business No secondary occupation Salaried employee with benefits The highest number of producers involved in agriculture was responsible for planting and cultivation (62 percent), are located in the peri-urban area, while the least are in harvesting (64 percent), and marketing (76 percent), while for the urban area. In the urban area, casual labor is the most women it was 9 percent (cultivation), 6 percent (harvesting), and 3 percent (marketing). On the other hand, involvement important source of income for producers interviewed after of multiple household members in cultivation and harvesting urban agriculture. (14 percent) could be a good indicator of collective family Gender-wise, no obvious positive impacts of urban and action and social entrepreneurship. Overall, it appears that peri-urban agriculture on women and female-headed male members of households play major roles in all aspects households could be observed. In most cases, the male adult of cultivation. Table D5: Sources of income for producers and non-producers in Bangalore Producers Animals Farming Farming as Non-Producers Total as Primary Secondary Occupation Occupation Agriculture (livestock) 61.9 69.0 0.0 39.8 Agriculture (crops) 77.8 31.0 0.0 43.6 Regular salaried employment (with benefits) 8.8 26.2 12.4 10.8 Regular paid employment (no benefits) 12.2 9.5 26.7 18.0 Professional services 0.8 2.4 3.0 1.9 Medium-sized enterprise 1.6 4.8 10.9 5.9 Informal business 8.4 14.3 25.5 14.7 Casual labor 14.7 28.6 30.6 25.6 Relatives/friends outside household 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.6 Other 2.6 9.5 9.1 5.0 47 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Income from Urban Agriculture Figure D9:  Proportion Proportion of income of income from rearing from rearing animals animals along thealong the transect transect in Bangalore* The proportion of income from crop production along the transect is the same. No noticeable differences Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Transition Urban are noted. The majority of the producers receive more 100 than 25 percent of their income by growing crops, as Very important Very important Very important illustrated in Figure D8. However, when considering the 80 proportion of income from livestock along the transect Percentage of households by category Moderately important (see Figure D9), the majority of producers chose a “less Moderately important 100 important� percent of their income from this source in 60 the urban and peri-urban transition areas. In the peri- Moderately important 52 urban area, just over one-third of producers chose a 40 “less important� percent, while the others earn more. The income status of the household head is an Less Important Less Important important indicator of the economic status of the 20 Less Important household and household wellbeing. In the male-headed households there are only marginal differences between 0 producers and non-producers, where more urban and 0 25 50 75 100 peri-urban households appear to be vulnerable. In Share of households by area, percent contrast, in the female-headed households, the peri- * Categories of income: less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25- urban households of producers and non-producers 75%; Very important: more than 75%. appear to be more vulnerable. Overall, there are more female-headed households below poverty line than male- Box D3:  General state of dwellings of producers and headed households. While it seems that the majority of non-producers in Bangalore practitioners of urban agriculture are above the poverty line, there were no conclusive results to prove the impact The state of the dwellings is comparable between producers of urban agriculture on the livelihoods of female-headed and non-producers with a fairly high percentage being in households. good condition. Indicators such as materials used for the walls and floors are marginally better among the producers, but not significantly so. Brick and cement walls were observed in 83 percent and 85 percent of houses among Figure D8:  Proportion of income from agriculture non-producers and producers respectively. Only the materials in Bangalore* (percentage of households) used for roofing were significantly different, with more non- Proportion of income from crop production along the transect producers using straw/grass/plastic sheets as roofing material than producers. Across the transect, peri-urban transition households use less brick and/or cement than in the other areas. No other indicators to describe the state of the dwelling 43.3% were found to be statistically different between producers and non-producers. The average number of rooms for both 12.4% groups was found to be between 1 and 3. With regard to access to latrines, the majority use pit latrines, and 15 percent of respondents openly defecate for lack of other means. Fuel for cooking is statistically different between the two groups, but not lighting sources. Producers tend to use more firewood, while non-producers use more bottled gas and 44.3% kerosene for cooking. Firewood is more commonly used in the peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas as it is more accessible and cheaper. Electricity is the most common source of lighting, followed by kerosene to a much lesser extent. Very Moderately Less important important important Producer households in Bangalore tend to have five people living in the home, which is significantly larger than the number of people in non-producers households (4.23). Categories of income: less important: less than 25%; Moderately * important: 25-75%; Very important: more than 75%. ANNEX D 48 A comparison of the state of dwellings, between Distribution of household expenditures for producers Figure D10:  Distribution of Household expenditure and non-producers in Bangalorecomparing producers producers and non-producers, is described in Box D3. and non producers Expenditure Non-Producers Producers Domestic Help Household expenditures are assessed under various 100 Family Events Domestic Help Family Events Other Other categories such as shelter, education, food, loan/debt Transport Transport Loan/Debt repayment, and health. This part of the survey was 80 Shelter Loan/Debt Shelter difficult to administer in Bangalore due to low literacy Clothes Clothes 100 levels compounded by reluctance to give responses due Health Expenditure share 60 Health to lack of time. Based on the responses provided in Figure Education D10, both producers as well as non-producers seem to 52 Education have similar expenses within the top expense category, 40 Utilities Utilities followed by utilities and education. Although it seems that producers spend more on food compared to non- 20 producers, the results are not significant. Only under two Food Food categories are the differences in expenditures significant: 0 non-producers tend to spend more on shelter than 0 30 100 producers, while producers spend more in the “Other� Share of households by type, percent category than non-producers. The data presented in Table D6 shows that across the transect respondents in general tend to spend more on food and shelter in the urban area compared to the said that participating in urban agriculture-related activities other zones. In the peri-urban transition area, it was found allowed them to save money, which was then used to purchase that respondents spend significantly more on health than other types of food. Some of the commonly purchased items their counterparts in other places, while in the peri-urban included ragi, rice, and wheat. In addition, vegetables, sugar, area respondents spend less on clothes and more on other meat, and milk were also cited. Thirty-six percent of producers expenses than others. said that urban agriculture provided them with extra food. Other common impacts of urban agriculture cited were that General Food Situation it saved money for household expenses, such as appliances, Table D7 illustrates the impact of consumption of one’s children’s books, clothes, and it also saved money spent on food produced. Fifty-six percent of respondents surveyed food, where the savings ranged from INR 80-5,000. Table D6: Household expenditures along the transect in Bangalore (percent) Peri-Urban Expenditure Item Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Food 29.2 24.2 25.0 27.0 Utilities 16.8 19.6 19.8 18.2 Education 11.5 10.9 13.1 11.8 Health 10.4 14.0 10.3 11.2 Clothes 8.1 8.8 6.6 7.8 Shelter 7.0 5.4 4.9 6.1 Loan/debt 6.2 5.7 3.8 5.4 Transport 4.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 Other 3.3 2.2 6.7 4.0 Family events 2.1 3.6 4.3 3.0 Domestic help 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 49 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Table D7: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Bangalore* Peri-Urban Effect of consuming own food Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Saves money to purchase other types of food 51.2 61.9 59.7 55.9 Monetary saving on food purchases 16.9 22.0 26.5 20.6 Saves money for other household purchases 27.7 34.5 28.2 29.4 Provides extra food 29.4 45.8 39.2 35.8 Provides a more diverse diet 11.9 23.2 14.1 15.2 Has an effect in another way 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.8 Little or no effect 3.0 4.2 1.7 3.0 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. The survey also aimed to analyze the level of food security had to eat less than they wanted due to insufficient food, provided by urban agriculture. In this case, the differences or whether there was never any food to eat and household between the producers and non-producers are statistically members had to go to bed hungry. In all cases it was found significant. Across the transect, a significant majority of that there was no statistically significant difference between producers (73 percent) stated that they always had enough producers and non-producers. to eat of what they want, while only 67 percent of non- Overall, the survey showed that both groups face food producers said the same. A similar number in both groups security issues, although to varying degrees. Non-producers said that they had enough to eat but not always what they were found to be more vulnerable than producers. like (approximately 21 percent). The producer and non-producer groups were asked about Food Diversity their food situation to ascertain whether they had enough Consumption patterns of different food groups between food in the last year. Questions were related to whether producers and non-producers along the transect show respondents worried about running out of food, if they were that there are a few significant differences, as described able to eat the kinds of food they wanted or had to eat a in Figure D11. Only marginal increases in percentages are limited variety of food because of lack of money, if they observed among the producer groups. Cereals dominate the Figure D11: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Bangalore* Food diversity: Consumption of 15 food groups by producers and non producers in the previous 24 hours 19.1 Fish 20 26.1 Other meats 27 25.8 Eggs 28.3 32.1 Legumes 31.1 42.1 Yellow/orange fruit 46.6 45.2 Other fruits 47.9 53.9 Yellow/orange vegetables 57.7 63 Tubers 65.5 Milk or milk products 70.6 70.6 Other vegetables 77.6 81.4 81.2 Green leafy vegetables 82 Cereal and grain 99.1 98.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Non-Producer Producer *Annex A provides a detailed description of foods contained in each group ANNEX D 50 diet (99 percent), consumed primarily as Figure D12: Map of Bangalore showing survey sites local preparations (primarily as rotis made of wheat, millets and rice). Although in general vegetarian foods rank higher than meat and animal products, more producers consume vegetables and fruit than non- producers. Source of Food Overall, 98 percent of both producers as well as non-producers stated that they bought fresh food and prepared it at home. Consuming cooked food outside the home, such as from restaurants and eateries, is marginal, at 8 percent for non-producers and 7 percent for producers. However, in the peri-urban transition area, the non- producer households consuming food bought from a restaurant is significantly higher than producer households, while in the peri-urban area, there are significantly more producers buying fresh food and Figure D13: Map of India preparing it at home compared to non-producers. References Bangalore Development Authority. 2005. “Bangalore Master Plan 2015.� http://www.bdabangalore.org/pdfs/brochure.pdf Bose, P. 2011. “Population boom: At 46.68%, Bangalore Tops Urban Districts.� Business Standard. April 7, 2011. http://www. business-standard.com/india/news/population-boom-at-4668- bangalore-tops-urban-districts/431302/ Government of Karnataka. 2009. “Bangalore Urban District at a Glance 2008-09.� Bangalore: District Statistics Office. Narayana, M. 2008. “Globalization and Urban Growth: Evidence for Bangalore (India).� CIRJE. http://www.cirje.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ research/dp/2008/2008cf544.pdf Thippaiah, P. 2009. “Vanishing Lakes: A Study of Bangalore City.� Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change. 51 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Annex E: Accra (Ghana) Case Study Accra is the capital and largest city in Ghana, located Administrative districts and capitals of the Greater Table E2:  on the western coast of Africa. Accra anchors the Greater Accra Region Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA), which has a population of over 4 million people (Journal of the International Administrative District Capital Institute ), although the population of the city of Accra has Accra Metropolitan Area Accra approximately 2.3 million inhabitants. (World Gazetteer) Tema Metropolitan Area Tema More characteristics about Accra city are reported in Table E1. Ga West Municipal Assembly Amasman Table E1: Key facts of Accra Ga East Municipal Assembly Madina Ga South Municipal Assembly Wejia Area (km2) GAMA: 894 (2010) Dangme West District Dodowa Population density (inhabitants/km2) 1,235.8 (2010) Dangme East District Ada-Foah Annual population growth rate (%) 3.1 (2000-2010) Adentan Municipal Assembly Adentan % of national population 16.3 Ashaiman Municipal Assembly Ashaiman % of urban population 18.2 Ledzokuku Krowor Teshie-Nungua Poverty level as % of total city 11 (2007) population Demographics Climate Tropical coastal savannah Accra is one of the fastest and largest-growing cities in Major geographical features Coastal semi-dry Africa, with an annual population growth rate of 3.36 percent. Due to rapid industrialization and rural-urban migration, the Elevation (m above sea level) 61 1960s saw an increase in the population density. Population Average annual rainfall (mm) 730 density has increased from 151.6 persons per square kilometer Average low/high temperatures (°C) 24/28 in 1960 to 895.5 in 2000. The densely populated nature of the region is brought into sharp focus when it is compared with History the other regions. The sex ratio decreased from 113.6 males The city was first settled in the 15th century, when the Ga per 100 females in 1960 to 97.7 in 2000. This is a result of male people migrated to the coast to distance themselves from out-migration, female in-migration and high male mortality. their enemies. Accra gained status as a trading hub and port Accra’s population is a relatively young one, with 56 percent during the slave trade when the Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, of its inhabitants being under 24 years of age; however, French, British, and Danish built forts around the city. After fertility rates are steadily declining over time. The majority of the abolition of the slave trade, Accra was captured by the the population follows Christianity (83 percent), followed by British and became the capital of the British Gold Coast. After Islam (10 percent) and other (7 percent) religions. independence in 1957, the country of Ghana was born and Accra became the capital. Economy Accra accounted for approximately 10 percent of Ghana’s Administration GDP in 2008. Table E3 shows that the main sectors in Accra As shown in Table E2, Ghana is divided into ten are wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, and urban administrative regions, of which the Greater Accra region is agriculture and fishing. one. This region is further sub-divided into ten districts; the Accra Metropolitan Area (AMA) is one such district and its Based on data provided in Kwadzo, G., Jatoe, J., Cofie, O., Amoah, capital is Accra. P., and Forkuor, G. 2010. Urban agriculture: a sustainable solu- tion to alleviating urban poverty, addressing the food crisis, and adapting to climate change Case study Accra, Ghana. (Unpub- lished). ANNEX E 52 Table E3:  Main employment sectors in Accra (2000)* (Ghana Climate Accra has a tropical savanna/semi-arid climate. The Statistical Service 2000) average annual rainfall is about 730 mm (28.7 inches), which falls primarily during Ghana’s two rainy seasons: April to mid- Industry Percent July and October. The annual average temperature is 26.8°C (80.2°F) and is relatively stable throughout the year, with Agriculture, hunting and forestry 7.9 March being the hottest (28°C/82.4°F) and August being the Fishing 3.6 coolest (24.7°C/76.5°F). The cooler months tend to be more Mining and quarrying 1.6 humid than the hotter months, thus the city experiences a Manufacturing 16.7 windy “dry heat� in summer. Electricity, gas and water supply 0.5 Construction 6.6 Urban Agriculture in Accra Wholesale and retail trade 30.4 Accra has a long history of urban agriculture and has been Hotels and restaurants 4.2 the subject of numerous studies on the topic (refer to Box E1 Transport, storage and communication 6.7 for a list of urban agriculture studies based in Accra). During Financial intermediation 1.5 the colonial period, Europeans planted vegetables and Real estate, renting and business activities 2.8 ornamental crops in their backyards and public spaces. During Public administration and defense 4.0 the Second World War, agriculture was promoted in order to Education 3.6 help feed allied troops in the Gold Coast. In the 1970s, during Health and social work 1.5 the economic post-independence crises, the government Other community, social personal service activities 5.5 supported urban agriculture to meet the population’s food Private household with employed persons 1.9 demands through a national program called “Operation Feed Extra-territorial organizations and bodies 0.9 Yourself.