Urban Agriculture PDF

Urban Agriculture
Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities

2001 Edition
Chapter 1
Cities That Feed Themselves
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:
The Urban Agriculture Network, Inc.
A Non-Profit, 501 (c)(3) Organization
With the financial support and permission of the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Notice:
This document is available for downloading, copying, distribution and
transmission. Any use must be attributed to: Jac Smit, Joe Nasr, and Annu Ratta,
Urban Agriculture: Food Jobs and Sustainable Cities (2001 edition, published
with permission from the United Nations Development Programme). Photos and
figures have been left out at this time, but they may be added in the future.
1
At first glance, the term ‗urban agriculture‘ may appear to be an oxymoron. Agriculture is
commonly considered the quintessential rural activity, and urban agriculture is often
perceived as archaic, temporary, and inappropriate. Some consider it marginal at best,
perhaps a constructive recreational activity or an aesthetic function that helps to beautify
the ‗ugly‘ city. In fact, urban agriculture is a significant economic activity, central to the
lives of tens of millions of people throughout the world. It is a rapidly growing industry
that is increasingly essential to the economic and nutritional security of urban residents,
and has far-reaching economic, environmental, and health implications.
In an urbanizing world running short of natural resources, the possibility that cities
can depend upon the ingenuity of their residents to generate food security for themselves
is significant. In countries where hunger and malnutrition are predominantly urban
problems, an activity that can contribute to nutritional self-reliance is compelling. In
cities choking in their own waste and pollution, an industry that can use urban waste as a
basic resource is significant.
Sometimes called metropolitan-intensive agriculture, urban agriculture can be defined
as:
. . . an industry that produces, processes, and markets food, fuel, and other outputs, largely
in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on many
types of privately and publicly held land and water bodies found throughout intra-urban and
peri-urban areas. Typically urban agriculture applies intensive production methods,
frequently using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diverse array of
land-, water-, and air-based fauna and flora, contributing to the food security, health,
livelihood, and environment of the individual, household, and community.1
It is possible to define urban agriculture more narrowly as simply the agriculture that
happens to fall within or at the edge of a metropolitan area, perhaps adding its
relationship to urban populations. However, a richer definition would emphasize those
elements that have come to characterize urban agriculture as it is practiced today — while
recognizing the great variety within it.
A number of definitions have been posited in the half decade since the first edition of
this book appeared. One survey of these (sometimes conflicting) definitions found five
elements that tended to be present:
the location in which urban agriculture occurs;
the types of activities included under urban agriculture;
the legality and type of land tenure under which the urban agricultural activities
occur;
Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 1

the stages of production included in urban agriculture; and

the scale of urban agricultural activities.2
To this list can be added two other crucial elements that are especially important for
lower income groups — the purposes of the activity and the types of groups involved in
agricultural production in urban areas (see Chapter 3).
Urban agriculture contributes significantly to the socioeconomic development of
towns and cities throughout the world. In several economies, particularly developing
ones, it is one of the largest productive urban industries. In low-income cities, it is a
prime generator of jobs.
Urban agriculture is an easy-in, easy-out entrepreneurial activity for people at
different levels of income. For the poorest of the poor, it provides good access to food.
For the stable poor, it provides a source of income and good quality food at low cost. For
middle-income families, it offers the possibility of savings and a return on their
investment in urban property. For small and large entrepreneurs, it is a profitable
business.
There is no average urban farmer. Frequently, the urban farmer is a woman who has
lived in a town or city for five or more years, grows vegetables and raises small livestock
to feed her family, and earns income from sales within the community. But urban farmers
also include wealthy producers of specialty crops for expensive restaurants and export,
agribusinesses with plantations and outgrower contracts, fishermen cooperatives,
‗Saturday only‘ part-timers who grow cassava by the roadside, and market gardeners with
yearly contracts with supermarkets and hotels.
Urban agriculture is a large industry that includes many small-scale farmers and some
large agribusinesses. Urban agriculture takes place on smaller tracts of land than rural
fields and on open spaces that are vacant, idle, or unsuited for urban development.
Although the most common site is the household plot, urban agriculture can be found
throughout the metropolitan area. A large-scale operator may rent 10 or more hectares in
an industrial zone. A small-scale farmer may make a living on as little as 200 square
meters. A household garden may cover 20 square meters or less.
Some typical examples of urban agriculture include:
fish and other aquatic products harvested from tanks, ponds, rivers, sewage lagoons,
and estuaries;
community and allotment gardens on public and private land;
small wooded areas producing fuel, reeds, fruit, nuts, and more;
horticulture on excess vacant space at large facilities principally dedicated to other
activities (for example, airports, or large factories);
rabbits, guinea pigs, and chickens raised in bookshelf cages hung on walls;
vegetables grown in hydroponic solutions on roofs, patios, and stairways; and
market gardens on vacant plots, in the green wedges between urbanized corridors, or
along highways and railroads in peri-urban areas.

Urban farming is intensive and makes the best use of space, with a predominance of
shorter-cycle, higher-value market commodities. It employs multicropping and integrated
farming techniques and makes judicious use of both horizontal and vertical space
(through such techniques as chicken coops on shelves, multi-species fish ponds, and
container farming). Because water is expensive and usually in short supply, urban
farming often uses water more efficiently than rural farming.
Urban agriculture is, with exceptions, oriented to close-by urban markets rather than
national or global markets. Proximity to the market predisposes crop selection to
perishable products for which urban farmers have a competitive edge over rural farmers
by being able to deliver fresh products to consumers. Urban agriculture also normally
involves fewer middlemen between farmer and consumer than rural agriculture, and the
transportation and storage needs of urban produce are much lower.
Intensive urban horticulture can yield several times as much produce per unit area as
rural agriculture. Limited availability of land, water, and inputs in urban areas has led to
the development of farming techniques that require only a fraction of the water and
fertilizer needed for tractor-cultivated rural farms per unit of production. Urban farming
can absorb a significant amount of urban solid and liquid waste, helping the city reduce
its waste management problems and costs. In addition to providing crops and animals for
consumption or income, urban farming contributes to environmental enhancement and
disaster management (for example, by planting trees on steep slopes or deep-rooted tall
grass on floodplains).
The resurgence of urban agriculture is taking place during a period of rapid
urbanization, but this latest wave of urbanization is occurring selectively. The countries
that experienced rapid urbanization from 1920 to 1970 are experiencing low or no
urbanization in terms of an increase in urban population. The countries that were
predominantly rural a generation ago are now urbanizing rapidly in population,
geography, and economy. Urbanization everywhere, with very few exceptions, is
occurring at a lower density, more spread out than at any time in history. This lower
density enables more agriculture in the larger spaces between built uses. Frequently such
additional possibilities do not apply to the districts occupied by the lowest income
urbanites.
The United Nations Population Division predicts that from 1995 to 2030 the world‘s
urban population will double — from 2.6 to 5.1 billion, by which time over three-fifths of
total global population will be urban. As of 2000, 60 million new urban dwellers are
added annually — 90 percent in developing countries. By 2030, 75 million will be added
annually — 98 percent from currently developing countries. Urban population growth is
benign compared to urban expansion into peri-urban and rural areas. It is commonly
noted that peripheral areas are growing at 10–20 percent per annum. Urban agriculture is
replacing rural agriculture in these zones, and is in need of policy direction and oversight.
Generalizations are dangerous, but it reasonable to say that in low-income countries
urban population growth is about twice the national average. Urbanization in most cases
is equally rapid in low-income, food-short countries as in other developing countries.
This fact has obvious implications for urban agriculture. The phenomenon of
urbanization includes the dire fact that poverty is changing from being predominantly

rural to mostly urban. Significantly, food insecurity and malnutrition are more wide-
spread in low-income urban areas than in poor villages, calling for food production
within urban areas to provide non-money benefits to the poor.
Myths and Reality

Despite all these benefits, urban agriculture is a poorly understood industry. Urban
farming is often minimized as being merely ‗kitchen gardening‘ or marginalized as a
residue of rural habits. The benefits of urban farming are lost behind myths that are the
products of cultural, planning, and policy biases. These biases and their consequences are
considered in detail in Chapter 9. It is necessary, however, to identify and address the
myths surrounding urban agriculture at the outset, since these myths misrepresent the
significance of urban farming and hinder recognition of its potential.
Myth 1. Urban agriculture means household and community gardening.

Household and community gardening (whether to obtain fresher food, enhance nutritional
intake, save on food expenses, increase income, or for pleasure) are important
components of urban agriculture. But urban farming goes far beyond gardening, as will
be seen.
Myth 2. Urban agriculture is a temporary activity.

In all cities, even the most dense, there is always idle or ‗sleeping‘ land. In some parts of
the city — along roads, in unbuildable or hazard-prone areas, in yards — farming is a
long-term to permanent activity because the space either cannot or should not be used for
other purposes. In other places — on rented land, on plots awaiting development —
farming is a shifting land use. Some urban farming is always on the march, in central
plots undergoing renewal and especially on the leading edge of urban growth. With land
values increasing, a farmer first increases inputs and yields per square meter, and only
later moves his or her farming operation to another location, as land costs become
prohibitive or other pressures occur. The farming activity, however, does not die — it
merely adapts and moves in response to changing conditions. (Chapter 4 provides
examples of transient as well as permanent urban farming and explains why both have
their place in the urban land economy and landscape.)
Myth 3. Urban agriculture is a marginal activity or means of survival.

Social scientists studying low-income urban groups have documented urban agriculture
as a means of family food security and nutrition (Chapter 7). The contribution of urban
agriculture is greatest in the poorer cities of the world, where the share of income spent
by the vast low-income population on food and fuel is by far the largest household
expense. Urban agriculture is also a major urban economic sector that supplies a
significant percentage of the food consumed by a city and generates income and jobs,
particularly for women. The sector provides economic opportunities for both small-scale
entrepreneurs and larger enterprises, not only in agricultural production, but also in
related input and output industries and services. It especially provides opportunities for
the large numbers of part-time and low-skilled workers.

Myth 4. Urban agriculture preempts ‘higher’ land uses and cannot pay full land rent.
As Chapter 4 demonstrates, urban farming employs land that is unused or unsuitable for
other purposes, or it makes usufruct use of land allocated for other uses, thus returning
extra land rents. Most cities have a large amount of such land that can be farmed.
Moreover, some urban farming activities, such as peri-urban poultry co-ops, pay
competitive land rent, and in addition, many cities are located on fertile soils that are
highly suited for intensive farming.
Myth 5. Urban agriculture competes with and is less efficient than rural farming.
According to this myth, urban agriculture has a negative effect on the incomes of rural
farmers. But in fact urban farming thrives on products that are less suited to rural
production or that might otherwise be too costly for many urban poor. By contributing to
disposable urban income, it can lead to increasing demand for rural crops among urban
consumers. Simultaneously, urban agriculture can reduce some of the pressure on
marginal rural non-agricultural lands that may nonetheless be cultivated. (The
relationship to rural agriculture is addressed further later in this chapter.)
Myth 6. Urban agriculture is not hygienic.

Health problems are undoubtedly among the most serious consequences that can result
from inappropriate urban farming practices (discussed at length in Chapter 8).
Inappropriate use of fertilizers, pesticides, or untreated waste products, as well as farming
along roadsides and other urban locations that typically receive higher amounts of
pollution through the air, water, or soil, can lead to food contamination. Bad practices in
the reuse of solid and liquid wastes, as well as in rearing livestock, represent additional
potential to compromise the hygiene of the living environment. Urban farmers must take
particular care because of the potential to affect large populations, but urban farming is
not intrinsically unhygienic, nor do health concerns justify blanket bans on farming in the
city. In fact, used as part of the land and waste management systems of the city, urban
agriculture has the potential to improve hygiene in the city in a sustainable way because it
uses polluting waste as a production input. This can complement the other health benefits
(particularly nutrition) that urban farming provides to urban residents. The need is to
recognize the role and benefit of urban farming and then control its potential risks
(through regulations, enforcement, education, and other means) to ensure the production
gains are acquired without incurring the hygiene hazards. Such measures are detailed in
Chapter 8.
Myth 7. Urban agriculture causes pollution and damages the environment.

Urban farming can pollute soil, water, and air and adversely affect open urban areas. The
solution is to provide guidance and assistance to make it a safer industry for farmers,
consumers, and the environment. Correctly practiced, urban agriculture has many more
potential environmental gains than problems (Chapter 8). Farming in urban areas reduces
truck traffic and the resulting air pollution, can prevent soil erosion, and helps rebuild
urban forests. Expanding planted area can favorably affect the urban microclimate.
Horticultural production of food and ornamental crops reduces air pollution close to the
earth‘s surface where it is of most benefit to children. Most significantly, urban

agriculture is among the best, most sensible ways to dispose of much of a city‘s solid and
liquid wastes (especially organic ones) by transforming them into a resource. Few
activities contribute as efficiently to improving the urban soil, water, air, and living
environment while closing the urban open-loop ecological system of ‗resources in, wastes
out‘.
Myth 8. Urban agriculture is unsightly and aesthetically inappropriate in the city.

Urban farming creates green spaces in the city, replacing vacant and unkempt lots and
roadsides, thereby improving a city‘s appearance. Well-managed animal grazing can be
more attractive than tractor maintenance of urban open spaces. Urban agriculture has vast
potential and capacity to recycle waste and reduce the haphazard dumping of solid and
liquid waste, which clearly improves a city‘s appearance and hygiene. Urban forestry in
many forms — from berry bushes to vineyards to bamboo — does much to enrich the
urban landscape. Finally, the issue of relative standards cannot be ignored — if fields of
maize in the countryside are beautiful, why is a plot of vegetables in the city viewed as an
eyesore?
Myth 9. The ‘garden city’ is an archaic, utopian concept that has no place in today’s
world.
Western thought has nurtured a utopian tradition of ‗garden cities‘ at least since the Age
of Enlightenment. However, this book emerges not from ancient intellectual theories, but
in response to real-world, present-day observations and concerns. The cities of
developing countries are becoming garden cities in a very practical way. Meanwhile,
concepts of ‗modernity‘ are actually holding back agriculture by defining industry as the
activity for urban areas and farming as the activity for rural areas. Planning concepts of
‗city beautiful‘ relegate farming to the position of an outdated, backward activity that is
not fit for the ‗modern‘ city. This book shows that these assumptions are wrong and that
agriculture has an important and beneficial place in the contemporary city.
Growing Phenomenon
The potential of urban agriculture is largely untapped and undervalued. In the past
decade, however, and particularly since the publication of the first edition of this book
five years ago, this potential is increasingly recognized. We intend for this new edition to
contribute to this trend.
Despite the acceptance of some of these myths in many quarters, urban agriculture is
a growing phenomenon. It is increasingly widely practiced, and its efficiency is
continually improving through better organization and more advanced technology. The
current level of urban farming in the world can be attributed largely to the individual,
unaided efforts of urban farmers and local NGOs. Millions have noted the demand in the
urban market or the food needs of their families and have taken action to meet those
needs.
Many policymakers, planners, government entities, research institutions, development
agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other possible promoters of urban
agriculture have failed to see its potential and frequently obstructed its practice, although

others have begun to recognize it as an important development tool. By reporting on the

positive benefits of urban farming activities across the globe and pointing out how
appropriate policies can mitigate the potential negative aspects, this book should broaden
acceptance and support for urban agriculture, especially by those who are critical to its
success.
Basic Concepts
It is not possible to devise a single, comprehensive classification to encompass all urban
agricultural activity. For this reason, the second part of this book is devoted to presenting
a number of typologies that can be applied to urban agriculture. Urban farming can be
categorized by product, complexity of the farming system, income of the farmer, purpose
of production (home consumption, sale at market, sale to processor), type of space used,
location, form of tenure, degree of permanence, organizational mode, or number of actors
involved, among other criteria. The scope and variety of urban agriculture are discussed
throughout this book, but first it is important to clarify how the words ‗urban‘ and
‗agriculture‘ are used in this book, and to define what is included in the realm of urban
agriculture and what falls outside its scope.
Defining ‘Urban’
Urban is used in a broad sense, to encompass the entire area in which a city‘s sphere of
influence (social, ecological, and economic) comes to bear daily and directly on its
population. An approximate definition of a city‘s zone of metropolitan intensive
agriculture (differentiating urban from rural agriculture) is important to gain a sense of
farming systems types and the contribution these provide to the city‘s system of food
(and other materials). Recognizing the difficulties of agreeing on any single definition,
urban is distinguished here as the agricultural product that can be available to city
markets or consumers the same day it is harvested, whether produced in the city or
transported there.3
Clearly, this is not an easy distinction. A demographically-based geographic
definition of the urban region is generally adequate, but many countries do not have such
a statistical definition, and cities of medium and large size are frequently divided into
several municipalities that were defined long before the urban expansion since World
War II. Moreover, where they are officially defined, metropolitan districts often cover
more than the legal municipal bounds, comprising peri-urban areas with strong ties to the
city. These districts may or may not correspond to the urban regions, which often stretch
well beyond the officially designated metropolitan zones.4
The overall definition of ‗urban‘ is not the only one that necessitates clarification.
How the main parts of an urban area are considered in this book must also be clarified. In
Chapter 4, we divide metropolitan areas into four constituent parts — core, corridor,
wedge, and periphery. These areas have different names as used in different parts of the
world and as assigned by different academic disciplines. Downtown/uptown, central
business district, central city, and inner city all fall within what we are labeling the urban
core(s). Corridors are sometimes referred to as spokes. Development corridors are often,
but not always, radial, and have nodes that are sometimes called ‗edge cities‘. Cores and

corridors are in some places referred to as intra-urban. Wedge areas, corridors, and fringe
areas (or parts of them at least) all fall within what is commonly tagged as suburban.
Agronomists, however, are likely to refer to suburban areas as peri-urban. Sociologists
sometimes call peri-urban areas ‗rurban‘.
We will concentrate on the four categories stated above, based on the nature of each
zone and the way urban agriculture fits into it. In parallel, we will sometimes use —
within the overall urban label — a more general distinction between intra-urban and peri-
urban, where in the former, built structures clearly predominate, while in the latter, built,
agricultural, and natural land uses are interspersed. At the same time, where we cite some
researchers who have used another disaggregation of the metropolitan area, we will
maintain their convention so as not to attempt to force them into our categories.
Defining ‘Agriculture’
As for agriculture, it too is used in its broadest sense, embracing horticulture,
aquaculture, arboriculture, and poultry and animal husbandry. Agriculture, farming,
cultivation, and raising crops and animals are used interchangeably. Farmer refers not just
to the agriculturist whose main occupation is cultivation, but also to the part-time or
recreational one.
One term used here, however, requires significant clarification — food production.
Agriculture is more than just a production process. As is made clear at the end of this
chapter, the term agriculture also incorporates pre-production and post-production
processes, as well as waste recycling processes. Furthermore, food production is
encompassed within ‗agriculture‘, but as used here, agriculture covers much more than
just food. Agriculture includes a number of products that are not edible by humans, for
example, fuel material, wood for other uses, and feed for animals (see Chapter 5).
Urban forestry goes beyond urban agriculture, including other types of urban
greening efforts. What is of specific interest here is urban agroforestry, which produces
food and non-food products. Common food products include fruit, nuts, mushrooms, and
berries from trees, shrubs, and rhizomes. Non-food products include medicines and
insecticides from flowers, foliage, bark, and roots. Wood is used for fuel, furniture
making, basket weaving, paper production, and construction. The use of poplar for paper,
bamboo for construction, and rattan for furniture and baskets is widespread. Related to
these direct forest products are ancillary products such as honey, ornamental shrubs, and
flowers. Urban agroforestry falls within the broader activity of urban greening, which
steers forestry to bring a range of environmental benefits to urban areas. Given the
multiple functions of urban agroforestry, its boundaries can be difficult to draw sharply.
Other Definitions
A few additional concepts deserve explanation (Appendix B defines more terms). Some
terms such as food security will be introduced and discussed later in this chapter.
A basic concept for recognizing the importance of urban agriculture is the food-shed.
The food-shed of a city includes all the areas that supply its food products — local, rural,
or foreign. The food-shed could be defined for each food group (for example, the milk-

shed, poultry-shed, or produce-shed of a city). Generally, the richer the city, the larger its
food-shed. Because transportation systems are less developed in poorer cities, and
residents‘ food and fuel costs as a share of income are higher, the food produced within a
daily food-shed becomes more important in poorer cities than in richer ones, and the
food-shed itself tends to be smaller. Note that the urban food-shed encompasses more
than just the urban farming region, since much food is imported from well outside that
region.
Additional terms amplify the food-shed concept. A few in current use are place-based
food system, locally-grown, food miles, and slow food. The first two are transparent. Food
miles is a term coming into use in UK that measures the farm to market distance and cost
for each and every product on the dinner plate. Slow food is a burgeoning movement
(65,000 members in Italy) that favors local production, processing, marketing, and
consumption. It includes an aversion to fast food.
Seventy-five percent of what is harvested and mined from the earth is shipped to
towns and cities, an area that covers 2.5 percent of the earth‘s surface yet include one-
half its human population.5 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.6 More specifically, we can talk of
an urban footprint. The 20th century trend to global wealth, promoted by so many good
individuals and organizations, has in most cases increased the negative effects of cities on
the earth‘s capacity to support life and civilization. Urbanization‘s present-day resource
consumption patterns have a number of limits to their continued expansion. The single
largest component of the urban footprint is food. By bringing food production back into
the city, the degradation of the biosphere can be reduced. Sustainable cities are discussed
later in this chapter, and Chapter 5 spells out some steps to reduce degradation.
Fungible income refers to the substitution of goods or labor for money that had to be
earned to acquire these (or equivalent) goods. Barter, food for labor, and food for land
access all create fungible income, as does growing food for family consumption (instead
of buying it). The fungible income from urban agriculture is particularly important in
places where a high portion of earned income (one half or more of family income) is
spent on food and fuel purchases. The high fungibility of income from urban agriculture
is an easily overlooked but very powerful tool in the fight against urban poverty and
represents one of the activity‘s greatest benefits.
The legal concept of usufruct is also important to an understanding urban agriculture.
Usufruct refers to the legal right to use and enjoy something that belongs to another
person or over which there is a form of communal ownership. Generally, use can be
enjoyed so long as the value of the good and its utility to the owner are undiminished. In
urban agriculture, a usufruct grants a farmer access to the fruits of his or her labor on a
public or private land or water body that he or she does not own. Usufruct arrangements
were important in Roman law and are still important in many indigenous bodies of law
worldwide. Much tribal law in Asia and Africa, for example, includes usufruct principles.
Typically, a usufruct is given under certain guarantees of performance by the usufruct
user or in return for maintenance of the good — in this case, land or water. Usufruct
arrangements are a powerful resource where the land or water body is idle and could be

put to productive use. Undeveloped factory sites set aside for worker gardens in Russia
and electric transmission line rights-of-way used by suburban weekend gardeners in the
U.S. are modern variants of this principle.
Input-output theory offers an understanding of the throughput of resources in an
urban ecosystem — the inputs (raw materials and products) that are brought in to support
a city as well as the outputs (especially wastes) that are evacuated from it. The throughput
of natural resources will need to be minimized in the future for human settlements to
become sustainable rather than polluting. Urban agriculture contributes to this process by
reusing its waste and the waste of other sectors to produce food and fuel. It reduces both
the intake and the output in the resource stream, thus fewer resources are consumed and
pollution is lower. Such reductions can make the city more ecologically balanced and
more resourceful (both literally and figuratively).
A fundamental change is needed (and may be emerging) in the way waste is viewed
globally. Waste must be regarded not as a disposal problem, but as a resource for
sustainable development. Metropolitan areas must not be viewed as open-loop systems in
which resources flow in and wastes flow out, but as closed-loop systems in which wastes
and resources are one and the same (see Fig. 7.2). In an idealized closed-loop system, the
output of one process is used repeatedly as an input to another process, therefore
eliminating the need to export waste from the system.
Another useful concept in discussing urban agriculture is that of the edible landscape.
In the urban landscape, industrial and commercial areas are often considered productive,
while open spaces are regarded as recreational and aesthetic, but nonproductive. Urban
agriculture creates a green and aesthetic landscape that is at the same time productive —
street trees bearing fruit, ponds and rivers producing fish and water vegetables, hillsides
yielding fuel, and formerly vacant lots growing vegetables. This landscape is then fecund
and brings high returns to the cultivator or breeder.
A further extension of the edible landscape concept is the edible building. This
concept is now being promoted by Sustain in London. At its simplest, vegetables are
grown on the roof of a supermarket using organic waste as a growth medium and waste
heat from refrigerators and freezers. Many architects are exploring this concept.
Taming the excesses of agriculture is a global challenge for today. The agriculture,
fisheries, and forestry industries are all diminishing the earth‘s natural resources to meet
market demand. Agriculture in human settlements has a special role to play in
remediating the negative effects of human food production. The UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines sustainable agriculture as: ―The management
and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and
institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued
satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations.‖7 In order to satisfy this
definition, urban agriculture must to be able to conserve genetic resources, and be
environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially
acceptable. Sustainable urban agriculture means closing ecological loops currently open,
and integrating food, fuel, medicine, and ornamental production and processing into the
urban fabric and community life.

