Understanding Urban Agriculture - Distance Learning course

Course description

Urban agriculture (UA) is being practiced by large numbers of people in both southern and northern cities.  Increasingly, governments and civil society organizations are promoting its development to enhance urban food security and health, alleviate poverty and strengthen urban livelihoods, support community building, contribute to urban environmental management and greening, and provide educational and recreational services. This course, developed by Marielle Dubbeling (ETC UA) and Joe Nasr (Ryerson University), will expand the understanding of the main concepts of urban agriculture, its main types and dimensions, its potential impacts, the constraints and opportunities facing it, the stakeholders involved in it, the historical contexts shaping it, and the local, regional and international development trends bearing on it. Based on this analysis, the course will provide some tools and approaches for how UA could be analysed and supported by various urban actors.

Copyright © The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, Ryerson University (Toronto, Canada), ETC Urban Agriculture and RUAF

Materials provided may not be used for accredited courses within another post-secondary educational programme that offers courses in Western countries or at international level. Readers may however make use of course materials for academic papers and publications, in which they must provide appropriate citation to Ryerson University, ETC Urban Agriculture and RUAF.

Course Objectives and/or Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, students will be able to:

• Explain the concept of urban agriculture from various perspectives
• Describe the basic systems, dimensions, stakeholders and institutions related to UA
• Identify and communicate the main benefits, problems, opportunities and constraints related to UA
• Place UA in a historical context, and relate it to current trends that may shape its future development
• Analyse urban agriculture using a range of tools and approaches, and consider various strategies for intervention so as to support its development
• Combine the above elements into a coherent and holistic vision of the possible future of urban agriculture in a given city

Module 1: The Concept of Urban Agriculture

Introduction




Urban agriculture (UA) is being practiced by large numbers of people in both southern and northern cities.  Increasingly, governments and civil society organizations are promoting its development to enhance urban food security and health, alleviate poverty and strengthen urban livelihoods, support community building, contribute to urban environmental management and greening, and provide educational and recreational services.  This course will expand your understanding of the main concepts in urban agriculture, its main types and dimensions, its potential benefits and risks, the constraints and opportunities facing it, the stakeholders involved in it, the historical contexts shaping it, and the local, regional and international development trends bearing on it. Based on this analysis, the course will provide some tools and approaches for how UA could be analysed and supported by various urban actors.

This introductory module will start by discussing several definitions for urban agriculture. You will be asked to provide and discuss your own and current definition of urban agriculture. The module will then continue to focus on firstly comparing intra- and peri-urban, and secondly urban and rural agriculture.  It will also introduce and (graphically) show the presence of urban agriculture worldwide.

Learning objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Provide a definition of urban agriculture.
• Discuss the differences, commonalities and complementarities between urban, peri-urban and rural agriculture.
• Discuss the presence of urban agriculture worldwide, providing examples from different cities.


Your first definition of urban agriculture

All of you participating in this course have already some idea of what urban agriculture entails. Before we continue to further discuss a common definition of urban agriculture, please write down in one sentence your own current definition (concept) of urban agriculture. Remember that there is no good or bad definition. Your own definition may very well reflect the types and forms of urban agriculture you find in your own city.

Definition of Urban agriculture

Urban Agriculture (UA) is practiced by people from all walks of life. Poor urban farmers and their families in Rosario, Argentina may practice urban agriculture in their backyards or open spots in the city for reasons of food security. Slum dwellers in Colombo, Sri Lanka may grow some herbs and medicinal plants on their rooftops and balconies. Middle-class or high-income families in the Netherlands may grow flowers and vegetables on land areas located along the railways for reasons of leisure and recreation. Small-scale peri-urban farmers may keep livestock and generate an income in the areas surrounding the city of Nairobi, Kenya. Larger scale farmers living around Beijing, China may offer agro-tourism services to urban inhabitants. Other individuals or groups may produce compost to be used in UA, while others again will be involved in transformation and marketing of the produce. National or local governments may actively support these practices or prohibit them. Support organizations like non-governmental organization (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) may provide urban producers with training and support services. Research institutes may investigate the amount and quality of land available for UA, test new production practices or monitor the impacts of UA projects.

As illustrated above, urban agriculture is a dynamic concept that comprises a variety of farming systems, ranging from subsistence production and processing at household level to fully commercialised agriculture. UA exists within heterogeneous resource situations, e.g. under scarce as well as abundant land and/or water resource situations and under a range of policy and institutional environments that can be prohibitive or supportive to its existence and development. As UA thus takes different forms in different cities, it should be best defined locally.

Required reading: S. Quon (1999) “Appendix 1: Urban agriculture definitions”, for a review of many of such local “working definitions” that have been coined over the past years.

Please reflect: When reviewing the definitions provided by S. Quon, which definition best mirrors the definition you wrote down for yourself?

For the purpose of this course, we will apply the following working definition to urban agriculture, to have a common base for discussion:

“An industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows and raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, (re-) using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area.” - L. Mougeot, 2000.

Please look at the following pictures, displaying various elements of our urban agriculture definition:

Urban agriculture…

• includes crop production, animal raising as well as fish-farming in and around cities 

Prosper Nguegang (2006), Yaoundé-Cameroon/ William Leschen (2005), Hanoi-Vietnam

• food production as well as non-food production (flowers, trees, pot plants for example)

Olefunke Cofie (2005), Accra-Ghana /         Marielle Dubbeling (2006), Dakar-Senegal

• processing and marketing of food and non-food products produced in and around the urban area

Joao Luis Homem de Carvalho (2001), Brasilia- Brasil / Raul Terrile (2005), Rosario-Argentina

• uses compost and (treated or untreated) urban wastewater as resources

Marielle Dubbeling (2000), Camilo Aldao Argentina / Stephanie Buechler (2003), Mexico City-Mexico

• may take place on open land areas in the city as well in backyards or on rooftops.

Bert Lof (2006), Chicago-USA /                   Marielle Dubbeling (2005), Dakar Senegal

Intra- and peri-urban agriculture

As highlighted in our definition urban agriculture can be located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, city or metropolis. Let us now look in more detail at the characteristics of such intra- or peri-urban agriculture.

Intra-urban agriculture takes place within the built-up city. In most cities and towns, we can find vacant and under-utilised land areas that are or can be used for urban agriculture, including areas not suited for building (along streams, railroads, under electricity lines); idle public or private  lands (reserved for future uses, speculation, or lands awaiting construction) that  can have an interim use, community lands and household areas.  Areas cultivated tend to be very small and farming systems mainly have a subsistence or recreational nature (backyard gardening and raising of animals on household plots or balconies, small-scale gardening on vacant public land,) or are highly specialised (e.g. nurseries of ornamental plants in parks, production of herbs and medicinal plants on rooftops, production of mushrooms in cellars). The economic effect of intra-urban agriculture is difficult to measure but may be limited, while the effect on food security is often significant.

Please find some images showing examples of intra-urban agriculture below:

Ivana Lovo (2007) - Sao Paulo- Brazil /       William Leschen (2003)-Hanoi -Vietnam

Peri-urban agriculture takes place in the urban periphery. Peri-urban locations tend to undergo, over a given period of time, dramatic changes: land prices increase, there is an influx of people both from rural and urban areas, density increases, multiple land-uses emerge and construction spreads. Such changes effect the original agricultural production systems which tend to become of smaller scale with more intensive production and a shift from staple crops towards more perishable crops and animal production to serve a growing urban market (meat, eggs, milk).  Peri-urban agriculture tends to be more intensive and commercially oriented, providing more substantial numbers of jobs and income than intra-urban agriculture.

Please find some images showing examples of peri-urban agriculture below:  

Yves Cabannes (2003)- Santa Maria -Brazil/ William Leschen (2003b)- Hanoi-Vietnam

Lengthy discussions on the precise borders between urban, peri-urban and rural systems are however not very fruitful; in most cases we will find a continuum from intra- to urban and rural agriculture comprising various farming systems.   Nevertheless, it is of importance to build up our understanding of the differences and complementarities between urban (intra- and peri-) and rural agriculture and the conditions under which it is undertaken, as each of these create specific opportunities and challenges for the technical, organizational and institutional management of the related farming systems.

Rural and urban agriculture have much in common. They are however also characterised by some important differences.

These relate to:

• the role of agriculture in local livelihoods
• the social context in which agriculture takes place
• the political and institutional context
• the access to and use of productive resources
• the farming types found in the area and the processes of agricultural innovation
• the demand for non-agricultural services.

We will discuss each of these differences in the sections below.

The role of agriculture in local livelihoods

Yves Cabannes (2002)- Santo Andre- Brazil/ Marielle Dubbeling (2006) -Madagascar

Although non-farm activities of rural people are steadily growing in most parts of the world, agriculture remains their primary occupation and source of livelihood. Local farming and natural resource management knowledge and skills are passed on from elders to children. Cultural norms often define division of tasks and responsibilities.

The origin of the people involved in urban agriculture varies widely as does the contribution of agriculture to urban livelihoods. Urban farmers can be:

• Farming families  that have gradually become absorbed by the expanding city and often  adapt their farming systems to new urban opportunities, like closeness to markets with better opportunities to collect market information and to sell directly to urban consumers or shopkeepers (either in fresh or in processed form including vending street foods). Despite these opportunities, some peri-urban and urban producers continue with a “rural outlook” and need support to engage with new markets and market channels. Opportunities can be constrained by other, negative changes, especially loss of customary land rights, increased competition for land from speculators and industry, quarrying activities (e.g. construction sand and stones), and more urban regulation, control and political pressure.
• Recent migrants that engage in agriculture as a (temporal?) survival strategy. They often rely on relatives and people with common origins to get access to land, or else make use of vacant public land. They often bring farming knowledge and skills from their place of origin, part of which does not apply under the urban conditions and will need adaptation.
• Very poor and food insecure urban households (including female headed households with children, HIV-AIDS affected households, young people without a job, elderly people without a pension, etcetera). These socially excluded people may engage in food production out of necessity on very small plots on –often marginal- vacant open private or public land and around/in/on their homes.     
• Low and middle class urban households that seek to complement their income by engaging in agricultural activities, often on their homestead, e.g. zero grazing dairy units, small poultry units, tree nurseries, ornamental plants, mushrooms, etcetera.
• Richer people that see good investment opportunities in agriculture and engage in larger scale agro-enterprises often with hired farm managers and farm workers (large poultry and pig farms, flowers, strawberries, etcetera).  