� In the late nineties, the decentralization of the Total 100.0 Ministry of Food and Agriculture provided a boost to urban farming, as each district, including cities, had an Agricultural Geographical sources of food in Accra’s retail Table E4:  Directorate with extension staff. markets (percentage) (IWMI, unpublished, Lettuce from Obuobie et al., 2006) A study covering more than 2000 households across Ghana during both lean as well as bumper seasons showed the Peri-Urban Rural, specific contribution of urban and peri-urban farming to rural Urban Crop Farming (28 Imported Farming farming, as illustrated in Table E4. For instance, one of the km radius) to City Yam 0 0 100 results highlighted that 75 to 90 percent of the lettuce and Cassava <2 5 95 spring onions consumed in cities are grown on open urban spaces (Drechsel and others 2007). Most perishable vegetables Maize <2 5 95 and some fruits come from peri-urban areas, while others Plantain <2 10 90 such as onions and tomatoes, which constitute the largest Rice 0 0 100 vegetable quantities by weight share, are transported over Cocoyam 0 0 100 1,000 km before they are sold in Accra. Cabbage 10 50 40 Backyard gardening remains a socially accepted activity Tomatoes <5 5 95 even today. Open-space farming, on the other hand, receives Onions 0 20 80 mixed feedback as does livestock farming in the city center and Garden eggs <5 45 55 the use of polluted water for irrigation of vegetables. Besides Lettuce 75* 20 5 backyard and open-space crop production, fish farming/ Bananas 0 0 100 aquaculture, livestock farming, floriculture/ornamentals, small ruminants and poultry, and non-traditional farming Oranges 0 13 87 (e.g., snails and mushrooms) are popular Pineapple 0 85 15 Box E3 provides details about the survey methodology Total 2 10 88 used for this case study. 53 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Backyard/On-plot Farming reduce expenditures. Occasionally, when good harvests are Backyard farming is characterized by the cultivation of produced, the excess is sold to neighbors or market sellers. crops and rearing of animals in and around households. For more information about backyard farming in Accra In Accra, about 50 to 70 hectares of agricultural land are refer to Box E3. distributed around 80,000 backyards involving nearly 60 percent of Accra’s households. This may often be limited to Open Space/Off-plot Farming just a few plantain or mango trees or chickens, but sometimes Many farmers using open space for cultivation grow either could also include a few square meters of maize or cassava. vegetables or maize as both provide the highest profit margin. Where green vegetables are grown, they are traditional In the dry season, vegetable plots dominate areas along varieties mainly used in stews. This estimate is based on a streams, while in the rainy season maize is more popular. cross-city survey of about 1,000 households (IWMI and RUAF Nonetheless, there are many farmers who grow vegetables 2006, unpublished.). The figure is much higher than the one all year round. by Armar-Klemesu and Maxwell (2003), who surveyed mostly A survey in 2006 showed that within the Accra municipal low-income and high-density suburbs where only about 13.6 area about 680 ha are used to grow maize, 47 ha for percent of households had backyards. vegetables, and 251 ha for mixed cereal/vegetables. All plots Both men and women are equally engaged in backyard used for vegetable farming are close to streams and storm cultivation depending on the type of crop or livestock. Most water drains since the most profitable vegetables require members are middle-aged and have higher levels of education continuous irrigation. Irrigated urban vegetable production than farmers who cultivate on open spaces. The survey showed takes place on more than seven large sites reaching around that a large number of households with gardens worked 100 ha in the dry season and is cultivated by an estimated in the civil service, as they occupied government buildings 1,000 farmers (Obuobie and others 2006). Although some of constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, which had ample open these sites have been in use for more than 50 years (Anyane space. 1963), a 50 percent decrease in farm land was observed Most of the water for irrigation comes from rain and between 2001 and 2008. through drainage water from households. Given the size of Obosu-Mensah (1999) reported that most open-space the farmable space and the main occupation of the household farmers come from rural areas and have some experience heads, the average backyard in Accra does not provide, on in farming. Many of them come from Northern Ghana and its own, a livelihood base, but can provide extra income or are seeking employment or better education. They take up Box E1: Urban agriculture studies in Accra Accra has a long history of urban agriculture studies, both through RUAF as well as from independent research. Some important titles are included here: Asomani-Boateng, R. 2002. Urban cultivation in Accra: an examination of the nature, practices, problems, potentials and urban planning implications. Habitat International 26: 591-607. Maxwell, D. and M. Armar-Klemesu. 1999. Urban Agriculture in Greater Accra: Reviewing Research Impacts for Livelihoods, Food and Nutrition Security. CFP Report 29F. IDRC: Ottawa. Armar-Klemesu, M. and D. Maxwell. 2003. Accra - Urban agriculture as an asset strategy supplementing income and diets. Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda: A Reader on Urban Agriculture. ETC, DSE. 183-208. Obosu-Mensah, K. 1999. Food production in urban areas. A study of urban agriculture in Accra, Ghana. Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK. 227 pp. Obuobie, E., B. Keraita, G. Danso, P. Amoah, O. Cofie, L. Raschid-Sally, and P. Drechsel. 2006. Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana: Characteristics, benefits and risks. IWMI-RUAF-IDRC-CPWF, Accra, Ghana: IWMI, 150 pp. www.cityfarmer.org/ GhanaIrrigateVegis.html Flynn-Dapaah, K. 2002. Land negotiations and tenure relationships: Accessing land for urban and peri-urban agriculture in Sub- Saharan Africa. CFP Report Series 36. IDRC: Ottawa. Yankson, P.W.K. and K.V. Gough. 1999. The environmental impact of rapid urbanization in the peri-urban area of Accra, Ghana. Geografisk Tidsskrift, Bind 99: 98-99 www.tidsskrift.dk/visning.jsp?markup=&print=no&id=71848 ANNEX E 54 farming to earn enough to meet these targets, but once vegetables (primarily used in stews) or maize consume a they start around two-thirds continue this occupation. The smaller share at home (Keraita and others 2002, Amoah and majority of the farmers are between 20 and 40 years of age others 2008). and are often illiterate (Amoah and others 2008, Obuobie While open-space cultivation is mostly dominated by 2003). Out of 138 open-space farmers interviewed in Accra, men, the marketing is controlled by women (Obuobie and more than 60 percent rely on irrigated vegetable cultivation others 2006; Hope and others 2009). It has been estimated as their only source of income, while for 33 percent it is a that every day about 200,000 consumers of street food in supplementary source of income. More than two-thirds Accra eat vegetables produced within urban areas (Amoah grow exotic vegetables for sale. Those who cultivate green and others 2007). Box E2: Backyard farming provides food security in Accra A recent survey by IWMI of 120 households engaged in backyard farming in Kumasi and Accra showed that 3 to 10 percent gain some commercial advantage while 90 to 97 percent use the on-plot space for subsistence only. The contribution of backyards to household food security has been estimated in terms of the saved cost on food expenditures and direct income from sales. Given that most food produced is used for subsistence, the cash income is not noteworthy, while the annually saved costs vary from 1 to 5 percent of the overall food expenditures, with higher values (up to a maximum of 10 percent) in the lower wealth classes. This confirms the magnitude reported a decade ago by Armar-Klemesu and Maxwell (2003) in their Accra study that households get only 7 to 8 percent of their total food in terms of value and calories from their own production. Thus, the contribution of urban on-site plots to household food security is marginal. However, although the numbers appear low, all households highly valued the contribution. They considered the supplementary food supply and related reduction in household expenditures as a significant contribution. Another reason for the discrepancy between the quantitative survey and household perception is that every saving counts, even small ones. The majority of produced crops are heavy food items, which include plantains and tubers, which constitute the major part of the local diet. The survey showed that typical backyards in Accra produced between 44 and 146 kg of cassava and 26 to 104 kg of plantains annually. Although this makes up only a small part of the overall annual food expenditure, these households do not have to buy and carry 10 to 25 percent of their annual needs (Drechsel and others 2009). In the case of maize, even larger degrees of self-sufficiency are possible. Armar-Klemesu and Maxwell (2003) estimated that off-plot maize farmers might produce enough maize to cover their household maize needs for 1 to 8 months of a year, unless they sold their produce. Box E3: Survey methodology for the Accra case study The project was implemented in three out of the ten districts of the Greater Accra Region. These administrative units (AUs) were selected due to the characteristics required by the survey along the transect from the urban to peri-urban interface. As in Bangalore, apart from the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) district that is exclusively urban, none of the other nine districts in the Greater Accra Region exhibit exclusive characteristics of peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas. Using local knowledge and mapping the built-up areas, a map of the three categories was produced and overlaid on the AUs. Two districts, Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and Adentan Municipal Assembly (ADMA), were selected for the Urban category, while one, Ga West Municipal, was selected for both peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas. The research team first visited the three districts selected, informed the assemblies about the study, and sent a formal letter outlining the objectives of the study to the Chief Executives, who are representatives of the central government and manage the administrative areas. In addition, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) offices in each of the assemblies were visited and the target settlements were jointly selected with the directors and the respective Agricultural Extension Agents (AEA) in the districts. The AEAs informed the community members and Assemblies of the visits and data collection and also accompanied the research team to the target settlements. The District Agricultural Offices also received notice from the respective Assemblies about the survey. This approach greatly facilitated support for the survey as well as smooth entry into the communities. The study covered 900 households, 450 from the urban area (300 producers and 150 non-producers), and 225 (150 producers and 75 non-producers) each from the peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas. Households were randomly selected in the target settlements and enumerators approached houses with some form of agriculture either inside the house or outside. Only a few households refused to answer the questionnaire. Additional data was collected from secondary sources to complement survey data and focus group discussions were held with community members. On the day of the scheduled focus group discussions, there was a heavy downpour and the attendance was limited to 14 males and 23 females. 55 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Seasonal Maize Farming (On- and Off-plot) is done primarily for sale and a means to supplement income, Farmers who primarily grow maize are located on land while about 25 percent of farmers grow maize for home owned by the University of Ghana in pockets of vacant consumption. spaces in the city. In addition to maize, these farmers also Farmers do not pay rent on the land but usually have produce cassava (12 percent), okra (12 percent), and pepper an informal agreement with land owners or caretakers. (12 percent). About 60 percent of the farmers estimated their Sharecropping is practiced, where some of the produce farm sizes to be between 4,000 and 12.000 square meters, 12 is offered to the owners in lieu of rent. In general, in the percent estimated the size up to 24,000 square meters, and peri-urban areas land tenure becomes more secure as it is owned under customary rights whereby local chiefs assign 13 percent up to 36,000 square meters. The trend is towards land. However, with increasing land values, most chiefs smaller lands due to competing needs for urban development. are increasingly selling community plots for construction All the farmers interviewed were male and over 50 years purposes. old with no particular educational pattern. Half of the farmers had been planting maize for over 20 years and had other Livestock Farming (On- and Off-plot) income-generating activities, such as cane-basket weaving, Most livestock farms are located in La, Teshie, and Nungua office security services, and carpentry. Seasonal maize farming to rear sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and/or poultry. Approximately Table E5: Summary of the types of urban agriculture practiced in Accra Floriculture Grasscutter, Seasonal Backyard Open space Livestock Mushroom and i.e., Maize Aquaculture Farming (Off-plot) Farming (On- Farming Ornamental Bushmeat Farming (On- (Off-plot) (On-site) Farming and Off-plot) (On-plot) Farming Production and Off-plot) (Off-plot) (On-plot) Primary Home Income Income Primary Income Income Slightly higher Supplementary reason for consumption generation generation source of generation; generation proportion source of activity income for personal for home income small majority interest; consumption medicinal and than sale environmental value; relation to profession Average -- -- > 20 -- Majority 6-10 <5 -- <5 number of years farmers are involved Predominant Equal Cultivation: All male Mostly male Mostly male Mostly male Mostly female Mostly female gender of between men male; farmer and women Marketing: female Average age Middle-aged 20-40 > 50 > 40 > 50 All age -- -- of farmer groups Average Generally Often illiterate Various levels -- Various levels -- Basic level of -- education higher level education level of of education farmer than other urban agriculture farming types Land/water Rain Near Mostly vacant -- -- -- In some cases, N/A for irrigation water and streams and spaces wastewater household stormwater treatment drainage drains ponds ANNEX E 56 75 percent are male and the rest are female, ranging in age Aquaculture (Off-plot) from 40 years and above. A relatively higher proportion of There are few opportunities for fish farming in Accra, farmers (52 percent) consider livestock farming as their main excluding fishing in lagoons and the ocean. There are more occupation whereas others used it as a supplementary source women (80 percent) involved in this activity than men and of income. It was found that there are more Christians than they have at least basic education. Aquaculture is practiced Muslims involved in livestock farming, which is different from by 60 percent for home consumption and by 40 percent as the general perception that livestock keeping, especially in a