Links and Differences Between Urban and Rural Agriculture

The authors assume that rural agriculture will continue as an important economic sector,
and that rural agriculture will change as much in the current century as it did in the last
one. Changes in rural agriculture will respond to the evolving global urbanization, global
environmental degradation, and technological progress in many fields. Those changes
will also respond to the transformations under way in urban agriculture. In this section,
we address basic issues about the relationship between rural and urban agriculture.8
Through the discussion, we hope to provide partial answers to four concerns that are
sometimes raised about urban agriculture:
Where is the spatial limit of urban agriculture, and how is it changing?
Will the advance of urban agriculture contribute to rural poverty?
Why does urban agriculture persist in regions that have rural food surpluses?
Do urban agriculture and rural agriculture compete, and what advantages does each
possess?
Continuum in Space and Time — Urban-Rural Food Systems

The urban-rural links within historical food systems are evident in many written and
mapped records. Rome‘s imports of grain from North Africa and the Black Sea region are
as well documented as its peri-urban market gardens and livestock ranches.9 The fortified
cities in medieval Europe had livestock pens and large storage facilities for rurally-
produced grain. These provided carbohydrates and protein during siege and winter.
Until the 20th century, the urban vegetable producers in and around Paris, London,
New York, and other cities shipped their products to rural towns and villages in the same
carts that brought rural products into the city.10 River cities from Southeast Asia to South
America are known to have had trade in diverse agricultural commodities running in both
directions.
The Industrial Revolution helped rail to replace river transportation, and two
generations later, the highway replaced the railway in many countries. The food-sheds of
our fathers are all history. Food-sheds in the 1950s tended to be 50-150 kilometers long,
but geographers today have a much more difficult time in defining the geographic limits
of a city‘s food system.
The peri-urban area poses a particular challenge in any attempt to answer the basic
question: Where does urban agriculture end? Still, in the majority of countries, peri-urban
zones can usefully be considered part of the urban area and the urban system. The food
system flows through any definition of an urban boundary to rural areas. The urban-rural
continuum of the food system serving the industrial city of 1850–1950 was sharply
different from that of the post-industrial city of 1950–2000, and both bear little
resemblance to the evolving network city of the 21st century.
Urban Agriculture and Rural Economies

As urban agriculture increases the wealth of urban citizens, they will be able to purchase
more goods from rural farmers. Urban poverty does not promote rural development. As

urban farmers produce products that were formerly grown in rural areas for the urban
market, rural farmers will then turn to product lines that have an increasing market
demand and for which they hold a comparative advantage. For example, a rural tomato
producer who finds a receding demand may turn to turkey production, which is
increasing its market share as urban families spend more on turkey.
Another example of the compatibility of urban and rural agriculture can be stated at
the commercial level. A city brewery is producing beer based on rural oats and hops. The
brewery waste is used as both a poultry feed and to enhance the soil of nearby vegetable
production. Urban poverty is diminished, the cost of disposing of the industry‘s waste is
cut, and both the rural and the urban farmer benefit. In short, if urban agriculture
promotes development, it will in turn promote rural agriculture.
Urban Agriculture and Rural Agricultural Surpluses

In the last 50 years, food surpluses have been a common phenomenon for certain crops,
at certain times, and in certain places. The existence of such surpluses does not itself
preclude the need to develop farming in urban areas. Urban agriculture can have an
important role to play in the context of food surplus, primarily for three reasons.
There is always food insecurity in certain groups, even in the midst of a land of
riches or a time of plenty. The current food system has certain distributional
inefficiencies and inequalities. In many countries with food surpluses originating in rural
areas, urban food insecurity persists among groups that remain in poverty. Urban
agriculture can reach the urban poor who are not well served by the current system. This
production is unlikely to diminish demand for rural products and therefore the
profitability of rural agriculture. But in any case, the poor who depend on urban farming
may not represent a major component of the market for rural or imported products.
Food surpluses are sometimes generated in environmentally unsustainable ways,
causing ecological damage. The advent of industrial agriculture and some aspects of the
Green Revolution have in many cases contributed to environmental degradation —
polluted estuaries, erosion, soil salinization, etc. In certain locations and in the process of
producing particular crops, appropriate urban agriculture practices can diminish
environmental degradation caused by rural agriculture. Rural agriculture will in these
instances need to change its practices and/or switch to different crops.
Food surplus and food quality are not synonymous. Food quality for everyone,
especially the urban poor, is on a downward curve as increasing amounts of additives and
levels of processing are applied to more and more of what we eat. Urban agriculture
offers a possibility to enhance the quality of what we eat at home, in school, on the street,
and in restaurants by putting fresh from the farm ingredients on our dinner plates.
Particularly where the marketing infrastructure is insufficiently developed, there may not
be a substitute for the freshness of local products. This is not a net deduction from rural
agriculture, but rather a supplement to the urban diet, and will add urban vitamins and
protein to rural carbohydrates.

Location Specificity — Comparative Advantages of Urban and Rural

Agriculture
The nature of cities is changing. In 1940, the average density of America‘s cities was 25
people per hectare. In contrast, areas developed in the early 1990s generated an average
density of 2.5 people per hectare, one-tenth of the density a half-century earlier.11 The
same type of reduction in urban density is occurring in the sprawling cities of Europe,
Asia, Africa, and South America. With such sprawl, a new possibility for agriculture
exists within the city as a symbiotic land use among many, as a productive urban
landscape. With the unparalleled spatial reach and increasingly vast amounts of unbuilt
(open) spaces in the midst of built environments, looking at space alone, a claim can be
made that agriculture is becoming urban at an unprecedented scale.
At the same time, as the 21st-century city once again welcomes agriculture, the
advances in transportation and communications technology are providing the agricultural
industry greater choice in locating production, which means that certain crops can now be
farmed at distances that were not imaginable in the past. The urban production of certain
crops is now favored, such as flowers grown near South American airports for air
transport to the USA, while it reinforces the rural production of others, such as soybeans
in Kansas for slow shipping to China. Hence, the differences in urban and rural
production of agricultural products are influenced by comparative advantage.
Differences between urban and rural crops begin in the nature of the crops
themselves. Thus London‘s oranges come from Spain, while its mushrooms are grown in
the city. A warm climate and a sturdy natural skin give an advantage to Spain for oranges
to be shipped long distances, while fragile and highly perishable mushrooms that require
limited production space are most efficiently grown close to consumer demand.
Many agricultural technology advances tend to favor intra-urban or peri-urban (close-
to-market) locations. Five enhanced farming systems or technologies (see Chapter 5) are
worth noting as being particularly suited for urban settings due to issues of freshness,
intensity (in capital, land, or labor), market access, adaptability, or other factors:
aquaculture — water crops produced in artificial water bodies, some under roofs;
zero-grazing — production of livestock (poultry, rabbits, pigs, etc.) in cages and
enclosed structures;
plastic tunnels — production under plastic roofs that protect from weather and
insects;
hydroponics — production without soil; and
drip irrigation — systems that use much less water per unit of production than
trenches or overhead sprinklers.
Infrastructure has a strong influence on what farmers produce in rural and urban
areas. Highways, the farm-to-market roads of the economists, are the most important
infrastructure element serving our food systems. The efficiency of the highway system
and the quality of trucks (including refrigeration, mobile phones, and global positioning
devices) more precisely shape the location of what is produced, processed, and packaged
than air, sea, or rail facilities.

Air shipments are much more expensive per mile compared to surface shipments, and
generate approximately 14 times as much ozone-depleting air pollution per mile per
pound as rail shipments. For a number of products, the time saving of shipping by air can
compensate for the extra cost because it opens new markets. Airport locations are thus
significant factors for relatively light and perishable products and high value products.
New York‘s winter strawberries arrive by air from Central America, while New Zealand
fish arrive in Paris by air. Many products are processed and packaged at the production
site and flown to market.
Serving all transportation modes are webs of storage facilities, marshalling
yards/transfer stations, wholesale markets, and information systems. The logic and
practices of urban and rural farmers are substantially determined by capital-intensive
infrastructure. Future policy and agricultural development plans for countries and cities
with poor infrastructure will be different than for locations that are well endowed with
infrastructure.
Landscape is another determinant of urban-rural splits in agricultural production. The
urban area on a coastal plain will produce different products than farms on nearby hills,
which may have less soil, less water, and more frost. This is evident in Beirut and other
Mediterranean cities. Towns in deserts, on small islands, and in the mountains are more
likely to produce food products consumed on a daily basis than those surrounded by
extensive agricultural plains.
Analyses of the comparative advantage of urban/peri-urban compared to rural
agriculture can well include the share of the profit, the range of selling venues, and the
market information that is available to the producer. Producers in the community or the
city can often capture 50-80 percent of the retail price, which is aided by marketing
devices such as farm stands, farmers‘ markets, municipal markets, and sales to
restaurants, street vendors, institutions, and retailers. The rural competitor will more often
sell into a national, regional, or international market, two or three steps removed from the
retail outlet, at a fraction of the retail price. The urban farmer is more likely to have up-
to-date information about demand from the local markets, and sometimes from the
international markets. The comparative advantage due to information differential,
however, is declining as the Internet supplements radio.
Policy, administration, and education significantly affect the urban-rural split of
agricultural production. The land-use policies and administration of many cities, small
and large, are antagonistic to agriculture. Livestock are often not permitted in town, crops
may not be permitted in public open spaces, and homeowners are sometimes not
permitted to raise vegetables in their front yards. In the same countries, however,
educational programs, infrastructure, price supports, input subsidies, and other factors
tend to be conceived and oriented toward the development of rural farming.
Last but not least in our list of elements determining urban-rural agricultural product
splits are soil and water. Urban agriculture benefits from the ready availability of organic
(solid and liquid) waste products to feed livestock, improve soils, and irrigate land. Such
use provides a substantial equalizing factor for many crops over rich agricultural soils in
rural areas. Many cities have relatively good access to water compared to some rural

agricultural areas. Rural farmers are far more dependent on rainfall and more
extensive/expensive irrigation infrastructure.
In sum, the allocation of agricultural production between urban and rural locations,
and where agriculture occurs within urban areas, are in rapid flux and require specific and
substantial study. Certain types of products, processes, and techniques will be favored in
urban places, as will be discussed further in Chapter 10. For others, rural areas will
maintain their advantage. To illustrate the split between urban and rural farm products,
we can analyze the typical ingredients of a ham and cheese sandwich — bread (rural),
cheese (rural), ham (peri-urban), lettuce (urban), and tomato (intra-urban). Ultimately
both urban and rural agriculture have their place specificities, and with a little help from
policymakers and educators, rural and urban agriculture will enjoy a healthy symbiotic
relationship.
Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Urban Systems

Urban agriculture does not exist in isolation but occurs in the context of other urban
activities and systems, particularly the local economic, land use, ecological, and urban
management systems. It is also integrally related to the local, national, and global food
systems. Any plans for managing, expanding, or transforming urban agriculture must
consider the interactions among the urban agriculture industry and these systems.
The role of urban agriculture in the urban land-use system is detailed in Chapter 4,
while Chapter 7 discusses how urban agriculture fits into the urban and global economies,
as well as its actual and potential function within the urban waste management system.
Here we briefly discuss the urban nutrient cycle, the hydrological cycle, and the urban
food system, followed by a view of how urban agriculture fits into each. The complexity
of the urban food system deserves more elaboration, and will be treated separately in the
following section. We start with some observations on how urban agriculture fits more
generally into the sustainability of the city itself.
Urban Agriculture and the Sustainable City

We have already noted the magnitude of urban settlements on this earth, as expressed in
the concept of the ecological footprint. This can be fleshed out by the calculations that
Herbert Girardet has made concerning the influence of London. He estimated that Greater
London lives off an area 123 times larger than the surface of the metropolis.12 It casts a
shadow, not just on the use of land, but on water extraction and air pollution. The
consumption of natural resources (petroleum, phosphate, wood, fish, soil microbes), the
construction of the city (rooftops, paving, lawns), and pollution all diminish biodiversity.
London‘s ecological footprint goes beyond the close and far places from which it extracts
resources. It also casts a shadow over other cities that process and transfer resources —
the reach ranges from towns and cities in the English hinterland, to Chicago and the U.S.
Great Plains that supply its maize, to Bogota and the Colombian highlands that supply its
coffee.13 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 sustainable city is the subject of considerable analysis as urban deconcentration

continues into a third century. Grady Clay suggests that the goal of sustainable
urbanization is ―the creation of new landscapes to provide healthy life-systems, not
merely to remedy urban malfunctions, so that . . . urban development becomes a
participant in the workings of natural systems.‖14 Herbert Girardet gives us a
straightforward definition of a sustainable city, as a variant on the classic definition
issued by the Brundtland Commission report in 1987, as one that is ―organized so as to
enable all its citizens to meet their own need and to enhance their well-being without
damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions of other people, now or
in the future.‖15
For our purposes in this book, we chose a limited view of the sustainable city, and
focus on ecological and social sustainability. Ecological sustainability requires that a city
or urban region reduce its negative ecological footprint toward zero. This is consistent
with Clay and Girardet. The principal tools we suggest are the reuse of waste as an input
to the production of food for human consumption and the cleansing and reuse of water.
The sustainable human settlements of history (Macchu Picchu, Peru; Sanaa, Yemen)
and today (Findhorn, UK; Auroville, India) include agriculture. Futurists and pragmatists
who consider sustainable city designs will overlook a strong contribution if they ignore
agriculture in diverse forms.
When well managed, urban agriculture contributes to closing now-open ecological
loops, strengthening the city‘s economic base, and enhancing social cohesion. In the
following chapters, we will consider the role urban farming plays in the sustainability of
a community (and therefore city), and beyond that, how it can reduce the pressure exerted
by a city on its region and on the biosphere.
The Urban Nutrient Cycle

Urban farming has existed throughout history and played roles in both feeding cities and
recycling urban wastes. As shown in Chapter 2, intensive horticulture, dairy, and hog
farms have been an intrinsic part of cities and played a vital role in their functioning since
the dawn of urban settlements in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. The
pre-industrial city was to a substantial degree an ecologically closed-loop system. City
waste was primarily organic and suitable to regenerate the environment. The liquid and
solid wastes of the city were returned to the land to enrich and build the soil, which
produced perishable food for the city.
With the industrialization of the last two centuries came rapid urbanization and the
development of a dichotomous planning concept that created a functional separation
between the ‗country‘ and the ‗town‘, with the countryside producing food and the city
producing industrial goods. Urban land-use planning and hygiene principles discouraged
urban farming. The development of large-scale waste management systems that dispose
of waste rather than recycle it, as well as the change in the composition of waste from
largely organic to increasingly inorganic and toxic, made its recycling through farming a
complex and more costly task.
The industrialized ‗North‘ has largely separated food production and urban
settlements. In the ‗South‘, there has been less separation. In China and other Asian

countries, vegetable and small animal and fish production continues to flourish in urban
regions, but globally, the food production function was reduced in numerous towns and
cities.
What White and Whitney have referred to as ―the traditional spatial nutrient cycling
system of waste management‖ has thus disintegrated under multiple pressures.16 Figure
1.1 illustrates the shift from one model of urbanization — the closed (sustainable) loop,
which existed before the Industrial Revolution — to another model, the open
(unsustainable) loop. An increase in urban agriculture activities would heighten the
possibility for food and fuel production to once again transform urban waste from a
problem to a resource.
A complete or ecologically sustainable design for a city would be a closed loop, with
all the wastes from one process used as an input to another process. The city would be in
balance. Because food and fuel are a major industry in a city, urban agriculture has a
large role to play in closing open, polluting loops in the nutrient cycle. Simply put, waste
makes a major contribution to food.
The Hydrological Cycle

The World Resources Institute found in 1996 that countries with a serious water scarcity
included not just those that are well-known as for their aridity such as in North Africa and
the Middle East, but also those with emerging severe water shortages, such as Kenya and
China. One 1992 forecast estimated that 1 billion people would be living in water-short
countries by 2025. Another study uncovered serious deficiencies in the water supply of
two-thirds of African countries, in part due to urbanization.17
Moreover, over two-thirds of the water withdrawn yearly for public use (not
irrigation) comes from groundwater.18 The result of this pumping is groundwater
pollution by industry and intensive urban/peri-urban agriculture, which dries out vast
landscapes around large cities. The World Bank found in 1993 that Manila, Mexico City,
and Bangkok, among others, were simultaneously seriously depleting their water supplies
and contaminating them. These data on global water supplies point to how vital any
savings in water have become, and the critical role that cities, and urban agriculture in
particular, have in the hydrological cycle.
Rural water runoff is polluted primarily by agricultural practices such as large-scale
poultry raising and the application of chemical fertilizers. Urban wastewater is polluted
by a wide range of urban land uses including dwellings and industry. Much urban
agriculture uses rural runoff as well as urban wastewater and runoff as an input during
production, however, well-managed urban agriculture can be used to purify both runoff
and wastewater.
Some ecological principles can be of use in considering the ties of urban farming to
the hydrological cycle. One is that water is the commons, not just a resource.19 Another
ecological principle is for all water to be used — seven times twixt mountain and ocean.20
The urban design, planning, and management required by the limited fresh water
supply and hydrological cycle — whether seen as commons or resource — is to use
urban agriculture as a water-cleansing activity both above and below the town or city

(upstream and downstream). Quality control of farming systems is a necessary condition

to ensure this works properly, otherwise these processes can and do result in water
pollution and disease. The relevant principle must be, not just ‗zero pollution‘, but
‗negative pollution‘ as a net effect of urban farming. A good example of water
management in urban agriculture is the use of fish manure as a prime source to fertilize
lettuce at Tailormade Fish Farms in Newcastle, Australia, where little or no wastewater
emerges from the aeroponics process in a fish tank flow of 30,000 liters per hour.21
Considering the range of urban farming sectors, as outlined in Chapter 5, some will
be more effective at managing water pollution than others. Some urban agriculture
practices that particularly pollute water sources in recent years include poultry in
Delaware, USA, piggeries in the Netherlands, shrimp in Thailand, artichokes in
California, and green leafy vegetables in Chile.
In contrast, other practices have been well documented as cleansing rural and urban
water supplies. Duckweed, with less than a centimeter foliage and a meter of root system
in water, is an excellent converter of pollution to edible calories for feeding animals (see
Case 5.4). Reeds (such a papyrus) have been cleansing urban effluent since the time of
the pharaohs in Egypt. Urban agroforestry not only cleanses water but also the urban air.
The French and Chinese biointensive vegetable production methods are known to
efficiently convert dirty surface water to clean groundwater.
When well designed, monitored, and managed, urban agriculture can enhance the
quality of water that enters the city and water that leaves the city. Poor practices can
aggravate both supplies, thus urban agriculture is an integral component of a city‘s
hydrological cycle.
Urban Agriculture and the Urban Food System

One way to understand urban farming is to study it as a part of the urban and national
food supply and demand system, within the context of the urbanization process. The
urban food system includes:
food that urban residents consume,
production location,
means of production,
transportation and storage options,
food processing and packaging methods, and
intra-community and global marketing systems that move food from producers to
consumers.
Food Demand
Urbanization affects the demand structure for food in a country. In cities, consumption of
traditional basic foods (staples) is often replaced by consumption of more processed —
and often non-indigenous — foods such as cereals and livestock products, along with
higher consumption of precooked and convenience foods. Thus demand for high-value
crops, vegetables, and meat products increases.