The last three categories of urban producers are already urban citizens and many of them may have limited prior farming experience and skills when they start producing. Agriculture is often only a secondary or tertiary livelihood activity, alongside other employment by different family members. The fact that agricultural production in urban areas is often combined with part- or fulltime activities in other urban sectors means that household’s decision-making processes and strategies regarding deployment of household resources are more complicated than in rural livelihoods.

Social context / Political and institutional context

Social context

Even though the socio-economic circumstances of rural communities are rapidly changing, nevertheless these communities continue to be relatively culturally homogeneous and stable. Networks of kinship and neighbourliness facilitate farmer organisation and intervention processes. Urban producers on the other hand often come from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. They live in a highly dynamic environment with strong fluctuations. Under these conditions, there is often a low level of trust between households contributing to a sense of insecurity. Theft of products is much more common in urban compared to rural areas.  These circumstances make interventions and the organization of urban producers is much more difficult.

Political and institutional context

In the rural areas agriculture is accepted as a legal land use category, land ownership is usually customary and in general, there are relatively few external stakeholders to contest land rights or to contest the direction of local development. In contrast, urban agriculture, especially in inner-city areas, is often not a legally accepted land use and is constrained by important legal restrictions. There are also a large number of urban stakeholders with competing interests in the natural resources necessary for agriculture and their views on local development differ widely. Public sector agricultural research and extension services normally do not attend the urban areas, but urban producers can more easily gain direct access to libraries and market information and are more exposed to the extension activities of agro-chemical companies, with not always positive results.

Productive resources: access and quality / Farming types and agricultural innovation

Productive resources: access and quality

In rural areas, land and water resources are rarely polluted. Water availability varies highly with the region; where available, the price of water is generally low. Land and labour costs, especially in remoter rural areas, are normally low. The major part of production costs is being taken up with inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Urban producers frequently work under difficult environmental conditions with land and water resources often polluted due to industrial contamination, traffic, and lack of collection and treatment of household wastes. Production close to a large population also brings along specific health risks, such as contamination of water, soils and/or products from agro-pesticides and zoonosis. In urban areas land availability and security are low and land prices are high. Water may not be easily available or constrained by high prices (piped water) or low quality (polluted rivers or insufficiently treated wastewater). Costs of commercial inputs may be lower and alternative low cost sources of nutrients are available (in urban organic wastes and wastewater). Labour is less reliable and almost always more costly than in the rural areas and less reliable, due to alternative, if uncertain, non-agricultural employment opportunities.

Farming types and agricultural innovation

The above factors have a strong impact on the types and styles of farming that one encounters in rural and urban settings. In the rural areas, rainfed farms dominate that produce cereals, coarse grains, root crops or extensively raise livestock (cattle, sheep). Urban and peri-urban  “farms” tend to become specialised micro-units,  with intensive horticultural production and livestock raising, sometimes without the need of cultivated land through exploiting  rooftops, hydroponics and  containers.). Perishable and “special niche” products dominate, especially green vegetables, dairy products, poultry and pigs, mushrooms, ornamental plants, herbs, fish, among others. Year-round production is common through multiple crop cycles, irrigation and use of cover.

Innovation is a constant in rural farming systems, and in some areas it is intensifying under the influence of increasing market penetration and stronger rural-urban linkages, both driven by globalisation processes. But in the urban context, due to the factors mentioned above both the need as well as the opportunities for innovation appear to be higher, leading to a higher intensity of technical innovation, more diversity in farming types as well as new forms of organisation and cooperation

Demand for non-agricultural services

In the urban context, more then in most rural areas, various urban needs (other than food) influence urban and peri-urban agriculture, like demand for recreational services, management of urban and peri-urban green spaces, heat/CO2 reduction, ecological education, storm water storage, wind/dust protection, to name but a few. In Western countries, but increasingly also in/around metropoles in the South, part of the urban producers integrate these new functions in their micro-enterprises (Prain and de Zeeuw, 2007). 

Please look at the table below for a summary of all the differences outlined above.

Table 1: Differences between agriculture in rural and urban situations

	Rural	Urban (Intra- and Peri-)
Farm types	Generally more conventional; farms consisting of interdependent sub-units	Unconventional; partly mobile; partly non-dependent on land (ex. hydroponics or rooftop gardening); more specialised independent units acting in cluster
Livelihood	Farming is a primary livelihood, producers are engaged full-time	Farming is often a secondary livelihood, producers engaged on a part-time basis
Farmer type	Includes mostly ‘born farmers’	In part ‘beginners”: citizens engaging in agriculture by necessity or by choice (entrepreneurs); in part recent migrants
Knowledge	Strong traditional knowledge	Weak traditional knowledge
Products	Staple crops mainly. Cattle, sheep	Perishable and niche products especially green vegetables, dairy products, poultry and pigs, mushrooms, ornamental plants, herbs, fish,a/o
Cropping calendar	Seasonal periods	Year-round growing of crops (use of urban wastewater)
Production factors	Low land price Lower costs of labour High costs of commercial inputs Variable cost of water	High land price, land scarcity Higher costs of labour Lower costs of commercial inputs (less transport) High cost of (drinking) water Availability of low cost organic wastes and wastewater
Farmer organisations	Often already in place and more easy to form since farmers share same social background	Often lacking and more difficult to set up since farmers are dispersed, have strong variation in social backgrounds and have additional engagements to farming (less time available)
Social context	Majority of families engaged in farming and shared social background   More homogeneous Relatively stable Few external stakeholders   Farmers are more organised	Farmers do often undertake activities outside their own neighbourhood. The percentage of households engaged in farming in a neighbourhood is highly variable. Farmers vary in socio-cultural backgrounds Highly dynamic environment with strong fluctuations. Many external stakeholders with different interests and contrasting views on the subject Farmers are hardly organized
Environmental context	Relatively stable; land and water resources less likely to be polluted	Fragile, often polluted land and water resources
Availability of research and extension services	More likely (although declining)	Hardly available (but individuals may gain direct access to libraries, research organizations, market information, etcetera)
Availability of credit services	More likely (although maybe for larger farmers and males only)	Hardly available (but credit services for the informal sector are available and might attend farmers too, including females)
Market	Distant markets Marketing through chain Low degree of local processing	Closeness to markets Direct marketing to customers possible Higher degree of local processing (including street foods)
Land security	Relatively high	Insecure, often informal use of public land, competitive land uses


 
The specific interactions between urban farming systems with the urban environment create various specific opportunities and challenges for technical, organizational and institutional innovation of urban agriculture. We will be discussing this in Module 3 in more detail.

 

World-wide presence of urban agriculture

How many urban farmers or people involved in input supply or processing and marketing of UA produce do you think there are worldwide? Does urban agriculture only take place in cities in developing countries or also in for example Europe and North America? Is UA more present in bigger or in smaller cities? 

The scale of urban agricultural production in the world is far above common perceptions. It was estimated in 1993 (Smit, 1996) that 15-20 percent of the world’s food was produced in urban areas, and that this percentage is on the increase. It was also estimated by the same source that 800 million people were engaged in urban agriculture worldwide at that time. Of these, 200 million were considered to be producing for the market, employing 150 million people full time.  There has been a substantial increase in urban agriculture activities during the last decade.  No overall figures exist on the true scale of urban agriculture, but some partial indications do exist. 

In Amman, Jordan 22% of urban households are engaged in gardening or other forms of urban agriculture (Department of Statistics, 2002), while in Amsterdam-The Netherlands, over 7000 families are cultivating 300 ha of city land (Wilbers, 2005).  In Jakarta, Indonesia, 10% of vegetables, 16% of fruit and 2 % of the total need of rice in the city is produced between its city limits (Purnomohadi, 2000), while in Accra, Ghana 90 % of the vegetables consumed in the city are produced in urban and peri-urban areas (Armar-Klemesu, 2000).  In Cienfuegos, Cuba, 17.000 urban agriculture jobs were generated between 1995 and 2003 (Socorro, 2003.), while in Rosario, Argentina, more then 600 families or marketing their produce on farmers markets, obtaining a monthly income from 40- 150 US$ (Dubbeling, 2004.)

Please click here to go to the worldmap and read some case studies from different cities. Please also find in the slideshow below one urban agriculture image for each of the cities featured in the worldmap.

 




Please reflect: What about the extent of urban agriculture in your city? Is UA widely or only scarcely present? Next time when you take a walk or drive around the city and its surrounding areas, you may want to try to locate UA related activities. You may also look at local newspaper or media for items on urban agriculture. Or search on the Internet for urban agriculture projects in your city.

Activity

Urban Agriculture is...