business. Mudfish and tilapia are the main types of fish the city, is predominantly the work of Muslims. reared by farmers. Not all the ponds that were visited as part The number of animals owned by individual farmers vary of the survey were functioning and some were overgrown by type of animals. Numbers of small livestock range from 4 to with weeds. It was difficult for the farmers to estimate 200 and poultry from 35 to 2,500. Other income-generating their monthly income from aquaculture. Some farmers also activities include trading and teaching. Commercial livestock cultivated fish in wastewater treatment ponds. farmers rear mostly poultry and pigs (Armar-Klemesu and Grasscutter (Bushmeat) Farming (On-plot) Maxwell 2003). A small number of farmers in Accra are engaged in this Mushroom Farming (On-plot) type of traditional bushmeat production. The study showed Most of the 250 registered mushroom farmers are located that most farmers were located in Accra (60 percent). Most at the periphery of the metropolitan area and cultivate reared only grasscutter (89 percent). There were more men oyster mushrooms. The majority of the farmers are men and (70 percent) than women involved in this type of urban 40 percent are women, usually above the age of 50 years. agriculture, usually (85 percent) for less than five years. All educational levels were recorded. The majority of the Although this is a predominantly rural activity, it is gaining farmers have been growing mushrooms for 6 to 10 years popularity in the city. The majority of farmers involved (74 and 20 percent of them for 11 to 15 years. The reasons for percent) also have other income-generating activities while practicing mushroom cultivation are profitability, personal only a small number (26 percent) are involved in it as their interest, medicinal and environmental value, and its relation sole occupation. to one’s profession. In most cases, the income from sale of Table E5 summarizes the types of urban agriculture mushrooms was supplemented by other sources of income, practiced in Accra referred above. such as catering, consultancy services or preaching. Reasons for Participating in Urban Agriculture Floriculture and Ornamental Farming (Off-plot) The two main reasons cited for growing crops are access Twice the number of men compared to women practice to additional income through sales (51 percent) and access to this type of farming and were found to be of all age groups, additional food (41 percent). Additional income from crops with the majority between 31 to 40 years having various is an important consideration in peri-urban and urban areas educational levels. The majority of the farmers had spent while access to additional food is relatively more important less than five years in floriculture, but one-third had been in for producers in the transition area. With respect to livestock, floriculture farming for about 6 to 10 years. Sixty-six percent of 54 percent of sampled households were involved, of which the farmers indicated that it was the only income-generating the majority (45 percent) cited access to additional food and activity they were involved in, whereas one-third were to a lesser extent (28 percent) to additional income through involved in other activities, such as carpentry or plumbing. sales of meat and related products. However, the reasons for A similar study by Danso and others (2002b) observed that rearing animals differed in the transect: For urban and peri- many floriculture farmers were also engaged in landscaping urban transition dwellers it was mainly for additional food, as activities (85 percent) and take on contracts from households, opposed to peri-urban residents for whom it was additional embassies, estate development and hotels. income. The flowers are sold to individuals, institutions, and Also, 9.6 percent of respondents had stopped raising building contractors. Drechsel and others (2006) reported livestock, citing reasons such as lack of profitability, sickness high income levels that are similar to vegetable farming, but of animals, lack of cash to replace animals, and loss of land to in contrast, need more as start-up capital. maintain the animals. 57 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Length of Residence Figure E1: Crops Crops grown grown by subsistence by subsistence and commercial and commercial farmers farmers in Accra The majority of respondents have either been living in Accra 0.8 1.7 1.7 for more than 15 years or were born in the city, regardless of Commercial 22.7 13.4 13.4 11.8 9.2 6.7 5.9 9.2 3.4 their location along the transect. A higher proportion of migrants tend to be subsistence farmers while those born in the city are more commonly commercial Subsistence 34.6 22.6 11.2 11.9 3.7 3.7 2 2.5 6.0 farmers. A higher proportion of migrants 0.7 0.5 are of middle socio-economic 0.5 status compared to those who 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 have always lived there. This may be due to the fact that migrants Maize Plantain Spring Onion Cauliflower have better education and thus Cassava Lettuce Tomatoes Garden eggs access to other occupations. The Okra Pepper Cabbage Other survey shows that the proportion of migrants who have completed a college/university degree is 1.8 times higher than the proportion of those born in the city. Subsistence farmers mainly grow maize, cassava, okra, and Those who have lived there all their lives tend to have bigger, plantain, which are staple foods, while commercial farmers commercial farms, which may suggest that they do not look produce a wider variety of crops including maize, cassava, elsewhere for jobs. okra, lettuce, pepper, cabbage, spring onions, and tomato, as illustrated in Figure E1. Types of Crops Grown Types of Animals Reared The main crops grown by producers include both staples and vegetables and are summarized in Table E6. There are In terms of animals, the most common were poultry (mostly slight variations in the types of crops grown along the transect. layers followed by broilers) and goats/sheep. Producers in the Maize is the most common crop grown everywhere. In urban transition and peri-urban areas have more layers than their areas, other popular crops include okra and lettuce, which are counterparts in the city center. traditionally cash crops beyond what can be consumed by the The principal livestock products produced by the household. In the transition and peri-urban areas, the focus households in the past six months were chicken, egg, beef, seems to be more on basic staples required by households, and mutton; which in total represent 96.4 percent of the total such as cassava, plantain, and okra. production. Table E6: Common crops grown by households along the transect in Accra Urban Peri-Urban Transition Peri-Urban Percent Percent Percent Crop Crop Crop Households Households Households Maize 26.8 Maize 29.9 Maize 45.1 Okra 19.6 Cassava 28.5 Cassava 35.3 Lettuce 10.7 Plantain 23.4 Okra 3.8 Cassava 8.6 Okra 4.4 Plantain 3.0 ANNEX E 58 Space Available for Growing Crops and Rearing Figure E2: Type of land owned by producers in Accra Type of Land Owned by Producers Animals About 98 percent of producers surveyed have Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Urban access to a land/plot, including in the homestead or Transition 100 Other around it, that has been used to grow crops or raise Other Other Not Answered Shared Among Group Shared Among Group livestock. Seventy-nine percent of these producers Used without Permission Shared Among Group Used without Permission use this space for urban agriculture activities. Along Public Land Used without Permission the transect, producers in urban areas tend to use 80 Public Land public land the most (39 percent); ownership or rent/lease of plots is highest in peri-urban areas (48 Leased/Rental Leased/Rental percent own; 38 percent leased/rented) and lowest in the urban areas (23 percent own; 16 percent leased/ 60 Public Land rented), as shown in Figure E2. Using farm holdings as Percentage of households by category a proxy for land availability, the distribution suggests 100 that land is more readily available in peri-urban areas 40 and more limited in urban areas, while the transition area falls in between the two. 52 Leased/Rental In the survey, a range of farm sizes were noted, Owned Owned as can be seen in Figure E3. Plot sizes were smaller in 20 the urban and transition areas than in the peri-urban areas, where one would expect to have more space. Owned Respondents of low socio-economic status have 0 larger farms while those of middle socio-economic 0 25 50 75 100 status tend to have smaller farms. Share of households by area, percent The majority of producers (89 percent) use their plots for crops, while a much smaller percentage use the plots for livestock (6 percent), followed by for both crops as well as livestock (5 percent). The majority of the plots are owned, leased, or rented, but Figure E3: Farm size by location in Accra (ha) almost a quarter of those surveyed either used available Farm Size by Location (ha) public space or areas without permission. Figure E4 shows that across the transect, the majority of plots are located in the homestead (35 percent) and Peri-Urban 40.5 21.6 37.8 away from house (33 percent). Households in the urban area also have plots in urban open spaces (26 percent), while peri-urban producers have plots in rural farms (36 Peri-Urban percent). Transition 55.7 22.1 22.1 Inputs Used for Urban Agriculture Eighty-five percent of producers reported that they Urban 60.7 15.0 24.3 owned farming tools. Producers in the peri-urban area tend to own or share farm tools more than those in other areas. A large fraction of producers in the peri-urban 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 transition area did not have access to tools, compared to Percentage the other two locations. Some non-producers also own tools and use them to control weeds and prune trees <0.4 0.4≤0.8 Spring <0.8 around their houses or compounds. Producers also used chemical fertilizers (46 percent), animal manure (24 percent), and compost on crops (18 59 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES percent), along with additional inputs such as seeds (81 Figure E4: Location of space used by producers in Accra Location of Space used by Producers percent), pesticides (51 percent), and hired labor (47 percent). Judging from producer responses regarding services accessed 0.7 by them, a relatively small number of producers have access Peri-Urban 20.9 34.5 3.4 34.5 6.1 to extension services. Figure E5 illustrates the fertilizers and other inputs used 1.3 for crop production. By location, the survey shows that a Peri-Urban relatively higher proportion of producers in the urban area Transition 59.7 25.5 2.7 10.7 use more fertilizers than in other areas. The type of fertilizer used depends on the crop grown. 0.7 0.3 For instance, producers mainly use animal manure and Urban 29.1 35.8 25.8 2.3 6.0 vegetative compost on lettuce, spring onion, and plantain, while chemical fertilizers are mainly applied on tomato and peppers. Maize and okra use both organic and chemical 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 fertilizers. Other inputs were used more on the main crops Percentage grown, such as maize, cassava, and okra, and to a lesser Homestead plot Rural farm Peri-urban plot extent on other crops. Urban plot away from home Containers in homesteads Squatted Livelihood Urban Open Space With regard to the producers interviewed for the survey, 48 percent said that farming was their primary occupation (refer to Figure E6), while 28 percent said it was their According to Figure E7, 69 percent of households who claimed secondary occupation. For those whose primary occupation that farming is their primary occupation said that they do not was urban agriculture, approximately 33 percent were have a secondary occupation, while 18 percent participate in involved in growing crops, while 88 percent were involved in informal business as a secondary occupation. This may imply rearing animals (see Table E7). These numbers do not add up that for many respondents, urban agriculture is considered to to 100 percent as some farmers are involved in both activities. be the main source of income. Figure E5: Types of fertilizers and other inputs used for crop production by location in Accra Types of fertilizer and other inputs used for crop production by location 49.3 Chemical Fertilizer 18.4 58.7 6.8 Wastewater 8.5 20.1 Fertilizer 14.4 Vegetable Compost 14.8 20.8 12 Animal Manure 13.4 34.4 52.9 Pesticides 25 63.8 23.7 Water/Irrigation 19.4 Other 53.1 Inputs 61.2 Hired Labor 27.1 50 76.4 Purchased Seedlings/ 67.4 Seeds 89.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Transition Urban ANNEX E 60 Primary occupation of household heads in Accra Figure E6:  Secondary occupation of Figure E7:  Primary and secondary occupation of household heads producers in Accra Secondary (percent) occupation of farmers 100 8.3 90 14.7 4.2 3.3 80 6.3 10.3 70 12.3 2.6 2.9 60 12.3 26.0 7.2 Percentage 18.0 50 40 30 69.4 54.3 47.8 20 10 0 Non-Producer Producer No secondary occupation Informal business Farmer Medium enterprise owner Casual labor Informal business Casual labor Regular employee (no benefits) Salaried employee Other Other (with or without benefits) Planting decisions are mostly male-dominated in both The most common source of income for non-producers male- and female-headed households. Marketing activities is informal business. This is followed by medium-sized in the majority of urban male-headed households is primarily enterprises and casual labor. Hence, both producers as well the responsibility of the adult male family member. However, as non-producers seemed to be involved in the same types of in the peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas, female non-farming activities. adults were reported to be the most involved in marketing. Along the transect, there are significant differences Farmers were also involved in other occupations. For among producers when considering livestock, crops and instance, the majority of those involved in urban agriculture as informal business. Considerably more producers rear animals their primary occupation also worked in informal businesses, in the peri-urban area than in the urban and peri-urban as casual laborers or in medium-sized enterprises. transition areas. The same goes for growing crops, although Table E7: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Accra* Producers Source of income Farming as Farming as Non-Producers Total primary secondary occupation occupation Agriculture (livestock) 33.1 25.3 0.0 17.0 Agriculture (crops) 88.2 62.0 0.0 44.2 Regular salaried employment (with benefits) 1.7 9.0 9.0 7.2 Regular paid employment (no benefits) 3.8 7.8 8.7 7.9 Professional services 2.4 6.0 6.3 5.7 Medium-sized enterprise 11.1 9.0 24.0 15.3 Informal business 50.9 67.5 73.7 64.4 Casual labor 11.5 12.0 10.3 11.8 Relatives/friends outside household 8.4 7.2 13.0 9.8 Other 4.5 3.6 4.0 3.9 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. 61 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES it is interesting to note that over 70 percent of urban Proportion  Figure E8:Proportion fromfrom of income of income crop production crop production along the along transect farmers grow crops. In the peri-urban area, 80 percent transect in Accra* of producers are involved in growing crops. Producers Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Transition Urban in the peri-urban transition area tend to have more 100 non-farming sources of income than farming-related Very important Very important Very important income. 80 Percentage of households by category Income from Urban Agriculture 100 The proportion of income earned by producers 60 Moderately important from growing crops varies along the transect. Figure 52 Moderately important E8 shows that approximately 77 percent of urban Moderately important 40 producers make a “very important� and a “moderately important� percent of their income from crops. In the peri-urban transition, a smaller number of producers 20 Less Important make that proportion of income from crops, and are Less Important Less Important more likely to make a “less important� percent of their 0 income from crop growing. In the peri-urban area, the 0 25 50 75 100 majority of producers make a “moderately important� Share of households by area, percent percent of their income from crops. Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; * When considering the proportion of income earned Very important: more than 75%. from raising animals, the results are more standardized across the transect, as shown in Figure E9. The majority Figure E9:  Proportion Proportion of income of income fromfrom rearing rearing animals animals along production the along transect of all farmers in all three zones make a “less important� transect in Accra* percentage of their income from rearing animals, but Peri-Urban this number is roughly equal in the urban and peri- Peri-Urban Transition Urban urban areas, and highest in the peri-urban transition. 