Urbanization affects not only the types of food demand, but also the levels of
demand. Urbanization in developing countries is occurring at far more rapid rates than in
Europe and North America, and the speed of urbanization and sheer numbers of people
being added to urban areas are staggering. Between 1990 and 2020, Africa will add 500
million people to its urban population. In comparison, between 1960 and 1990, North
America and Europe together added 180 million people to their cities.22 The consequence
is self-evident — more and more urban residents need food, yet in many developing
countries agricultural productivity and the agricultural transportation and marketing
systems are not keeping pace.
Food Supply
Where do people obtain their food? Villages get the bulk of their food supply from
farming within the settlement and surrounding countryside. In larger, more urban areas,
however, the capacity of the immediate surroundings cannot keep up with the growing
and changing food demand because nearby farmland is being taken for urban uses.
Consequently, farming in the region intensifies and adapts its crops to the new demand.
The food-sheds of the various crops expand along with the city they serve, and additional
food is imported from other parts of the country or from abroad.
Thus urbanization induces the development of a more intricate national marketing
and transportation infrastructure that can provide the city with food from remote rural and
foreign sources. The urban marketing structures move gradually from the traditional petty
trade structure — characteristic of smaller towns and villages — to more formalized and
capitalized market structures. Extensive storage, refrigeration, and processing facilities
develop to increase the shelf life of food.
A new food supply structure does not replace a traditional one, but rather
complements it. Remote systems alone cannot nourish all urban residents at affordable
prices. Remote food production now complements local ways of furnishing urban
residents with their nutritional needs, thus greatly increasing the complexity of the urban
food system.
Drakakis-Smith has presented a structural framework of the food supply system of
cities (Fig. 1.2). It shows that urban residents acquire food through exchange (purchase or
barter), production, or transfer (food aid, donation, food stamps, feeding programs). The
sources of the food may be rural producers, urban producers, imports, food aid, or the
residents‘ production.23
The food supply system can be viewed as a series of food-shed overlays of varying
diameter, shape24 and direction from the city,25 depending on the type of agricultural
product. One example is provided by a 1972 study of Hyderabad, India, which found that
the 1.25 million population was served by three wholesale vegetable markets. Less
perishable vegetables came from more distant sources, while almost the entire supply of
more perishable products was grown within a 40-mile radius of the city. In the peri-urban
zone, farmers practiced intensive farming using electric pumps, producing three to four
crops a year. Eighty percent of the milk consumed was supplied from the vicinity of the
city, as was most of the poultry. Fruit usually came from a farther distance than
vegetables and poultry.26

The amount of food supplied by the various sources — urban, rural, and foreign — as
well as the crops predominantly supplied by each source, varies depending on a range of
factors, including:
economic status of the country (developing, industrial, post-industrial);
completeness of the food marketing, storage, and transportation infrastructure and
system;
agricultural productivity (per hectare, capital investment, per worker);
availability of land, water, and other natural resources; and
agricultural and urban development policies.
Wherever the national food marketing and transportation system is not well
developed, urban farming is particularly competitive. For high-value specialty or
perishable crops, urban farmers have the advantage of proximity to market as well as the
means to follow the market closely.
The rapid growth of cities has been accompanied by a surge in urban poverty. The
proportion of the absolute poor in developing countries living in urban areas was
estimated to have risen from 25 percent in 1988 to 50 percent today.27 Many poor urban
households depend on cash income to obtain food, for which they often spend more than
one-half of their income. The urban poor characteristically respond by growing food
wherever they can find access to space — either to add to the family larder, to have
something to barter, or to generate income.
The majority of urban farmers in low-income countries are poor. A prime reason
these families become urban farmers is to gain food security, directly through the
consumption of what they grow and indirectly through barter, fungibility, and market
sales. What this study makes clear is that in developing countries, modern regional and
global food systems (in both rich and poor countries) fail to achieve food security for the
poor. Urban agriculture can ameliorate that crisis.
A common perception is that urban agriculture is appropriate for the urban poor and
is questionable in urban districts not occupied by the poor. Recent studies in West Africa
and India by Cardiff University and IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute)
in eight African cities found that the locus of malnutrition and food insecurity and the
locus of poverty in those cities are not the same. Ruel et al. at IFPRI found that the share
of the poor in urban areas was increasing in seven of the eight countries studied.28 Food
insecurity and malnutrition are occurring in middle-class as well as lower-class portions
of cities in low-income countries. The need for urban agriculture is neither poverty-
driven nor poverty-located.
Maxwell at IFPRI and others have found that agriculture by the urban poor is an
effective means to improve health and well being. Lee-Smith, working for the
International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), found the same to be true
for low-income and middle-income families in Kenya. In wealthy countries, including
particularly the United States, food insecurity and malnutrition are largely limited to
poverty locations. The Brookings Institution found that a prime indicator of food
insecurity is eligibility for a free school lunch, which is commonly 50 percent or more in

areas of relative poverty. Malnutrition is both a symptom and cause of poverty, and
poverty is moving to the cities as the world urbanizes.
After 150 years of increasing separation between consumption and production, there
is substantial evidence that production is returning to the city and its edges in many
places. After generations in which the food industry and agriculture focused their
attention on greater efficiency in distribution and marketing, there is a perceptible shift
toward renewed investment in intensive, efficient, and integrated production systems
within the expanding urban regions.
The shift has two components. The first focuses on the ‗urban‘ aspect of the urban
food system. The relationship between urban and rural agriculture and their purposes is
changing, with each producing those products at which it is most efficient (considering
all cost factors) and for which proximity to market is most vital (rather than simply where
the best conditions exist for production). Urban demand for food is satisfied from both
urban and rural supplies. This not only gives an important role to urban food production,
but also changes the overall function of rural food production.
The second shift bears on the ‗food‘ aspect of the system. As discussed above, food is
not only a part of a demand-supply equation; it is also a part of a continuous cycle of
nutrients generated and consumed by urban residents. This perspective on the urban food
system reintegrates food with urban ecology, tying resources to wastes and inputs to
outputs.
Beyond Food Demand and Supply — Urban Food Security

Food insecurity or food poverty exists when every person, whether infant, child, adult or
elder, does not have ready/daily/sustainable access to nutritious, culturally acceptable
food. Food security exists then when an individual, family, community, city, region, or
country has adequate income and a stable food system that assures both individual and
group sustainable daily and year-round access to a nutritious and culturally acceptable
diet.
For the individual of any age or socioeconomic status, food security requires that the
possibility of malnutrition does not exist. Food security means that not only is freedom
from hunger a human right, but so is a healthy diet. As we move up the ladder to family
and nation, the definition becomes more complex and demanding. At the community,
city, and regional levels, it requires some power over the means of production,
processing, and distribution.
Food insecurity exists in countries/regions/cities with food surpluses and in countries
that are short of food. Food insecurity among some groups increased in some wealthy
countries even as their economies boomed in the late 1990s. At the same time, many
experts in places like Indonesia and Russia were surprised during their economic
depressions of the 1990s, as food availability in urban areas (although not necessarily
nutritional quality) was maintained at levels that defied expectations. Food security must
be conceived, planned, and implemented in its own right. At the same time, however,
food security must be an integral component of economic development, education,
health, infrastructure, housing, etc., given its strong ties to all these related systems.

In the previous century, we generally perceived hunger as being episodic — the Irish
potato famine, Bengal famine, dust bowl, Great Depression, world wars. In recent years,
we recognize food insecurity as systemic and chronic. In the past, we looked for simple
solutions, including economic development or food aid. Today, we often recognize that
the system itself must change.
As the world we live in becomes predominantly urban, food security is being
accepted as integral to our communities, whatever their size. Much of this book, and
many of the publications referred to within it, are about urban food security, and therefore
global food security. Urban agriculture is not the lone answer to urban food insecurity,
but in many situations it is an essential element in the answer, which will be somewhat
different in its application in each and every city and country.
Community Food Security and Food Systems

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the industrial revolution brought tenements and worker
housing. Places of shelter and food were separated, perhaps for the first time in human
history, and there was a backlash. Social and health activists, corporations, and towns
invented allotment gardens. Workers were assigned farming space near where they lived
or worked. The middle class raised vegetables, poultry, and small livestock in their
backyards. These productive extensions of home continued to be common until World
War II in Western Europe and North America, and until the present day in Eastern
Europe and some developing countries.
In the 21st century, where we live and what we eat are being reconnected. Food
production is increasing its presence in education curriculums at all levels.29 The home or
household garden and community garden are both becoming more popular. Food that is
locally grown or on the market shelf the day it is harvested is gaining market share in rich
and poor countries alike, as Chapters 2 and 10 make clear.
From the wealthiest to the lowest-income towns and cities in the world, community-
based food systems are re-emerging. We generally identify the institutionalization of this
trend as beginning in the middle 1970s. Some places preceded others. In Ghana,
Operation Feed Yourself (OFY) began in 1974 (see Chapter 7). 30 In the late 1980s,
similar programs were initiated in Côte d‘Ivoire and Zaire. Across the world, the
community garden program was being reborn in the United States.
In Asia, the 1970s witnessed the birth of the community-supported agriculture (CSA)
movement in which a community supports a specific farmer. On the other side of the
Pacific, the ‗community kitchen‘ movement was being invented in Chile. This
community-based food system expanded over time to include food production,
processing, and distribution.
It seems likely that these cases and many others would have been perceived and
reported as isolated and unique except for the UN University‘s Food-Energy Nexus
project of the mid-1980s and the UNDP‘s Urban Agriculture Initiative of the early 1990s.
These two global research activities said loud and clear — something is happening
here.31 Through this lens, many place-specific studies came into focus.

Several varieties of community-based food systems have been identified. Ecoville is a

worldwide movement that includes the precept of using community land, recycled water,
waste/reused/renewable heat and energy, organic waste, and community labor to produce,
process, and distribute food. Permaculture is a worldwide movement with particularly
strong chapters in Australia and Zimbabwe, aiming at sustainable agriculture within a
sustainable human settlement.32 Community kitchens have spread from Chile, reaching
Canada and the Ecovilles.
Food production and processing are moving closer to the kitchen and dinner plate
through millions of individual decisions. The homeward movement of the food system
has not yet been explained scientifically, but it is linked to many concepts and actions —
the environmental movement, a good food and slow food movement, the replacement of
‗ending hunger‘ with the concept of establishing food security, a stronger role for women
in household decisions, innovations in agricultural technology, and many more. These
factors are an important part of the explanation, but something in the human psyche that
finds the union of shelter and food to be attractive may also play a role.
In the 1990s, the concept of community food security has emerged to take a prominent
position in the social justice, anti-poverty, and anti-hunger fields. It is defined as ―all
persons obtaining at all times a culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through
local non-emergency sources‖.33
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
of 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 was grown, ecological sustainability of its
production, and more community control of food production and distribution among
others‖.34 Urban agriculture is clearly one of the foundation blocks on which the concept
of community food security rests.
Hugh Joseph of Tufts University states that: ―. . . 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.‖ He concludes that in the long term, this would ―promote a truer sense of food
security than does reliance on an externally-controlled food supply‖.35
Thomas Lyson of Cornell University goes a step further to identify civic agriculture.
Relative to globalized commercial agriculture, he sees that there is ―a counter trend
towards relocalization of some agricultural and food production — a rebirth of civic
agriculture, because in almost all cases these activities are tightly linked to a

community‘s social and economic development‖.36 This document explores several

elements of community food security.
Structure of Urban Agriculture

The urban agriculture subsector, like the broader agriculture sector of which it is a part,
includes vertically integrated processes in three phases:
pre-production — acquisition and utilization of the necessary resources, inputs, and
services;
production — generation of raw materials and finished goods; and
post-production — processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, and recycling.
This classification is suggestive and may incur significant exceptions and overlapping
elements. For one, recycling transforms waste into resources and inputs, and in that
sense, is part of pre-production. Moreover, the three phases are rarely clear-cut. Pre-
production is not really a process per se; this category of convenience serves to indicate
the multiple elements that are necessary to enable agricultural production. The
relationships between the processes are illustrated in Figure 1.3.
Most agricultural subsectors are oriented primarily toward serving the needs of rural
farming, making it difficult for urban farmers to access these subsectors efficiently.
Producers of agribusiness inputs (such as seeds, feeds, fertilizers, tools) manufacture for the
rural market and do not cater to the needs of small urban producers. Similarly, municipal
and district waste managers generally fail to take note of the large processing capacity and
market for organic waste that urban farmers offer. Nor do many municipal markets and
supermarkets consider small local producers when obtaining supplies, turning instead to
large-scale suppliers or wholesalers who purchase mostly from rural farmers. Canneries,
slaughterhouses, and other processors also tend to overlook small-scale urban suppliers.
These and other constraints are detailed in Chapter 9.
Pre-Production
The need of urban agriculture for resources, inputs, and services — the necessities of
production proper — can be quite different from those of rural agriculture. In both
instances, however, when the supply of these necessities is not adequately organized, the
industry suffers. Less than optimal seeds are planted, planting time is not well attuned to
market demands, the growing season is foreshortened, inefficient tools are used, losses
are high, and material that could be used to enrich the soil and water is dumped into the
environment as pollution.
In urban regions, the requirements for land and water are less per unit of production
than in rural areas. Intensive vegetable production in urban situations may use only 20
percent as much irrigation water and 8-17 percent as much land as rural, tractor-
cultivated crops.37 Raising microlivestock or poultry takes little space compared with
that needed to graze cattle since it can be practiced in cages on rooftops and balconies.
Fish ponds can produce up to 20 times more fish per cubic meter of water than stocked
rivers and lakes.

Inputs such as tools, seeds, feeds, and supplies require a different distribution system
in cities. Because most urban farmers are small-scale and scattered across the city, they
need different seeds and supplies than rural farmers. They must cope with different
disease threats and microclimates than rural farmers and more polluted soil and water.
The crops, production techniques, growing conditions, fertilizing matter, and many other
factors vary from those in rural areas and thus require different inputs and appropriate
tools.
Urban agriculture has special financing needs. Other service needs of urban farming
that differ from those of rural farming and improve its efficiency and performance
include training of extension agents, special information programs, and focused research
into the crops, farming systems, techniques, and problems that are specific to the urban
setting. The technologies in a number of urban agriculture farming systems are improving
in the 30 countries visited during the course of this study, especially in poultry, climate
modification, and aquaculture, with more innovation and upgrading usually occurring in
the farming systems favored by richer farmers.
Production
Some concerns of rural agriculture (such as transportation costs and getting the product to
the market while still fresh) are minimized with urban agriculture. However, other
production considerations are more serious when cultivation takes place in urban areas,
such as tenure insecurity, theft, and environmental consequences. Of greatest concern is
the assurance that the food is safe for producers to handle and consumers to eat (see
Chapter 8).
Urban farming is highly demand- and market-oriented. The vegetable farmer who
farms on roadsides, in the backyard, on the roof, or in a vacant plot plans cropping and
production depending on what vegetables will be in demand when the produce is sold.
The lower- or middle-income gardener cultivating for food security selects the mix of
vegetables, fruits, or animals season by season, based on the nutritional needs of the
household.
Urban farmers are frequently small-scale entrepreneurs. In some cases, the urban
farmer produces for barter with input providers, landlords, other small business persons,
or neighbors. This barter can be identified as either fungible or in the informal sector. The
farmer may also work on direct contract for a retailer or food processing business.
Post-Production
Urban farm produce can be sold to a wholesaler or intermediary, directly to local markets
or retail outlets, processing facilities, restaurants, or street vendors of cooked food.
Poorer farmers in many cases will sell their own produce at the farm gate or local
market. The two final forms of sale are freshly harvested at the market or store and
ready to eat at a street vendor‘s stand.
Richer producers, such as poultry farmers, may have direct contracts with
supermarkets or restaurants .Their primary form of processing is cleaning, but they
may also package.

Food processing facilities are often located close to or in urban areas, offering urban
farmers the advantage of proximity. Thus slaughtering and canning facilities may
purchase animals, fruits, and vegetables directly from local growers, or have a seasonal
contract with outgrowers. Products that receive further processing have additional value
added, particularly in cities where refrigeration is lacking in many homes.
As a result of the simpler distribution system, fewer middlemen, and less storage,
post-production is much less complicated than for rural farming. Most of what is grown
and raised in cities is consumed by families and their friends and neighbors, or sold in the
local market. Because marketing occurs close to the point of production and soon after
harvesting, there is less vehicular traffic than for food produced in more remote locations.
In urban food marketing systems, both centralizing and decentralizing trends were
detected. In several countries visited, including Nicaragua, municipalities were
organizing centralized markets and moving petty traders off the roadside. As cities spread
in other countries, government-organized markets at central locations and on major
railways and highways are becoming less relevant to the newer and less formal parts of
the city, where localized markets emerge within the communities.
——————
Urban farming makes increasing sense in today‘s urbanizing world. It is a realistic
and necessary practice for the 21st century. As urban farming gains recognition as an
industry with a role to play in the sustainability of cities and the sustenance of their
residents, its full potential will become more achievable.
Notes
1. Since the first edition of this book was published in 1996, this definition has become
the standard and most frequently adopted. We have fine-tuned it somewhat to respond
to comments and make it reflect some of developments in the field. The definition
hinges of course on how ‗urban‘ and ‗agriculture‘ are both defined. The interpretation
of these terms is tackled in the Basic Concepts section later in this chapter. The
concept of urban agriculture can be defined, not in itself, but in respect to its
complement: rural agriculture. The discussion of the complex relationship between
urban and rural agriculture, also later in this chapter, contributes to clarity. Finally,
the entire Part Two of the book further describes urban agriculture.
2. Soonya Quon. 1999. Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and
Strategies for Urban Planners. Cities Feeding People Series Report 28, Appendix A.
Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. This appendix can also be
accessed on the home page of the Cities Feeding People Program, www.idrc.ca/cfp.
3. Delineating urban agriculture by using a food system approach that considers the area
of influence rather than an administrative definition is fraught with inherent
complications, as can be illustrated by two examples. Rural farmers who come to the
city to obtain composted urban solid wastes present one complication. Russian city

dwellers who travel quite far by train (sometimes well outside the urban area) to
regularly produce crops that form a stable part of their family‘s daily diet present
another. Despite these quandaries, a broader system definition is still more
appropriate because it represents the true extent of urban agriculture. It is still
worthwhile to note the difference between agriculture in urban areas and the far
broader agriculture for urban areas.
4. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, the boundaries of Chinese
‗urban areas‘ are drawn administratively to include a hinterland that goes well beyond
what is generally considered to be urban or even peri-urban.
5. Herbert Girardet. 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable
Urban Living. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
6. He developed this concept fully in Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees. 1995. Our
Ecological Footprint. Gabriola, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.
7. From the Den Bosch Conference, April 1991. See FAO. 1992. Agricultural
Sustainability: Definition and Implications for Agricultural and Trade Policy.
Economic and Social Development Paper 110. Rome: FAO. Cited in Sustainable
Human Development and Agriculture. 1994. New York: UNDP, p. 27.
8. The relationship between urban and rural agriculture can only be understood within the
broader framework of rural-urban links. Literature that provides useful overviews of
the issues concerned includes: Cecilia Tacoli. 1998. Bridging the Divide: Rural-
Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies, Gatekeeper Series No. 77. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development; Urban Development Team
2000. Rural-Urban Linkages: An Emerging Policy Priority. New York: UNDP; and
David L. Iaquinta and Axel W. Drescher. 1999. Defining Periurban: Towards
Guidelines for Understanding Rural-Urban Linkages and their Connection to
Institutional Contexts. Rome: FAO.
9. Girardet, 1992, op. cit., p. 42.
10. Peter Henderson. 1991. Gardening For Profit: A Guide to the Successful Cultivation
of the Market and Family Garden. Chillicothe, IL.: The American Botanist,
Booksellers. [Originally published in 1867.]
11. Data from the 1996 U.S. Housing Census.
12. Herbert Girardet. 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities. Schumacher Briefings No. 2.
Devon, UK: Green Books, p. 29.
13. This is nothing new, of course. The relationship of Chicago and its hinterland, near
and far, a century ago was at the heart of Cronon‘s now-classic Nature’s Metropolis.
William Cronon. 1991. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York
and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
14. Grady Clay, Foreword to Michael Hough. 1994. Cities and Natural Process. London
and New York: Routledge.
15. Girardet, 1992, op. cit., p. 13.

16. Rodney White and Joseph Whitney. Cities and the Environment: An Overview, in
Richard Stren and others. 1992. Sustainable Cities: Urbanization and the
Environment in International Perspective. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, p. 15.
17. World Resources Institute. 1996. World Resources 1996-97: The Urban Environment.
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press; M. Falkenmark. 1989. The Massive
Water Scarcity in Africa, Ambio 18:112-118; R. Engleman and P. LeRoy. 1993.
Sustaining Water. Washington, D.C.: Population Action International. All quoted in
Vaclav Smil. 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century.
Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
18. K. Batjer, K. et al. Wassermangel, ein Lebenselement wird knapp, in G. Michelson et
al. (eds.). 1980. Der Fisher Oko-Almanach. Fisher, pp. 229-243.
19. Jean Robert. 1994. Water Is a Commons. Mexico City: Habitat International
Coalition.
20. What Is The Natural Step. www.naturalstep.org/what/what_what.html.
21. Geoff Wilson, Barramuti and Lettuce. 2000. Practical Hydroponics and
Greenhouses. July-Aug, pp. 36-42; see also www.hydroponics.com.au.
22. UN Department of Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis. 1993.
World Urbanization Prospects: The 1992 Revision. New York: United Nations.
23. David Drakakis-Smith.1992. And the Cupboard Was Bare: Food Security and Food
Policy for the Urban Poor. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe 23:38-58.
24. Food-sheds are often radial, extending along means of access such as roads,
waterways, and rail lines.
25. Farming systems are frequently concentrated in certain districts for a number of
reasons. Most poultry may be to the northwest, for example, most vineyards on the
foothills of nearby mountains, rice in the floodplain, and aquaculture in coastal
lagoons.
26. S. Manzoor Alam. 1971. Metropolitan Hyderabad — Its Pattern of Regional
Influence and Delineation of its Primary Planning Area, in A.C. Sekhar (ed.).
Economic and Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Regionalization: An Indo-USSR
Collaborative Study. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, quoted in L.
Minerbi. 1983. Planning Parameters for Food and Fuel. Honolulu: East-West Center
and University of Hawaii.
27. Based on World Bank data, quoted in World Resources Institute, 1996, op. cit., p. 12.
28. Marie Ruel et al. 1998. Urban Challenges to Food Nutrition Security: A Review of
Food Security and Health in the Cities. FCND Discussion Paper No. 51. Washington,
D.C.: IFPRI.
29. GTZ, Germany‘s agency for foreign aid technical assistance, has long supported
primary agriculture education. California has adopted an educational policy that seeks
to place a garden plot at every school in the state.
30. Reported by the UN University‘s Food-Energy Nexus project.