Please click here to select some statements that pertain to urban agriculture

Required readings / References

Required readings

1. Quon, S., 1999. Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners. Appendix 1: Urban agriculture definitions.  IDRC, Canada.  
2. Please read page 9-14: Urban and peri-urban agriculture, definitions and scope. In: FAO, 2001. Urban and peri-urban agriculture: A briefing guide for the successful implementation of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Developing Countries and Countries of Transition. Rome, Italy

References

• Armar-Klemesu, M., 2000. Urban agriculture and food security, nutrition and health. In: N. Bakker et al. (eds), 2000. “Growing cities, growing food : urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. DSE, Germany. 
• Department of Statistics of Jordan, 2002. Urban Agriculture Survey in Amman: practice, problems, prospects, Jordan. 
• Dubbeling, M., 2004. Optimizing use of vacant space for urban agriculture through participatory planning processes. Paper presented at workshop on IDRC-supported initiatives on urban agriculture and food security, Ryerson University, Toronto, August-September 2004. 
• Mougeot, L.J.A., 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In: N. Bakker et all (eds), 2000. “Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. DSE, Germany. 
• Prain, G. and H. de Zeeuw, 2007. Enhancing technical, organizational and institutional innovation in urban agriculture. In: “Urban Agriculture Magazine 19: Stimulating innovation in urban agriculture”. RUAF Foundation.  Leusden, the Netherlands. 
• Purnomohadi, N., 2000. Jakarta : agriculture as an alternative strategy to face the economic crisis. In: N. Bakker et al. (eds), 2000. “Growing cities, growing food : urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. DSE, Germany. 
• Smit, J., A. Ratta and J. Nasr, 1996. Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities. Publication Series for Habitat II, Vol. 1.  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York. 
• Socorro, A., 2003. Mapas concertados de uso de suelos. Produced in the context of a regional programme on “Optimising the use of vacant land for urban agriculture”. IPES, UMP-LAC and IDRC.  Quito, Ecuador. 
• Wilbers, J., 2005. Case Study: Bond Van Volkstuinders – BVV (Association of Gardeners). Produced in the context of a project on “Social organisations of urban and peri-urban producers: Management models and innovative alliances for policy influencing”. IPES, IDRC and ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, The Netherlands. 
• De Zeeuw, H., 2004. Handout 1: Concept and types of urban agriculture. Anglophone Africa Regional Training Course on Urban Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 8– 26 March, 2004. ETC- RUAF, the Netherlands.
   

Module 2: Building Blocks of Urban Agriculture

Introduction

Last week we discussed our own, as well as more common, definitions on urban agriculture. We also looked at the differences and complementarities between rural, intra- and peri-urban agriculture and tried to identify what makes urban agriculture “urban”. This module we will propose a series of important variables to further distinguish and characterize different forms of urban agriculture, as to make its definition more “operational”. We will then place urban agriculture in the context of various global debates related to food security and sustainable urban development, underlining some of the reasons for the increasing attention to urban agriculture worldwide. At the end of the module, you will be invited to develop and post a case study on one urban agriculture system found in your own city, characterising this urban agriculture system by using the building blocks described below.

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Further discuss the concept of urban agriculture, using a variety of building blocks
• Discuss urban agriculture in the context of global debates on the Millennium Development Goals, the ecological footprint, the slow food movement, community food security and sustainable cities.

Urban agriculture: building blocks

Urban agriculture: building blocks

How is urban agriculture different from, and complementary to, rural agriculture?

We could summarise our last week’s discussions by saying that urban agriculture can be distinguished from rural agriculture by its level of integration into the urban economic and ecological system. We have seen examples of such integration, in that:

• Urban producers are urban residents and often combine urban agriculture with other city jobs,
• Urban production is often more focussed on production of perishable and niche products and makes use of typical urban resources (urban organic wastes as fertilisers or animal food; use of urban wastewater for irrigation; transport),
• Urban agriculture produces for urban consumers and is part of the urban food system,
• Urban agriculture is competing for land with other urban functions,
• Urban agriculture is often combined with non-agricultural services, such as recreation or management of green spaces,
• Urban agriculture is being influenced urban policies, plans, norms and regulations,
• Urban agriculture has impacts on the urban economy, ecology and especially the livelihoods of the urban poor. 

How can we best define urban agriculture locally?

Last week we have agreed on a common definition for urban agriculture. However and unless this definition of urban agriculture is further enhanced and made operational, it will still remain little useful on the scientific, technology and policy fronts. We could do so by “breaking down” the common definition of urban agriculture into the following determinants:

Please click here to open a figure showing the 6 building blocks with a brief explanation

Beyond these six building blocks, a 7th variable could also be used to differentiate among the type of people involved in urban agriculture. Although large part of the urban farmers –especially in developing countries- are from the poorer strata of the population one will often also find lower and mid- level government officials, school teachers and the like involved in agriculture, as well as richer people who are seeking a good investment for their capital or simply wanting to enjoy gardening as a recreational and leisure activity. Women constitute an important part of urban farmers, since often women have the main responsibility for feeding the households. If the plot is close to the home, farming activities can be more easily combined with their other tasks in the household, than is the case in other jobs that often require travelling to the town centre, industrial areas or “better off” residential areas.

Use of these seven building blocks can help us to better define and differentiate among different types of urban agriculture. Only then can planners, policy makers, development organisations and others better identify the need for and type of support measures appropriate for the further development of specific types of urban agriculture (see further Module 3). For instance, providing micro-credit may not be the best form of financing for a poor family that undertakes UA at subsistence level, on a plot that is not their own, and that is not capable of repaying a formal loan. On the other hand, a small cooperative composed of farmers aiming for expansion of their UA activities would need forms of financial support that go beyond the provision of free access to seeds or other equipment. Thus it is necessary to getter an in-depth conceptual understanding of these types of UA in order to select the appropriate financing mechanisms for each of these types.




Required reading: Please read paragraph 1 and 2, page 1-13 from: L. Mougeot, 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In: “Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. N. Bakker et all. DSE, Germany. The document can be found on http://www.ruaf.org/node/55. Please go to the Theme1.pdf to download the file.

Video on urban agriculture: Please click on the following link http://www.ruaf.org/node/1127 to watch a part of the RUAF video on Urban Agriculture (2001) Based on 4 case studies from Cuenca- Ecuador, Dakar-Senegal, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania and Hanoi-Vietnam the building blocks “Location” and “Degree of market orientation” will be further illustrated in respectively clip 1 and 2.


 
 

Urban agriculture in the context of global debates

We have just discussed the importance of better defining (and understanding) urban agriculture locally, amongst others as a basis for outlining strategies for its development (what types of urban agriculture to support where and how?). But what may be reasons to support urban agriculture at all? Is urban agriculture not just a relict from rural-urban migration that dwindles as cities and urban economies grow? Is urban agriculture at all an issue in local and global debates on urban development?

Urban agriculture has always been part of city life. Urban citizens develop many strategies to improve their livelihoods and urban agriculture is one of them.  However attention to urban agriculture has only been increasing since the past 10 years. Research undertaken in the past decade indicates that urban agriculture has multiple roles and functions and plays in important role in a.o:

• enhancing urban food security, nutrition and health,
• creating urban job opportunities and generation of income and providing a social safety net for especially the urban poor,
• contributing to increased recycling of nutrients (turning urban organic waste and wastewater into a productive resource),
• facilitating social inclusion of disadvantaged groups and community development; and
  urban greening and maintenance of green spaces. 

Until recently, urban agriculture was given little policy attention, other then restricting it or permitting it only as a temporal use of urban land until other urban functions (housing, industrial development etc.) took over its use. 

With the increasing urbanisation (for the first time in history over half of the population now lives in cities), as well as with the urbanisation of poverty, “sustainable development” has become a more serious concern. Since several years, urban agriculture has now been placed in the context of global and local debates on “the Millennium Development Goals”, “local food systems”, ‘the ecological footprint”, the “slow food movement”, “community food security” and “sustainable cities”. A growing number of cities and countries are now designing policies and programmes on urban agriculture as a result.

The Millenium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals constitute an agenda for reducing poverty and improving livelihoods that world leaders and member states of the United Nations agreed upon at the Millennium Summit in September 2000. It contains eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), ranging from:

1. Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieving universal primary education
3. Promoting gender equality and empowering women
4. Reducing child mortality
5. Improving maternal health
6. Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensuring environmental sustainability
8. Developing a global partnership for development. 

Each of these goals has target figures, most set for 2015, and indicators designed to monitor the extent to which the target has been achieved (for more information please look at: www.unhabitat.org).

So let us see which of the goals are most directly impacted by UA activities. These are:

Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

• Probably urban agriculture’s main contribution is its contribution to household, community and urban food security.  UA is furthermore considered here for its potential contribution to job and income-generation. 

Goal 3.  Promote gender equality; empower women

• A large percentage of the urban farmers are women, and urban agriculture may provide special opportunities for poor urban women (especially female headed households). 

Goal 6.  Combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases

• Urban agriculture can play a positive role in the mitigation of the effects of the HIV/Aids epidemic, good nutrition being a prime factor in reducing the susceptibility for and progression of HIV/AIDS and enhancing the effects of treatment with ARV’s. Additionally provision of food aid is not considered  a sustainable solution on longer term. 

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

• Reference is made here to the fact that urban agriculture may recycle and use resources such as urban organic waste and wastewater, as well as may contribute to improving the cities’ micro-climate. 

Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development

• One of the targets here aims to develop and implement, in cooperation with developing countries, strategies for decent and productive work for youth. Urban agriculture offers an opportunity for employment creation in production. For urban youth, market-oriented urban agriculture, or linked enterprises, such as waste management or processing, provides a relatively accessible entry into the urban job market.

Required reading: For more examples and data on how UA contributes to several of the MDGs, please read the introductory chapter “Urban agriculture and the Millennium Development Goals, page 1-13 from Mougeot, 2005. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-84289-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Local food systems and the ecological footprint / Slow food movement

Local food systems and the ecological footprint

A food mile is a term used to measure the farm to market distance and cost for each and every product on the dinner plate. Seventy-five percent of what is harvested and mined from the earth is shipped to towns and cities, an area that covers only 2.5 percent of the earth’s surface, yet includes one half its human population. Natural resources are moved with massive energy and pollution costs to satisfy urban consumer and corporate demands. William Rees has defined the concept of an ecological footprint as a means to characterize the impact of human consumption on the biosphere in a single figure. More specifically, we can talk of an urban footprint.  Cities require vast areas of land for their sustenance and have come to depend on large amounts of food being brought in from outside the land area they actually occupy. London (UK) for example has a surface area of some 160,000 ha. With only 12% of Britain’s population, London requires the equivalent of 40% of Britain’s entire productive land for its food (Deelstra and Girdardet, 2000).  London’s ecological footprint goes beyond the close and far places from which it extracts resources, to Chicago and the U.S. Great Plains that supply its maize, to Bogota and the Colombian highlands that supply its coffee and to the Indian highlight for its tea. This inevitably raises the question of the extent to which such an urban pattern (and the lifestyle behind it) can be sustained without unacceptable environmental and social costs. The single largest component of the urban footprint is food. As countries and cities continue to urbanise, worldwide demand for land to feed cities will continue to grow. Sooner or later, cities that have come to take large-scale food imports for granted may need to consider reviving agricultural production in urban areas or the urban fringe to reduce the demand for land surface elsewhere.