100 Very important Very important Very important Although one would expect producers in the peri- urban area to have the most space to be able to rear 80 Moderately important Percentage of households by category animals, it is there that the least number of producers Moderately important Moderately important 100 are shown to make a “very important� percent of their 60 income from raising livestock. A description of the state of dwellings of producers 52 and non-producers is detailed in Box E4. 40 Less Important Less Important Less Important Expenditure 20 For both producers and non-producers, the single highest expenditure is on food, followed by education and shelter. Non-producers spend a higher proportion 0 0 25 50 75 100 of their income on food than producers do, although Share of households by area, percent this is not statistically significant. On the other hand, producers spend a higher percentage of their total Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; * Very important: more than 75%. expenditure on education, clothing, health and family events than non-producers. When considering both producer as well as non- producer expense categories along the transect, interesting food. In general, higher proportions of incomes are spent on differences show up, as seen in Table E8. In terms of food, food in the transition and peri-urban areas than in the urban urban respondents generally spend a smaller proportion of area. their income on food, while peri-urban respondents tend Almost all respondents spend less than 25 percent of their to spend increasingly higher proportions of their income on total income on education, with those in peri-urban transition ANNEX E 62 Box E4: General state of dwellings of producers and non-producers in Accra Producers and non-producers were asked about the state of their dwellings as an indicator of how well off they are. Respondents were questioned about the kinds of materials used for the walls, flooring and roofing of their residences, the number of rooms, and type of latrine. In addition, they were also asked about the sources of water and fuel for cooking and lighting. Overall, non-producers have better dwellings constructed from brick and/or cement compared to producers. More non- producers described the state of their dwelling as good compared to producers. In producer households, the type of material used for construction declined from the urban to the peri-urban area, with 46 percent of producers in the peri-urban zone living in homes constructed from mud/dirt. With regard to flooring, most respondents used brick and/or cement, but more non-producers tend to have tiled/parquet/ carpeting floors than producers across the transect. Producers in the peri-urban area tend to have fewer finished floors than in other areas, which is consistent with the materials used for the overall dwelling. The most common type of roofing material used is corrugated metal/plastic/fiberglass sheets. Among other materials, bricks and/ or cement tend to be more popular with non-producers in the urban and peri-urban zones, but not in the peri-urban transition. Approximately one-third of producers in the peri-urban area use straw/grass/plastic sheets as roofing. Non-producers tend to have more rooms than producers, although the average for both groups seems to be 2 to 3 rooms. Surprisingly, urban respondents have more rooms than their counterparts in the other areas along the transect. Forty percent of respondents do not have access to safe drinking water during the dry season and 24 percent during the rainy season. In general, non-producers have better access to safe drinking water than producers. Non-producers also have better access to fuel for cooking and lighting. A higher number of non-producers used charcoal, bottled gas, and biogas for cooking, and are connected to the electric grid for lighting. On the other hand, producers tend to use firewood more commonly for cooking, which is considered to be a fuel source generally used by the poor. Regarding household size, producers (4.9) tend to have a significantly larger number of people than non-producers (4.39). area spending slightly higher than their urban and peri-urban to provide extra food for their families and saves money that counterparts. It is important to note that only 1 percent of can be used for other household purchases. the respondents spend more than 50 percent of their income Respondents were asked about their food security in the in education. prior four weeks as well as about their food situation in the Table E9 presents the impact of consumption of one’s food last year. The majority of both producers and non-producers produced. It shows that 85 percent of producers interviewed stated that they have enough food to eat but not always claimed that growing their own crops or rearing animals what they would like, while approximately one-third of saved money that was used to purchase other types of food. both groups stated they always had enough to eat of what Participation in urban agriculture also allowed these families they wanted. Table E8: Household expenditures along the transect in Accra (percent) Peri-Urban Expenditure Item Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Shelter 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 Education 16.7 18.5 15.0 16.7 Food 36.5 39.5 41.9 38.6 Loan/debt 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3 Clothes 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.6 Health 8.2 9.2 9.4 8.8 Family events 4.5 3.8 5.2 4.5 Transport 7.9 8.1 7.8 7.9 Utilities 12.3 8.6 8.2 10.3 Domestic help 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.5 Other 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.8 63 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Table E9: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Accra* (percent) Peri-Urban Effect of consuming own food Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Saves money to purchase other types of food 82.1 87.2 89.8 84.4 Monetary saving on food purchases 25.4 31.3 28.6 27.5 Saves money for other household purchases 54.4 55.9 69.4 56.4 Provides extra food 65.8 76.3 83.7 70.6 Provides a more diverse diet 44.4 46.8 49.0 45.6 Has an effect in another way 5.4 6.7 8.2 6.0 Little or no effect 4.5 4.2 0.0 4.5 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. In the previous year, both producers and non-producers the urban area, non-producers consume more tubers and had similar concerns and fears about their food situation. milk than producers, while the latter have more green leafy This included whether households worried about whether vegetables. In the peri-urban transition area, non-producers they would run out of food or the kind of food they wanted eat more fish and other fruits than producers, while producers due to lack of money, they had to eat limited variety of food have more milk and green leafy vegetables. In the peri-urban or eat food they did not want, or they had to eat less or eat area, non-producers consume more milk, eggs, and fruit than fewer meals because there was not enough food. producers do. When considering the food diversity, or the consumption With regard to producers who grow their own food, the of various food groups, over the previous 24 hours, there is space used to grow crops or rear animals varies along the a statistically significant difference between producers and transect. In urban areas producers use space around their non-producers for two food items: tubers, more of which is homes, publicly available space and plots away from the consumed by non-producers than producers, and green leafy home, while in the peri-urban transition area most producers vegetables, which more producers eat than non-producers, use space around their homes. In the peri-urban area, it is as illustrated in Figure E10. Along the transect, there are a most common to find producers using their own plots that number of significant differences as well. For instance, in are away from their homes. Food diversity: Consumption of 15 food groups by producers and non producers in the previous 24 hours Figure E10: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Accra* 7.2 Yellow/orange vegetables 8.0 10 Yellow/orange fruit 6.8 18.7 Other fruits 14.1 25.4 Eggs 25.5 26.1 Green leafy vegetables 37.8 32.1 Milk or milk products 33.9 Legumes 37.6 41.4 49.3 Other meats 49.0 Tubers 81.8 76.1 Other vegetables 88.6 90.4 Fish 93.5 90.6 Cereal or grain 98.0 97.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Non-Producer Producer *Annex A provides a detailed description of foods contained in each group ANNEX E 64 In general, as one moves along the transect from urban Figure E12: Map of Ghana to peri-urban, more producers tend to buy fresh food and prepare it at home (from 83 percent in urban to 93 percent in peri-urban). Buying ready-to-eat foods was a less common way of obtaining food during the week prior to the interview (13 percent). The highest percentage of households that purchase ready-to-eat food are peri-urban non-producers (25 percent). As expected, a higher percentage of non-producers (20 percent) in total reported obtaining ready-to-eat food preparations than producers (10 percent). This may be the case because producers may not have enough money to buy prepared foods. Also, peri-urban transition and peri-urban producers have access to relatively larger plots of land and cultivate more of their own food than urban farmers. Figure E11: Map of Accra showing survey sites 65 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES References Amoah, P., R. Abaidoo, and P. Drechsel. 2008. “Sources of Pathogen Contamination in Urban Vegetable Farms in Ghana.� In Agricultures et Développement Urbain en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre, ed. F.-R. Mahieu, Editions de L’Harmattan. Collection Éthique Économique, 123-132. Amoah, P., P. Drechsel, R.C. Abaidoo, and M. Henseler. 2007. “Irrigated Urban Vegetable Production in Ghana: Microbiological Contamination in Farms and Markets and Associated Consumer Risk Groups.� Journal of Water and Health 5(3): 455-466. Anyane, S. La. 1963. “Vegetable Gardening in Accra.� The Ghana Farmer 1 (6): 228-230. Armar-Klemesu, M. and D. Maxwell. 2003. Accra. “Urban Agriculture as an Asset Strategy Supplementing Income and Diets.� Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw,183-208. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE). Danso, G., B. Keraita, and A. Afrane. 2002. “Farming Systems in (Peri) Urban Accra, Ghana: Special Focus on Its Profitability, Wastewater Use and Added Malaria Risks.� IWMI Internal report, 73. Ghana Office. Drechsel, P. S. Graefe, M. Sonou, O.O. Cofie. 2006. “Informal Irrigation in Urban West Africa: An Overview.� IWMI Research Report 102. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub102/RR102.pdf Drechsel, P.; Graefe, S.; Fink, M. 2007. “Rural-urban Food, Nutrient and Virtual Water Flows in Selected West African Cities.� IWMI Research Report 115.Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub115/RR115.pdf Drechsel, P., E.O. Sarpong, L.Hope. 2009. “Urban farming and household food security.� UAM 22: 6. Songsore, J. 2008. “Environmental and Structural Inequalities in Greater Accra.� The Journal of the International Institute 16 (1). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jii;view=text;rgn=main;idno=4750978.0016.105 Ghana Statistical Service. 2005. “2000 Population and Housing Census. Greater Accra Region Analysis of District Data and Implications for Planning.� Hope, L., Cofie, O., Keraita, B. and Drechsel, P. 2009. “Gender and urban agriculture: the case of Accra, Ghana.� In Chapter 4 of Women Feeding Cities—Mainstreaming Gender in Urban Agriculture and Food Security, ed. A. Hovorka, H. de Zeeuw and M. Njenga, 65-78, published by PRACTICAL ACTION, Warwickshire. http://www.database.ruaf.org/gender/pdf/chapter%204.pdf Keraita, B. Drechsel, P. Huibers, F. and Raschid-Sally, L. 2002. “Wastewater Use in Informal Irrigation in Urban and Peri-urban Areas of Kumasi, Ghana.� Urban Agriculture Magazine 8: 11-13. Obosu-Mensah, K., 1999. “Food Production in Urban Areas. A Study of Urban Agriculture in Accra, Ghana.� Ashgate Publishing, 227. Aldershot, UK. Obuobie, E. 2003. “Institutional Aspects of Urban Agriculture and Wastewater Use in Accra, Ghana.� Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Wageningen University. The Netherlands. Obuobie, E., Keraita, B., Danso, G., Amoah, P., Cofie, O.O., Raschid-Sally, L. and P. Drechsel. 2006. “Irrigated Urban Vegetable Production in Ghana: Characteristics, Benefits and Risks.� IWMI-RUAF-IDRC-CPWF, 150. Accra, Ghana: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). www.cityfarmer.org/GhanaIrrigateVegis.html World Gazetteer. http://world-gazetteer.com/ ANNEX F 66 Annex F: Nairobi (Kenya) Case Study Nairobi is Kenya’s political and economic capital and Trends F1:  Figure Trends in growth rates of households in Kenya in growth rates of households in Kenya and Nairobi, was founded as a trading center between the Maasai and 1979and Nairobi, – 2009 (KNBS, 2010)– 2009 1979 Kikuyu communities. It started out as a railway town on the 7 Kenya-Uganda Railway in 1896 due to its convenient location between Mombasa and Kampala and grew to become the 6 6.5 capital of British East Africa in 1907. When Kenya became 5 independent in 1963, it remained the capital. It is popularly 5.3 100 known as the “Green City in the Sun.� Key facts of Nairobi Percentage 4 such as population and climate are detailed in Table F1. 4.2 3.9 52 3.8 3 Table F1: Key facts of Nairobi 3.2 Night-time population 3.1 million (2009) 2 Area (km2) 696 (2009) 1 Population density (inhabitants/km2) 4454 (2009) 0 Annual population growth rate (%) 4.2% (2010) 1978-1979 1989-1999 1999-2009 % of national population 8 (2010) % of urban population 25 (2010) Nairobi Kenya Poverty level (% of total city 44% (2005) population) Unemployment rate (%) 12.2 % (2010) Climate Tropical highland immigrants to the city find accommodation in slums because of the low cost of living associated with such areas. Major geographical features Escarpment The top 10 percent of the population of Nairobi accounts Elevation (m above sea level) 1660 for 45.2 percent of the city’s income, while the poorest 10 Average annual rainfall (mm) 1025 percent account for 1.6 percent. In terms of population Average low/high temperatures (°C) 10-26 below the poverty line, 30 percent of the Kenyan population in 1970 (Manda, Kimenyi and Mwabu 2001) earned less than Demographics $1 a day compared to 60 percent today. Nairobi is one of the Nairobi’s population has grown from only 137,000 people most unequal cities in Africa. in 1950 to over 3 million in 2009 (2009 Census), which Nairobi contributes to a significant 56.5 percent of all makes it the most populous city in East Africa and the 12th urban employment in Kenya. Wage employment in all sectors largest city in Africa. It has about five times the population in Nairobi caters for 60.2 percent of the residents at present, of the country’s second largest city, Mombasa, which has a although this number has declined from 72.7 percent in 1989. population of 523,183. Kenya’s average population density In terms of unemployment, 50 percent of women and 35 is 66 persons per square kilometer, but that of Nairobi is percent of men are unemployed. 