31. This definition was adopted by the Community Food Security Coalition, which was
formed in 1994 to promote comprehensive systems-oriented solutions to food and
farming problems in North America. For more information on the CFSC, see
www.foodsecurity.org. The Coalition is described in Case 6.8.
32. David Watkins. 1993. Urban Permaculture. U.K.: Permanent Publications.
33. Mike Hamm. 1999. Community Food Security and Anti-Hunger Advocacy: Similar
Goals in Search of Unity. Community Food Security News, Summer, p. 4.
34. Hamm, 1999, op. cit.
35. Hugh Joseph. 1999. Re-defining Community Food Security. Community Food
Security News, Summer, p. 13.
36. Thomas A. Lyson. 2000. From Production to Development: Moving Toward a Civic
Agriculture in the United States, unpublished paper, USDA/CSREES NE-185 & NC-
208. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
37. John Jeavons. 1974. How to Grow More Vegetables than You Ever Thought Possible
on Less Land than You Can Imagine. Palo Alto, Calif.: Ecology Action of the
Peninsula; and Jorge Zapp. 1991. Cultivos Sin Tierra: Hidroponia Popular. Bogotá:
United Nations Development Programme.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 2
Urban Agriculture Yesterday and Today
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
2
Urban agriculture throughout the world is transforming itself in response to political,
economic, environmental, and technological changes. Its emerging role in today’s
urbanizing world is just beginning to be understood and quantified. While data remain
limited, global estimates of the number of people involved in various urban agricultural
activities can be attempted based on projections from surveys and observations (Table
2.1). The percentage of urban families engaged in agriculture varies from fewer than 10
percent in some large cities in North America to as many as 80 percent in some smaller
Siberian and other Asian cities.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the importance of urban agriculture accelerated
dramatically throughout the world. Surveys in Moscow in 1970 and 1991 indicated a shift
from 20 percent to 65 percent of families engaged in agriculture.1 Surveys in Dar es
Table 2.1 Global estimates of the level of urban agricultural

activity (based on 1993 data)
Parameter Population
Actively engaged urban farmers (worldwide) 800,000,000

Farmers producing for markets in the world 200,000,000
1
Jobs in production and processing (worldwide) 150,000,000
1. Actual employment, not job equivalents
Parameter Range of data and significance
Urban farmers 15–70% of families

(share of urban families) (about one-third of urban families)
Production 10–90% of consumption
(vegetables, eggs, meat, fish) (about one-third of consumption)
Land in agricultural use 20–60% of urban area
(more that one-third of urban regions )
Source: Estimates by The Urban Agriculture Network based on the

author’s (Jac Smit) experience and observations and on
extrapolations from statistics from various official censuses and
professional surveys. The intent is to present a thumbnail sketch of
the significance of the industry. A more systematic estimation would
be a major contribution to the body of knowledge.

Salaam, Tanzania in 1967 and 1991 showed an increase of family agriculture from 18
percent to 67 percent.2 Reports from Kinshasa, Kampala, and Maputo speak of massive
shifts of urban land from open space, and from institutional and transportation use to
agricultural production. Roadsides, portions of streets, electrical utility rights-of-way,
golf courses, hospital grounds, and airport land beyond the runway were used to grow
food for the poor. Studies in Kenya and Tanzania have found that three of every five
families in towns and cities are engaged in urban agriculture.3
This high frequency of urban farmers is not limited to the poorest countries. Taiwan
(province of China), with a primarily urban population, reports that more than half of its
families belong to farmers’ associations.4 In greater Bangkok, Thailand, a government-
sponsored land use survey found that 60 percent of the land was farmed.5
In the United States, more than one-third of the dollar value of agricultural produce is
produced within urban metropolitan areas.6 An upward trend was identified by an
agricultural census conducted twice each decade. As city populations and urban area
increase, agricultural production also increases within metropolitan and adjacent areas.
From 1980 to 1996, this increase was 30-40 percent.
Cairo reports 80,000 livestock within the city.7 Low-income women in Bogotá,
Colombia earn profits from growing hydroponic vegetables that are equal to, or greater
than, their husbands’ wages for semi-skilled jobs. The extended metropolitan region of
Shanghai is largely self-sufficient in vegetable and small-livestock production — a
remarkable accomplishment considering the high per capita level of vegetable
consumption.
The urban area used for agriculture may be greatly underestimated. In the Dar es
Salaam district in Tanzania, for example, although the majority of families farm, only 10
percent of the land farmed is officially recorded by the Regional Agriculture Office.8
Table 2.2 presents additional evidence of the extent and scale of the urban agriculture
industry today.
Brief History of Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture is a recent phenomenon in only a few places. Throughout the world,
there are long traditions of farming intensively within and at the edge of cities. Each
tradition is deeply rooted in local concepts of city and community, and in local societal
and cultural practices. This section briefly reviews the beginnings of urban agriculture
and how it became what it is today.
The present mix of farming systems in cities was shaped primarily by eight factors:
Continuity of historical practices. There are numerous instances of urban
agricultural practices with roots that date back decades or centuries but have evolved to
accommodate contemporary conditions — allotment gardens in Europe that were
invented in the second half of the 19th century, vegetable patches in African colonial
cities with their roots in ancient communal practices, the centuries-old Chinese system of
reusing the night soil of cities to fertilize nearby farms, or Mexico City’s chinampas,
which represent a specific farming system predating the arrival of Columbus.

Table 2.2 Selected data on the extent of urban agriculture
Country Extent of urban agriculture

Africa
Mali Bamako is self-sufficient in horticulture products
and some products are shipped outside the
metropolitan area for consumption.
Uganda In Kampala, 70 percent of poultry needs (meat and
eggs) are produced inside the city.
Zambia In Lusaka, subsistence food production accounts
for 33 percent of the total consumption by
squatters.
Asia
China In the 1980s, over 90 percent of vegetable demand
and over half of meat and poultry demand in
China's 18 largest cities was met through produce
grown in urban provinces.
Indonesia In Jakarta, almost 20 percent of the food consumed
by squatters is self-produced.
Nepal In Kathmandu, 37 percent of food producers
surveyed met their household plant food needs and
11 percent met animal food needs.
Singapore Eighty percent of the poultry and 25 percent of the
vegetables consumed are produced within the city.
Europe
Romania With new government policies and programs, from
1992 to 1998, urban production increased from 14
to 26 percent of all agricultural production.
Americas
Cuba From 1992 to 2000, urban food production
increased by 300 percent and children are eating
four times as many vegetables as they were a
decade ago.
USA Thirty percent of agricultural products in the country
are produced within metropolitan areas.
Source: Data compiled by The Urban Agriculture Network from

various sources.
Nature of plant and animal domestication and its relationship to people. Urban
agriculture has evolved a mix of plants and animals that is somewhat distinct from rural
agriculture for several reasons — livestock, fish, and horticultural crops need to be tough
to survive a relatively hostile urban environment, the high value of land necessitates
growing higher-value products, and the urban market demands diverse products that
urban farmers often focus on.

Conception and management of natural and man-made environments. Some

societies have evolved technology and management systems that include agriculture as an
urban activity, but others have separated the settled and the sown. This difference in
approach typically reflects varying attitudes to the way natural and man-made
environments relate to each other, and characteristically has cultural roots.
Industrial agriculture revolution. In many parts of the world, beginning in the late
19th century, machines replaced manual labor in many forms of agriculture, and units of
production, processing, and marketing became larger. Urban agriculture has responded to
this rural-dominated trend by concentrating on niche markets, barter trade and currency
trade, reuse of waste, and household and community organization to foster food security.
Global information revolution. The information revolution is spreading the know-
how of urban food production across national and cultural borders. It is also enabling new
forms of marketing particularly suited to cities because of their greater connectivity.
Rapid post-World War II urbanization. Urbanization has advanced more rapidly
than population, economies, or farm-to-market and other infrastructure in the majority of
countries. Therefore, the burden of feeding cities increasingly falls on city folk
themselves. On every continent, the relative shortage of land has generated more
intensive means of production and a lengthening of growing seasons, from rabbit hutches
on the veranda to greenhouses at the electrical power plant.
Settlement patterns resulting from contemporary urbanization. The nature of
human settlements — especially urban settlements — has been transmuted in the past
half century in particular. The emergence of the megalopolis for the first time is perhaps
most remarkable, but little noted is the amount of unbuilt (and cultivated) land that lies in
the interstices and along the edges of the megalopolis. More generally, recent urban
development has been — despite impressions to the contrary — increasingly low in
density, affording ever greater opportunities for urban agriculture within urban
settlements.
Great expansion of low-income segments of the urban population. Poverty has
become an increasingly urban phenomenon at the end of the 20th century. The first
concern of the urban poor is food security, and through their resourcefulness, they have
reinvented agriculture to fit the new post-industrial city.
The first three factors give historical roots to urban agriculture, and help to explain
both continuities in some instances, and changed practices in others. The last five factors
are mainly contemporary developments — rapid urbanization has meant that the number
of urban residents, particularly the urban poor who had to find ways to sustain
themselves, has greatly expanded the scale of urban agriculture. This has been
accompanied by new ways to produce for growing populations, thus the legacy of ancient
and recent historical developments can be seen in the way urban agriculture is practiced
today.
Food insecurity has always haunted cities and towns. At times it would be well-
controlled, at other times it would strike more or less significant portions of the
population. Food security was managed, partly through uncoordinated individual actions,
and partly through planned public and private interventions. It is difficult to know

whether what we call urban agriculture was developed by the first urban settlers in a
systematic way to feed their cities, or involved incremental modification of food
production as urban concentrations took form. Both are likely.
At all times, urban agriculture has played some role in ensuring a food supply for
urban residents. In all parts of the world, ancient civilizations developed urban agriculture
systems, devising many innovative ways to produce food and manage land, water, and
other resources efficiently. Some might argue that intensive food production is what
allowed societies to create cities and civilizations. Examples can be found in Ghana,
China (Fig. 2.1), India, Iraq, Java, Pakistan, Guatemala, Mexico, Myanmar, and Peru.
The intensive production of perishables, small livestock, fish, and poultry was essential to
city life (Fig. 2.2). Grains, fruits, and vegetables were shipped from the nearby
countryside. In certain cultures, some crops such as mushrooms and medicinal and
culinary herbs, were especially developed in urban areas.
The oasis towns of Iran are an early example of urban agriculture. The ancient
Persians invented qanats, underground aqueducts that carried dew-generated water and
rain water from the hills to the town where it was used for irrigation and other purposes.
Cattle were grazed in the desert, but were penned part of the year in town, while fruits
and vegetables were also grown in town. This system conserved water by keeping it
protected from the sun, and combined carefully managed water use and composted urban
waste.9
The towns and cities of early civilizations on Java and in the Indus valley show traces
of high-intensity raised-bed farming systems. The Javanese aqua-terra system, combining
multicrop systems for water and soil farming, has to some extent survived, as have the
Aztec chinampas in Mexico and the comparable hortillonages in France. Similar systems
are being studied in Ghana and China.
Among the most important historic cases to be ‘rediscovered’ are those in Latin
America. Aztec, Mayan, and Incan cities not only were self-sufficient in perishable fruits
and vegetables from inside their territory plus nearby rural areas, but also raised some
grains within a confined hinterland (Case 2.1).
Case 2.1 Agricultural landscapes in the ancient Maya cities of present-day Belize
Research into Mayan urban landscapes is in its infancy, so much remains unknown, but the
tropical urban environment almost certainly involved trees and tree crops on a large scale. Sites
such as Caracol and Lamanai in Belize provide some indications of the character of food
production in ancient Mayan cities.
Caracol, for example, was estimated to have had a population density of over 1,000 people
per square kilometer (with 115,000–150,000 total population). Its urban landscape comprised
dense clusters of buildings interspersed with agricultural terraces, a pattern that investigators
believe represents a focus on urban self-sufficiency. Terraces and reservoirs were located
throughout the city. Archaeologists do not yet know what was grown in terrace soils because
pollen and phytoliths were not preserved, but comparative agricultural studies suggest that
continuous cultivation involved intercropping as well as multicropping of a wide variety, including

maize, beans, vegetables, tree crops, palm for roofing, and cotton. The proximity of terraces to
housing groups also suggests the use of night soils and kitchen waste.
Lamanai has not been intensively surveyed for terrace features, but immediately north of the
urban core lies an area entirely given over to raised field agriculture. This site was cultivated for
over two millenia, from 1500 B.C. until the British colonial period. Raised fields were built up of
mud drawn from constructed canals linked to the lake, and the presence of such fields leaves
little doubt that the city was in the business of feeding its people.
Contact: Elizabeth Graham (see Appendix F for complete address).
Macchu Picchu, the ‘lost city’ of the Inca, appears to have been self-sufficient in food
within walking distance.10 The main city also had a suburb a few miles away that served
principally for intensive agriculture. Land-form creation, water management, and tree
plantings stretched production to two crops a year at altitudes that had frost much of the
year.
In addition to irrigation technology, ancient farmers had sophisticated methods to
improve soil and control insects. Manuals describe specific uses for human and animal
offal and mixtures with other waste materials. Wastewater from cities flowed into tanks,
and from tanks to fields for irrigation.
An important difference in urban agriculture between the Old World and the
Americas lies in the relationship between people and trees. Food production in the Old
World was linked to relationships that developed between people and grazing animals,
which gave primacy to treeless landscapes. Where grazing animals were not among a
civilization’s domesticates, as in the case of the Mayan lowlands in Central America, the
‘idea’ of cities and food production in cities, was necessarily different. The result was
that urban agriculture in the American tropics took on a radically different character.11
For a number of reasons (including reliance on cattle and sheep), the use of these systems
was disrupted by Spanish conquerors.12 However, the introduction of new crops
increased the productivity per unit of space of some systems.
In several sites in Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico, agriculturists, with the help of
archeologists, are reactivating the ancient systems and learning lessons about sustainable,
intensive agriculture that are applicable today.13 In one case, production levels support
two families on 1 acre (0.40 hectare). In another, a revival of ancient terrace techniques
was remarkably successful. One of the most important lessons is the use of aqua-terra
systems in which water and land crops are produced in symbiosis (Case 4.6). These
systems are particularly relevant to urban agriculture because they are efficient in areas of
poor soil, steep slopes, and wetlands. They depend for their productivity on waste
management.
In many ancient systems, the vagaries of climate were tempered through such
techniques as irrigating and warming the soil and air to stretch the growing season. In the
desert climate of the Tigris and Euphrates delta, sun reflectors were used to heat the soil.
At Macchu Picchu, as in the Mexican chinampas, standing water in aqua-terra systems
held off the mountain frost. In Bolivia today, as in earlier eras, the sun’s heat is stored in

the adobe walls of greenhouses. In Europe, compost, including horse manure, has long
been used to heat raised vegetable beds.
For centuries, and in different parts of the world, cultivation and animal husbandry
inside and outside city walls were standard practices. Before ‘modern’ urban sanitation
systems were developed in the latter part of the 19th century, urban agriculture was the
principal treatment and disposal method for urban wastes. Food was delivered by donkey
cart to the markets, and the city’s wastes in turn were delivered to both rural and urban
fields. One of the most famous — and most productive — examples in the modern era is
the marais farming system of 19th-century Paris (Case 2.2 and Fig. 2.4).
Case 2.2 The 19th-century marais of Paris
One hundred years ago a sixth of the area of Paris was used to produce annually more
than 100,000 tons of high-value, out-of-season salad crops. This cropping system was
sustained by the use of approximately one million tons of stable manure produced each
year by the horses, which provided the power for the city’s transport system. Sufficient
surplus ‘soil’ was produced to expand the production area by 6 percent a year. In energy,
mass and monetary terms, the inputs and outputs of the Parisian urban agro-ecosystem
exceed those of most examples of present-day, fully industrialized crop production. The
productive biological recycling of the waste products of the city’s transport system
contrasts favorably with the requirements and consequences of the simplified, present-day
urban ecosystems.
Thus Stanhill described the marais of Paris. This system became so well known in Europe in
the late 19th century that very intensive horticulture using heavy inputs of biological origin is still
called French gardening today. And maraîchage is the French term used for all market gardening.
In this system, three to six harvests a year were obtained through inter- and successional
cropping. Year-round production was made possible by the heat and carbon dioxide released
from fermenting manure, shelter provided by 2-meter-high walls surrounding the properties,
glass-covered frames and bell-shaped glass cloches (covering a quarter of the total cultivated
area), and straw mats used to cover crops during severe weather.
Marais cultivation was highly labor-intensive. It used heavy dressings of stable manure,
equivalent to an annual application approximately 30 centimeters deep, spread over the entire
farmed area. Surplus growing material was sold, recapturing up to a quarter of the cost of the
manure. In addition, the city’s sewage system was used for irrigated agriculture.
Gathering inputs, production, and sales were intricately connected in the farming household.
The farming couple would typically leave their farm in the middle of the night in order to be at the
Halles (main market) at 4 a.m. The woman would generally sell the produce while the man would
gather waste from the street and slaughterhouses to return to the farm.
Fifty kilograms per capita of fresh salads, vegetables, and fruits were produced annually,
which exceeded consumption levels. Products were exported to as far away as London.
Furthermore, because the maraîchers were interested primarily in maximizing financial returns,
they concentrated on high-value, out-of-season winter crops and neglected the higher-yielding
but lower-value summer crops, although annual production could have been even higher.

From the 1850s until World War I, the cultivated area was fairly constant (approximately
1,400 hectares), as was the average size of a holding (0.75 hectare), while monetary returns per
hectare declined gradually. The population of Paris more than doubled during the same period.
The marais system reached its peak during the third quarter of the 19th century, but three
factors led to its rapid decline in the early 1900s — the virtual replacement of the horse by the
motor car, competition for land within the city, and competition from areas with more favorable
climates outside the city, facilitated by improvements in the transport system.
The system continued on a limited scale in the Paris suburbs, specifically in areas adjoining
the main wastewater treatment plant downstream along the Seine river. Fields irrigated by the
treated water were cultivated until the end of the 1990s, when a contamination scare brought the
system to a halt within a short time.
The marais cultivation system remains one of the most productive ever documented. This
biointensive system is now being copied worldwide, with the help of California researchers,
14
among others.
Contact: Professor André Fleury (see Appendix F for complete address).
Some colonial cities incorporated the principle of using urban waste to enrich soils in
urban and rural areas. In India, municipal sewage-based farms were introduced in the
19th century by the British, following Scottish practices, and several major ones survive
today. In addition to sewage treatment, these farms produce fodder, coconuts, and fuel
cakes of dried sludge.15 Over the past century, however, the trend has been to minimize
the use of urban waste by introducing modern sanitation systems. The accepted ideal has
become the ‘city beautiful’ and the ‘city healthful’. In most developing countries, modern
agricultural systems have replaced traditional ones.
Industrial-era colonial cities were planned and managed to have food production at
the outskirts or in the nearby hinterland using ‘modern’ agriculture and producing
‘European’ crops. The great Scottish urban thinker, Patrick Geddes, encountered these
attitudes, which he deplored, when he visited the city of Indore in India during World
War I:
From the callous, contemptuous city bureaucrat at Delhi, I have now to tackle
here the well-intentioned fanatic of sanitation, perhaps an even tougher
proposition. Instead of the nineteenth century European city panacea of
‘Everything to the Sewer!’ . . . the right maxim for India is the traditional rural
one of ‘Everything to the Soil!’ [thus creating] a verdant and fruitful garden
environment.16
The struggle to ‘sanitize’ the cities has been waged for more than a century now.
There were, of course, legitimate public health concerns about the slums of Europe and
the colonies. Sanitation systems, combined with changes in technologies, helped to clean
up the urban environment. Nevertheless, the approach has created problems in both
industrial and developing countries. The systems are unsustainable because they shift and
dispose of increasing volumes of wastes from one location to another within the urban
ecosystem or outside, and the infrastructure often fails.