Slow food movement
Slow food is a burgeoning movement (started in Italy) that favours local production, processing, marketing, and consumption. The movement was founded in the late eighties to counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food choices affect the rest of the world. They believe that the food we eat should taste good; that it should be produced in a clean way that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our health; and that food producers should receive fair compensation for their work. One of the strategies promoted by Slow Food is the direct linking of producers and consumers. We have already seen that urban agriculture can play mayor role in local food production, processing and marketing; and is ideally suited for establishing direct links between farmers and consumers.  Because of its closeness to markets, urban agriculture produce additionally provides an important source of fresh (and thus better tasting?) food. For more information, please look at www.slowfood.com

Community food security / Sustainable cities

Community food security

Relative to food security, community food security added several new concerns and objectives. These include:

• advocating solutions to address systemic hunger problems that rely more on the local food system than on national or global safety nets, including welfare and relief;
• addressing both the availability of and access to food along a continuum from the individual to global levels (with a particular emphasis on the community);
• dealing with where and how food is produced in addition to the more classic question how much is produced (quality of diet, not just quantity); and
• empowering individuals and organizations through community food initiatives. 

Beyond the issue of access to food, community food security emphasizes the viability of the farms where the food is grown, ecological sustainability of its production, and more community control of food production and distribution among others. Community food initiatives can empower residents and community-based organizations and institutions by developing opportunities for them to have greater participation in and control over their food systems  — including production, distribution, access, consumption, and disposition of food  waste. In the long term, this would “promote a truer sense of food security than does reliance on an externally-controlled food supply”. The goal is a food system in which food production, processing, distribution are integrated to enhance local environmental, economic, social, community and nutritional health. Urban agriculture is clearly one of the foundation blocks on which the concept of community food security rests (Smit, Nasr and Ratta, 2001). For more information, please look at the web-page of the Community Food Security Coalition, http://www.foodsecurity.org/index.html).

Sustainable cities
The issue of sustainable cities began to be addressed in Rio de Janeiro with the Agenda 21 Conference (1991) and continued at the 1996 UN City Summit in Istanbul, Turkey. The Habitat Agenda, signed in Istanbul by 180 nations, reaffirmed a world-wide social commitment to improvement of quality of life in human settlements and highlighted the role and importance of local authorities in the struggle to improve human settlements. The Habitat Agenda specifically mentions the role that UA, along with other activities and initiatives can play in contributing to the future sustainability of cities:

• Article 112. “Green spaces and vegetation cover in urban and peri-urban areas are essential for biological and hydrological balance and economic development. Vegetation creates natural habitats and permits better absorption of rainwater by natural means, which implies savings in water management, Green areas and vegetation also play an important part in reducing air pollution and in creating more suitable climatic conditions, thereby improving the living environment in cities. Healthy and environmentally sound agricultural activities and the provision of common land should be integrated into the planning of urban and peri-urban areas.
• Article 113 (h) ‘Develop and support the implementation of improved land management practices that deal comprehensively with competing urban land requirements for housing, industry, commerce, infrastructure, transport, green spaces and forested areas, taking into account the need for spaces for everyday activities – for playgrounds, parks, sports and recreation areas and areas suitable for gardening and urban agriculture. 

Apart from the above mentioned roles that UA can play in creating more green and social cities, while at the same time reducing its ecological footprint, is its potential role in waste- and water-management. Urban agriculture can play a role in reducing the amount of waste by reducing the need for food packaging. It can also re-use part of the (organic) waste and wastewater produced in a city. Generally, in cities in developing countries, organic waste counts for 40-60 % of household waste, and, when composted, it can produce an excellent fertiliser. Food production by livestock eating food remainders is also a tradition in many Asian and African countries, but also in north-western Europe. The direct use of (treated) wastewater for food production can also improve the efficiency of water use, especially important in countries with limited water resources (Deelstra and Girdardet, 2000).

Conclusion

A frequent argument, still used by urban planners is that agriculture should be confined to rural areas, as it can interfere with more productive use/ rent of land by other, more profitable economic activities (such as housing or industries). The overview above however highlights that urban agriculture does not hamper, but could be part of urban development. Urban agriculture can be either located on areas of land not suited for other functions (road-sides, steep slopes, areas of land under electricity lines), can be combined with a range of non-agricultural land use (multifunctional use of parks) and can be well-integrated in housing settlements (studies have found that property values in New York where higher in areas located close to community gardens).  

We have seen that urban agriculture may indeed contribute to more food secure, productive and environmentally healthy cities, reason why growing attention is being given to urban agriculture by various organisations and on various (international) agendas. As a result of such developments, as well as the pressure by local groups, urban farmers and non-governmental organisations, many city authorities have acknowledged the potential of urban agriculture and are collaborating with other local stakeholders in efforts to maximise the benefits of urban agriculture, while reducing its potential associated risks. Urban agriculture is not a panacea however. It may pose health and environmental risks, for example as a result of the use of agrochemicals, non-treated organic waste and wastewaters, and lack of hygiene in food processing and marketing activities. The benefits of urban agriculture as well its potential risks will be further discussed in Module 5 and 6.

Please reflect When reading local or national Newspapers, listing to TV, radio or media shows, please note of reference is made to one of the debates described above.  If you were to bring urban agriculture under the attention in your city, to which debate(s) would you refer?

Readings / References

Required readings:

• Please read paragraph 1 and 2, page 1-13 from: Mougeot, L.J.A., 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In: “Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. N. Bakker et all. DSE, Germany.
  http://www.ruaf.org/node/55 
• Please read the introductory chapter “Urban agriculture and the Millennium Development Goals, page 1-13 from Mougeot, L.J.A., 2005. Agropolis, the social, political and environmental dimensions on urban agriculture. Earthscan. London, UK.
  http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-84289-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.  

NB: You will need Acrobat Reader to be able to access the first mentioned reading.

References

• Deelstra, T. and H. Girdardet, 2000. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In: “Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. N. Bakker et all. DSE, Germany 
• Mougeot, L.J.A., 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In: “Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture”. N. Bakker et all. DSE, Germany 
• Smit, J., J. Nasr and A. Ratta, 2001. Urban agriculture, food, jobs and sustainable cities. Second edition. Unpublished.

Module 3: Types of urban agriculture

Introduction

This module will introduce the main urban agriculture (UA) types and systems found around the world, including different production systems as well as input supply, processing and marketing systems linked to UA. Each of the different UA types will be discussed briefly in terms of the actors involved, their resource-use, location, functions, technical aspects, development challenges and support needs. You will be invited to select and read different case studies posted in the required reading section and discuss for each of these cases the need for specific interventions and support policies, in order to enhance their further development.

Learning objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Explain the main characteristics, development potential and support needs of a number of UA types.
• Differentiate among UA production-, input-supply-, service delivery-, processing- and marketing systems.
• Reflect on the presence of such and other UA types in your own city and the relevance of these types for various policy objectives. 

Typology in urban agriculture

Why develop a typology of urban agriculture systems?

In S. Quon , 1999 (See Required readings Module 1),Tinker mentions the need for standardized definitions of UA (systems) so that quantitative data can be collected and compared.  Apart from such a research perspective, it also makes sense from a planning point of view to distinguish between certain UA types – at least insofar these types differ substantially in their characteristics, positive and potential negative impacts, in development potential and therefore in support needs. We saw last week (Module 2) that policy and technology interventions need first and foremost to identify meaningful differences and gradations in urban agriculture (based on a variety of building blocks that break down the more common definitions of urban agriculture), if they are to better assess and intervene with appropriate means for promotion and/or management of the different urban agriculture types.

How could such a typology be developed?

A common used typology of urban farming systems includes its division into mayor urban production systems: horticulture, aquaculture, animal husbandry, forestry and other farming systems (for example the production of mushrooms, grapes or silkworms). You may want to read Chapter 5 of the second edition of “Urban agriculture, food, jobs and sustainable cities” (Smit, Nasr and Ratta, 2001; see Optional readings) for such a typology and detailed description of each of the production systems. Other typologies primarily look at the locations where urban agriculture takes place, in private areas, on institutional or public land, in greenbelts surrounding the city. We will however use a typology based on the building blocks discussed in Module 2 (type of economic activities, type of products, scale and technologies used, degree of marketing, location, type of areas and type of people involved). Each of the types described below will be discussed in much greater detail in another UA Course (CVFN 412), where specifically potential (technological, social and institutional) innovations for each of these types, as well as implications for urban planning and development will be sketched out. This latter course will also discuss a methodology for farmer-centred learning, research, and extension for these different urban agriculture types.

Urban agriculture types: production systems

This module will describe 8 Urban Agriculture (UA) production systems including:

1. Micro-farming in and around the house/homestead,
2. Community gardening
3. Institutional UA,
4. Small-scale (semi-) commercial horticulture,
5. Small-scale (semi-) commercial livestock and aquatic farming,
6. Specialized urban agriculture and forestry production,
7. Large-scale agro-enterprises,
8. Multifunctional farms. 

It will additional discuss some input-supply- and service delivery systems as well as post production systems.  Please remember however, that in each specific location one should look again at the building blocks discussed last week as to identify the main UA types relevant for that specific city. Other UA systems might need to be distinguished as an additional category in order to be able to identify adequate support measures for their development. Too often we talk about urban agriculture as being a homogeneous type of activity, while you can imagine that it makes a big difference if we either want to promote small-scale and ecological community gardening for urban migrants in open land areas in the city, or large-scale livestock farming at the outskirts of the city.