4,515 persons per square kilometer. Although the growth rate in Nairobi has been steadily declining over the last few Slums decades, it is still higher than the national average. Currently, It is estimated that approximately half of the total urban Nairobi hosts about 25 percent of the country’s total urban population lives in slums that are concentrated on only five population. percent of the land. According to Nairobi Process Mapping Despite the declining population growth rate (see Figure F1), the city has continued to experience an increase in Based on data provided in Njenga, M. and Karanja, N. 2011. population due to new immigrants. Most of these new Urban agriculture: A sustainable solution to alleviating urban pov- erty, addressing the food crisis, and adapting to climate change – Nairobi, Kenya. (Unpublished) 67 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES (CORDAID 2009) about 70 percent of the city’s residents live in having a subtropical highland climate. The warmest part of slums and informal settlements. Nairobi has a very high level the year is from December to March, and the coolest from of urbanization with the slum population expected to double May to August. The annual average temperatures are a high within the next 15 years. of 23.4°C (74.1°F) and a low of 12°C (53.6°F). Rainfall on Kibera is considered to be the biggest slum in Africa and average is about 1,024 mm (40.3 inches) annually. has approximately 700,000 inhabitants. Mukuru is the second biggest slum in Nairobi with a population of around 500,000. Urban Agriculture in Nairobi Other slums with significant populations are Mathare, Farming plays a significant role in the lives of the residents Korokocho, and Kawangware. of Nairobi, with thousands of kilograms of crops, such as Although the population densities in the slums vary from maize, beans, and vegetables, being produced annually one region to another, they are considerably higher than the (Ayaga and others 2004). In addition, livestock provide the urban average, as one would expect. For instance, in the same city with a supply of meat, milk, and eggs. For instance, in Kibera division, Laini Saba location has a density of 75,942 a recent study in Dagoretti, a Nairobi neighborhood with a while Karen has a density of 382. high number of urban farmers, the average daily production of a household dairy farm was 3,000 liters of milk (Kang’ethe Administration and others 2005) Nairobi is one of eight provinces in Kenya, and is composed Urban agriculture in Nairobi is practiced in backyard of four districts (see Table F2). Nairobi was renamed a county in farms, on open spaces under power lines, along roadsides, the new 2010 constitution and comprises eight constituencies railway lines and riverbanks as well as on institutional land. or divisions and 56 wards and has one local authority, Nairobi In the mid-1980s, when the city’s population was around one City Council. million, 20 percent of Nairobi households were growing crops and 17 percent kept livestock within the city limits (Lee-Smith Districts and divisions in Nairobi Table F2:  and others 1987). It is estimated that 30 percent of 985,016 Constituencies/ households in Nairobi are involved in urban farming (Foeken District Districts and Mwangi 2000, Government of Kenya 2010). Nairobi East Dagoretti In the peri-urban areas, urban agriculture is practiced as Nairobi West Embakasi main source of income. The majority the farmers are women, Nairobi North Kasarani many of whom are also household heads. There is limited Westlands Kibera provision for extension services to these farmers and crop and livestock production systems are as diverse as intensive Makadara vegetable production for the market, sometimes marked Nairobi Central by the over-use of pesticides, small-scale crop-livestock Pumwani systems with recycling of organic inputs, free-range livestock Westlands systems using mixed wastes as fodder, stall-fed livestock using managed organic waste or bought feed, and “sewage The City Council of Nairobi provides ordinances and farmers� tapping the nutrients from wastewater to increase regulations for land use and planning. The city is divided into crop outputs. 19 planning zones, but only two allow a mix of agriculture and For information about survey methodology of this study, residential developments: Dagoretti in Zone 15 and Kasarani please refer to Box F1. in Zone 18, which allows conversion of agricultural land into residential developments. The other area where urban Reasons for Participating in Urban Agriculture agriculture is mentioned is in Zone 19, which is identified During the year before the survey, 95 percent of the as a special scheduled area outside the city of Nairobi producers grew crops, mainly for access to additional food boundary and in which a mix of agricultural and residential (78 percent) and, to a lesser extent, for additional income developments is allowed. through sales (22 percent). Two percent of producers ceased to grow crops in the Climate previous year, with 33 percent citing unprofitability, 25 Nairobi is at an elevation of 1,795 metres (5,889 ft), which percent said they lacked space, and 17 percent indicating that contributes to its moderate climate. Nairobi is classified as did not have cash to purchase inputs. ANNEX F 68 Box F1: Survey methodology for the Nairobi case study Three low-income neighborhoods were selected along the transect in Nairobi city that matched the prescribed criteria. Kibera was selected as the urban area, which is the most densely populated informal settlement in sub-Saharan Africa and is home to about 700,000 people. The majority of people in Kibera earn less than a dollar per day working in nearby industrial areas or engaging in informal businesses. Many people are now venturing into urban agriculture as a way of cutting down on expenses for their already very strained incomes. Kahawa Soweto has a history of urban agriculture and was selected to represent the peri-urban transition area. Although the area has witnessed an increase in population since the 1970s it still has a dominance of urban agriculture due to a nearby river, an oxidation pond for Kenyatta University sewer waste, and land (mainly railway and riparian reserve) which supports agricultural production. The study sought to identify the factors that have promoted urban agriculture here and how this has contributed to the economy of the area. Lists of producers and non-producers were developed such that the whole informal settlement was covered. Wangige is approximately 30 km from the city center of Nairobi and has been a major source of agricultural products in the city for many years due to its proximity to an urban market and its conducive climate for agriculture. Over time, Wangige has moved from a rural economy to a peri-urban zone due to the influx of urban residents and the subdivision of agricultural land into plots of up to one-eighth of an acre. The selection of Wangige as a study site captures both its importance as a food source for Nairobi and the effects of the city’s expansion into the area. Lists of producers and non-producers were developed in collaboration with members of the local community with whom the researchers had worked with for over eight years. Random samples were then selected from the lists. In the urban area, lists of producers and non-producers were developed at the village level in all the ten villages comprising Kibera settlement. At the peri-urban transition level the list covered the whole settlement, which consists of one village, and in the peri-urban area four villages were covered. A total of 900 respondents were interviewed comprising 600 producer and 300 non-producer households in the three zones along the transect. Table F3: Information about the areas selected for the study in Nairobi Male Female Total Number of Area (sq. Population Location Population Population Population Households km) Density Kibera 48,001 39,548 87,549 28,878 1.6 56,483 Kahawa 29,866 26,571 56,437 14,950 15.1 3,740 Wangige 20,591 20,869 41,460 12,802 15.8 2,625 For those farmers who had access to land for Length of residence of producers and non-producers Figure F2:  agriculture, over 45 percent kept livestock. More farmers in Nairobi Length of stay in the peri-urban area and peri-urban transition raised livestock (78 and 75 percent) compared to those in urban Non-Producers Producers 100 (15 percent) areas. As with growing crops, the primary reasons for rearing livestock include access to additional Always here Always here income (61 percent) and access to additional food (37 80 Percentage of households by years percent). Farmers ceased to keep livestock due to 100 inadequate availability of land (64 percent) and lack of Above 15 years 60 cash for animal replacements/inputs (47 percent). Above 15 years 52 Length of Residence 40 6-15 years As in the other cities surveyed, the respondents who were involved in urban agriculture had stayed in the city 6-15 years 20 the longest or always lived there, as illustrated in Figure 5 years or less F2. More non-producers, who had moved to the city 15 5 years or less years or less prior, tend to be involved in non-agricultural 0 0 30 100 activities. Share of households by type, percent 69 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Types of Crops Grown Figure F3: Main Main crops crops grown grown by producers in Nairobi by producers There are variations in the types of crops grown by producers along the transect, as shown in Figure F3. For Peri-Urban 14.3 29.5 21.6 5.7 12.2 5.7 1.6 9.5 instance, producers in urban areas grow more green leafy vegetables, such as kale and spinach, whereas in Peri-Urban 5.1 35.8 28.3 2.4 7.1 10.2 3.5 6.7 the peri-urban transition and peri- Transition urban areas maize and beans are the 0.4 0.4 popular choice. Urban 45.7 9.1 9.8 13.8 2.4 4.7 2.6 10.4 Types of Animals Reared Poultry (mostly layers) were the 1.1 1.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 most common type of animal reared across the three transect zones. Percentage Table F4 shows that urban farmers reared poultry exclusively, whereas Kales Beans Potatoes Arrow roots Amaranthus their counterparts in the peri-urban Maize Spinach Cowpeas Bananas Other transition and peri-urban areas raised a greater variety of animals. Space Available for Growing Crops and Rearing Animals indicating the importance of investing in agriculture as Figure F4 illustrates that most producers in the urban area a source of livelihood. This ties in with Figure F6, which grow crops. In the peri-urban transition area, producers are shows the location of the space of land used by producers. almost equally likely to either grow crops or raise animals, whereas in the peri-urban area it is common to find producers As mentioned above, urban producers use more urban doing both. open spaces, while those in the peri-urban area use land or containers around the home for raising animals and growing Most of the land used by households was public land (41 crops. percent) and land owned by producers (40 percent). As shown in Figure F5, in the urban area it was more common to find Forty-eight percent of urban farmers accessed land for producers using publicly available land, whereas in the peri- agricultural production in the previous six months, but in the urban area most of the land was owned. It was also common peri-urban area almost all of the farmers worked without to find that households leased land for urban agriculture, fear of eviction while in the urban area only 15 percent did. Table F4: Livestock owned along transect zone in Nairobi (percent) Peri-Urban Type of Animal Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Cows 0.0 8.0 38.8 20.0 Bulls 0.0 2.8 5.1 3.4 Sows 1.8 2.8 5.1 3.7 Boars 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 Piglets/young pigs 0.0 3.3 3.1 2.8 Finishing/fattering pigs 0.0 2.8 1.5 1.9 Goats/Sheep 1.8 17.8 11.7 13.3 Poultry (layers) 69.6 39.9 27.6 38.3 Poultry (broilers) 26.8 17.8 4.6 13.3 Rabbits 0.0 2.3 1.5 1.7 ANNEX F 70 In the peri-urban transition area, Current Figure F4:Current useuse land land by area in Nairobi by area the numbers are more equalized between crop production and animal rearing, although the former is still Peri-Urban 32.6 20.9 46.5 more popular among farmers. In the peri-urban area, it was common to find producers engaged in both Peri-Urban forms of urban agriculture. Transition 54.1 40.1 3.2 2.7 Farmers who had access to land but did not use it for crop production in the previous six months before Urban 90.7 6.6 2.4 the survey cited reasons that 0.3 included not having enough land 0 (41 percent), crop production not 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 being profitable for family use (32 Percentage percent) and lack of cash to buy inputs (27 percent). Crops Livestock Both Idle Those who practiced farming as their main occupation had larger Figure F5: Type of land owned by producers in Nairobi areas under cultivation or to raise animals than those Type of Land Owned by Producers whose main occupation was not farming. This trend Peri-Urban was found in all areas of the transect. Peri-Urban Transition Urban 100 Used without Permission Other Shared Among Group Inputs Used for Urban Agriculture Leased/Rental Used without Permission Used without Permission Manure was the main nutrient used by almost 61 Leased/Rental 80 percent of producers across the transect. Wastewater Leased/Rental Percentage of households by category was used most commonly by urban producers than Owned their counterparts in other areas, as shown in Figure 60 Owned F7. The choice of fertilizer used was independent of Owned the socio-economic status of the producers. Other 40 inputs included purchased seedlings/seeds and water Public Land for irrigation. Table F5 illustrates the inputs used for livestock 20 Public Land production. Across the transect, the use of inputs such as veterinary services, animal feed, purchase of new 0 animals, and hired labor increased from urban to peri- 0 25 50 75 100 urban transition to peri-urban. Share of households by area, percent Table F5: Inputs used for livestock production in Nairobi Peri-Urban Inputs Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Veterinary services 28.9 41.4 75.4 54.0 Purchase of feed 44.4 64.0 76.3 66.1 Hired labor 2.2 11.7 20.3 13.9 New animal stock 0.0 10.8 16.1 11.3 71 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Livelihood Figure F6: Location of space used by producers in Nairobi Location of Space by Producers Farming is the primary occupation for producers reported by 36 percent of households, as shown Peri-Urban in Figure F8. Figure F9 illustrates that 77 percent Peri-Urban Transition Urban of households who said farming was their primary 100 Urban plot Rural farm Rural farm away from house occupation do not have a secondary occupation, while 14 percent are casual laborers. For non-producers, 80 Urban open space Percentage of households by category casual labor is a common primary occupation followed by informal business. Urban open space 60 Homestead plot Urban plot Family time and labor spent on urban agriculture away from house depends on the size of land, intensity of the practice, Homestead plot and number of livestock. In the peri-urban transition 40 area, most labor for vegetable production was provided Urban plot by women, while in the peri-urban and urban zones, 20 away from house Containers in vegetable production was highly commercialized and Containers in homestead Homestead plot both men and women were involved. For poultry homestead Containers in homestead 0 farming, labor was primarily provided by women and 0 25 50 75 100 children, while men were more involved with the Share of households by area, percent commercial aspects. This was mainly seen in the peri- urban transition area. casual labor. For non-producers the main sources of income Table F6 shows sources of income for producers and non-producers, indicating that growing crops and rearing were casual labor and informal business. livestock were the main sources of income for those producers The majority of the producer households in the peri-urban whose primary occupation is urban agriculture. On the other transition and peri-urban areas reported livestock and crops hand, for those producers whose secondary occupation is as the main sources of income, followed by casual labor. In the farming, the main sources of income were growing crops and urban area, the most common form of urban agriculture being Figure F7: Types of fertilizers and other inputs used for crop production in Nairobi Types of fertilizer and other inputs used 31.1 Chemical Fertilizer 21.8 15.2 Wastewater 3 39.7 Fertilizer 7.4 Vegetative Compost 12 6.7 88.5 Manure 58.6 47.5 33.1 Pesticides 4.5 24.6 29.1 Water/irrigation 7.5 Other 70.4 Inputs 29.1 Hired labor 21.1 5.4 87.2 Purchased seedlings/ 67.7 seeds 79.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Transition Urban ANNEX F 72 Figure F8: Primary occupation of household heads in Nairobi Secondary occupation of Figure F9:  producers in Nairobi (percent) Primary and secondary occupation of household heads Secondary occupation of farmers 100 15.7 15.6 90 80 70 28.6 2.3 60 6.8 50.7 Percentage 14.2 50 19.5 40 76.7 30 20 33.6 36.3 10 0 Non-Producer Producer No secondary occupation Casual labor Farmer Casual labor Informal business Informal business Other Other practiced is crop production, whereas a very small number of their income from crops, while in peri-urban transition of urban farmers rear livestock. Casual labor and informal area a negligible proportion earns a “very important� percent businesses are common forms of employment, primarily in of income through crops. In the case of rearing livestock the urban area, followed by the peri-urban transition area (Figure F11), the majority of producers earns a “moderately and less so in the peri-urban zone. important� percent of their income from livestock in peri- urban and peri-urban transition areas. In the peri-urban area, Income from Urban Agriculture a similar number of producers receive a “very important� and Figure F10 illustrates the proportion of income earned “less important� percentage of their income from this source. from crop production. Along the transect, the majority of In contrast, in the urban area the majority of producers producers seems to earn a “moderately important� percent receive a “less important� percent of their income from this Table F6: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Nairobi* Producers Source of income Farming as Farming as Non-Producers Total primary secondary occupation occupation Agriculture (livestock) 45.6 25.0 0.0 22.4 Agriculture (crops) 76.7 65.3 0.0 45.2 Regular salaried employment (with benefits) 1.4 6.1 3.1 3.6 Regular paid employment (no benefits) 3.7 10.7 10.5 9.8 Professional services 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.9 Medium-sized enterprise 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.7 Informal business 19.1 47.4 43.9 36.9 Casual labor 38.1 48.5 57.8 50.1 Relatives/friends outside household 3.7 0.5 0.7 1.7 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. 