In recent decades, agriculture was further dissociated from urban locations by well-
intentioned and well-funded development experts. The division of the United Nations
into many specialized agencies separated technical assistance for food production from
the other disciplines important to urban agriculture, including health, nutrition, city
planning and management, waste management, and the environment.
With the growth of urban populations in most developing countries during the last
half of the 20th century, urban food production and distribution systems became less and
less reliable. Urban hunger grew in parallel with the urban population, accelerated by
political and economic instability in too many places. In response, urban agriculture
became increasingly common in an ever-growing number of countries. Initially, urban
residents undertook urban farming, but it was only later that urban and agricultural
researchers and policymakers took notice of its significance.
With this rediscovery has come an exploration of past practices. A review of urban
agriculture as it is practiced worldwide makes clear the debt that present-day urban
agriculture owes to the past. Indeed, much is still to be learned from the food production
systems of earlier civilizations and their related land use and infrastructure management
systems. This knowledge would not only widen the choice of appropriate practices
available in the South, but would also enable a South-North knowledge flow to
complement the North-South flow that has dominated agricultural exchanges over the
past couple of centuries. In most developing countries in the 1990s, there are two
complementary agricultural systems — modern and traditional. In urban areas, the
traditional system is prevalent and is making advances in both technology and scale of
production.
Southern and Eastern Asia and the Pacific

Asia has the most diverse and largest number of modern intensive farming systems.
Urban farms in Asia provide vegetables, poultry, mushrooms, fish, seaweed, swine, fruit,
medicinal herbs, and wood for furniture. These countries tend to have intense and
widespread urbanization, a long tradition of urban agriculture, and early recognition of
the benefits of recycling waste for agricultural uses. Urban agriculture is still accepted in
most Asian countries as a normal urban function and land use. A few countries are
discussed here for illustration.
Before railroads, the internal combustion engine, and electrified cold storage,
perishable foods had to be produced close to markets. Nineteenth-century China, with
thousands of large and small towns, excelled at urban agriculture. In the 1960s, China
overhauled its land-use regulations and developed a specific urban development policy
and strategy that included self-reliance in vegetables and protein for its established large
cities and growing new towns (Case 6.2). This strategy included defining broad urban
regions, land-use plans, and waste recycling programs to support urban agriculture. These
policies continued into the 1990s and beyond, although they are suffering from increasing
problems today (Case 9.3).17
Following many different patterns, the major cities in China have achieved nutritional
self-reliance in non-grain foods. At the same time, they have solved a large share of the
urban waste problems without increasing pollution. As in several other countries, urban

agricultural production in China is dominated by women. Urban famines, which

historically were frequent, have been avoided since World War II.
It is estimated that until the 1980s, Hong Kong, the densest large city in the world,
still produced within its boundaries two-thirds of the poultry, one-sixth of the pigs, and
close to half the vegetables eaten by its citizens and visitors.18 Floats that carry fish cages
in the bays also support biointensive vegetable beds, and duck and chicken wastes are
used as food for fish and fertilizer for vegetables.19 Meanwhile, Singapore has been
increasingly effective at producing large quantities of food in a small, dense area — after
a policy change in the 1980s, production has risen. Singapore’s hydroponic technology
leads the world (see Case 9.4).
An NGO in Manila, the Urban Food Foundation, and researchers at the University of
the Philippines are promoting fruit, vegetable, and livestock production, primarily by
small farmers (Cases 3.4 and 9.5). An international agribusiness exporting canned fruits
and vegetables buys the produce from a large number of local growers. The University of
the Philippines is also encouraging farmers to grow seaweed for export and launch
fishing enterprises. MEREC (Managing Energy and Resources Efficient Cities), a
USAID project in the 1980s, helped an urban agriculture program in Tacloban
(Philippines) that has become a model.20
By the early 20th century, Karachi, Pakistan had a fairly advanced system of urban
agriculture. Vegetables were raised in intensive beds irrigated with fresh water pumped
from a subterranean river, and crabs were raised on city waste for the non-Muslim
population. With the introduction of large-scale irrigation works and paved highways,
food production moved away from the city, and post-World War II urban administrations
discouraged urban farmers. The 1972 Karachi Urban Regional Plan, helped by the UN
Office of Technical Cooperation, included protection and promotion of urban agriculture
in and near Karachi, particularly related to the informal residential areas. This has had
some small benefits for the city. 21
Colombo and other cities in Sri Lanka have promoted the use of urban wastes and
vacant land for small-scale production of nutritious food. This policy includes selling
seedlings and providing technical advice to farmers at subsidized rates at commuter
railroad stations.22 Indonesia also has a significant urban agriculture industry that has
benefited from government support (Case 2.3).
Case 2.3 Urban agriculture in Indonesia
Indonesia, particularly Java, has an urban agriculture tradition as old as that in China. Both China
and Java developed aqua-terra farming systems centuries ago in which land and water crops are
farmed in former wetlands. The combination of the ancient Javanese multicropping technology,
the long Dutch colonial period with its respect for intensive agriculture, and the substantial
Chinese population in Java has created a synergy in production techniques. Indonesian cities
today feature Dutch hydroponics, Chinese raised beds, and Malay fish cages.
The bays and estuaries of Java’s coastal cities are intensively farmed, and the potable water
reservoirs are leased to fishermen. Javanese home gardens traditionally have 20-40 crops, and

yields are highest within urban areas. Poultry has developed into a well-organized subsector
(Case 7.4). Street food that is available throughout towns and cities at all hours is largely
produced and processed within settlements.
With support from national and local governments, urban agriculture has been established as
a substantial industry. Research is ongoing in universities and botanical gardens. Municipalities
provide extension services and facilitate usufruct access to land and marketing assistance.
In 1992, the Ministry of Research and Technology (which is responsible for long-range
planning) called for Java, the densest and most urbanized island, to shift from primarily grain
production to higher-yielding crops, beginning with horticulture. Recent studies there have found
that intensive, urban-type cultivation produces 3-6 times as much nutrition as multicrop rice
production. The ministry has also supported research into small-scale composting to improve soil
and improved, sustained crop production.
Some municipalities in Indonesia have agricultural departments with a full range of services.
In one recent year, Jakarta distributed 290,000 fruit trees at token cost. The municipality’s
objective is to plant fruit trees on 23,000 hectares (36 percent of the city area). Land forms and
soil conditions make most of this area ill-suited to built-up uses.
Food production took on an entirely new dimension with the economic collapse that occurred
in the region in the latter part of the 1990s. It became an even greater necessity to mitigate the
fall in purchasing power and great increase in unemployment. As a result, much idle land was
invaded and dug up by gardeners in cities and towns all over the country, which helped people to
absorb some of the shock, particularly the poor
Contacts: Ny Ning Purnamohadi and Erwina Darmajanti (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).
Japan has little cultivable land. A mountainous and populous island-nation, it has long
been concerned with food security. As a result, most available open space in and near
cities (on land, lake, and sea) is put to agriculturally productive use.
The land use and tax systems in Japan favor urban agriculture. Japan is one of only a
few countries in the world that includes urban agriculture in the regular census, and the
Japanese publish numerous papers on the subject, although few have been translated.23
Special seeds, crop types, and tools have evolved to serve the small plots of urban
farmers, and the food marketing system is especially suited to them. Particularly
noteworthy are the consumer-supported agriculture (CSA) groups to which millions of
Japanese consumers belong — they pay a farmer at the beginning of the season for the
upcoming harvest, assuring themselves of a fresh and steady supply, while providing the
farmer with an assured customer. This idea, which originated in Japan in the 1960s, ‘puts
the farmer’s face on the product’.24
Australia and New Zealand, historically known for their wide-open spaces and low
population density, have rapidly expanding urban agriculture sectors. The Ministry of
Agriculture in Australia finds that one in three urban families is raising food or
ornamental crops. In Auckland, New Zealand, a small-scale hydroponic farm guarantees
delivery to six supermarkets and 36 restaurants within 45 minutes (see Case 3.3).

In general, other Asian countries have not been as supportive of urban farming.
Thailand’s local and national governments, for example, have largely been unsympathetic
to urban agriculture. India’s mixed support for urban agriculture has left it a relatively
underdeveloped activity. Important exceptions include Calcutta’s wastewater fisheries
and Bangalore’s fruit trees on streets, which provide vitamins to the city’s diet while
saving on maintenance costs.25
Some Asian farming systems have been introduced to cities throughout the world.
Japanese immigrants brought their techniques to Brazil decades ago, and Vietnamese
immigrants brought their techniques to Côte d’Ivoire. More recently, the Taiwan-based
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) brought research and
networking programs to Central America and East Africa.
Middle East and North Africa

The Middle East and North Africa have some of the most ancient cities in the world,
penetrated by productive gardens and surrounded by agricultural belts. They are cradles
to urbanization as well as to agriculture. Intricate links between urban settlements and
food production have long been known and documented, and carry on today. 26 They
ranged from the revived system of qanat irrigating some Iranian towns, to Istanbul’s
horticulture along its ancient city walls,27 to the hawakir (market gardens) of Syria’s
central cities,28 to the massive oasis in Damascus (the ghouta),29 to vegetables grown
around Beirut30 and citrus around Tripoli and along the coast of Israel, down to Sanaa’s
famous enclosed gardens.31 Crossing into North Africa, the role of the Nile delta in
feeding Cairo has been established for over a millenium; less well known are the
agricultural zones that surround the main cities of the Maghreb.32
The Middle East and North Africa have among the highest levels of urbanization in
the developing world, meaning that urban agriculture may have a more powerful role
here than in most other regions. Yet of all the main regions of the globe, this may be the
one where urban agriculture has been the least recognized, although in recent years this
lack of visibility is finally receding. Urban food systems have started to capture some
attention, and a few noteworthy studies of urban food production were recently launched.
In addition to technical experiments in water-saving agriculture for which Israel and
some other countries have been reputed, some urban regions have pioneered
comprehensive conferences (Case 2.4), multidisciplinary research programs (Beirut), and
city-wide censuses (Amman) of urban agriculture in the last years of the 1990s.
Case 2.4 Urban agriculture in the Gaza strip
While political motivations behind agriculture, water, and land policies can be found everywhere
across the globe, none perhaps affect urban agriculture more directly than in the West Bank, and
especially the Gaza Strip. Consider the ‘politics of planting’ in Israeli- and Palestinian-controlled
territories, wherein the ability to cultivate is central to control over land. This bears particularly on
those lands in and around established cities, because that is where control of territory is most
vital and complex, affecting everyone from backyard gardeners to olive growers.

The Gaza Strip (less than 50 km long, just a few kilometers wide) is one of the most densely
populated zones in the world. This entire strip could be labeled as single urban area without
hinterland, yet 20 percent of the employed labor force works in the agriculture sector. Beyond
this, it is unknown how many families are active in informal agriculture, although this appears to
be an even higher percentage.
All this takes place in circumstances that may appear to be highly unfavorable to farming —
high population density; great pressure on the land due to an elevated fertility rate; severe water
shortages due to arid conditions because of a fast-growing population and Israeli settlements
(which lead to overextraction from the water table by competing users); significant economic
difficulties that force much labor to cross into Israel for work; and uncertainty about the ability to
export products of market gardening due to frequent closures of the border. Remarkably, it is all
these factors that have allowed (even forced) agricultural activity in the Gaza Strip to flourish.
The great level of food insecurity has meant that partial self-reliance on food production has
been imperative for many households; the more difficult the period, the more products for which
the Gaza Strip had to be self-sufficient. Because of limited employment opportunities, farming has
been one of the few reliable economic sectors, with a constant demand for its products. When the
export market gets temporarily blocked, the products get diverted to the local market. The various
technical challenges, particularly water deficiency, have forced greater adaptability and
inventiveness by farmers, such as the increasing use of gray water for irrigation.
The difficulties have of course come with costs. Application of chemicals is sometimes
intensive to maximize production, and the lack of water is leading to use of untreated wastewater
ponds. However, there seems to be a general awareness of the problems among the ordinary
farmers as well as the pertinent institutions, leading to an openness toward the search for
improvements — and an acknowledgement of the importance of urban agriculture. To that end, a
workshop on urban agriculture was held in Gaza in 1998, the first of its kind in an Arab country.
This has since led to the formation of the Gaza Urban Agriculture Committee, to encourage and
support urban agricultural activities.
Contacts: Ahmed Sourani and Riyad Juninah (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
The Middle East and North Africa have no monopoly on arid and semi-arid climates.
With some exceptions, however, water is a more vital consideration for urban agriculture
across the vast majority of cities in this entire sizable region than it is in the other regions.
In over three-fourth of this region, evaporation exceeds precipitation. It is not just a
question of water quantify but also of timing — the seasonality of precipitation around
the Mediterranean basin is a determining factor in all farming practices, and particularly
in urban farming practices, especially for irrigation and climate modification.
The predominance of aridity as a defining feature of Middle Eastern urban agriculture
has consequences for the types of crops that are grown. A number of crops are
particularly characteristic of the Mediterranean basin or of the more desertic Arabian and
Saharan subregions. Of these crops, certain ones (vegetables such as artichokes, fruit
trees such as grapevines, and countless herbs) are particularly suited to cultivation in
smaller urban spaces. The reasons include greater productivity on limited land; higher
potential for the adoption of intensive, commercialized techniques; or less susceptibility
to contamination from polluted soil, air, or irrigation water. Numerous fruit trees across

the region, such as figs, dates, mulberries, and olives, are also used as ornamental trees,
giving them a dual function in urban areas.
The prevalent arid and semi-arid conditions have endowed this region with a special
role as an experimental field and incubator for irrigation technology. This role is already
being fulfilled — development of techniques for controlled watering in both greenhouses
and outdoors in Israel and Jordan; desalination of water and the exploration of certain
crops on the Arabian Peninsula; and experiments in the recycling of used water in Israel,
Tunisia, and Morocco. Indeed, the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation may be more
vital in the Middle East and North Africa than elsewhere because it can free up scarce
water for other purposes.
Despite such efforts, arid climate technologies are far from being fully developed and
made broadly accessible and operational across the eastern and southern Mediterranean
basin. Even Israel, a world leader in water-saving techniques, diverts urban wastewater to
more distant agricultural settlements where it is used to irrigate low-intensity fodder
crops and orchards.33 The potential for wastewater reuse is also greatly restricted by
religious limitations. Some Muslim clerics do not approve of such a use, although unlike
consuming pork, prohibition appears not to be as clear-cut and is subject to varying
religious interpretations.
Both Islam and Judaism have special requirements for processing agricultural
products, particularly livestock. This means that there are special processing practices
(halal, kosher) throughout the Middle East and North Africa that may influence urban
agricultural activities, their locations within urban areas, the produce raised, and the uses
to which the products are put. Similarly, religious festivities in this region necessitate the
rearing of livestock (mostly lamb) for sacrifice (primarily but not exclusively by
Muslims). This is often undertaken in the midst of urban areas, particularly in poorer
neighborhoods; importing livestock from the countryside for this purpose accounts for
only a portion of the needs of urban areas. Thus, animals found on urban streets, lots, or
backyards in Middle Eastern and North African cities may have religious implications in
addition to those of the household and community food supply.
Certain land tenure characteristics are particular to either the Middle East in general
or to certain countries and subregions within it. An especially notable institution is that of
the waqf, land owned by any of the various religious communities or foundations. Such
land holdings were widespread under the Ottomans and remain extensive today; their
presence makes religious groups a key player in agriculture, urban as well as rural. In
Jordan and other countries, anyone has the right to cultivate (even without requesting
permission from the owner) any land that is left unused. The land owner must wait until
the end of the growing season to reclaim his land. Grazing of large livestock is similarly
customary. These usufructuary practices date back at least to Ottoman times.
With the constant presence of strife in different corners of the Middle East and North
Africa, there is an exceptionally high concentration of long-term refugees. Policies for the
settlement of nomads are also common across the region. Both of these realities entail
settlements that are quasi-urban in nature, even if they are not within cities proper. Yet
the presence of agriculture here remains mostly potential rather than actual — farming in
resettlement areas could indeed be greatly expanded if favorable policies were instituted.

Several countries (Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Libya, Algeria) are more or less
closed off to the outside world, pressing many of their urban citizens into farming.
While some general traits can be found across the Middle East and North Africa, this
region is quite heterogeneous, including strong contrasts in climate, topography, and
other physical features; considerable variations in urbanization and population; as well as
sharp economic differences. The density and sprawl of urban areas in Lebanon are in
contrast to cities in the Arabic Gulf states that grew from oasis settlements or were
recently planted in the vast expanses of the desert. Egypt is yet another variant as
urbanization occurs there simultaneously in valuable, fertile farmlands and in the adjacent
desert. Each of these urbanization patterns has clear consequences for the place of urban
agriculture.
Different distinguishing features of urban farming can be found in various principal
cities in the Middle East and North Africa. The housing stock in both Baghdad and
Amman contains a significant portion of detached housing, which has enabled the
common presence of household gardens that combine recreational and productive uses
(especially fruit trees).34 The growth of Irbid, Jordan is resulting in new olive plantations
as long-term investments, replacing the low-intensity grain production that is traditional
to the expansive Houran plain where it sits. The prevalence of livestock raising in
Egyptian cities (16 percent of Cairo households by one estimate)35 is not known in most
other Arab cities. Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, 90 percent of the country’s
dairy needs are met through local production of milk centered around the town of Al-Ain,
while market gardeners not only meet the local need for many fruits and vegetables, but
even supply some fruits to Europe.36
Sub-Saharan Africa
Urban agriculture in Africa presents a contradiction — it has a relatively long tradition
and is widely practiced, yet in most African countries urban agriculture has been
undervalued and resisted by generations of public officials. This attitude has only
recently begun to change as leaders realize the potential of urban agriculture to alleviate
the growing hunger, economic, and environmental crises in the ever-expanding
metropolitan areas of Africa.
The oases of the Sahara provide a clear example of intensive (urban-like) agriculture,
making efficient use of wastewater and solid waste as an agricultural input. Early colonial
travelers reported aqua-terra farming systems in coastal Ghana. Nigerian cities have a
pre-colonial history of livestock and horticultural production, a practice that continues
and includes well-run markets.
In contrast to Asia, however, there has been only limited continuity of urban
agricultural practices in Sub-Saharan Africa from the pre-colonial period to modern
times. Many current African cities were established in the 19th and early 20th centuries
by colonial rulers who had concepts of grandeur, precepts of cleanliness, and a firm intent
to distinguish themselves from ‘the bush’. In some cases, however, these rulers
encouraged urban agriculture on the periphery to grow high-value European crops for
colonials.

Post World War II independence was accompanied by rapid urbanization, and in most
cases, rapid informal growth and development of urban agriculture. Bamako, Mali, for
example, is reported to be self-sufficient in vegetables and produce half or more of the
chickens it consumes using technology introduced by colonials and adapted by local
farmers (Case 4.5). In Kenya, urban farming occurs throughout cities despite little
support from officials or NGOs.
In Lusaka, Zambia, a 1980 survey found that nearly 60 percent of low-income
households cultivated either a home garden or a rainy-season garden away from the home
— even though official policy until the late 1970s was completely antagonistic to urban
farming, and city officials regularly slashed down maize crops.37 In the late 1970s, the
worsening economic and food supply situation forced a policy change (Case 9.1).
In 1972, the Zairian government founded a cooperative to improve the supply of
fruits and vegetables in the city, and by 1984, the co-op had about 5,000 members. A
survey in three city zones of Kinshasa found almost 70 percent of women practicing
agriculture in the early 1980s.38 Since then, urban farming has expanded even further as a
result of the economic and civil crisis in the country.
During the 1980s, scattered innovations in urban agriculture took place throughout
the African continent. Thai mushroom culture was introduced and flourished in Ghana.
Lebanese immigrants brought intensive vegetable and flower systems to Senegal. As
noted, Vietnamese immigrants brought Asian vegetable and fruit production to Côte
d’Ivoire. Filipino seaweed production was introduced and flourished in Zanzibar. South
African poultry technology was transferred to Zambia.
In addition, many cities evolved their own forms of urban agriculture. Most notable is
the ‘roadside agriculture’ that has developed within many African cities and for miles on
the periphery. Horticulture and grazing are practiced along roadsides, beside streams, and
in utility rights-of-way.
Urban parks and open spaces have been transformed into a productive landscape as
public and private vacant or derelict land was converted to agriculture during a time of
political and economic stress. In Maputo, Kampala, Kinshasa, and elsewhere,
cooperatives, associations, individual entrepreneurs, and corporations established new
farming systems on land and water bodies previously not in productive use, thereby both
feeding the city during hard times and helping to clean it.
Governments began to play a supportive role in the transformation of African cities in
the 1980s. The capitals of Malawi and Tanzania were planned and developed to be self-
reliant in perishable foods. Governments in Tanzania (Case 2.5), Mozambique, and
Zambia adopted policies favoring urban agriculture.39 Addis Ababa promoted community
gardens, and Douala helped market gardening on airport grounds. Everywhere, as urban
unemployment and hunger grew, many private and some public individuals and agencies
responded pragmatically, using whatever technology was available.

Case 2.5 Urban agriculture in Tanzania
During the past 20 years, there has been a transformation in urban agriculture in Tanzania and in
the attitude of the government toward it. Population growth has been a principal reason. Dar es
Salaam has been among the fastest-growing large cities in the world. From 1967 to 1991, the
proportion of families in the city engaged in farming rose from 18 percent to 67 percent. Other
towns and cities in Tanzania have had similar increases, much of it in the 1980s. By 1988, one in
five people of working age in Dar es Salaam was involved in some form of urban agriculture.
Tanzania has neither a history of urban agriculture nor a sizable immigrant population that
brought urban agriculture with them. It appears simply to have grown up in response to need and
the opportunity afforded by the low-density urban pattern.
In the 1980s, both the national and local governments adopted policies favoring urban
agriculture on private and public land, in an about face from earlier policies that had fought
informal food production in cities. The 1979 master plans for Dar es Salaam and Dodoma
included agriculture as a land use. Although this designation does not ensure that the land will
actually be used for that purpose, it at least provides official recognition of the activity and is thus
a measure of confidence in the farmer.
Urban farmers in Tanzania now span the income spectrum. They include a former high
government official who raises cows in a fancy neighborhood and whose neighbors emulate him
(Case 5.7), agricultural college professors using imported technology to earn money on the
poultry market (Case 5.6), and an enterprising farmer growing spinach in raised beds along a
roadside (Case 4.4).
Without legislation, extension services, research, or special credit facilities, urban agriculture
has boomed in Tanzania. Once given the sanction to do so, urban farmers have creatively found
or originated technologies and marketing systems that work. Fortunately, Tanzania has become
the site of multiple interventions (Case 6.4) that are helping the activity to be recognized and
capture its potential. Tanzania has clearly become one of the world leaders in urban farming.
Contacts: Dr. Camillus J. Sawio, Petra Jacobi, Malongo Mlozi, and Zebedato Mvena (see
Appendix F for complete addresses).
With a few exceptions, urban agriculture in Africa today is less efficient and
productive than in Asia and Europe. In general, it falls into the informal ‘quasi-legal’
category. It is typically underfinanced and uses lower-quality seeds, feed, and other
inputs. In most African countries, urban agriculture is split into farming systems of the
rich and farming systems of the poor. The rich have access to better inputs, technical
assistance, and credit, while the poor usually end up with low yields on land and labor.
Poultry, European vegetables, fruits (especially citrus), and flowers are typical farming
systems of the well-off. Nonetheless, urban agriculture is well established in Africa as an
effective, vibrant, growing urban industry with excellent prospects.