As you see not all urban agriculture production systems have been featured on the photos added to the urban agriculture world map. Please look at the following slide-show illustrating all of the 8 urban agriculture production systems in more detail, before we will advance with a further description of each of these systems. To look at the slide-show please click on the following link: http://www.ruaf.org/node/1515

Micro-farming in and around the house/homestead

a. Characterization

Type of people involved:  both urban poor families, HIV-Aids affected families; female headed households;   as well as medium/high income class families

Locations: in/on (balcony, window-sills, cellar, barn, rooftop, kitchen) and around the house (front- and backyard, patio), especially in marginal urban settlements, urban centers and urban suburbs

Main motive: growing of food and herbs and small animals for subsistence or leisure mainly, or out of environmental awareness and interest in growing your own (organic) food

Degree of commercialization: occasional barter of minor surpluses with relatives and neighbors

Products: vegetables (including indigenous crops) according to family preferences, medicinal and kitchen herbs, small animals in small units (poultry, rabbits, guinea pigs, grass-cutters, pigeons….); ornamental plants; vermiculture/vermicomposting

Scale: micro-scale (up to 200 m2 but often smaller)   

Technologies: space confined and low cost (e.g. growing in single or double door sized beds, containers, boxes etcetera; small numbers of animals in cages). 

b. Main potentials

Important role in enhancing nutrition quality and contribution to household food security, especially in low income or HIV Aids affected households; contributes to availability of home-grown remedies  and reduction of health-related expenses;  contributes to urban greening, household waste-recycling and leisure.

c. Main support needs

• Provision of quality seeds/seedlings and small tools,
• Training / exchange of experiences regarding space confined and low cost production practices and recycling of household wastes (including kitchen and garden wastes and manure of small animal units if any) and simple methods to collect and reuse of grey and rainwater,
• Advice on crop choice and food preservation and food preparation with views on optimal nutritional effects.

Community gardening

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved:  urban poor families mainly, HIV-Aids affected families, female headed households, elderly people, recent migrants, but also higher-income class families (mainly in Europe and the USA)

Locations: normally within walking distance of the homes of the participants, especially in vacant open areas in or adjacent to popular neighbourhoods (along railways and roads, under power lines, on the grounds of community centres, churches, etcetera). Either informal or in agreement with formal owner (user-right agreements) 

Main motive: always: growing of food, fruits and herbs for subsistence or leisure; normally also: income generation through sale of surpluses and (sometimes) by related activities (food processing/packaging of products, local restaurant); often also: provision of food for the needy in the community (orphans, HIV affected families, old and sick people, “soup kitchens”)

Degree of commercialization: mainly subsistence; sales of surpluses to community members and to local shops and markets

Products: mainly vegetables (including indigenous crops) according to participants’ preferences and local demand, often also medicinal and kitchen herbs and berries and/or fruit, occasionally also some units with small animals (e.g. youth projects)

Scale: small-scale (500 m2 to some hectares)  

Technologies: in most cases low cost, bio-intensive gardening on raised beds, often some sort of irrigation system, fence and shed for meetings and storage of tools and handling of harvest. But in some cases, often with outside support, more technified and intensive (e.g. nurseries, under tunnel cultivation, drip irrigation)   

Organizational modalities: a. joint production b. allotments c. a combination of a jointly worked and individual household plots.

b. Main potentials

Important strategy for improving nutrition and food security and source of secondary income of poor households and to promote social inclusion (e.g. female headed households, HIV-AIDS affected families, migrants or cultural groups, also handicapped and unemployed youth especially if more intensive/technified or in processing/marketing) and community building.

Good training ground for home and field gardening by individual households in the same area.

Community gardens might also function as marketing channel for other growers in the same area. They are a vehicle for community revitalization, cleaning up of derelict areas/greening. They are also important in offering low-costs recreation and leisure opportunities and can form a basis for starting small educational or income earning projects with youth.

c. Main support needs

• Support to access adequate land and water and enhancing security of use (license, lease, fence),
• Assistance in group development, leadership training and maintaining membership,
• Provision of compost, quality seeds and small tools,
• Advice / exchange of experiences regarding ecological horticulture cultivation practices, soil and water management, composting, low cost irrigation systems and (whenever possible) rainwater harvesting and reuse of grey water as well as on adequate crop choice and food preservation and food preparation with views on optimal nutritional effects,
• Assistance in establishment of savings systems for maintenance and replacement and for new investments in complementary micro-enterprises (e.g. selling by chart, food preparation and vending, etcetera). 

Institutional gardens

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: pupils of primary and secondary schools, clients of hospitals, prisons, factories, etcetera.  

Locations: within the compounds of these institutions and managed by these institutions; in the built up city or periphery  

Main motive: All: growing of nutritious food for the clients of these institutions; for school gardens also: ecological education and possibly income generation; for hospitals and prisons also: recycling of food wastes and therapy

Degree of commercialization: mainly subsistence; in institutions with larger gardens or livestock units also sales of surpluses or even functioning as semi-commercial undertaking

Products: mainly fresh vegetables but also other food crops, medicinal herbs, berries/fruits; in schools sometimes also small units with small animals; in prisons/hospitals sometimes also small and medium size units of poultry, pigs and sometimes dairy

Scale: small-scale (500 m2 to some hectares)   

Technologies: mainly low cost cultivation technologies, often use of tap water for irrigation sometime reuse of wastewater and/or collection use of rainwater from the roof of the institution; in prisons and hospitals sometimes some what larger fields/crop and more intensive use of agrochemicals; sometimes more technified and intensive (e.g. under tunnel cultivation, sprinkler irrigation, poultry/dairy units)

b. Main potentials

School gardens: Important value for ecological and nutritional education; Improvement of diets of students (school meals) and of their families (through replication of the learnings at home);

Hospital gardens: improvement of nutrition especially of HIV AIDS affected clients and other patients without home support, also therapeutic benefits.

c. Main support needs

• Training of institutional garden managers (technical skills, administrative skills, people management skills), 
• Training of school teachers and provision of practical training modules for different grades,
• Assistance in the design and establishment of the gardens,
• School gardens: organization of parent involvement in garden maintenance
   

Small scale (semi-) commercial horticulturalists

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: a. traditional small scale peri-urban farmers; b. urban poor households (unemployed youth, female headed households, migrants) that gained some land either through informal channels or through anti- poverty or pro social inclusion projects of local organizations (governmental or NGO)  

Locations: mainly in the peri-urban areas as well as vacant open spaces within the city (private, public or semi-public)    

Main motive: income-generation (main or secondary)

Degree of commercialization: Mainly growing for the market plus family self consumption

Products: mainly fresh vegetables but also other food crops, medicinal herbs, berries/fruits, plant seedlings

Scale: small-scale (500 m2 to some hectares)  

Technologies: open fields, cultivation practices vary but tendency to higher use of agro-chemicals; use of various sources of irrigation water including treated or untreated waste water (or contaminated streams). In areas with a longer horticulture tradition, one observes a tendency to high input use and more capital intensive production methods (e.g. green houses) and/or switching to niche products.

b. Main potentials

Important for local economic development and income-raising by urban poor households and small farming families, as well as for securing of urban food security and nutrition. They also contribution to maintaining green zones in/around the city and maintained certain zones free of building (e.g. earthquake and flood prone zones; areas under power lines, etcetera).

c. Main support needs

• Technical assistance to gardeners in order to solve existing production problems, conversion to safe and ecological cultivation methods and introduction of adequate soil and water management practices (e.g. water saving techniques, safe use of waste water) through farmer field schools, participatory technology development, etcetera,
• Assistance to farmer organization, quality control / certification, transport and marketing,
• Enhancing medium term security of land use,
• Enhancing access to credit (e.g. by provision of guarantees).

Small scale (semi-)commercial livestock and aquatic farming

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: a. traditional small scale urban and peri-urban farmers that specialized in livestock or fish farming; b. urban middle class (like –ex- teachers, government officials, policemen, etcetera) with larger house plots that engage in livestock/fish farming as a secondary source of income e.g zero grazing dairy units; poultry units; fish ponds) c. urban poor households (unemployed youth, female headed households, migrants) that undertake some livestock activities on available vacant open land in the city (e.g. free roaming or pinned goats and cows, waste-fed pig or goat raising units, etcetera) or fish farming in (waste-water fed) lakes or rivers      

Locations: in older parts of city with larger house plots, vacant open spaces within the city (private, public or semi-public), lakes or rivers, suburbs, peri-urban

Main motive: income-generation (main or secondary)

Degree of commercialization: Mainly growing for the market plus family self consumption

Products: poultry meat and eggs, pig and goat meat, milk, gees, fish or shell-fish

Scale: small-scale (e.g. 20-100 layers, 1-4 dairy cows, 5-10 pigs or goats)  

Technologies: semi-intensive; low cost housing; feedstuffs bought on the market or brought from peri-urban areas, reuse of organic wastes.

b. Main potentials

Important for local economic development and income raising by urban poor and middle class households as well as for securing of urban food security and nutrition.

c. Main support needs

• Technical assistance to livestock keepers/fish farmers in order to solve existing production problems especially regarding prevention / reduction of health risks (e.g. zoonosis), improved waste(water) management, improved husbandry practices through farmer field schools, participatory technology development (PTD), etcetera ,
• Assistance to farm management, farmer organization, quality control, transport and marketing,
• Enhancing access to credit (e.g. by provision of guarantees). 

Specialist urban agriculture and forestry production

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: Various backgrounds but in general persons/households that have a bit more resources than the poorest families or are supported through specific projects   

Locations: various locations    

Main motive: income-generation (main or secondary)

Degree of commercialization: Market

Products: mush rooms, pot plants, flowers (also for oil extraction), tree nurseries

Scale: small-scale to larger scale 

Technologies: normally semi-intensive with strong tendency to further intensification and technification.

b. Main potentials

Very important for local economic development and income generation by urban poor and middle class households. Potentials for export.

c. Main support needs

• Assistance to farmer management, quality control and certification, processing/packaging, transport and marketing,
• Technical assistance to solve existing production problems through farmer study groups, Participatory Technology
• Development and providing access to new technologies and market information,
• Enhancing access to credit (e.g. by provision of guarantees).