73 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES source, and none of them earned a “very important� Proportion of income from crop production along the Figure F10:  percent of their income from livestock. inincome transect of Proportion Nairobi* from crop production along the transect The general state of dwellings of producers and Peri-Urban non-producers is described in Box F2. Peri-Urban Transition Urban 100 Very important Expenditure Very important Very important Ninety-eight percent of the respondents spend 80 Percentage of households by category their income on food, which accounts for almost 40 100 percent of the total expenditure while 2 percent of Moderately important respondents depend purely on agricultural produce 60 Moderately important Moderately important as their source of the food. It was observed that non- 52 producers spend 40 percent of their income on food, 40 which is higher but not significantly different from producers. 20 Less Important Producers spend about 20 percent of their income Less Important Less Important on education as compared to 13 percent spent by non-producers. On shelter, non-producers spend 0 0 25 50 75 100 more (17.2 percent) than producers do (11.4 percent). Share of households by area, percent However, only expenditure on education is found to be statistically significant between producers and non- *Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; producers, where producers spend more than non- Very important: more than 75%. producers do. Table F7 shows the share of expenditures for Proportion of income from rearing animals along the Figure F11:  producers and non-producers across the transect. inincome transect of Nairobi* Proportion from rearing animals along the transect Respondents tend to spend more on shelter in the urban area, while in the peri-urban area the expenditure on Peri-Urban health is higher than in other areas. Peri-Urban Transition Urban 100 Very important General Food Situation Very important Table F8 summarizes the impact of consumption of 80 Moderately important Percentage of households by category one’s food produced. The majority of producers (82 100 percent) said that consuming their own food benefits Moderately important 60 them by providing extra food. Other benefits include Moderately important being able to buy other types of food with the money 52 saved and having a more diverse diet. 40 When producers and non-producers were asked Less Important about their food situation in the previous four weeks, 20 Less Important it was found that both groups sometimes do not have Less Important enough to eat. There were no statistically significant 0 differences between the two groups; however, 0 25 50 75 100 differences were seen along the transect and were Share of households by area, percent similar for both groups. For instance, those in the peri- urban areas always had enough to eat of what they *Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; wanted compared to those in the peri-urban transition Very important: more than 75%. area, and those in the peri-urban transition area were better off than their counterparts in the urban areas. When considering the food situation in the and non-producers. When asked if respondents had to eat previous year, there were only two situations in which there some foods that they did not want to eat due to lack of were statistically significant differences between producers money, more producers than non-producers answered yes. ANNEX F 74 Box F2:  General state of dwellings of producers and non- producers, in the urban area had concerns about food than in producers in Nairobi the peri-urban transition and peri-urban areas. As in the case of Lima, few differences were found between Food Diversity non-producers and producers, although the general quality When considering food diversity, or the different types of houses tended to improve along the transect from urban of food groups consumed, the survey results indicate a very to peri-urban. For instance, in the urban area, most walls low consumption of animal-based products, except for high were made of mud/dirt, while in the peri-urban transition area, brick and wood are more commonly used. In the peri- levels of milk consumed, but this is primarily for making tea urban area, most respondents use iron sheets and brick for and is thus used in small quantities. There are no significant their walls and floors. differences in household dietary diversity between producers Respondents in the peri-urban area tend to live in bigger and and non-producers; however when analyzed against the better quality houses than their counterparts in other areas. individual food groups, there are statistical differences in the Charcoal was the most common source of cooking fuel along consumption of yellow/orange vegetables (e.g.: pumpkins, the transect. Bottled gas is not commonly used, although the carrots, sweet potatoes) with a higher proportion being largest number of users tends to be in the peri-urban area consumed by producers (18 percent) compared to non- surprisingly. The use of firewood increases along the transect. producers (12 percent). Producers also eat more plant- and For lighting purposes, a couple sources are commonly used. animal-source proteins, which could be associated with a Kerosene is more common in the peri-urban transition area higher purchasing power from the sale of leafy vegetables followed by the urban area, while electricity is more common in the urban and peri-urban areas than in the transition (Figure F12). area. It is interesting to note that solar power is used in the Along the transect, some significant differences are noted transition area, which was not found in any other areas. between producers and non-producers. In the urban area, In Nairobi the number of household members is statistically more non-producers consume milk and meat products than significant higher in the case of producers than non- producers. On the other hand, in the peri-urban transition producers, with a mean of 4.6 and 3.8 respectively area, more producers eat vegetables and meat compared to non-producers. In the peri-urban area, a higher proportion of producers eat legumes, yellow/orange vegetables, and tubers, while more non-producers eat yellow/orange fruit, When asked if there were times when there was no food to such as mango and papaya. eat in the house due to lack of money, more non-producers responded affirmatively than producers. Both groups were Source of Food equally concerned about running out of food and not having Based on the responses to the survey, over 96 percent of the kind of food they liked due to lack of money. Along the respondents bought fresh food, which was prepared at home; transect, more respondents, both producers as well as non- however, there were statistically significant differences along Table F7: Household expenditures along the transect in Nairobi (percent) Peri-Urban Expenditure Item Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Shelter 18.9 8.5 6.7 13.3 Education 16.9 19.8 16.4 17.5 Food 39.4 41.4 38.2 39.6 Loan/debt 0.4 1.8 1.8 1.1 Clothes 3.0 6.3 6.8 4.8 Health 5.1 6.7 10.3 6.8 Family events 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.5 Transport 2.5 5.3 5.6 4.0 Utilities 13.1 8.2 11.6 11.5 Domestic help 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 Other 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.6 75 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Table F8: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Nairobi* Peri-Urban Effect of consuming own food Urban Peri-Urban Total Transition Saves money to purchase other types of food 65.4 70.3 73.3 68.6 Monetary saving on food purchases 42.9 32.9 34.7 38.3 Saves money for other household purchases 34.9 36.1 36.0 35.5 Provides extra food 86.7 69.0 86.0 82.0 Provides a more diverse diet 59.5 60.0 70.7 62.4 Has an effect in another way 12.3 13.5 16.0 13.5 Little or no effect 3.3 12.9 4.0 5.9 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. the transect. A statistically significantly higher proportion There are some significant differences between producers of respondents in the urban (68 percent) and peri-urban and non-producers in some of the scenarios presented to transition area (74 percent) bought food prepared in the respondents. For instance, in the peri-urban transition restaurants and other eateries than those in the peri- area more producers buy fresh food and prepare it at home urban area (33 percent). In the peri-urban transition area, compared to non-producers. In the peri-urban area, more households reported getting at least some of their food non-producers buy food from eateries than producers do. from government programs (12 percent), whereas almost no households from the urban and peri-urban areas cited this as a source. Figure F12: Food diversity Food diversity: showing consumption Consumption of 15 of 15 food groups food groups by producers in the and non previous producers 24previous in the hours in24Nairobi* hours 3.7 Eggs 3.6 5.1 Yellow/orange fruit 3.5 6.5 Fish 7.1 7.1 Other meats 8.1 13.9 Other fruits 14 12.2 Yellow/orange vegetables 17.7 29.6 Tubers 35.6 39.8 Legumes 42.6 Other vegetables 59.2 60.6 Milk and milk products 74.5 70.3 Green leafy vegetables 71.1 73.9 Cereal and grain 98.6 98.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Non-Producer Producer *Annex A provides a detailed description of foods contained in each group ANNEX F 76 Figure F13: Map of Nairobi showing survey sites Figure F14: Map of Kenya 77 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES References Ayaga, G., Kibata, G., Lee Smith, D., Njenga, M., Rege, R. 2004. “Policy Prospects for Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Kenya.� Results of a Workshop Organized by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Urban Harvest – CIP & International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 2004. Nairobi. CORDAID. IHS and Eco-Build Africa. 2009. “Nairobi Process Mapping.� CORDAID. The Hague, Netherlands. Foeken, D. and Mwangi, A. 2000. “Increasing food security through urban farming in Nairobi.� In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Gündel S., Sabel-Koschella U. and de Zeeuw H, 303-328. Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agriculture Development Centre. Kang’ethe, E.K., Randolph, T.F., McDermott, B., Lang’at, A.K., Kimani, V.N., Kiragu, M., Ekuttan, C., Ojigo, D., Onono, J., Ngonde, A. & Miriti, G. 2005. “Characterization of Benefits and Health Risks Associated Urban Smallholder Dairy Production in Dagoretti Division, Nairobi, Kenya.� Project Report to IDRC. Ottawa: IDRC. Lee-Smith, D., Manundu, M., Lamba, D. & Gathuru P.K. 1987. “Urban Food Production and the Cooking Fuel Situation in Urban Kenya.� Nairobi: Mazingira Institute. Manda, Kulundu, Mwangi Kimenyi and Germano Mwabu. 2001. “A Review of Poverty and Antipoverty Initiatives in Kenya.� KIPPRA Working Paper. Republic of Kenya. 2009. “2009 Census.� Nairobi: Government of Kenya. ANNEX G 78 Annex G: Lima (Peru) Case Study Lima, built as the foundation of the Spanish “City of the in Lima was considered to be poor, while 17.4 percent lived Kings� in 1535, is the capital of Peru and the fifth largest below the poverty line. (ENAHO 2009) metropolitan area in Latin America. Lima comprises of Administration the Province of Lima and the Constitutional Province of El Callao and has a total population of 9,262,000 people. Some The city of Lima is administered by the Metropolitan information about Lima is described in Table G1. Municipality of Lima, which is subdivided into 43 districts. The Office of the Mayor is the executive entity and the Metropolitan Table G1: Key Facts of Lima Municipal Council is the regulatory and oversight entity. This council is made up of the Mayor and 38 councilors and Night-time population Metropolitan area: 8.29 million (2011) is the legal representative for the municipality as well as its Area (km2) Metropolitan area: highest administrative authority. The Constitutional Province 2,821 (2008) of Callao, made up of six Municipal Districts, is subject to a Population density (inhabitants/km2) 3280 special regime, which gives the regional government and the Annual population growth rate (%) 1.1 (2008) provincial municipality the same territorial jurisdiction. % of national population 30 (2009) Geography and Climate % of urban population 36 (2010) Lima Metropolitan Area and El Callao together form one Poverty level (% of total city 29.2 (2009) city that is considered to be one of the largest urban sprawls population) in the world. The city is on average 101 meters above sea level Unemployment rate (%) 28.3 (2009) and is located on desert plains that are characteristic of that Climate Cool desert coastal region. It is surrounded by hills and valleys through Major geographical features Coastal region which the rivers Chillón, Rímac, and Lurín flow all year round. Desert plain Lima’s climate is considered to be subtropical, although its Elevation (m above sea level) 0-500 proximity to the Pacific Ocean gives it a cool climate. There Average annual rainfall (mm) 25 are two distinct seasons: summer, from December to April, Average low/high temperatures (°C) 12-27 which tends to be warm, sunny, and humid; and winter, from June to October, when the weather is cool, humid, breezy, and Demographics grey. The average annual high and low temperatures are 22°C Lima is the fifth most populous city in Latin America and (71.8°F) and 16.7°C (62°F) respectively. Lima gets an average one of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the world. Lima of 13 mm (0.5 inches) of rain a year, which impacts the amount Metropolitan Area has a population of 8,445,200 accounting of water supplied to the city, which mainly comes from wells for 30.8 percent of the country´s population and El Callao and rivers originating in the Andes mountain range. Lima is has a population of 876,900 that accounts for 3.2 percent of severely impacted by El Niño, when temperatures tend to the country´s total population. (INEI 2008) Fifty-one percent be warmer than normal, and La Niña, when cooler climate of the population is female. In 2007, 75.9 percent of the prevails. country’s population lived in urban areas compared to 35.4 Water Resources and Land Use percent in 1940 and 59.5 percent in 1971. This is because Lima and Callao Metropolitan Area continue to attract migrants Due to the low average rainfall in the region, the Lima from all over the country, thus reflecting considerable ethnic and El Callao Metropolitan Areas rely on water from the and cultural diversity. (INEI 2009) In the last two decades, Chillón, Rimas, and Lurin rivers and a system of 20 lakes in the city has experienced major rural-urban migration due to the Yuracmayo reservoir area that capture water from the shifts in economic productivity and opportunities in the city. This shift is reflected in the migration of the population from Penny, M., H. Creed-Kanashiro, Carrasco, M., Marin, M., Merzthal, G., Santandreu, A. 2011. Urban Agriculture: A sustainable solution the interior highlands to the coastal areas, where Lima and to alleviate urban poverty, respond to the food crisis and adapt to Callao are located. In 2009, 11.8 percent of the population climate change Lima, Peru. (Unpublished) 79 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Atlantic basin and transfers it to the Pacific basin. According changes. (Castro and Juárez 2007) This situation directly to recent studies (LiWa 2009) and estimations made by influences the types of urban agriculture found in the city, SEDAPAL (Public Water Company for the Lima and Callao both in the urban and transition zones. Metropolitan Area) these reserves are insufficient to deal with “water stress� situations or water scarcity that could come Urban Agriculture in Lima about as an effect of climate change. The strong competition Despite the accelerated urban growth in the last few years, for water use for both human consumption and for irrigation agriculture is still being practiced in the areas around Lima has led to the use of (not always treated) wastewater. In and to a lesser extent within the city itself. According to the Lima and Callao Metropolitan Areas, there are 37 examples records of the Chillón, Rimac, and Lurin rivers in 2006 there of wastewater use, which is used to irrigate a total of 985 was a total of 12,680 ha under irrigation belonging to 7,601 hectares of agricultural and green areas. (Moscoso and Alfaro farmers organized in 35 commissions responsible for river 2008) Even though in most of these sites the wastewater is water irrigation. treated, there are three vegetable sites that use untreated wastewater, covering about 40 percent of the total area of In addition, there are other areas of the city that depend land irrigated with wastewater in Lima. on water from wastewater treatment plants for agriculture. Parts of the districts of Villa El Salvador (130 ha), San Juan de Although land use has been classified through ordinances in Miraflores (12 ha), and Ventanilla (50 ha) are included in