Europe
The discussion of urban agriculture in Europe may appropriately begin with
Charlemagne. As emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, he issued an edict that spelled out
which crops were to be grown within towns and cities in the 8th century. In medieval
times and as recently as the 18th century, as much as half the area within the city wall
was likely to be cultivated.40 The area around the walls was also devoted to intense food
production. Cattle that were grazed on nearby fields were likely to sleep inside the wall,
where special stables or compounds were set aside for animals in times of emergency.
The majority of urban waste was used as an agricultural input. The biggest negative
contribution to the degradation of the biosphere may have been cutting wood for fuel, but
some cities learned to manage sustained forests.
The industrial city brought with it home gardens for the well-to-do and allotments for
workers. Although these rapidly growing cities, as described by Dickens and many
others, had miles of biologically dead slums, other parts of the cityscape were green and
put to a range of productive uses.
Market gardening, also called truck farming (from the French troc, to barter or swap),
was as much a characteristic of the industrial city as was the assembly line. Truck farmers
competed for space along the river and the railroad for easy access to irrigation and
markets. Sites close to slaughterhouses and the stables of the horse drawn trolley
companies were prime real estate for horticulture.
In the latter part of the 19th century, in response to living and nutritional conditions of
the working poor, Abbé Lemire in France and Dr. Schreber in Germany pioneered
movements for citizen mini-farms and gardens.41 These still thrive in most European
countries today.42
During the two world wars, as much as one-half of the nutrition (other than grains) of
cities on both sides of the conflict was produced within and at the edge of the city.43
However, the two wars represented an exception of sorts within a trend that lasted for
decades. Indeed, a decline in urban agriculture that had begun in the late 19th century
accelerated after World War II. In the post-war half century, urban agriculture in a
divided Europe followed diverse paths, but in the 1970s and 1980s, a resurgence in both
its eastern and western halves began. Some of the signs of the decline and comeback in
European urban agriculture are discussed here.
Under socialism, dual food systems were established. The centralized agricultural
system produced bushels and barrels of food but was unreliable in delivering it to
consumers. The latter often produced their own food on a more dependable basis closer
to (the mostly urban) home. Family survival/livelihood strategies, of necessity, began
with food production within the human settlement — backyards, factory yards, hospital
grounds, park lands, and land along roads were farmed on a small scale.44
With the decline of socialism and the return of a free-market economy, urban
agriculture has blossomed in central and eastern Europe. Part of the expansion is due to
the economic hardships that have accompanied the transition period of the past decade.
The expansion even predates the fall of communism because greater self-reliance had
already become necessary prior to the 1990s. The Gorbachev liberalization included

official support for household and community urban agriculture. The response across
Russia was fast and strong. This policy shift followed the lead of China and was itself
followed by Romania and others.45
As a result, Russia and other countries in Eastern Europe are in the midst of an
agricultural revolution from public to private and from large-scale to small-scale units of
production. The shift in just 20 years in the number of Moscow families engaged in food
production (from 20 percent in 1970 to 65 percent in 1990) is remarkable. Similar, if
perhaps less dramatic, shifts are occurring in many Eastern European cities, from
Wroclaw (see Case 3.6) to Sofia (Case 2.6) all the way to Vladivostock, as policies and
economies change.
Case 2.6 Urban Agriculture in Bulgaria
At the beginning of 1997, the economic situation in Bulgaria appeared to be severe — an inflation
rate over 300 percent per month, minimum legal salaries of $14 per month, and pensions too low
to provide the basic caloric intake. Closer examination, however, showed a completely different
picture — little malnutrition, low food prices, and even an active construction industry along with
the hardship situation generated by unemployment and the disaster of the conventional economy.
This apparent paradox was easy to explain once urban agriculture was considered.
In the outskirts of cities and in all villages, 900,000 households (2.5 million people) had
gardens that were very carefully cultivated with vegetables, grains, and fruits. Even the space
over sidewalks was covered with a canopy of grapes, cucumbers, and squash. All rural (village)
dwellers and most city dwellers were also making home preserves. An analysis of randomly
selected households showed a shadow production value (even at very low local market value) of
about $1,400 per family. Household producers were sustaining the national economy with
informal activity that was worth at least 13 percent of the GNP. Urban agriculture is practiced by
at least 30 percent of the country’s population in its primary production and by almost the whole
society in its secondary stages.
The Bulgarian minifarm is a very careful multidimensional optimization of resources. For

every calorie of external inputs, several calories of food are produced. Many of the resource and
nutrient cycles are closed through extensive recycling.
The culture of urban agriculture was able to survive four decades of collective agricultural
production. The Bulgarian government, multilateral aid, and financial organizations have been
trying to find the key to moving the country toward the market economy by using different types of
support and incentives to create private enterprises. One of the keys to the development of an
active private sector may lie in further fostering the strong presence of urban agriculture.
Contact: Jorge Zapp (see Appendix F for complete address).
It is noteworthy that the pattern of urban construction under the former communist
regimes creates a unique opportunity to promote urban agricultural production. Because
urban expansion was concentrated in planned high-rise mini-cities, a great deal more
open land exists near the 19th-century urban centers than in Western Europe. Thus there

is considerable potential to expand urban agriculture around and within the densely built-
up core and housing estates. As energy and transport costs multiply under the new
economics, urban food production increasingly offers more advantages.
At the same time in Western Europe, a similar decline and revival can be noted, but
under highly different circumstances. With the ‘modernization’ of agriculture in the
decades after World War II, farming in and around cities lost its specificity, and its main
function became as a land reserve for the massive new housing areas, from which it
remained disconnected. During more recent decades, urban agriculture has increased its
importance in Western Europe, for a variety of reasons.
In Italy, small-scale urban farmers have organized into cooperatives and associations
to protect their interests. They are closely tied to the ‘green’ movement and insist on the
merits of locally grown produce. A special case existed here because the locally elected
governments between the 1950s and 1980s were predominantly socialist while the
national governments tended to be not very stable Christian Democratic. The local
governments gave strong support to local farmer cooperatives and vice versa. The result
was and still is, a thriving urban/peri-urban agriculture and marketing food system
compared to some other European countries.46 Italy now leads Europe with the so-called
‘slow food’ movement as a positive reaction against fast food. This movement promotes
a ‘grow it, cook it, eat it slowly’ approach — for the good of the family, community, and
globe.
In France and Germany, the sustainable agriculture movement is growing and
includes urban farmers. Among other causes, this movement promotes nutritionally self-
reliant communities. Denmark’s advanced programs of ‘co-housing’ often include
community food production. Switzerland is a world leader in the consumer-supported
agriculture movement. The Netherlands has a history of intensive urban agricultural
production (Case 2.7).
Case 2.7 Urban agriculture in the Netherlands
The Netherlands is perhaps the world’s premier agricultural producer of specialty crops. It is also
one of the world’s most densely populated and urban nations. This apparent contradiction of
being highly urban and densely populated and a leader in agricultural production is explained in
part by the government’s support for urban agriculture.
The Randstad is the main concept that shapes planning and zoning in the Netherlands. It
seeks to maintain an agricultural interior within the regional South Holland ‘Rim City’, which
includes Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam, Delft, and other towns and cities. This ‘green core’
features high-value crops, plastic shelters to stretch the season, marketing cooperatives,
extension services, research centers, credit facilities, firm environmental controls, and training.
Such intensive farming began in the last century when the Dutch agricultural industry realized
it had no space to expand and decided to concentrate on increasing yields and value per unit of
available space. This is the essence of urban agriculture everywhere — define the market and
increase productivity.

Within the core area, the increasing pressure of urbanization is affecting the Randstad, with
some gnawing at the integrity of the agricultural core by construction, as well as reluctance by
farmers to reinvest in the capital-intensive industry in this area. The intense production in these
districts is also causing serious environmental problems, notably from manure. As a result, the
government and the Dutch growers’ organization have jointly drawn up a plan to restructure the
country’s greenhouse industry. They allocated hundreds of hectares outside the core for new
sheltered agriculture and will spend over $100 million to develop the infrastructure that is
necessary to operate these new areas and help growers plan their move there. The Netherlands
remains at the forefront of jointly planning agriculture and urbanization.
Contact: ETC Foundation (see Appendix F for complete address).
Throughout Europe there is new interest in community gardens and ‘allotments’.

There are 80,000 community gardeners on municipal land in Berlin, with a waiting list of
16,000. Together, these gardeners are a strong political force.47 In the early 1990s,
Norway and Austria drafted national food policies that include a commitment to greater
self-reliance, with a focus on the small sustainable producer, policies that are encouraging
urban and peri-urban agriculture. In the UK, farmers’ markets are following the
American model,48 and organic produce sales in 2000 were up 40 percent over 1999.
France adopted a national community gardening program in the 1980s, and in the 1990s
adopted legislation that hinders construction or operation of additional supermarkets
nationwide in favor of small locally-based food retailers.
The countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea are leaders in the use of plastic domes
and tunnels and controlled irrigation to stretch the season, save on water consumption,
and increase yields per hectare. Much of this increased production is in peri-urban areas.
North America
Early European immigrants to North America brought the urban agriculture system of the
‘town commons’. Intensive crop and livestock production was practiced as it was in
European villages and towns. This system was enhanced in hundreds of ideal or planned
communities from Maine to Iowa (such as New Harmony, Indiana and Salem, North
Carolina) as white settlements pushed westwards.
The arrival of massive industrialization accompanied by urbanization rapidly changed
this context, and market gardening to serve the mushrooming towns quickly emerged.
The economic crisis of 1882 introduced community farming on vacant lots to major
cities. As boom-and-bust cycles recurred, many cities would find themselves with
scattered unused properties, and they started leasing lots for a penny a year to
unemployed citizens and charitable groups.
By 1900, urban agriculture in the United States and Canada was an expression of
European immigration. Much specialization developed by group and location. In New
York, for instance, Greeks farmed on Staten Island, Italians in Brooklyn.49 In many
instances, producers in the city were selling their products to nearby suburban and rural
towns and villages as well as to the city market.50 Greenhouses (using steam heat) and
cold frames (heated by the sun and compost) were as much in evidence as the factory and

storage warehouse in the urban landscape. Some cities, including Philadelphia, had laws
giving urban farmers a special tax advantage over other businesses.
World War I gave a boost to urban agriculture in North America just as it did in
Europe. Municipalities supported the home grower and commercial grower alike to raise
perishable foods. The national effort extended to for-profit corporations. For instance,
Standard Oil of California transformed the street fronts of their gas stations from flower
gardens to vegetable gardens.51 The victory gardens of World War II made as great a
contribution to urban food security as their predecessors did during World War I. Some
continue today as community gardens, including the Back Bay Fens in Boston and Rock
Creek Park in Washington, D.C.
Both urban household food production and peri-urban market gardening were thus
significant subsectors of the food and agriculture system in North America until the
1950s, when they declined sharply in all but small towns. That decline, however, had
really started decades earlier. From the beginning of the century and particularly between
the world wars, in Canada and the United States the rise of land-use planning disallowed
agriculture in residential and some other zones. Production for northern cities began in
the southern and western states, relying on the ubiquitous use of cold storage and
refrigerated rail and highway shipping. From the 1950s onward, vertically integrated
agribusinesses began to stretch from the (Mexican) field to the (Canadian) supermarket.
And urban farming went into recession.
For the last quarter of the 20th century and particularly during the final decade, urban
agriculture has been making a comeback in North America. Today, we see fish farming
on the sites of tenement houses from the 1910s in New York City’s Bronx.52 The U.S.
Department of Agriculture reports the nation’s highest economic yields per acre are in
San Francisco.53 An abandoned factory site in Buffalo, New York is now 18 acres of
tomatoes (see Case 4.4). American suburbs such as Loudoun County, Virginia are
undergoing a revolution in their agriculture while simultaneously booming in population.
A resurgence of community and home gardens starting in the 1970s was partly a
result of growing concern about food quality, a concern that increased consumer demand
for locally-grown products. The 1994 national gardening survey revealed that 30 percent
of United States families were gardeners, with fully 80 percent of them urban dwellers.54
Similar levels have been estimated for Canada (Case 2.8). The American Community
Gardeners Association was formed to increase the sense of community among gardeners.
As in Europe, the community-supported agriculture (CSA) movement is beginning to
expand in North America.55 CSA retailing is expanding rapidly, as are its sisters — farm-
to-school, farm-to-campus, restaurant-supported agriculture, and institutional-based
agriculture (including prisons).
Case 2.8 Urban agriculture in Canada
In the 1990s, Canada took the lead in international support for urban agriculture, particularly in
developing countries. This is highlighted in two ways — Vancouver is home to the Internet’s
single most important site on the subject (www.cityfarmer.org), and the government’s

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) currently has the most important funding
program globally, Cities Feeding People. This has been paralleled by Canada’s emergence as
one of the leading developed nations to recognize the role of urban agriculture and provide
multifaceted support for further development. This case illustrates some examples of the latter.
Municipal initiatives related to urban agriculture in Canada tend to be more immediately

concerned with issues of environmental conservation, economic efficiency, and recreation, rather
than food production. However, Canadian municipalities have initiated a limited number of
programs, such as demonstration gardens, organic gardening courses, and community gardening
programs that directly address urban gardening. For example, in Goulbourn, Ontario, the
Environmental Youth Corps Program, sponsored by the township’s Environmental Advisory
Committee, built a successful organic demonstration garden.
The Island of Montreal, with a population of 2 million in 15 municipalities, has one of the best
community gardening programs in North America. The city maintains 75 garden sites containing
6,654 allotment plots. The program is run by the Department of Recreation, Parks and
Community Development, which provides soil, manure, fencing, water, tools, toilets, clubhouses,
tool sheds, and ongoing maintenance. In addition, there are five paid horticultural advisors who
are responsible for a group of sites. These resource people answer any horticulture inquiries,
work with the executive of each garden group, and report to the Public Works Department on any
maintenance problems. Pierre Bourque, community garden champion, was elected mayor in the
mid-1990s.
Toronto is pioneering a new frontier in agriculture — rooftop farming. It is home to the

Rooftop Garden Resource Group. For instance, three students from the University of Toronto use
the rooftop of a warehouse in the city owned by Field to Table, a food service, to grow high-value,
organically certified vegetables for sale to local restaurants and other high-end consumers. They
are attempting to modify the building into a model urban farm. Despite a strong planning system,
the Greater Toronto area’s urban sprawl consumes roughly 5,000 hectares per year, much of it
farmland. In the long term, that might make urban agriculture a necessity, and rooftops a lucrative
space. Toronto is also home to one of the most active food councils in North America, the
Toronto Food Policy Council.
The growing prominence of recycling organic waste by composting is having the most
significant effect on the role and extent of urban agricultural activities in Canadian municipalities.
Driving solid waste management initiatives in these municipalities is a desire to reduce the
amount of waste traditionally destined for municipal landfills. Prominent examples of solid waste
management can be found in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia and Port
Colborne, Ontario. Core components of their municipal organic waste recycling rest with
encouraging the participation of individual homeowners and the institutional, commercial, and
industrial sectors, and the establishment of centralized, municipally-operated composting
facilities. Municipally-sponsored Compost Education and Demonstration Centres offer training in
outdoor and indoor composting workshops, and guest lectures to adults as well as school
children. Residential composting is also promoted through policies restricting the collection of
certain kinds of waste normally collected through the municipal waste management system.
The growing recognition that the by-product of the wastewater treatment process can be
used as a high quality, cost-effective fertilizer, is leading an increasing number of Canadian
municipalities to implement wastewater reuse and reduction projects. Municipalities such as
Gander, Newfoundland generate thousands of tons of sludge annually. Gander is attempting to
divert 100 percent of the sludge from one of the town’s two wastewater treatment centers so it is
no longer sent to a landfill.
Contact: Michael Levenston and Brenda Lee Wilson (see Appendix F for complete address).

Since the early 1970s, New York City has supported more than 1,000 community
gardens on public land. The government has opened 18 farmer’s markets for direct sale
of locally grown farm products. Other United States cities such as Boston and
Philadelphia have even more community gardens per capita than New York. In Seattle,
New York, and Washington, D.C., projects help the homeless produce their own food and
community and home farmers contribute fresh food to their homeless neighbors.
A number of universities have begun to support the growing industry, notably
Rutgers University in New Jersey, the University of California at Davis, and Cornell
University in New York. In 1994, the University of California at Los Angeles completed
a thorough study of the food system of Los Angeles.56
The role of urban food production and distribution is beginning to be recognized by
local and regional planners. A number of cities, metropolitan regions, and states or
provinces are therefore developing urban food policies and food strategies, including
Toronto (Ontario), Chattanooga (Tennessee), Hartford (Connecticut), and the states of
Massachusetts and Oregon. These policies and strategies include greater nutritional self-
reliance. So far, the resurgence of urban agriculture in North America has been
characterized by public-private partnerships that have largely left out national
governments.
The 1980 United States census found that urban metropolitan areas produced 30
percent of the dollar value of American agricultural production. 57 By 1996, it had
increased to 40 percent. At the same time, as urban areas expand, thousands of acres of
peri-urban land are lost to agricultural production. Although this loss is recognized more
and more as an issue of national as well as local significance, the importance of
metropolitan-intensive production is not yet fully realized in North America. Higher-
value crops such as poultry and vegetables make a particularly significant nutritional and
economic contribution.
Latin America and the Caribbean

The arrival of Hernán Cortez in Tenochtitlan, now Mexico City, may be a good place to
start considering the presence of urban agriculture in Latin America. He was stunned to
find a city larger than any in Europe, substantially nourished by the Chinampas aqua-
terra urban agriculture system (Case 4.9). Indeed, the tradition of urban agriculture seems
to be at least as old, albeit less continuous, in Latin America as in Asia. The Aztecs,
Incas, Mayans, and earlier pre-Columbian civilizations had highly developed and
intensive agriculture systems. Most of these ancient systems were destroyed and
abandoned with the European takeover.58 Today, researchers are examining the
remaining evidence to learn from the highly productive and sustainable agricultural
practices.59
The Spanish and Portuguese cities in the Americas were designed, built, and managed
as headquarters for governing the hinterlands. Urban agriculture was resisted. After
independence, and particularly with the rapid urbanization following World War II, urban
agriculture re-emerged in the shantytowns surrounding old colonial cities. In some cases
(for example, the chinampas), the growing city engulfed a specialized farming system.

Most new urban agriculture was based on rural European models and was not very
productive. However, Asian technology using intensive production was introduced in
some places, including in São Paulo by the Japanese and in Panama by the Taiwanese.
Some French biointensive technology has been introduced by American and international
humanitarian organizations. Some native animals, such as guinea pigs, quail, and iguanas,
have been successfully adapted for raising in urban areas.
During the 1970s and 1980s, urban agriculture in Latin America received support as a
social welfare program from some governments, churches, and charities. Activities
ranged from school gardens supported by UNICEF in Panama60 to a community garden
in a prostitution district in northeastern Brazil. With the help of United States technology,
some urban agriculture was developed for export, most notably flowers from the Bogotá
savanna and vegetables and grapes from the Valparaiso-Santiago plain.
Asian and European technologies, especially in fish farming, were introduced in the
1980s on a larger scale. An outstanding example of the diffusion of a technology can be
found in Bogotá, where a women’s cooperative in a hillside slum learned to use
hydroponics (Case 5.5). This project is now sprouting offshoots in half a dozen Latin
American countries.
In Mexico, salad cactus is grown in boxes for export to the United States and Japan.
In Bolivia, an innovative greenhouse uses adobe architecture to store energy and reused
plastic to transmit light and heat. In Peru, fish are produced using wastewater following
an Asian model (Case 2.9). In addition to Peru, one other national government
(Argentina) and several municipal governments supported urban farming in the 1980s.
São Paulo and Curitiba in Brazil have urban agriculture programs, as does Mexico City.
Part of this new official support is a direct result of recognizing the great impact of
various economic crises (and sometimes civil wars that accompanied them) in the 1980s,
1990s, and in this new century. These crises fostered a significant increase in farming
activity as an economic strategy for urban households. Cuba may have been the most
noteworthy for the agricultural revolution it undertook in the early 1990s (see Case 7.6),
but countless other examples also exist, from Mexico to Chile.
In April 1995, 50 urban agriculture experts and project managers from Mexico to
Argentina met in La Paz, Bolivia and formed the Latin American Urban Agriculture
Research Network (AGUILA) to promote the industry.61 The tradition of urban farming
in Latin America may thus be coming full circle from the days of the Incas and Aztecs.
Case 2.9 Urban agriculture in Peru
Peru has traveled a rocky road politically and economically in the past couple of decades. During
this period, urban agriculture has contributed to averting disaster. Squatter communities have
been planned and developed to include agriculture as a basic economic activity. Women’s groups
have promoted programs of food production for the family. Community kitchens, where families
acquire and prepare food as a community, have established kitchen gardens to keep vitamins
and protein in their diet (see Case 7.2).

The national government, through the Ministry for Women and several national organizations
— Pronaa (Programa Nacional de Apoyo a la Alimentacion), Foncodes (Fondo de Compensacion
y Desarrollo Social), Coopoc (Cooperacion Popular) — are providing support to urban agriculture.
Each has good experience with urban agriculture in the community.
Sewage-fed fish technology developed at the CEPIS research center is being considered for
adoption in Bolivia, Mexico, Colombia (Cali), and Cuba (Case 5.5). In Peru, it is being advanced
by a government agency, PRODANET, to green the desert. CEPIS has received World Bank
support, and PRODANET is supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Other NGOs
are doing advanced applied research in composting, guinea pig rearing, and microenterprise and
are promoting these methods in surrounding countries.
IMAGEN is supporting small-scale hydroponics in low-income areas. Currently, it is selling

regularly to a 23-store supermarket chain (Tiendas Wong). REDE, under the direction of Andres
Dasso, has done a study of 27 organizations in Peru that are active and successful in urban
agriculture. In addition to hydroponics and aquaculture, the production of guinea pigs and quail
has been particularly successful in Peru.
The small poor country of Peru is successfully applying new techniques and organizational
approaches to promoting urban agriculture. It is starting to benefit substantially from international
assistance for this endeavor.
Contact: José Andres Dasso and Julio Moscoso (see Appendix F for complete addresses)
Comparisons Across Continents

Over the past few decades, there have been dramatic shifts toward urban agriculture in
both developed and developing countries. Production volume has increased, and
improved technologies and methods have been adopted.
In most countries, urban farming resulted from the initiative of enterprising farmers
who saw a market opportunity or responded to an opportunity to improve family food
security. In only a few cases did it develop through government foresight. In fact, in most
countries, urban agriculture receives little official support; and in many countries, it is
still resisted.
Sub-Saharan Africa has shown the most dramatic expansion in the greening of cities
like Dar es Salaam and Nairobi when administrative repression was relaxed. Urban
agriculture in Africa is probably less formally organized than it is in any other continent.
The expansion in the number of countries with civil strife, such as Zaire, Uganda, and
Mozambique, gives it the greatest potential for the use of farming in emergency settings.
Undoubtedly, Africa has been the most extensively surveyed during the past two decades.
Latin America has some of the most improved uses of urban agriculture methods such
as small-scale hydroponics and small livestock rearing. Latin American NGOs appear to
be particularly effective in promoting urban agriculture. Not only are individual agencies
more effective, but they also cooperate more with one another than do NGOs in other
regions. Latin American researchers have also managed to organize themselves on a
continent-wide basis faster than in any other region.