Large scale agro-enterprises

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: Often urban investors that hire a manager and labour to work the farm. Also traditional farmers that sold most of their land for construction and invest in intensive livestock keeping, fish farming, nursery or other intensive form of agriculture

Locations: mainly peri-urban    

Main motive: generation of high returns to capital invested

Degree of commercialization: Market

Products: larger units of poultry or dairy, mushrooms, nurseries, flowers, aquaculture, etcetera

Scale: large scale 

Technologies: normally higher infrastructure investments, use of more advanced technologies and more intensive use of industrial feed, medicines and agro-chemicals.

b. Main potentials

Important for local economic development and urban food security (city level).

c. Main support needs

• Assistance in farm planning and management ,
• Access to information on advanced technologies and technical assistance to overcome problems and improve profitability (e.g. veterinary services; feed composition and quality),
• Access to market information and sources of (co-) financing.

Multi-functional farms

a. Main characteristics

Type of people involved: varying but normally the farmers with more resources but not highly specialized or with advanced technologies. Sometimes (e.g. larger agro-recreation parks), also urban investors

Locations: mainly peri-urban; some intra urban (e.g. “childrens” or “educational” farms)    

Main motive: generation of income; enhancing sustainability of the farm through offering new services to urban citizens and direct sales at farm

Degree of commercialization: Market (but in a broader sense)

Products:  next to (normally a variety of) agricultural products also: sleeping and meals on farm, pick your own fruits, horse riding and “farmers golf court”, educational services, water storage and purification, maintaining biodiversity and landscape management, park maintenance 

Scale: varying from small scale (family based) to large to very large enterprises (eg agro-tourism)

Technologies: often organic and diversified; investments in infrastructure to receive guests and provide other than production services.

b. Main potentials

Important for local economic development and sustaining farmers income in peri-urban areas. Also iImportant  for maintaining an attractive and green peri-urban environment and offering various services to the urban citizens. 

c. Main support needs

• Urban planning integrating multi functional green zones in development planning,
• Assistance in farm planning and management,
• Assistance in creating local farmer groups and in networking between farmers and their new client groups (example Community Supported Agriculture), PR campaigns, planning recreational routes, setting up websites, etcetera,
• Access to information on urban demand for services and sources of subsidy and financing.


Please reflect:

Which of these UA production systems do you find in your own city? Where are they located? For what reasons and under what conditions policy makers and other urban actors might support these types of farming?

Urban agriculture types: input supply systems and post production systems

Next to the above described production systems and thanks to the closeness to (urban) markets, we will also find in any city a variety of:

• urban agriculture input supply systems  (i.e. agricultural supplies such as fertilizers, compost, earthworms, soil media, seeds or seedlings, pesticides, water, tools, feeds, piglets for fattening, chicks etc.),
• service delivery enterprises (i.e. special labor services such as milking or harvesting, agricultural advisory, animal health assistance, accounting, bookkeeping and others),
• processing systems (i.e. food preparation, packaging, milling, drying and others),
• and marketing systems (i.e. selling at the farm, street vending, urban farmers markets, delivery to restaurants or school canteens, selling through middlemen, household delivery services etc.) 

All these systems, varying from small to large scale businesses are very important for local economic development and income generation by urban poor and middle class households. They are also important as input and service providers for other urban and peri-urban farmers. General support needs include enhancing access to capital and credit, quality control (processing and marketing), farmer organization and cooperation (enlargement of production to assure regularity and sufficient quantity of supply), improving access to markets (information) and exploring new distribution channels.  Below, a short description will be provided for each of the input supply and post production systems, while we will discuss the potential for development of each of these systems in your own city in course CVFN 412 (UA Types).

Please continue with the sessions outlined below.

Input supply systems / Service delivery enterprises / Processing enterprises

Input supply systems

Input supply systems logically concern the production of tools, seeds, feeds and supplies. Some typical input supply systems for example include the production of compost and earthworms. Worms greatly increase the effect of composting, and their excreta have a high value as soil additive. They may also be raised as animal fodder, especially for chickens or fish-farming. Production of other agricultural supplies, like (bio)pesticides and seedlings (nurseries) are also commonly found. Other input suppliers raise piglets and chicks to be sold to farmers for further raising and fattening.

Input supply systems are an important strategy for income generation and employment creation.  Both small scale as well as large-scale systems are found. Important support needs include access to capital and resources, transport and marketing (information).

Service delivery enterprises

Another type of urban agriculture systems are those specialized in service delivery. Extension, training, health and disease control can be provided to urban producers. Urban agriculture processing enterprises and marketers may be in need of services in bookkeeping, accounting and marketing. Special forms of service delivery for small producers or micro-entrepreneurs could be considered, for example by offering these services to farmer groups rather then to individuals.

Important support needs include technical training and quality control, as well as the setting up of “urban farmer field schools” where farmers discover, exchange and learn among themselves.

Processing enterprises
Processing of urban agricultural produce can include food preparation and packaging (production of jams, sweets, pickles, vegetable pies, fruit juices, soups, dairy products, sausages etcetera), production of fuel briquettes from wood, cow dung or other agricultural by-products, production of crèmes, shampoos, home-made medicines and herbal infusions from medicinal and aromatic plants, production of arts and user objects from specific plants such as calabash, reed and flowers.

(Micro) entrepreneurs may specialize in processing or urban farmers may link their production to processing and marketing activities, in an attempt to generate additional income.  Processing may be done at home or in special small-scale or large-scale facilities or agro-industries. Larger scale facilities may purchase animals, fruits, and vegetables directly from local growers, or have a seasonal contract with out-growers.

Processing and related micro-enterprise development is an important strategy for local economic development. It may also specifically target certain groups in society, like unemployed youth or women. Special support needs include amongst other training in food handling, processing, business management and financial administration, access to capital and resources, sanitary and quality control.

Marketing systems

Marketing of urban agriculture produce is done at different scales and through a variety of marketing channels. Urban producers may mainly produce for self-consumption and only market a small surplus of their production or agriculture may constitute a large or the main share of the household income. Urban farmers can market individually, or in groups (associations or cooperatives), directly to urban consumers, through public procurement or catering or through middlemen

Please click here to go to an animation.

Activities

Please go the required readings section. You will find here a series of short articles and case studies, each describing one of the urban agriculture production, input supply or marketing systems. Please choose 3 of the case studies and read them carefully. Try to identify what UA systems the case describes and what specific interventions and support policies are needed to further enhance development of this particular system.

Self test

Test yourself

Readings

Required readings

Cases describing various urban agriculture production systems:

• Santandreu, A., G. Castro and F. Ronca, 2006. Urban pig farming in irregular settlements in Uruguay. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/976 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter12.pdf document and read the case study found on page 374).
• de Bon, H., 2006. Dry and aquatic peri-urban and urban horticulture in Hanoi, Vietnam. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/989 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter11.pdf document and read the case study found on page 338).
• Yoonpundh, R., V. Dulyapurk and C. Sritongh, 2006. Aquatic food production systems in Bangkok. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/977 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter13.pdf document and read the case study found on page 402).
• Getachew, Y., 2006. Micro-technologies for congested urban centres in Ethiopia. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/989 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter11.pdf document and read the case study found on page 342).
• Danso, G and T. Wiafe-Antwi, 2006. Income generated by farming systems in and around Kumasi (Ghana). In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/972 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter7.pdf document and read the case study found on page 205).
• Deelstra T., D. Boyd and M. van den Biggelaar, 2006. Multifunctional land use, promoting urban agriculture in Europe. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/967 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter2.pdf document and read the case study found on page 41).

Cases describing input supply or post production systems

• Njenga M. and N. Karanja, 2006.  Community-based compost production for urban agriculture in Nairobi. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/973 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter8.pdf document and read the case study found on page 238).
• Homem de Carvalho, J.L., 2006. PROVE- Small agricultural production verticalisation programme. In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. “Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities”.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/972 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter7.pdf document and read the case study found on page 201).

Optional readings

• Smit J., J. Nasr and A. Ratta, 2001 (second edition, unpublished). Urban agriculture, food, jobs and sustainable cities. Chapter 5: Producing food and fuel in urban areas.

Module 4: Direct and Indirect stakeholders in Urban Agriculture

Introduction

This session will introduce the range of direct and indirect stakeholders involved in urban agriculture and will clarify the differences between them.  It will then flesh out who the direct stakeholders are, giving specific attention to social inclusion of vulnerable groups (urban poor, gender, youth, migrants, etc.). It will continue by describing the most important types of indirect stakeholders involved in urban agriculture and the roles generally played by them. The module will finally introduce the need for further stakeholder inventory analysis as a basis for planning and implementation.

Learning objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Define what constitutes a stakeholder in urban agriculture
• Differentiate between the types and degrees of involvement of different stakeholders in urban agriculture
• Identify the range of direct stakeholders involved in urban agriculture generally and in specific contexts
• Classify the institutions and actors having an indirect stake in urban agriculture
• Recognize the particular vulnerability in a range of groups requiring specific attention among the larger body of direct stakeholders in a particular setting, and the particular capacity these groups may have which enables them to surmount this vulnerability.

Urban agriculture stakeholders

Urban agriculture stakeholders

The first required reading in this module, Dubbeling and Merzthal’s chapter in Cities Farming for the Future (http://www.ruaf.org/node/967), states: “Urban agriculture takes place in a multi-sectoral environment, touches on a large number of urban management areas […], and involves a large diversity of systems and related actors […].  Urban agriculture can thus be seen as a cross-cutting issue involving a wide range of often disconnected actors or stakeholders needed for effective implementation, policy making and monitoring” (p. 20).  The chapter uses a firm statement in its title: Sustaining urban agriculture requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders.  This raises the question: who are these stakeholders?  To answer that, we should first clarify: what are stakeholders?