this the Lima Metropolitan Area, various modifications, especially type of agricultural area. in some agriculture-intensive districts such as Lurin or Lurigancho-Chosica, made in recent years have been strongly criticized. In 2010, 23 municipal districts modified their The most important crops grown are vegetables, grass, territorial planning priorities towards urban development and forage in Rimac; fruit orchards, vegetables, ornamental above other land use. As a consequence, the growing plants, and maize in the valley of the Lurin river; and maize peripheries of the Lima and Callao Metropolitan Areas (in and aromatic plants in the valley of the Chillón. On a much the so-called northern, eastern, and southern “cones�) have smaller scale, urban agriculture is carried out in small spaces not only occupied uncultivated areas but also areas that were (patios, flower pots, small public spaces) ranging from 1 m2 to dedicated to farming activities in an unplanned manner. A 10,000 m2. The crops grown in these areas are mostly used for good example of this is Lurigancho-Chosica, which between home consumption and usually no chemicals are used in the 2002 and 2006 lost 305 ha of agricultural land due to zoning cultivation. (Soto y Siura 2008) Box G1: Survey methodology for the Lima case study The project was implemented in four districts of Metropolitan Lima that were selected for their appropriateness along the transect from the urban to the peri-urban interface. For urban, two areas were selected: Villa María del Triunfo (VMT) with target settlements of Pachacutec, Nueva Esperanza, and Yanavilla, and Callao comprising target settlements of San Agustín and 200 Millas. Lurigancho-Chosica (LC), with target settlements of LC and Nieveria, was identified for the peri-urban transition, and Pachacámac with target settlement of Santa Anita for the peri-urban area. These four districts were selected to represent the different degrees of urban development. The two urban districts—Callao and VMT—represent two distinct types of urban agriculture because of very different urban development scenarios. The peri-urban transition area, located in the eastern zone where agricultural practices are maintained, is an area where the city has begun to surround farmers, and a traditionally agricultural area in Pachacamac where food production has begun to compete fiercely with other land uses. Box 2 provides more information about the districts surveyed. Table G2: Information about the municipal districts selected for the study in Lima (INEI 2007a; INEI 2007b) Percentage of Population Surface area Area Population population in Density per km² (km²) poverty Villa María del Triunfo Intra urban 378,470 5,405.30 27.1 70.57 Callao Intra urban 415, 888 9,255.90 18.8 45.65 Lurigancho-Chosica Peri-urban 169,359 721.83 27.2 236.47 transition Pachacámac Peri-urban 68,441 430.5 34.0 160.23 ANNEX G 80 It is possible to identify and analyze urban agriculture (iv) Small-scale (semi-) commercial horticulture; and experiences in intra- and peri-urban areas. While intra-urban Small scale (semi-) commercial livestock and fish (v)  agriculture is carried out in public and private spaces that are farming. available within the city, peri-urban agriculture generally uses Box G1 provides details on the survey methodology used in private spaces, located in the peripheral areas in transition. Lima, while Box G2 describes the sites surveyed. The main systems of production under this modality are: (i) Micro agriculture in and around the home; Reasons for Participating in Urban Agriculture (ii) Communal/community horticulture; As with other cities in the study, the primary reasons (iii)  Institutional urban agriculture (for example, in colleges for participating in urban agriculture are additional source and meal centers); of income and access to additional food. In the peri- Box G2: Description of sites surveyed in Lima Villa María del Triunfo: The Municipal District of Villa Maria del Triunfo is 100 percent urban and is part of the poverty belt that surrounds Lima. The district is organized into six zones separated from each other by a complex mountainous geography. VMT is located in a desert with very low annual rainfall. Economic activity in the area includes unskilled labor, street vendors, unskilled/ semi-skilled service workers, and informal businesses. In addition, there is also a small segment of the local economy that focuses on agriculture and fishing. The main agricultural activity is the production of fruits and vegetables on individual, community, and institutional land for self-consumption as well as for sale; however, this activity is not often registered in the census information. There is a major deficit of green areas, with only 0.5 m2/person. (INEI 2007a). The study areas include two neighborhoods of VMT: Pachacutec and Nueva Esperanza. With respect to urban agriculture, VMT has four principal types of activity: i) Production of agricultural supplies, such as compost and seeds, on a family/artisan basis; ii) Food processing on a non-industrial/occasional basis, such as jam making; iii) Cultivation of crops and animal husbandry, principally vegetables, fruit, and raising small animals; iv) Commercialization of animal products on a small scale. These activities are mostly carried out on private land, plots in the family garden, communal land, institutional farms (e.g.: areas belonging to schools, private institutions), and land that is not suitable for construction, such as land destined for roads and under high-tension electricity power lines. (IPES 2006) Callao: Located on the banks of the Rimac River and to the northeast of downtown Lima, Callao Municipal District exhibits characteristics of the valleys of the Peruvian coast, with an altitude varying between 2 and 65 meters above sea level. The terrain leads to an extensive bay in the delta of the Rimac River. Within this setting, there are several areas where agricultural production takes place, especially around the airport, as construction is limited around that land. Callao’s main economic activities are retail, commerce, communications, some industrial production, and real estate rental earnings. Similar to VMT, agricultural production accounts for a relatively insignificant proportion of economic activity. Callao’s soil is considered the most suitable for agricultural production in the province of Lima. (Matos Mar 1990) However, rapid urbanization and the growth of human settlements have resulted in the dominance of residential land use in the area. Lurigancho-Chosica: The municipal district of Lurigancho-Chosica is a peri-urban transition area and the second largest district within Metropolitan Lima. Like Callao, it is also located on the banks of the Rímac River. As in VMT, the main occupations in the district are unskilled labor, informal commerce, unskilled service workers, and day laborers. There are about 150 shantytown settlements in the district. The area consists of four irrigation sub-sectors: Ñaña, LC, Nievería, and Huachipa, in which there are 1,000 farmers who own their agricultural land and 3,000 agricultural producers without farmland who practice urban agriculture mostly in patios and flower pots. More than 4 percent of the population practice urban agriculture of which most of them are men. (INEI 2007a) The main agricultural activity is the production of fruits and vegetables and rearing of animals for sale and household use. The area has an average green space of 1 m2/person. (GEA 2010) The average size of the farms in this area is 1.5 ha and each family has an average of three plots. Pachacamac: The Municipal District of Pachacamac is located in the central Peruvian coast 25 km south of Lima. The area is experiencing an expansion of human settlements and diversification of land use due to zoning changes. Unskilled labor, informal business, unskilled service work, and construction work are the main economic activities in the district. Agricultural activity accounts for 6.2 percent of the employment of which most are independent male workers over 50 years of age in addition to unpaid family workers. (INEI 2007a) The main agricultural activity is the production of fruits and vegetables for sale. There is 1.1 m2/person of green space in this area, which presents a deficit, although urban agriculture is practiced on nearly half of the total surface of the Pachacamac. 81 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES urban transition and urban district of Callao, 45 percent study looked at crops that were either mostly consumed at of respondents cited that their reason for practicing urban home or sold and found that in the peri-urban transition area agriculture is to have an additional source of income, compared and in one urban area, Callao, a greater variety of foods are to 15 percent of households in the other urban district, VMT. sold than consumed at home. In contrast, a higher number Access to additional food was considered the principal reason of crops are consumed at home in the urban area of VMT for cultivating crops by 43 percent of respondents in the peri- and the peri-urban area compared to the transition area and urban area and 38 percent in the urban district of VMT. A Callao. This illustrates the different patterns of use of the crop higher proportion of households (20 percent) in Lima grow production along the transect. More vegetables are sold and crops for recreation than in other cities in the study. In VMT, fruits consumed in one urban area (Callao), the peri-urban a further 12 percent said the main reason was to make their transition, and peri-urban areas than in the other urban area environment more attractive. (VMT), in which more fruit is sold and more vegetables tend Fifty-six percent of producers cultivated their land in the to be consumed. six months prior to the survey. For a very small percentage of Types of Animals Reared those who had ceased cultivation, the reasons cited were that Overall, raising animals was more common than cultivating they found alternative work, cultivation was not economically crops as over 67 percent of farmers had produced animal worthwhile, and they had no money for supplies. products or meat either on their own or also cultivating crops Length of Residence in the previous six months before the survey. In almost all districts surveyed, there is a significant Table G4 shows the primary animals raised and their difference between the producers and non-producers in consumption by households. The most common farm animal terms of how long they have lived there, as shown in Figure raised was poultry. Fifty percent of all households surveyed G1. Agricultural families have been living in the zones along engage in this activity, with the highest in the peri-urban and the transect, except Callao, longer than non-producers. one urban area (Callao) and the lowest in the other urban area (VMT). Most of the production was used for household Types of Crops Grown consumption. Eggs were a common product produced by 32 The most common crops that are produced and sold or percent of the households across all the transects and mostly consumed in the home are summarized in Table G3. The consumed at home. Figure G1: Average length of residence of producers and non-producers along the transect in Lima Average length of stay for producers and non-producers along the transect (years) Producer Non-producer 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Urban (Callao) Peri-Urban Transition Urban (VMT) Peri-Urban ANNEX G 82 Table G3:  Top 20 crops grown for sale and home In general, it appears that across the transect chickens consumption in Lima are mainly kept for home consumption of eggs and meat. If producers raise other animals it is more likely to be for sale Percent Percent Food* Sold Food** Consumed although the family uses part of the production for its own (>50%) (>50%) consumption. The production of guinea pigs shows a more Radish 73.8 Radish 40.6 mixed pattern with about one-third going for sale. Beetroot 63.3 Banana 88.2 Coriander 67.3 Sweet potato 73.7 Space Available for Growing Crops and Rearing Animals Lettuce 51.3 Huacatay 20.5 Figure G2 illustrates the type of land owned by producers. Huacatay 79.3 Hot pepper 74.8 Just over half the land (52 percent) used for raising Basil 70.3 Figs 91.5 animals and growing crops in the survey is owned by the Parsley 64.9 Aloe vera 69.2 household regardless of whether the primary occupation Celery 83.9 Avocado 76.2 of the household is farming or not, and there seems to be little variation in the transect. Many respondents chose not Mint 55.6 Tomato 88.1 to answer this question, so it is difficult to get an accurate Turnip 89.5 Onion 50.4 picture of ownership. Leek 79.2 Hierba luisa 74.5 The common locations for growing crops or raising Tomato 53.7 Chala 55.3 livestock were in containers in the homestead (59 percent) Chard 57.4 Oregano 75.0 or in plots around the home (29 percent). For those whose Spinach 60.3 Potato 85.7 principal occupation is farming, plots around the house were Spring onion 83.7 Passion fruit 92.1 used more frequently (43 percent). Carrot 56.2 Pacae 98.6 The land used by producers is mostly used for raising Chala 53.2 Spring onion 79.6 livestock. This is likely because most of the producers in the Cabbage 67.1 Guayabas 84.6 survey raise animals as compared to growing crops, so it Squash 61.5 Cassava 87.6 would be expected that they use their land more for rearing Chincho 94.0 Granada 90.0 animals. Twenty most commonly cultivated foods that at least 50% of the harvest * is sold. A comparison of the state of dwellings between producers ** Twenty most commonly cultivated foods that at least 50% is used for and non-producers is presented in Box G3. home consumption. Inputs Used for Urban Agriculture Guinea pigs were the other main source of animal The inputs used by producers in the six months before products. Between 12 to 23 percent of guinea pigs were the survey are shown in Table G5. The most common type of reared in households across the transect, of which more than fertilizer used across the transect is animal manure, followed two-thirds were used for household consumption and one- by chemical fertilizers. The latter is more frequently used in third sold. Beef/veal, pigs, and goats/sheep were raised to a urban (Callao) and peri-urban transition areas than in peri- lesser extent in all the districts. urban areas. In the other urban area, VMT, most households Table G4: Primary animals raised and their consumption by households in Lima* (percent) Poultry Beef/Veal District Raised by Producer Amount Consumed Raised by Producer Amount Consumed Household by Household Household by Household Urban (Callao) 52.2 87.5 10.6 69.8 Urban (VMT) 28.5 100.0 14.0 91.4 Peri-Urban Transition 44.9 80.8 18.6 90.2 Peri-Urban 76.2 91.3 7.3 73.6 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. 83 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES General state of dwellings between producers Box G3:  Figure G2: Type of land used by producers in Lima and non-producers in Lima Type of Land Owned by Producers Few differences were found between producers and non- producers with regard to the state of their dwellings, but more differences were found along the transect. 