Urban agriculture is most extensively practiced in Asia, but growth and change in the
industry there is less apparent. Both municipal and national governments in Asia are
more supportive of urban farming on a day-to-day basis than governments in the rest of
the world. The need for assistance to the urban poor is no less pressing in Asia than in
other parts of the developing world, and theoretically this assistance should be easier to
obtain because the know-how is more ubiquitous. Viet Nam, Taiwan (province of China),
Australia, and Singapore are trendsetters.
The benefits of urban agriculture in wealthy countries are quite different from those
in less-developed countries. Food security is less of a concern in wealthier countries for
several reasons:
food costs for lower-income groups may be one-fifth to one-third of urban family
budgets (compared to one-third to four-fifths in poor countries),
food distribution systems are generally more complete; and
food is both of higher quality and more accessible.
Urban areas in more developed countries are generally less densely populated and
have more land available for raising crops and animals. With increased consumption, the
per capita volumes of wastewater and solid waste (with their potential for reuse in
farming) are higher. The potential environmental hazards of those wastes are usually also
greater.
In Europe and North America, governments have provided substantial support for the
last 100 years both for the rural industrial sector of agriculture and for small rural family
farms, but there has been relatively little support for urban agriculture. Agricultural
education and research have all but ignored urban agriculture, except in specialized
applications such as poultry, aquaculture, and hydroponics.
———————
The examples offered here reveal the great diversity in urban agriculture, which
makes broad generalizations difficult. Ancient civilizations, medieval cities, the
wealthiest countries in today’s world, and countries and cities surviving civil strife or
economic duress have incorporated urban agriculture in their development. These
different circumstances also mean that regional variations in benefits, problems, and
constraints will need to be understood before appropriate strategies are devised for each
locale.
A fragmented picture of urban agriculture around the world could be assembled from
the examples cited so far. In Chapters 3 through 6, a more systematic effort will be
applied to covering the full range of urban farmers, agriculture locations, agricultural
processes and products, and actors that influence the urban agriculture industry.
Notes
1. Allison Brown, personal communication, 1993.

2. Camillus J. Sawio. 1993. Feeding the Urban Masses: Towards an Understanding of

the Dynamics of Urban Agriculture and Land-Use Change in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania. Ph.D. diss., Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
3. Diana Lee-Smith and others. 1987. Urban Food Production and the Cooking Fuel
Situation in Urban Kenya, National Report: Results of a 1985 National Survey.
Nairobi: Mazingira Institute. Also, Z.S.K. Mvena, I.J. Lupanga, and M.R.S. Mlozi.
1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: A Study of Six Towns (draft). Morogoro,
Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Education
and Extension.
4. Fo Hsing Lin, director, Kaohsiung District Agricultural Improvement Station, Ping
Tung City, Taiwan (province of China), personal communication, 1992.
5. Anuchit Sodsathit, director, Department of Policy and Planning, Bangkok
Metropolitan Administration, personal communication, 1992.
6. Ralph E. Heimlich (ed.). 1989. Land Use Transition in Urbanizing Areas: Research
and Information Needs. Washington, D.C.: The Farm Foundation in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
7. Mounir Neamatallah, Environmental Quality International, Cairo, personal
communication, 1994.
8. Sustainable Cities Programme. 1992. Dar es Salaam Environmental Profile. Nairobi:
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, p. 8.
9. For recent efforts at rehabilitating the surviving qanats, see Tunneling for Survival.
2000. ICARDA Caravan, pp.12-13.
10. One of the most accepted theories to explain Macchu Picchu is that it was a temple or
shrine dedicated specifically to agriculture, with several functions — connecting
agriculture with Viracocha (supreme god), and serving as an agriculture research
station, a seed production and germplasm bank, and a training center for terrace
agriculture. Jorge Zapp, UNDP, Columbia. personal correspondence, 1994.
11. Elizabeth Graham. 1999. Stone Cities, Green Cities. Pages 185-192 in Complex
Politics in the Ancient Tropical World, Elisabeth A. Bacus and Lisa J. Lucero (ed.),
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 9.
Arlington, Virginia: American Anthropological Association.
12. Elinor Melville. 1994. A Plague Of Sheep. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Augusto Cardich. 1987. Native Agriculture in the Highlands of the Peruvian Andes.
Also, Melvin L. Fowler. 1987. Early Water Management at Amalucan, State of
Puebla, Mexico. Both in National Geographic Research, Vol. 3, No. 1.
14. The most important promoter of biointensive gardening is John Jeavons, whose How
to Grow More Vegetables (Berkeley, Calif.: Ten Speed Press) has sold more than
300,000 copies worldwide since the first edition appeared in 1974.
15. Christine Furedy, York University, CA, personal communication, 1993.

16. Patrick Geddes. 1918. Town Planning towards City Development: A Report to the
Durbar of Indore. Indore: Holkore State Printing Press, quoted in Peter Hall. 1988.
Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the
Twentieth Century. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 244-45.
17. Deng Honghai. 1992. Urban Agriculture as Urban Food Supply and Environmental
Protection Subsystems in China. Calgary: University of Alberta.
18. Yue-man Yeung. 1985. Urban Agriculture in Asia. Paris: United Nations University,
Food-Energy Nexus Programme.
19. Yue-man Yeung, Hong Kong University, personal communication, 1992.
20. Avrom Bendavid-Val. 1988. More with Less: Managing Energy and Resource
Efficient Cities. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
21. Karachi Development Authority and UNOTC. 1972. Karachi Regional Master Plan.
Karachi.
23. For a survey of the case of Tokyo, see Yorifusa Ishida. 1994. Agricultural Land Use
in the Urbanized Area of Tokyo: History of Urban Agriculture in Tokyo, 1850s-
1990s, presented at the Sixth International Planning History Conference, Hong Kong.
Professor Ishida has also written a book (in Japanese) on urban agriculture and land
use planning.
24. Georges Homsy. 1995. How to Save a Farm, Planning 61:16, February.
25. Gisèle Yasmeen. 2001. Urban Agriculture in India: A Survey of Expertise, Capacities
and Recent Experience. Cities Feeding People Report No. 32. Ottawa: IDRC.
26. For further discussion of urban agriculture in the Middle East and North Africa, see
Joe Nasr and Paul Kaldjian. 1997. Agriculture in Middle Eastern Cities:
Commonalities and Contrasts, Arid Lands Newsletter, No. 42, Fall. This electronic
newsletter, published by the University of Arizona’s Office of Arid Lands, can be
found at http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/ALNHome.html. The only comparative
book that we found on the subject is Driss Ben Ali et al.(eds.). 1996. Urbanisation et
agriculture en Méditerranée: Conflits et complémentarités. Paris: Editions
l’Harmattan. A new book on urban agriculture in this region will be edited by Joe
Nasr and Martine Padilla.
27. Paul Kaldjian. 1997. Istanbul: Opportunities in Urban Agriculture, Arid Lands
Newsletter No. 42, Fall.
28. Thierry Boissière, Jardiniers et société citadine dans la vallée de l'Oronte en Syrie
centrale. 1999. Ph.D. thesis in ethnology, Université Lumière Lyon 2, France.
29. Anne-Marie Bianquis. 1980. Damas et la ghouta, in La Syrie d'aujourd'hui, André
Raymond (ed.). Paris: CNRS.
30. One of the authors of this book, Joe Nasr, is heading a research program on The
Agriculture-Urbanization Interface in Coastal Lebanon.
www.cermoc.lb.refer.org/agriurba.htm

31. Thierry Boissière. 1995. Les jardins urbains. Pages 45-57 in Sanaa: Architecture
domestique et société. Paul Bonnenfant (ed.). Paris: CNRS.
32. Pierre-Marie Tricaud. 1989. Zones vertes urbaines et périurbaines en Afrique du
Nord. Paris: Ministère des Affaires Etrangères. On Tunis, see Abdelaziz Hamrouni.
1980. L'agriculture dans la région péri-urbaine de Tunis, Ph.D thesis in geography,
Université d'Orléans, France. Another dissertation was recently completed: Mouez
Bouraoui. 2000. Moez Bouraoui. 2000. L’agriculture, un nouvel instrument de la
construction urbaine? Etude de deux modèles agri-urbains d'aménagement du
territoire: le plateau de Saclay, à Paris, et la plaine de Sijoumi, à Tunis.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts (ENGREF) de
Paris, France.”
33. Ted Kaddar, Israel, personal communication, 1993.
34. A recent census of urban agriculture in Amman found that two-thirds of the land
cultivated by households was planted with fruit trees. Results are from a survey by
the Jordan Department of Statistics, conducted in 1998-99, under the leadership of
Khamis Raddad.
35. The rate is almost twice as high in slum areas. Raising chickens is by far the most
common form of animal husbandry. Jörg Gertel. 1997. Animal Husbandry, Urban
Spaces and Subsistence Production in Cairo, Agriculture + Rural Development, Vol.
4, No. 2:50.
36. Bringing the Desert to Life. 1998. The Wall Street Journal, May 7, p. B17.
37. Bishwapriya Sanyal. 1985. Urban Agriculture: Who Cultivates and Why. A Case
Study of Lusaka, Zambia, Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7:15-24, Sept.
38. A.A. Alaruka and N.K. Choma. 1985. Les Femmes de Kisangani et la Pratique
Agricole, Annales de l’Institut Supérieur Pédagogique de Kisangani, Etudes Série A,
no. 14:83-85.
39. Carole Rakodi. 1985. Self-reliance or Survival, Food Production in African Cities,
with Particular Reference to Zambia, African Urban Studies 21: 53-63, Spring.
40. Peter Kropotkin. 1901. Fields, Factories and Workshops. New York: Swann
Sonnenschein.
41. For histories of the movement in each of these two countries, see Gert Groning and
Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn. 1995. Von Ackermann bis Ziegelhutte: Ein Jahrhundert
Kleingartenkultur in Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Vereins fur
Geschichte und Landeskunde and Frankfurter Historischer Kommission. Also,
Florence Belin. 1998. L’honneur des jardiniers. Paris: Belin.
42. See article at www.cityfarmer.org on the range of gardening associations and their
membership.
43. David Crouch and Colin Ward. 1988. The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture.
London and Boston: Faber & Faber.

44. J. Kleer and A. Wos (eds.). 1988. Small-Scale Food Production in Polish Urban
Agglomerations. Paris: United Nations University.
45. Gert Gröning, Berlin University, personal communication, 2000.
46. Robin Marsh, UNFAO, personal communication, 2000.
47. Stephen Kinzer. 1994. Dread of Builders in a City Woven with Gardens, New York
Times, Feb. 18.
48. Judith Weinraub. American Savvy Brings Farmers’ Markets Back to London.
Washington Post, 14 June 2000, p. F1-F4.
49. New York Food Museum, How New York Ate 100 Years Ago,
www.nyfoodmuseum.org. For a more detailed history of agriculture in Brooklyn, see
Marc Linder and Lawrence S. Zacharias, Of Cabbages and Kings County:
Agriculture and the Formation of Modern Brooklyn. 1999. Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press.
50. Peter Henderson. 1991. Gardening for Profit: A Guide to the Successful Cultivation
of the Market and Family Garden. Chillicothe, Illinois: The American Botanist,
Booksellers. First published 1867-1890.
51. Standard Oil of California Bulletin, August 1917, cover and text.
52. New York Times. 2000. article, Mar. 23, p. 6.
53. One acre of land costs about $135,000 in San Francisco, compared to $132 in Iowa.
See Michael Olsen. 1994. MetroFarm. Santa Cruz, CA: TS Books. Also, Bureau of
the Census. 1996. Agricultural Census. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
54. See Gallup Organization. 1994. National Gardening Survey 1994. Princeton, NJ:
Gallup Organization, prepared for the National Gardening Association, Burlington,
VT.
55. www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa
56. Linda Ashman and others. 1993. Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Security for
the Inner City. Los Angeles: Southern California Interfaith Hunger Coalition.
57. Ralph Heimlich (ed.). 1989. Land Use Transition in Urbanizing Areas: Research and
Information Needs. Washington, D.C.: USDA and The Farm Foundation.
58. Multiple causes were behind this shift, including the introduction of exogenous plant
species and animals which overran indigenous ones and damaged both urban and
rural environments. Elizabeth Graham, York University, personal communication,
2000.
59. Inter-American Foundation. 1994. Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American
Foundation.
60. Urban Resource Systems. 1984. Urban Agriculture: Meeting Basic Food Needs for
the Urban Poor, Urban Examples, No. 9. New York: UNICEF.
61. To join AGUILA, contact Marielle Dubbeling at marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 3
Who Are the Urban Farmers?
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
3
In Nairobi, a young mother finds a place on the roadside near her home where garbage has
been dumped and burned over the years. Recognizing the better quality of the soil, she
establishes a mixed-crop bean and maize garden. From her harvests she feeds her family,
sets aside dried beans for the dry season, and sells roasted ears of maize for cash at the
roadside garden site.
In metropolitan Jakarta, a transnational agribusiness firm establishes a vast, shed-
grown mushroom farm and an adjacent cannery for world markets. The spent mushroom
soil is sold to small-scale vegetable farmers, who use it to improve the soil in their
gardens.
Both the young mother and the transnational firm are urban farmers, but each has
special support requirements and makes different contributions to the economic, social,
and environmental makeup of a city.
There is no such person as the „average urban farmer‟. He or she may emerge from
any point along the population spectrum of a city. Urban farmers include the wealthy and
the poor, recent immigrants, and landed gentry. During the 1980s and 1990s, the number
of urban farmers grew rapidly, in many places faster than the rate of urbanization.
In most developing countries, it appears that urban farmers from low-income groups
— often women — dominate. Frequently, they farm on a small scale on land they do not
own, less than full time. However, in some countries (including Argentina and the United
States), middle-income farmers practicing primarily backyard cultivation are particularly
numerous. The motives of middle- and upper-income home farmers are often nutritional
(cleaner and healthier home-grown food for the family) and cultural rather than
economic. In all groups, the presence of cultivators often acts as a catalyst for others to
do the same.
In most countries, urban agriculture is dominated by small producers achieving food
security and earning income for their families. However, the smaller number of large
producers — domestic private and public corporations and multinational agribusinesses
— generate a significant share of the total value of urban agriculture, particularly in
capital-intensive farming systems such as aquaculture and poultry. Larger enterprises and
more wealthy entrepreneurs are more likely to have access to such requirements as land,
water, credit, technology, extension support, training, seed and feed, markets, and market
information.
The difference between the farming practices of low-income and high-income
farmers is usually not just one of size, but also of farming systems and products. While
monocropping is common among wealthier farmers, lower-income farmers tend to

choose multicrop farming systems that require low capital and minimize risk (for
example, combining vegetable and rabbit production). The higher the farmer‟s income,
the more specialized and high-value may be the crop or the market to which the farmer
caters (for example, mushrooms, shrimp, or flowers for export). Table 3.1 shows the kind
of urban agriculture practiced in selected cities around the world.
This chapter discusses the role of the various participants in urban agriculture,
including low-, middle-, and high-income farmers; agribusinesses; farmer cooperatives;
and more narrowly defined groups of farmers such as women, migrants, and refugees.
An important cautionary note is in order about why urban farmers farm — the various
purposes of urban agriculture are not always evident. In particular, orientation toward
consumption versus the market changes over time and is not usually clear-cut. Survey
instruments do not easily identify — and are not always precise enough to measure —
when urban production is for the informal market or barter economy and when it is for
family consumption. The majority of the total economy in many cities is informal or non-
monetary, and urban agriculture is commonly among the larger if not the largest element
in the informal economy. Nuances should always be sought among seemingly different
goals for urban agriculture such as improved food access, nutritional enhancement, and
enterprise development. Data on these matters need to be handled with care.
Low-Income Farmers
The majority of urban farmers in most of the countries examined for this study belong
to low-income groups and practice farming on a part-time basis. Often one working adult
in the family (usually a woman) is the principal farmer and others support the production,
processing, or marketing functions. For many urban families, however, agriculture is not
just a side activity — it is the core source of income throughout the year, and day labor in
other industries provides supplementary cash income on an intermittent basis.
Access to land for farming in the city is not equal for all citizens. The wealthy can
afford to pay rent or purchase land. The poor live in higher-density areas with less open
space. They lack the financial capacity or credit worthiness to purchase or lease land, and
as well as the political influence that enhances the security of their access to land, water,
and inputs. Using a usufruct arrangement, a number of jurisdictions and authorities make
idle land available to the poor for food production under more or less strict conditions.
Low-income urban residents engage in agriculture primarily to increase their food
security and income levels (Case 3.1). By growing their own food, they also improve
their nutritional intake, since the food they grow is more nutritious than the food they can
afford to buy. Less recognized, but also important, is the benefit of fungible income that
farming provides by freeing up cash for essential expenditures other than food. In many
Third World cities, food purchases can represent over 60 percent of total family
expenditures (see Table 7.3). For the very poor mother, cash and food may be almost
equivalent because most of the former is spent on the latter.

Table 3.1 Presence of urban farmers in selected cities
Country Urban farmers in selected cities
Africa
Burkina Faso In Ouagadougou, 36 percent of families are engaged in horticultural
cultivation, plus livestock production.
Cameroon In Yaounde, 35 percent of urban residents farm.
Congo In Libreville, 80 percent of families are engaged in horticulture.
Kenya Sixty-seven percent of urban families farm on urban and peri-urban sites
(80 percent of which are low-income); 29 percent of these families farm
in the urban areas where they live.
In Nairobi, 20 percent of urban dwellers grow food in the urban area.
Mozambique In Maputo, 37 percent of urban households surveyed produced food and
29 percent raised livestock.
Tanzania In six Tanzanian cities, 68 percent of families are engaged in farming
and 39 percent raise animals.
Uganda Approximately 33 percent of all households within a 5-km radius of the
center of Kampala were engaged in some form of agricultural activity in
1989.
Asia
Fiji In Suva, 40 percent of families are engaged in horticulture.
Nepal In Kathmandu, 37 percent of households raise horticultural crops and 11
percent raise animals.
Papua New Guinea In the Port Moresby metropolitan area, about 80 percent of all
households take part in some food production.
Europe/Former Soviet
Union
Russia In Moscow, 60 percent of families were engaged in agriculture in 1998
(In 1970, only 20 percent of families did so.)
Latin America
North America
USA Twenty-five percent of urban families work in food gardens and/or
horticulture.
Source: Data compiled by The Urban Agriculture Network from various sources.

Case 3.1 Small-scale horticulturists in a squatter settlement in Lusaka

Residents of a squatter settlement near the sewage lagoons in Lusaka, Zambia farm the area to
produce food for consumption. The production is small-scale, informal, and undertaken on public
land using low-quality inputs collected from the market or neighboring areas. Although it is legal to
use public land for cultivation in Zambia, using sewage for irrigation is not sanctioned. In this case,
the effluent from lagoons has been biologically treated in a passive lagoon.
The farmers produce vegetables such as squash and beans for family consumption. One
farmer has expanded his farming activity to produce cash crops such as sugar cane for toddy and
bananas, from which he earns a good income. He has shaped fields by hand and rotates crops.
The farmer composts neighborhood waste for his fields and uses effluent from the sewage lagoon
for irrigation.
Contact: Harrington Jere (see Appendix F for complete address).
Consumption-oriented farmers producing for family and neighbors represent a

significant population in most low-income cities. A 1986 survey in Kenya found that of
the urban families engaged in agriculture, as many as 40 percent were dependent on self-
produced food for nutritional survival.1 The impact of this activity can be significant. In
the Philippines, the district of Negros promoted home, school, and community gardens
with support from the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Low-income
community residents produced vegetables, fruits, herbs, and other products for both
consumption and sale. Within two years, childhood malnutrition was cut from 40 percent
to 25 percent.2
Some urban farming systems that require low levels of capital, inputs, and skills are
easy-entry/easy-exit economic activities, which makes them very attractive to individuals
with few resources. In Haiti, very low-income farmers produce crops on rooftops using
green manure made entirely from collected organic waste. The crops are for home
consumption and sale within the community.3 On the garbage dumps east of Calcutta,
hundreds of small cooperatives comprised of low-income urban residents pay rent to the
city and produce one-fifth of the city‟s fresh vegetables.4
For many of the world‟s low-income urban farmers, monetary investment is quite
small, with many inputs obtained by barter. Still, access to resources (seed, land, water),
technology, and support (credit, marketing) is highly constrained for these farmers. In the
face of poor-quality inputs and crop loss to insects, disease, and theft, the failure rate is
frequently high, and returns to labor, efficiency of production, and per-hectare yields tend
to be low.
For many, urban agriculture is a relatively long-term economic activity.5 The average
low-income farmer is a member of a poor but stable urban community.6 The poor who
have lived in the city for a number of years have better access to resources and greater
familiarity with the market and the urban economy. Recent migrants to the city from rural
areas, including refugees, can rarely assemble the necessary access to land, water, and
other inputs. They also face problems in effectively adapting rural technologies and
farming systems to the urban environment, thus necessitating much relearning.

Urban agriculture is an effective family security tool for those seeking to build a
future in the city. When the poor cannot purchase food in the market because they lack
cash or food supplies are disrupted, cultivating food may be an effective (and often
indispensable) means of survival.
Urban farming is often initiated or increased during worsening economic times, war,
or other catastrophes that disrupt food supply channels. A typical first venture may be to
plant cassava roots on a roadside with a prayer for rain, or spinach next to a leak in a
sewage pipe. Many beginners scavenge seeds from market wastes and cultivate on an
irregular basis. A farmer who is producing for consumption in the household can increase
returns sufficiently to make sustained farming profitable and more productive. He or she
may begin bartering for other family needs and selling part of the crops. Over time,
farming may evolve into a stable source of family income. In many countries, there is a
direct connection between low-income entrepreneurs and retail markets such as street
food, roadside stands, and municipal markets.
In richer countries, the beginning low-income urban farmer is more likely to get
started in a community garden or allotment with municipal and employer support. In
these cities, the informal barter economy is less-developed, and there may be fewer
opportunities for urban agriculture to significantly support a household.
Cooperation and organization have a vital role in the ability of low-income farmers to
expand their activities (Case 3.2). In some places (for example, Senegal), men tend to the
crops and women do the processing and marketing. Members of one tribe in Dakar work
together to farm the tribal land to produce vegetables, rice, fish, and livestock for the city
market. In Lima, a community kitchen run by poor women supplements the rice, beans,
and cooking oil it receives as welfare — providing a healthier diet for its members — by
growing vegetables in community gardens and raising rabbits and poultry in backyards.
Case 3.2 Backyard gardeners using biointensive methods in Maipú

Farmers in a low-income settlement in Maipú, Chile grow a mix of vegetables, herbs, and fruits and
raise microlivestock on small household plots ranging from 10 to 40 square meters. Farming began
about 10 years ago through the initiative of SODEM, a Maipú-based community development
organization, with training provided by the Centre for Education and Technology (CET), a national
technical NGO advancing alternative agriculture. Several international agencies, including CODEL,
GTZ, and Lutheran World Relief, formerly provided support.
The farmers collect garbage from neighboring residences and compost it for farming input. For
most families, farming is a second economic activity, and they produce primarily for consumption by
family and friends. A few sell their produce in the market. Some women farmers grow culinary herbs
at home and sell them in the local market.
The original purpose of the project was to improve the food security and nutritional status of the
settlement residents, but farmers gradually expanded their activities. They planted street trees to
improve the neighborhood environment and for collective marketing of fruit. The farmers are now
well established, and they have even created a city park that has farming as well as recreational
space.