Who are stakeholders in urban agriculture?

The concept of stakeholders has emerged in the last decades as crucial for understanding decision-making and influences in any range of human activities.  It supplements (and to a certain extent supplants) the related concept of actors.  In the case of urban agriculture, the latter refers to all individuals – and by extension, organizations – who play a (more or less direct) role in the production, processing and marketing of food and other farming products within or near urban areas.  Expanding on that idea, urban agriculture stakeholders can thus be defined as all those who have an interest (something at stake) in urban agriculture, either as individuals, members of a group or organisation. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected by it.

Thus, we are able to broaden considerably the circle of those implicated in urban agriculture in a variety of ways.  Stakeholders in urban agriculture would therefore include, among others:

• urban farmers and all those involved with them in the production process and those who depend in any way on the results of this production
• those who supply any inputs, resources, services, to the urban farmers to enable them to produce
• processors, distributors, marketers, recyclers who deal in any way with the outputs of urban farmers’ activities
• those who establish, modify or implement the various frameworks (judicial, regulatory, political, economic, socio-cultural) that enable who hinder the activities of urban farmers (hence including NGOs, community-based organisations, research institutes, local and national governments etc). 

This appears to be an endless list.  It is valid to wonder in fact who is not a stakeholder in urban agriculture – indeed, what is the utility of such an inclusive approach to the definition of urban agriculture stakeholders?  On the other hand, how can one understand and plan urban agricultural activities without a full, proper accounting of all people and institutions with a stake in these activities?




Please reflect: Does including such a large range of individuals and groups make the idea of urban agriculture stakeholders meaningless?  Or does it to the contrary allow a more meaningful identification and analysis of these stakeholders?

One may answer these questions by realising that properly considering the stakeholders in urban agriculture is essential to intervening in any way into its viability.  To develop new farming techniques, urban farmers may need support from research institutes or extension services.  To develop policies for “scaling up” productive activities in urban areas, a range of actors could either enable or hinder the successful realization of such an attempts.  To develop the capacity of consumers to obtain the fruits (and vegetables) of the urban farmer’s hard labour, one must deal with any number of entities who may serve as mediator between producer and consumer.

This module serves simply to introduce the question of who the stakeholders in urban agriculture are.  Figuring out the answers to this apparently simple – but indeed challenging – question will be at the heart of Module 10.  That is where the analysis of urban agriculture stakeholders will be discussed more thoroughly. 

Direct and indirect stakeholders

We introduced briefly the idea that there are different levels of involvement by different stakeholders in urban agriculture.  It can be particularly useful to distinguish between direct stakeholders (various types of actual urban farmers / groups / organizations or categories of the population with a strong interest in practicing urban agriculture) and indirect stakeholders (individuals or organizations who play or should play a role in the development of urban agriculture).

Aspects involving the analysis of who the direct and indirect stakeholders are will be discussed in module 10, while module 13 will deal with supports that can be provided by and to direct and indirect stakeholders involved in urban agriculture.  To go effectively from such an analysis to such support, it is fundamental to develop what has come to be referred to as “multi-stakeholder processes”.  As summarized in the reading by Dubbeling and Merzthal, these processes are forms of social interaction that aim to involve a range of stakeholders in improving situations that impact them by enabling them to enter into dialogue, negotiation, learning, decision making and collective action.  These processes will be fleshed out in the later modules of this course, as well as in other courses that will follow this one (specifically course CVFN 413 – Urban agriculture policy making).  Here, we seek simply to lay the ground for this by introducing different categories of stakeholders.

Direct stakeholders

Direct stakeholders

Direct stakeholders in urban agriculture are relatively easier to identify than indirect ones.  We will not attempt to draft a comprehensive list of them here, as there would be too many of them and they vary too much depending on the context.  Rather, we will consider briefly some of the categories of stakeholders, and how certain aspects of the relation of the stakeholder to urban agriculture may vary within these categories.  In other words, what is at stake for the urban agriculture stakeholder may depend on who they are and what urban agriculture means to them.

Urban producers

We will start with the most obvious category of stakeholders, and the one that has to be placed at the centre of any discussion of urban agriculture stakeholders: urban producers.  At first glance, the category itself does not need much defining: it contains anyone actively producing food or other agricultural products within or near urban areas.  But as we start digging into the meaning of being an “urban farmer”, more and more distinctions start to appear.  Sorting out these distinguishing traits becomes vital if one is to have any success in enhancing the sustainability of urban agriculture or expanding its presence.  One expression is to “know the face of the farmer” – it is essential to know much more than the farmer’s face to be effective in understanding urban agriculture.

The first trait that we may want to consider is the role of the urban farmer within the urban farm, garden, orchard…  In this locus of productive activity (which is itself as varied as urban producers themselves are), the actors that we can refer to collectively as urban producers or farmers or gardeners play a multitude of roles.  Farmers are labourers (applying their labour to generate products from the soil or on land or water surfaces), but they are also:

• managers (planning out and coordinating actions related to production),
• purchasers (acquiring inputs, resources and services that are needed in the production process),
• marketers (offering the products of their labour to others – either for sale, barter or gift – and convincing these others to receive these products),
• distributors (getting these products to their destinations),
• overseers (directing others in any part of the process of acquisition, generation or disposal of their products),
• communicators (conveying information to others about their products and the value it bears),
• stewards (sustaining the productive capacity of the resources they use),
• recyclers (disposing the waste by-products of their activities),
• technicians (building up and transmitting the knowledge that enables them undertake and improve productive activities). 

These roles are clearly pertinent to urban farmers as they are to any other farmers.  The specificity may be derived from aspects associated with each role, as the role is played out within the middle of a city or at its edges.  To use the last role listed as an example, someone within any farming operation needs to have knowledge to be productive, but this knowledge will evidently be strongly related to the context for the operation.  The reason for deconstructing the roles of urban farmers is that not every “farmer” plays all these roles, and these roles may be dynamic, fluid, changing over time.  It is thus essential if one is to propose an intervention that seeks to enhance urban agriculture to know which roles need to be targeted, and who plays these roles.

Another aspect to consider as pertaining to urban producers is their income.  Income level of the farmer or the farming household clearly bears on a multitude of aspects, including the roles mentioned above.  We can quickly contemplate one other aspect: the chief aim purpose of urban farmers.  If we were to simplify income into three general categories, we can find that urban residents may get into productive activities for very different reasons.  For low-income farmers, they may cultivate crops or raise animals for sustenance (basic food provision), revenue generation, or fungibility (avoidance of expenditure on food that allows money saved to be spent on other essentials).  For middle-income farmers, urban agriculture may represent a supplement to earnings that may be unstable, an opportunity to supplement the household diet with luxury food items, or an enhancement of the nutritional intake of the family. As for higher-income residents, working in their garden may be a source of leisure and fitness, and putting financial resources into farming activity (especially when undertaken by others) may be a pure investment decision.  Without bringing clarity to such logics, urban agricultural activities may be misunderstood.

Form of organization is another major variable among urban producers.  In other words, we may wish to figure out what the “unit of production” is in each context – even, say, in a backyard garden belonging to a well-off family that is planted in a mixture of ornamentals, herbs and vegetables.  In such a garden, there would be decisions that have to be made regarding who does what when and how.  This means choices about forms of organization of space, time and labour, among others.

If an urban farm or garden is thought of as a unit of production, one of the most immediate questions that come up is: the scale of the unit.  Let us simply raise eight types of production units to suggest the range of scales to consider.

• Individual farmer
• Familial garden
• Extended family operation
• Cooperative
• Small farm
• Medium-scale operation
• Large farming business
• International agribusiness.

Note that we are referring here to the scale of the unit of production, not the size of the farm itself or the number of people involved, though these would be related variables obviously.

Time and space were mentioned earlier.  These are worth considering explicitly as variables that can define urban producers as stakeholders. Time can be considered in term of duration.  Practicing urban agriculture with a long-term view undoubtedly represents a different perspective on the activity in many ways than if one adopted a medium-term outlook, or a short-term one.  The role of stewardship mentioned earlier cannot be expected from a short-term farmer for instance.  Conversely, the outlook itself is not necessarily something that comes from the farmer independently; it is rather a result of the multiple realities in which the farmer operates, particularly security of tenure.

Tenure itself is interesting because it pertains simultaneously to time and space. It helps define the relation of the urban producer to land: whether one is an owner, the holder of a long lease, or a short-lease grower is without a doubt one of the most significant variables among urban producers.  At the centre of the impacts of this variable is the way it bears on the commitment of the producer to his or her activity, which of course has a multitude of repercussions on the activity.

Let us add one more way for considering producers: the basic orientation – or central purpose – of the organisations that represent them.  In the introduction to the issue of the Urban Agriculture Magazine focussing on “Strengthening Urban Producers’ Organisations” (see required readings), three main orientations are identified for such entities: socially oriented, economically oriented, and politically oriented ones.  It is thus important to consider what the main purpose of any grouping of urban farmers is in seeking to influence some facet or another of urban agricultural activities.

We can mention a number of other variables that help distinguish one urban farmer from another.  For instance, different origins are likely to be reflected in some significant variations even where the context is identical: a rural migrant to the city is likely to display some differences from their city-born-and-bred neighbor.  Whether it is due to differences in tenure or other factors, there may be great variations in the strength of commitment to urban agriculture by different producers.  Another significant variation may be in the degree of integration of urban farmers to their peers or others in their community: we can thus contrast the well-established and -connected producer to the novice and isolated one. 

Two last remarks regarding urban producers.  By combining such traits as those identified in the last few paragraphs, it becomes possible to put together profiles of different urban farmers.  This allows us to get past the dizzying number of differences so as to identify common characteristics that can differentiate some stakeholders from others.