34 In terms of materials used for walls, respondents in the urban area of Callao tended to use bricks and/or cement the least, 8 6 100 while the opposite was true for urban respondents in VMT. In general, VMT households were better off than in other locations. In Callao, although few respondents had houses made of brick and/or cement, producers seem to be better 52 off than non-producers. Callao respondents were found to be generally worse off than their counterparts in the peri-urban area. Owned Leased/Rented Other Not answered Total More producers tend to have access to their own toilets than non-producers in all areas of the transect, except in VMT, where both groups had equal access to private latrines. There are also considerable differences in the use of hired Electricity was found to be prevalent in all areas, although very few respondents, except those in VMT, had access to labor, ranging from frequently used to hardly used, as in the municipal water supply. case of VMT. The mean household size in Lima for producers is 4.67 people Livelihood while for non-producers it is 4.26 people, a difference that is statistically significant. Figure G3 shows the primary occupation of household heads. In producer households, 23 percent are involved in urban agriculture as the primary occupation and 17 percent as the secondary occupation. Figure G4 illustrates that 67 used manure or organic compost probably because these percent of producers who said their primary occupation was were mostly small household plots. A similar pattern is seen farming did not have a secondary occupation, followed by for pesticide use. This may be due to the fact that organic those who were housewives (17 percent) and those involved farming is being promoted in VMT and LC, although chemical in independent informal businesses (8 percent). fertilizers and pesticides in LC are used by more than half the On average, adult females were slightly more active in producers surveyed. sowing, cultivation, and harvesting activities than males. Table G5: Use of fertilizers and other inputs across transect zones in Lima (percent) Fertilizers/ Other Peri-Urban Input Urban (Callao) Urban (VMT) Peri-Urban Total inputs Transition Fertilizer Manure 63.8 67.3 83.1 87.8 75.1 Organic Compost 30.4 46.9 25.8 28.4 34.2 Wastewater 36.2 24.8 13.5 33.8 26.1 Chemical fertilizer 59.4 9.7 58.4 29.7 36.5 Other 5.8 27.4 7.9 1.4 12.5 Other inputs Seedlings/Seeds 60.9 54.0 66.3 58.9 59.6 Hired labor 42.0 1.8 50.6 10.8 24.3 Water/Irrigation 72.5 50.4 74.2 68.9 64.9 Pesticide 55.9 8.0 57.3 25.7 34.0 Other 7.2 23.0 2.2 6.8 11.0 ANNEX G 84 Figure G3: Primary occupation of household heads in Lima Secondary occupation of Figure G4:  Primary and secondary occupation of household heads producers in Lima Secondary (percent) occupation of farmers 100 90 21.8 26.2 80 70 16.7 15.8 2.2 5.7 60 7.9 Percentage 16.7 17.1 50 23.0 40 11.4 30 12.0 67.1 10.7 20 10 23.0 22.7 0 Non-Producer Producer No secondary occupation Housewife Farmer Informal business Informal business Salaried employee (with benefits) Housewife Casual labor Regular employee (no benefits) Other Other Male-headed households were slightly more active than the same. Those producers who are primarily involved in females in marketing their produce. urban agriculture also seem more likely to have other jobs, In non-producer households, the most common occupations such as salaried employment with or without benefits, casual were independent informal businesses (23 percent) and labor, or informal businesses. salaried work with benefits (23 percent). Overall, 40 percent of households received income from urban Table G6 summarizes the sources of income for producers agriculture in the previous year. The peri-urban transition area and non-producers. For those producers whose primary has the highest percentage of households that receive income occupation is farming, a majority earns their income by growing crops rather than rearing animals. When urban from agriculture (39 percent from crops and 35 percent from agriculture is a secondary occupation, the number of livestock). On the whole, a similar percentage of households producers who either rear livestock or grow crops is almost receive income from growing crops and raising animals. Table G6: Percentage sources of income for producers and non-producers in Lima* Producers Source of income Farming as Farming as Non-Producers Total primary secondary occupation occupation Agriculture (livestock) 49.3 5.2 0.0 19.7 Agriculture (crops) 70.0 6.8 0.0 20.6 Regular salaried employment (with benefits) 22.1 4.9 35.0 31.1 Regular paid employment (no benefits) 19.3 4.4 32.8 32.6 Professional services 0.0 0.4 2.5 2.0 Medium-sized enterprise 4.3 1.4 14.2 10.5 Informal business 12.1 4.0 34.4 31.7 Casual labor 14.3 4.0 22.1 24.4 Relatives/friends outside household 10.0 1.6 7.3 8.0 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. 85 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Income from Urban Agriculture Proportion of income from crop production along the Figure G5:  transect in Proportion Lima* from crop production along the transect of income Figures G5 and G6 show the differences primarily between the two urban areas surveyed in Lima. In VMT, 80 percent of producers make a “less Peri-Urban Peri-Urban Transition Urban (Callao) Urban (VMT) important� percent of their income from either crop 100 production or raising livestock, while in Callao there Very Important Moderately Important seems to be a more widespread range. In the peri- Very Important 80 Very Important urban transition area, the data show that producers Percentage of households by category get a higher proportion of their income from 100 Moderately Important growing crops rather than rearing animals. 60 52 Moderately Important Expenditure Moderately Important 40 The mean percentage of household expenditures Less Important is similar across the transect as well as between producers and non-producers. The major expenditure 20 Less Important item was food, at about 31 percent of total household Less Important Less Important expenditure, as presented in Table G7. This is despite 0 the fact that on average, 20 percent of producers’ 0 25 50 75 100 incomes come from some form of urban agriculture. Share of households by area, percent Besides food, respondents spent roughly the same proportion on utilities, transport, education, and *Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; Very important: more than 75%. health. General Food Situation Proportion of income from rearing animals along the Figure G6:  In general, it was found that over 96 percent of transect in Proportion Lima* from rearing animals along the transect of income producers across the transect consume at least part of the food produced by them. The main benefits Peri-Urban of participating in urban agriculture according to Peri-Urban Transition Urban (Callao) Urban (VMT) 100 the respondents are that it saves money to purchase Very Important Very Important Very Important other types of food and provides extra food to Moderately Important producer households, as shown in Table G8. 80 Percentage of households by category Moderately Important In terms of food security, approximately 35 Moderately Important 100 Moderately Important percent of both non-producers and producers across 60 the transect said that they eat enough of what they 52 want, and 53 percent said that they eat enough but Less Important not always of what they want. In the peri-urban 40 transition and peri-urban areas, the differences Less Important between the producers and non-producers were Less Important 20 Less Important more apparent, although not statistically significant. In terms of examining food security in the past 0 year, producer households tend to be more insecure 0 25 50 75 100 than non-producer households, although there are Share of households by area, percent no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Producers in both the urban areas of *Categories of income: Less important: less than 25%; Moderately important: 25-75%; Very important: more than 75%. Callao and VMT tend to be more concerned about food insecurity than non-producers in these districts, whereas in the peri-urban area, the concerns are similarly shared between producers and non-producers. ANNEX G 86 Table G7: Household expenditures along the transect in Lima (percent) Peri-Urban Expenditure Item Urban (Callao) Urban (VMT) Peri-Urban Total Transition Food 31.1 33.6 31.5 28.7 31.2 Education 10.8 10.4 12.5 12.4 11.5 Utilities 14.1 16.2 11.6 13.4 13.7 Health 12.2 10.8 10.6 11.6 11.3 Transport 13.3 12.0 11.9 13.4 12.6 Clothes 8.3 6.3 6.3 8.4 7.3 Family events 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.6 Shelter 2.4 4.0 6.5 3.9 4.2 Loan/debt 4.3 4.2 5.4 5.6 4.9 Other 1.9 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.4 Domestic help 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 Regardless of the group, the principal reason for not frequency of consumption during the previous week only for eating enough or not having enough of what they would like those foods that were consumed on the previous day would to eat is insufficient money to purchase food. have underestimated the frequency and variety of all self- produced foods consumed during the previous week. Food Diversity Figure G7 shows the difference on food consumption The food diversity in Lima, shown by the various types between producers and non-producers. The consumption of of food groups produced and consumed by producers in the staple food groups, such as cereals and roots and tubers, the week prior to the survey, illustrates different patterns are similar between producers and non-producers and across across the transect. For instance, more roots and tubers were consumed in urban and peri-urban transition areas and less the districts. However, there is a tendency for more producer so in the peri-urban area, whereas more meat (e.g. chicken, households to consume vegetables than non-producers, and is duck) was consumed in the peri-urban area than the other a significant difference between the two groups in the urban areas. area of VMT. When disaggregated by type of vegetable, a Interestingly, among those who consumed their own higher proportion of producer households consume yellow/ produced food the previous day the frequency of consumption orange vegetables (e.g.: squash, carrot, sweet potato), of certain foods during the previous week was quite high for especially in VMT and the peri-urban transition area, and a number of types of foods. Leeks/celery, broccoli/cabbage, green leafy vegetables, specifically in Callao and the peri- herbs, onions, fruits, eggs, milk, lettuce, tomato and squash urban area. In general there is a tendency but not a significant were eaten daily or more than once a day, indicating that difference for more non-producers to consume fruits; only in they were a regular part of the diet, although amongst only VMT is there a tendency for more producer households to a small proportion of the producers. The reporting of the consume yellow/orange fruits rich in beta-carotene. Table G8: The impact of consumption of one’s own food produced in Lima* (percent) Peri-Urban Effect of consuming own food Urban (Callao) Urban (VMT) Peri-Urban Total Transition Saves money to purchase other types of food 66.9 82.8 73.7 70.4 73.4 Monetary saving on food purchases 55.4 76.8 63.5 58.6 63.5 Saves money for other household purchases 33.1 37.7 30.1 36.2 34.3 Provides extra food 69.4 65.6 74.4 73.0 70.6 Provides a more diverse diet 57.3 60.9 62.8 71.7 63.1 Has an effect in another way 15.3 20.5 17.9 21.7 18.8 Little or no effect 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 *Numbers add up to more than 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one answer. 87 URBAN AGRICULTURE: FINDINGS FROM FOUR CITY CASE STUDIES Food diversity: Consumption of 15 food groups by producers and non producers in the previous 24 hours Figure G7: Food diversity showing consumption of 15 food groups in the previous 24 hours in Lima* along the transect (years) 9.5 Fish 10.6 21.5 Yellow/orange fruit 20 30 Green leafy vegetables 36.6 44.5 Eggs 42 46.7 Legumes 53.3 53.3 Other fruits 50.4 59 Other vegetables 57.7 66.6 Yellow/orange vegetables 73 Milk and milk products 78.9 70.1 Other meat 81.1 80.5 Tubers 82 84.6 Cereal or grain 97.5 97.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Non-Producer Producer *Annex A provides a detailed description of foods contained in each group Most households consume meat with little Figure G8: Map of Lima showing survey sites difference between producer and non-producers. Only in the peri-urban transition area do more producer families consume meat. The percent of families who consume fish is low. Only in Callao, which is near the seaport, do more producer families consume seafood than non-producers. More non-producers consume milk and dairy products than producers, which is significantly different in the peri-urban area. Source of Food Twenty-three percent of producer households consumed at least one food from their own production on the day prior to the survey; this is considered to be a high proportion given that the query pertained to only one day. Interestingly, this is lower in Callao where much of the production is for commercial purposes and higher in VMT where the production is generally more for home consumption. The most common source of food during the week prior to the survey for both producers as well as non- producers and along the transect was purchasing raw food and preparing it at home (99 and 98 percent, respectively). Consuming self-produced food was not included in the questionnaire; however, the data collected through the survey as well as from the focus group discussions indicate that self-produced food is ANNEX G 88 not a principal source of food although it does contribute to Figure G9: Map of Peru the total food available in producer families. When asked, women producers from the peri-urban transition area said they consumed food that they grow more than producers from other areas. The main foods in this category were vegetables and fruits, although staple foods, such as sweet potatoes and potatoes, were also mentioned. Consuming food obtained from outlets, such as restaurants or kiosks, is mentioned by around 30 percent of households and is similar between producers and non-producers. This varied by zone, for instance, in Callao and the peri-urban transition area, more producers used this source than non- producers, while in VMT and the peri-urban area, it was the opposite. Food programs were more commonly found in VMT and the peri-urban area (26 and 29 percent, respectively), and within these, slightly more among producers. References Malena Castro y Henry Juárez. 2007. “Propuesta Metodológica de Protección de Zonas Agrícolas en Zonas Peri-urbanas de Lima Metropolitana.� http://www.laboratoriosanaliticosdelsur.com/includes/CAP_MalenaCastro_PaginaWeb_LAS.pdf ENAHO. 2009. “Encuesta Nacional Continua de Hogares 2004-2009.� Lima, Perú: INEI. GEA 2010. “Reporte Ambiental de Lima y El Callao 2010.� Lima, Perú: Grupo GEA, INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática). “2007 XI Censo de población y VI de Vivienda.� Lima Perú: INEI. http:// www.inei.gob.pe/ ____. 2007b. “Indicadores de Pobreza.� Lima Perú: INEI. http://www.inei.gob.pe/ _____. 2008. “Perfil Sociodemográfico del Perú. XI Censo de Población y VI de Vivienda.� Lima Perú: INEI. http://desa.inei.gob. pe/censos2007/tabulados/ ____. 2009. “Perú: Migraciones Internas 1993-2007.� Lima, Perú:INEI. IPES (Promoción Del Desarrollo Sostenible). 2006. “Villa María Sembrando para la Vida: Situación, Limitaciones, Potenciales y Actores de la Agricultura Urbana en Villa María del Triunfo.� Lima. LiWa. 2009. “Análisis de la Situación del Agua en Lima Metropolitana y el Callo.� http://www.lima-water.de/es/documents. html?Menu=5 Matos Mar, José; Matos Lagos, Rubén. 1990. “Aguas Residuales, Agricultura y Alimentación en la Gran Lima.� Lima: Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Moscoso, Julio y Tomas Alfaro. 2008. “Panorama de Experiencias de Tratamiento y Uso de Aguas Residuales en Lima Metropolitana y Callao.� Cuaderno de Agricultura Urbana N° 6. Lima, Perú: IPES, RUAF, MVCS y SWITCH. http://www.ipes. org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=179 Soto, Noemí; Castro, Cecilia. 2007. “La Red de Agricultores Urbanos de Villa María del Triunfo.� Revista Agricultura Urbana 17 (9): 48. Previous Knowledge Papers in this Series Lessons and Experiences from Mainstreaming Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda HIV/AIDS into Urban/Water (AFTU1 & AFTU2) Daniel Hoornweg, December 2010, No. 10 Projects Nina Schuler, Alicia Casalis, Sylvie Debomy, Memo to the Mayor: Improving Access to Christianna Johnnides, and Kate Kuper, Urban Land for All Residents – September 2005, No. 1 Fulfilling the Promise Barbara Lipman, with Robin Rajack, Occupational and Environmental Health Issues June 2011, No. 11 of Solid Waste Management: Special Emphasis on Middle and Lower-Income Countries Conserving the Past as a Foundation for the Sandra Cointreau, July 2006, No. 2 Future: China-World Bank Partnership on Cultural Heritage Conservation A Review of Urban Development Issues in Katrinka Ebbe, Guido Licciardi and Axel Poverty Reduction Strategies Baeumler, September 2011, No. 12 Judy L. Baker and Iwona Reichardt, June 2007, No. 3 Guidebook on Capital Investment Planning for Local Governments Urban Poverty in Ethiopia: A Multi-Faceted Olga Kaganova, October 2011, No. 13 and Spatial Perspective Elisa Muzzini, January 2008, No. 4 Financing the Urban Expansion in Tanzania Zara Sarzin and Uri Raich, Urban Poverty: A Global View January 2012, No. 14 Judy L. Baker, January 2008, No. 5 What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Preparing Surveys for Urban Upgrading Waste Management Interventions: Prototype Survey Instrument Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and User Guide March 2012, No. 15 Ana Goicoechea, April 2008, No. 6 Investment in Urban Heritage: Economic Exploring Urban Growth Management: Impacts of Cultural Heritage Projects in FYR Insights from Three Cities Macedonia and Georgia Mila Freire, Douglas Webster, and Christopher David Throsby, Macquarie University, Sydney, Rose, June 2008, No. 7 September 2012, No. 16 Private Sector Initiatives in Slum Upgrading Building Sustainability in an Urbanizing Judy L. Baker and Kim McClain, May 2009, No. 8 World: A Partnership Report Dan Hoornweg, Mila Freire, Julianne Baker- The Urban Rehabilitation of the Medinas: The Gallegos and Artessa Saldivar-Sali, eds., July World Bank Experience in the Middle East and 2013, No. 17 North Africa Anthony G. Bigio and Guido Licciardi, May 2010, No. 9 This guide has benefited from the support of the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway. For more information, contact: Urban Development and Resilience Unit Sustainable Development Network The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Email: urbanhelp@worldbank.org Website: www.worldbank.org/urban