Secondly, it is essential not to view urban producers in a static way, but instead consider them in dynamic contexts.  We can consider for instance social changes that impact urban farmers.  In an article on urban farmers and social changes in the Middle East (see references), Boissière identifies some transformations that have consequences on urban producers in that region.  These include:

• Access to land
• Access to water resources
• Demographic importance of urban farmers and their ability to self mobilize and act as an organized group
• Impacts of the urban economy
• What other activities urban farmers are involved in, or what others in their household and community are involved in.
• The identities of urban farmers, their self-representation and their representation by others. 

Please reflect: It is evident that these changing social characteristics are not specific to the Middle East.  Please deliberate on the social conditions that may be evolving in your part of the world, and how these are changing the nature of urban producers as stakeholders in urban agriculture.

 

Other direct stakeholders

We have spent the bulk of this module analyzing urban producers as a category of stakeholders.  This is due to their significance and their complexity, but also to show the type of considerations needed to understand stakeholders.  We cannot analyze in detail every category of stakeholders.  We will simply outline briefly three broad categories that encompass some of the other direct stakeholders in urban agriculture.

1. Others in the food system directly linked to urban agriculture.  These include: suppliers of inputs to urban farmers, distributors and marketers of urban farms’ products, processors of these products, and disposers and re-users of its by-products. 
2. Consumers directly using the products of urban agriculture.  Those who consume the yields of urban agriculture range from those closest to the activity (the farmers themselves and their dependents) and others close to them (such extended family and neighbours) to purchasers of markets near and far (some products sold internationally are grown in urban settings for export). 
3. Landowners.  We mentioned landowners previously in relation to urban farmers, but they are so significant and relevant a player that they merit attention on their own as a category of direct stakeholder.  Landowners can be placed into some major classes: institutions such as religious bodies; public owners (state, municipal, regional authorities…); private owners of different stripes.  Given the very immediate impacts that landowners bear on urban agriculture, it is imperative to understand their logic, interests, perspective, and influences.

Indirect stakeholders

Given the wide range of stakeholders encountered in urban settings, it is crucial to consider how one can identify the indirect stakeholders involved in the development of urban agriculture.  As with direct stakeholders, one would need to describe the most important types of indirect stakeholders, the roles they generally play, and the institutional framework in which urban agriculture takes place. This section will be especially brief since the analysis of indirect stakeholders will be at the heart of the stakeholder inventory and analysis that is fleshed out in Module 10.  We will only introduce indirect stakeholders here and present some points that can help in understanding them.

First, let us consider how we can classify indirect stakeholders similarly to the way we attempted to categorize direct ones.  It is helpful to use here the structure proposed in chapter 6 of Smit, Nasr and Ratta’s Urban Agriculture book (see references).  In that chapter, “organizations that influence urban agriculture” are sorted according to the following classes.  Most are indirect stakeholders, so it would be useful to list these classes here quickly.

• Support organizations: These contain farmers associations and non-governmental organizations
• Governments and public authorities: Chiefly, local and national governments should be highlighted, but other intermediate scales (such as regional governments) should be considered too.
• Public and semi-public institutions: Sub-categories here would be institutional providers and research institutes
• Private sector entities
• International development agencies
• Other stakeholders. 

That chapter also considers the different roles for the indirect stakeholders.  The main roles are defined thusly: regulating, facilitating, providing, partnering.  These roles can be refined.  For instance, regulating can be positive (controlling the activity to avoid abuses that may cause problems or ruin confidence in it) or negative (preventing the activity from happening through harassment or eradication).

We can start to see that indirect stakeholders can be even more diverse than direct ones: councillors, municipal departments, local offices of governmental organisations, NGOs, universities/research institutes, extension organisations, credit providers, private enterprises, community-based organisations, etc.  We will learn how to inventory and analyze these stakeholders in Module 10, but meanwhile, please reflect on the different indirect stakeholders involved in urban agriculture in your city, as well as the possible roles they should play in a planning and development process for urban agriculture.  This can begin your thinking about the larger picture of stakeholders, in anticipation of refinement later in this course.

Vulnerability and capacity of stakeholders

We will bring this module to a close by deliberating on which particular groups of stakeholders require special consideration when developing urban agriculture projects and policies.  Indeed, until now, we discussed stakeholders in a relatively “flat” way – no specific features of the individuals were distinguished as requiring different handling from others.  Yet it is vital to distinguish such characteristics so as to give specific attention to social inclusion of vulnerable individuals and groups.  These groups can be deemed vulnerable from the perspective of:

• Urban poverty
• Gender
• Race
• Class
• Age (children, youth, the elderly…)
• Origin (indigenous, immigrants, migrants…)
• Physical/mental challenge (the disabled, the ill – including HIV-AIDS infected). 

However, one must be prudent in the application of the idea of vulnerability, in order to avoid portraying such groups as powerless and unable to act.  The categories represent not just stakeholders, but actors.  Vulnerability needs to be placed in the context of actions and capacity.  The introduction to the issue of the Urban Agriculture Magazine focussing on “Gender and Urban Agriculture” (see required readings) raises matters that go beyond the matter of gender, being relevant to other categories of stakeholders where questions of vulnerability may be pertinent.  It is useful to consider all the traits in the list above in the ways they interact with the following questions identified in that article.

• Access to and control over productive resources (these are two different but related issues)
• Access to and control over the benefits of production (as with the previous point, two interlocking issues)
• Decision-making (in other words, how these traits relate to the ability to and means for making decisions regarding urban agriculture)
• Division of tasks (which tasks fall on whom, and why). 

It is thus by addressing such questions that one can associate with each different group of stakeholders the specific challenges (perhaps a more accurate term than vulnerability) that may be particular to it. But one can also contemplate the specific abilities that may lie within each group to respond to these challenges. In Module 13, we will look into more detail into possible support strategies that can be developed to enhance social inclusion of various direct urban agriculture stakeholders and build on their capacities to overcome the challenges they face in urban agriculture.

Please reflect: Please watch the video “Small urban producer organisations: key partners for sustainable development” (2006), produced by FAO-FCIT, ETC Urban Agriculture, IPES and IDRC. The video advocates and analyses the specific support to be provided to (peri)urban farmer organisations by governments, civil society organisations and international organisations respectively. It will do so by drawing on four case studies from Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Dakar (Senegal), Hyderabad (India) and Rosario (Argentina). By watching the video, how many types of stakeholders can you identify?  Do you find any indications in it of vulnerabilities and capacities of different stakeholders?

Activities

Identification of stakeholders Please go back to the case studies incorporated in module 3. Take 1 or 2 of the case studies and identify as many of the direct and indirect stakeholders as possible. What roles do these stakeholders play? What types of urban producers are involved in the various cases? In which ways may these stakeholders be vulnerable in the existing conditions of urban agriculture practice, or may have specific capacities to address such vulnerability?

Required readings and References

Required readings

1. Dubbeling M. and G. Merzthal, 2006.  Sustaining Urban Agriculture Requires the Involvement of Multiple Stakeholders.  In: R. van Veenhuizen (ed), 2006. Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities.  ETC Urban Agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands. http://www.ruaf.org/node/967 (Please go to this website and open the Chapter2.pdf, then read the first part of the chapter: page 20-26).
2. “Gender and Urban Agriculture: Editorial” in Urban Agriculture Magazine, No. 12, May 2004, RUAF, Leusden. Pp. 1 – 5.  Go to link: http://www.ruaf.org/node/364.
3. “Strengthening Urban Producers’ Organisations: Editorial” in Urban Agriculture Magazine, No. 17, February 2007, RUAF, Leusden. Pp. 1 – 4, 7.  Go to link: http://www.ruaf.org/node/1167

References

• Thierry Boissière, “Agriculteurs urbains et changements sociaux au Moyen-Orient”, in Interfaces : Agricultures et villes à l’Est et au Sud de la Méditerranée, ed. Joe Nasr and Martine Padilla (Beirut : Editions Delta and IFPO, 2004), p. 31-47. 
• Jac Smit, Joe Nasr and Annu Ratta, Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities (unpublished second edition, first published by UNDP), Chapter 6, “Which Organizations Influence Urban Agriculture?”.

Module 5: Dimensions of urban agriculture: Benefits and functions

Introduction

This session and the next one will introduce the principal dimensions of urban agriculture.  By reflecting on cases and readings, they will examine how urban agricultural activities impact urban conditions in a variety of ways, whether beneficially or adversely.  They will also consider briefly the implications of these dimensions for policy.  Photos, video clips, and written statements that express the dimensions will be scattered throughout the two modules.  This module will consider the positive dimensions of urban agriculture: food security, nutrition and health, social-cultural, environmental, economic, as well as some other benefits that can result from the presence of urban agriculture.

Learning objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• Distinguish the multiple dimensions of urban agriculture and its multiple functions
• Identify the benefits that may be associated with urban agriculture in general, as well as those specific benefits that may be derived from particular urban agricultural activities
• Understand the ways in which urban agriculture may have intersecting benefits and may fulfill multiple functions that reinforce each other
• Analyse the multiple functions that urban agriculture can fulfil simultaneously

The multiple dimensions of urban agriculture: An overview

We have looked at the building blocks of urban agriculture, attempted to develop a typology, and examined the stakeholders involved and what their concerns are. We shall now go on to explore how urban agriculture carries multiple consequences for urban settings and residents, both positive and negative. This module will focus on the positive dimensions or benefits and Module Six will look at the negative ones – the problems and risks of urban agriculture.  Both will present urban agriculture as a set of activities that is multidimensional and multifunctional, with benefits and risks accruing to different stakeholders who are often pursuing different goals, depending on where they live. For example, we shall look at poor farmers in the global South and suburban farmers in the global North.  Further, these various people involved in urban agriculture often practice it to achieve multiple aims, rather than a single one. As a result, different stakeholders may have completely different perceptions of what it is all about and what its purpose is, and this will colour their views of what are the benefits and risks. Apart from North-South differences, this may be true of different stakeholders in the same place who see different risks and benefits; it may also depend on the type of urban agriculture (vegetable gardening versus commercial livestock farming for example).  Thus, farmers and others (direct and i