More recently, CET has established a project called Sustainable Cities as an overall framework
for implementing similar programs in other, smaller cities in Chile. This model of cooperation among
NGOs to promote urban farming is eminently replicable in other countries and cities.
Contacts: Camila Montecino and Rita Moya, (see Appendix F for complete address).
In addition to the better-organized groups of poor urban farmers, thousands of small,

productive farmers in every town and city generate some income from farming. These
farmers are not reported in most economic and nutritional statistics because their
activities tend not to be noticed. The line between cultivation for consumption and for
profit is often blurred among low-income farmers, who move easily from cultivation for
their nutritional survival into bartering and selling surpluses and growing crops for the
formal market.
Middle- and High-Income Farmers

Around the world, middle- and high-income farmers, like low-income farmers, may
either cultivate for their own families and communities or may be entrepreneurial farmers
seeking a profit. However, despite their many commonalities with low-income farmers
and variations across countries, there are some distinct differences.
Middle- and high-income consumption-oriented farmers tend to have a different set
of priorities and farm differently than lower-income farmers. They frequently farm to
substitute healthier, home-grown food for store-bought products and for personal
satisfaction from cultivating. Growing food for consumption improves the quality and
nutritional value of foodstuffs consumed by the family, as well as freeing up income for
other consumption needs (fungibility). It provides significant quality-of-life benefits,
including improved nutrition, security against dependence on a single-wage income, and
a stock of out-of-season canned and preserved foods.
Sometimes, the reasons for farming are economic. For many, urban agriculture offers
a low-investment opportunity to be in business for themselves. For others, urban
agriculture provides the equivalent of unemployment insurance during recessions. Falling
real wages mean that middle-class expectations for living and consumption standards are
no longer matched by incomes. In Argentina, for instance, pensioners unable to survive
on their pensions farm in their yards to make ends meet.
Starting in the 1970s, so-called structural adjustment programs led to declines in the
real income of urban populations, especially in Africa, motivating a significant
percentage of the population to grow food for home consumption.7 A survey in Tanzania
found that 70 percent of the resident faculty at one agricultural campus were
entrepreneurial urban farmers who found the income an essential supplement to their
shrinking salaries.8
Farming is usually a part-time activity for one or more family members, with some
input from the rest of the family. A typical example of a home farmer is a middle-class
mother producing vegetables and fruits in her kitchen garden, with planting and
harvesting help from the family or day labor.

Growing food at home is a low-risk way to supplement the family income because
many middle-class families have some farmable land or surfaces available at home,
making food production a convenient secondary activity. For these farmers, the issue of
tenure is usually not as critical as it is for lower-income farmers since they generally farm
in their own yard or on other land they hold. They also have access to better seeds, feeds,
and other inputs than do lower-income farmers, and their livestock and vegetable beds
tend to be more robust.
Middle- and high-income entrepreneurs, in contrast to gardeners for family
consumption, tend to concentrate on high-value crops rather than easy-to-grow crops.
They frequently concentrate on a few or even a single crop, such as cattle, ornamental
plants, or lettuce. Farming still tends to be family-based, although larger enterprises may
have several workers (Case 3.3).
Case 3.3 Silwood family farm, Auckland, New Zealand

The Silwood family runs a well-managed hydroponic farm on an ordinary lot in an inner suburb of
Auckland, New Zealand. With an average year-round labor force of only seven, it produces 18-19
crops of gourmet lettuce on a mere quarter-acre (about 700 square meters), compared to 3-4 crops
typically in both open-air soil farms or traditional greenhouse farms. The same amount of lettuce per
year would require the equivalent of 6,000 square meters in an ordinary greenhouse. The current
revenue is more than NZ$ 400,000 a year, with potential for even higher turnover as the technology
and management is further refined. In 1996-97, turnover for every square meter of growing area
was NZ$ 592. A duplicate start-up may cost only about NZ$ 200,000.
Fresh lettuce output is boosted significantly by using sterilized water, hydrogen peroxide water
treatment against pithium, three tiers of hydroponic growing channels, lights for extended growing
time, added carbon dioxide, and judicious heating. The lettuce seedlings are raised on site in a
„nursery tunnel‟ and move from there into special small growing troughs, fed with a nutrient suited to
early growth. When the plants are about half grown, they are moved into conventional channels
with wider spacing to grow to maturity.
Silwood produces a year-round superior product at a constant price, with speedy delivery. The
produce is fresh, gourmet lettuce and herbs grown from both imported and local seed, and from on-
site varietal development. A choice of up to 20 different varieties gives customers various options in
taste and color.
Six local supermarket buyers and about 30 local restaurant owners buy 100 percent of
Silwood‟s production for a sustained, year-round supply. All of the farm's customers are within a 10-
minute drive, which allows an extra 3-4 days of shelf life for the produce.
Contact: Geoff Wilson (see Appendix F for complete address).
One middle-income Zambian family involved in entrepreneurial urban agriculture

finds farming much more lucrative than the husband‟s accounting job. Its farm income is
more than double his salary. He handles purchasing and marketing, and his wife does the
field work. Another Zambian family produces a second income through ornamental
horticulture (see Case 5.12).
These entrepreneurs are more likely than low-income entrepreneurs to have legal
right to farm the land and to have access to good inputs, technical advice, and credit.

When asked what his number one problem was, an extension worker in Mexico
answered, “College professors producing market crops in their backyard. They ask too
many questions.”
The main difference between middle- and high-income entrepreneurial farmers is in
the scale or capital requirements of their ventures. Rich investors, particularly if they
have an agricultural background or are landowners, are attracted to farming systems that
require high investments and produce high returns, such as large-scale poultry and dairy
products, or that cater to specialty markets, such as shrimp and orchids for export.
Like the middle-income entrepreneur, the big investor is likely to concentrate on a
single, high-value crop and to either own the land or lease it from the government,
institutions, or other landowners, including speculators. Examples of investments are land
improvements to create ponds, irrigation, greenhouses, mushroom sheds, and storage
facilities.
Many high-income urban farmers integrate the range of their operations —
production, processing, distribution, and marketing. They often expand to higher-return
specialty markets, including for export. In Tanzania, a retired high government official
imports hybrid milk cows and raises them in his exclusive residential neighborhood. In
Colombia, a former high-level official in the agriculture ministry exports culinary herbs
to the United States.
These enterprises are often peri-urban. As land prices rise, these farmers sell their
facilities and move their operations to the new urban periphery. Increasing urbanization is
often accompanied by a shift to a more profitable and complex farming system or to more
intensive crops. It is not unusual for a successful higher-income farmer to become an
agribusiness entrepreneur. In Thailand, a farmer who had inherited fruit orchards from his
father sold them for a considerable sum and purchased land at the Bangkok metropolitan
periphery to build artificial ponds for fish rearing.
Thus middle- and high-income entrepreneurial farming may be viewed by the public
and the state not as agriculture, but as agribusiness. This perception has implications for
the degree of official support the activity commands. Urban agribusiness is supported and
promoted in most countries as a productive industry with good access to credit,
technology, and other requirements. More informal, small-scale urban agriculture fails to
receive the same status.
Domestic and International Agribusiness

Large national and international corporations play a major role in urban agriculture,
sometimes dominating a farming system. Large operators can have two different roles —
they can employ many workers to produce crops, or they can contract through numerous
small and medium „outgrowers‟, and then handle the processing and marketing functions
themselves.
In Abidjan, an integrated chicken firm produces poultry feed and owns and operates
retail outlets throughout Côte d‟Ivoire. For larger (including multinational) firms, the
advantage of proximity and concentration of farmers in urban and peri-urban areas may
make them more convenient outgrowers for crops that require fast delivery to the market.

In Bangkok, a single large firm has contracts with 10,000 small outgrowers of chickens.
It runs the hatcheries and processes the meat it buys from the small growers. In many
urban areas, aquaculture, especially growing shrimp, is dominated by large firms. An
international agribusiness giant produces mushrooms in Jakarta.
Some agribusinesses support small-scale producers (Case 3.4), while others compete
with their smaller counterparts. This competition can be uneven when agribusiness has
preferred access to land, water, waste, or other inputs. Cooperatives, farmers‟ associations,
NGOs, and other groups can help to level the playing field by providing assistance to small
farmers.
Case 3.4 Vegetable and fruit production by Del Monte in Manila

Del Monte, an international agribusiness, was growing fruits and vegetables on a plantation in
Manila, Philippines for export in cans. During the 1980s, the Urban Food Foundation, an NGO
based in Manila, helped Del Monte move from a plantation-based system to an outgrower-based
system, with Del Monte contracting production to about 500 small- and medium-scale farmers in
metropolitan Manila. Del Monte performs the marketing, technical assistance, extension, and quality
control functions.
The farmers are part of an association whose professional executive manager previously
worked for Del Monte. The farmers‟ quality of life is much improved over that of plantation workers.
Contact: Roberto S. Guevara (see Appendix F for complete address).
Farmer Cooperatives
Farmer cooperatives are usually formed to increase sustainability by reducing input costs
or increasing profits, thus reducing risk. By forming cooperatives, small operators gain
economies of scale in areas such as technical and enterprise support, input supply, and
marketing. Cooperatives ease the access of small farmers to formal markets where these
are not easy to enter.
In urban areas, cooperatives tend to be comprised of lower-income farmers, although
wealthier farmers also form their own specialized associations. Community gardening
everywhere, from Leipzig to Lima, is typically operated through community gardening
associations or cooperatives. In Germany, community gardens are rooted in the labor
union movement of the 19th century. In Peru, they emerged from the alternative
economics movement of the 1970s.
In Jerusalem, outside Bogotá, a cooperative of 100 poor women grows hydroponic
vegetables on contract to supermarkets at premium prices. In the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (formerly Zaire), cooperatives of urban farmers were partially instrumental in
reducing problems caused by recent disruptions in the food supply from rural and
international sources.
Farmers often start with common interests (for example, a common activity in a
common location, similar background, or solidarity), then join together to achieve certain
benefits, resolve specific problems, and protect their interests. Over time, they may
formalize their association and work with outside experts to achieve these goals. Many

cooperatives are formed with impetus from an outside catalyst such as a development
agency or an NGO. There is, however, no clear line distinguishing farmer cooperatives,
farmers‟ associations, and NGOs. These groups can be classified both as producers and
as actors that influence and organize urban agriculture, as illustrated by fisheries
cooperatives in India (Case 3.5).
Case 3.5 Sewage-fed fisheries cooperatives in Calcutta

In West Bengal, India, Calcutta has the largest water area in the world devoted to aquaculture using
urban waste. About 145 fisheries based on sewage, ranging from 4 to 80 or more hectares produce
an average yearly yield of 8,000 tons of fish (tilapia, carp, rohu, catla, mrigal) for the local market.
The fish farms are in the wetlands area in East Calcutta.
About 11,000 hectares were used for sewage-fed fisheries, but this area has shrunk over time
to approximately 3,500 hectares. About 150 landlords have long-term leases from the municipality
and the port authority for these properties. Farming is done by some 8,000 workers in 4,000
families, and another 8,000 jobs are generated indirectly. The fishermen rent the ponds from the
landlords, and are organized into several cooperatives.
There is a tradition of strong fishermen cooperatives in the state of Bengal. The cooperatives
are organized for production at the local level. At the district level, central societies or associations
handle purchasing and input supply. The West Bengal State Fishermen‟s Cooperative Federation,
Ltd., a state-level organization, helps manage cooperative societies and arranges input supply and
finance.
This area was a center of brackish-water fish farming in the mid-19th century, with some
sewage flowing into it. Following silting that cut off the tidal flow in the early part of the 20th century,
fish farming came to rely exclusively on sewage flow into ponds in the 1930s as wastewater from
Calcutta was increasingly channeled to this area. Most of the current fishermen migrated from the
Sunderbans region in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) in the 1950s. Farming gradually expanded,
then shrank to its current level.
The 250 ponds produce 3-4 tons of fish per hectare annually (according to 1996 data), and
satisfy up to 10 percent of the city‟s fish demand. The city‟s raw sewage is channeled directly into
the ponds at an appropriate rate for it to be treated through methods developed by the fishermen
over the years. For years, the fish have been found to be as safe or safer for consumption than
river-produced fish.
The area provides multiple benefits — fish for the city; biological treatment of city sewage by
private profit-making and tax-paying organizations; recovery of nutrients that would otherwise
pollute; and wetlands preservation. The fisheries area itself provides open space in a crowded city.
The ponds and dikes are used for boating by local villagers, and the discharge from the wastewater
„treated‟ in the fish ponds is used to irrigate dry-season rice and vegetables. The cooperatives play
a vital role in the effectiveness of this well-integrated system because coordination and control,
which are essential to the system‟s long-term maintenance, would not be achievable by individual
fish farmers.
The sewage fisheries are facing a threat from urban development — a resort hotel is even
being proposed for the area. Further, the productive capacity of some of the ponds is endangered
by siltation and dike erosion, as well as by industrial waste and leachate from the nearby garbage
dump (see Case 7.7). Farmers in the region and environmental groups have united to work for
preservation of farming, fishing, and recreation activities. They won a favorable court ruling,

although enforcement is always a challenge. The farmers and their cooperative have gained the
recognition of national and international environmental groups.
Contacts: Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Christine Furedy, and. Pabitra Giri (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).
Special Groups of Farmers

Although the practice varies from one society to another, it is common for urban farming
to be dominated by minorities or economically disadvantaged populations. For instance,
in Tanzania urban agriculture employs a higher percentage of youth, older workers, and
unskilled labor than other informal industries. Such demographic realities explain in part
the lack of recognition and support for urban agriculture and therefore have important
policy implications. Certain groups of disadvantaged farmers stand out in particular —
women, youth, immigrants, migrants, and those farming in response to crisis.
Women Farmers
The image of the male as the family provider is common in many cultures. However,
household surveys in countries throughout Africa and Latin America find that women are
traditionally and commonly accountable for family food production and preparation.
Because feeding the family is the responsibility of the woman, she is more immediately
conscious of food insecurity and malnutrition as well as food quality, and is typically the
first to seek opportunities to augment the food supply (Case 3.6).
Case 3.6 Women gardeners in Upper Silesia, Poland

Urban allotment agriculture is still going strong well over a century after its introduction in Poland,
surviving since the country began to industrialize. It is particularly rooted in cities such as Katowice,
Gliwice, and Opole in Upper Silesia, the country‟s mining and industrial heartland. Throughout this
history, women had a special, though evolving, role to play.
Workers‟ garden plots date back to the mid-19th century, when serfs were liberated and their
former owners and newer German investors started labor-intensive mining and industrial
operations. Much of the region was in Prussia at the time. Plots were offered as part of the basic
amenities used to attract workers and stabilize them. With the males employed in the mines and
factories, garden plots became a woman‟s domain. These became formalized as allotments at the
end of the century, with the influence of the German Schrebergarten movement (a national
gardeners‟ association was established in 1897). In addition to vegetables, the lots often had
enough space for a cow, some pigs, chickens, rabbits, and birds.
Between the two world wars last century, worker gardeners pressed for an increase in the
numbers of allotments, and many of these became publicly owned. Women continued to dominate
gardening because they were still largely excluded from paid employment, but still had the
responsibility for a family‟s health, nutrition, and food.
In the Communist era when women had the right and were expected to engage in the formal
paid economy, the two genders had an equal amount of time for garden labor. With both parents
employed, and centralized distribution of food inefficient and unreliable, growing some of the family
food, especially fruits and vegetables, became an important back-up activity, if not a necessity. The
role of the garden as a place of leisure also grew.

The transition to a market economy after 1989 greatly changed the country‟s food system, but
did not decrease the importance of the allotment garden in Upper Silesian cities. Now the problem
is to afford the food rather than to find it. In the past decade, women in this region once again
acquired a special role in urban agriculture for two reasons. Women became (and remain) under- or
unemployed at much higher rates than men, and therefor have more time for gardening. The
fungibility aspects of farming became particularly important for them. For similar reasons, the other
group that dominates gardening is retirees.
A second and newer dimension in the relationship between women and urban agriculture has
recently emerged, one that is particular to Upper Silesia — ecology and food safety. This region is
the most polluted in the country, not surprising given its long industrial history. Garden soils tend to
be contaminated with heavy metals, most commonly lead and cadmium. The contamination is
partially explained by the circumstances under which the plots were established — industrialists
provided land close to factories for their workers. The problem of garden contamination has recently
been particularly recognized by women gardeners, generally associated with local chapters of the
Polish Ecological Club. Given the continuing — and perhaps increasing — importance of gardening
to food security, they developed a food testing program, including a campaign to increase the
awareness of both the dangers and alternative practices so that they can maintain gardening as
both a resource and a pleasure.
Contact: Anne Bellows (see Appendix F for complete address).
In some low-income economies, women are not fully integrated into the urban
workforce. Their lack of access and familiarity with formal economies limits their
economic activities. Furthermore, responsibility for managing the household and raising
children imposes additional restrictions on the range of other work women can do.9
Farming has the advantage that it can be undertaken informally, close to or at home.
In countries and cultures where women perform most of the rural farm labor, they are
likely to do most of the urban farming according to most researchers in sub-Saharan
Africa and Latin America (Table 3.2). Surveys in Kenya and other East African countries
show that in three-fifths to two-thirds of households, the primary urban farmers are
women who receive some help in planting and harvesting from their families.10 In a
survey in Lusaka, farming in all the neighborhoods studied turned out to be dominated by
women.11
The Center for Education and Technology (CET) in Chile found that 90 percent of the
urban agriculture producers in their low-income areas were women.12 In a Lima study,
four-fifths of home gardens were found to be farmed by women.13 In Port Moresby,
Papua New Guinea, a 1981 survey found that 67 percent of the principal gardeners were
women.14 In some countries and cultures, however, including Senegal and Argentina, our
field visits and interviews found that the majority of urban farmers are men.
When both husband and wife are otherwise employed, women are more likely than men
to be engaged part time in food production. In Dar es Salaam, some women employed by
the government first supplemented their meager incomes by urban farming, but after a few
years took up urban agriculture full time. As a full-time occupation, their farming income
was on average 5-10 times their salary.15 A recent study of allotment farmers in Great
Britain found the majority of the growers are women.16

In general, it appears that male family members are more likely to be active in cash-
earning activities than in fungible ones. In Bolivia, for example, women are concerned
with food crops and men concentrate on cash crops.17 A similar pattern is found in
Zambia.
Table 3.2 Gender composition of urban farmers in selected cities
Country Gender composition
Asia
India In Calcutta the vast majority of fishermen and fish farmers are
male, while the vast majority of agricultural labor producing
vegetables is women.
Africa In Africa, 64 percent of urban farmers are female.
Kenya In Nairobi, 65 percent of urban farmers are women.
Uganda In Kampala, 67 percent of the urban farmers are older
women.
Zaire In Kisangani, 64 percent of urban farmers are women.
Europe
UK From WW II to the latter 1990s the share of allotment
garden permits held by women moved from 20 percent to
about one-half.
Latin America
Chile Eighty percent of vegetable and poultry producers in cities are
women.
Colombia Sixty-seven percent of the hydrocultivators in the Jerusalem
project in Bogota are women.
Women‟s importance in urban agriculture is not limited to food production. They are
more likely to be engaged in processing and preserving food for the family, neighbors,
and markets. In some cultures, women are the primary marketers of urban agricultural
products. In Africa and Latin America, more women than men are selling food on the
street and in the markets. Gathering wood and manufacturing fuel from urban waste are
also commonly women‟s work and enterprise. On the other hand, collecting and
processing solid waste for soil improvement and livestock fodder is more commonly
done by men and children in urban situations.18
A number of studies have defined the greater difficulties that rural women farmers
face compared to men. Field interviews suggest that a similar bias exists against urban
women, who face greater difficulty than men in attaining access to land, water, credit,
extension services, and essential inputs.

Women face some constraints that arise from the specific urban context. In Eastern
and Central Africa, for example, adult women have traditionally had the right to access
tribal land in and near the village for vegetable production. Favored sites include spaces
previously used as animal compounds and areas between rows and at the edge of
commercial (cash) crop fields that are farmed by men. When the family moves to the
city, women‟s accountability to feed the family continues in the culture, but the
traditional usufruct access to land is lost to formal land titles and ex-colonial land-use
laws.19
Certain aspects of Islamic culture have implications for urban agriculture, especially
some that are based on gender. These help shape the division of labor — who cultivates
what and where. The relationship between gender and spaces is not particular to urban
areas, but rather the proximity of people to each other and the far greater likelihood of
encountering strangers, which means that the role of women in urban agriculture is
greatly affected. The location of gardens is affected, with farms inside the confines of a
plot (particularly an enclosed one) being favored over shared spaces such as community
gardens. Where the latter exist in Islamic precincts, the social interactions within them
tend to differ from those found elsewhere. These considerations are contingent on the
strictness of adherence to Islamic precepts.
Young Farmers
Urban farming is proving highly attractive to youth in cities across the globe. From San
Antonio, USA; Havana, Cuba; and Ibadan, Nigeria; and countless other places, we
receive reports of the enthusiasm and success displayed by urban youth who produce,
process and sell food and ornamentals. Some have family roots as farmers, but for most,
this is their first close encounter with urban nature. In many cases, it appears that a prime
reason for getting involved in agriculture is that it is more attractive than most other
opportunities being presented to them. As can be expected, schools tend to be play a
central role in promoting farming to the young.
The UNDP supported a youth program in Benin, West Africa, which began with
waste management and moved on to urban food production and distribution. The project
collected waste, including organic waste, from city streets and open spaces and carried it
to the edge of town for composting, where the compost was at first sold to urban farmers.
In the second year the youth used the compost to raise their own crops and sell them in
street markets. The third year saw the farm area double and the program further expand.
In New Jersey, Rutgers University has for years successfully run a production and
sales program with college students that produces horticultural products that are marketed
with other fresh food and flowers at eight farmers‟ markets across the state.20 Three
thousand miles away, Case 3.7 tells us about the many years of positive educational and
financial success of an urban agriculture program directed at youth in the low-income
south-central neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. In both these and other American
cases (such as Atlanta Urban Gardening in the state of Georgia), youth gain doubly from
the projects by learning and earning. They leave the project after learning every aspect of
the business, along with the money they earned.

Case 3.7 Food from the hood — Los Angeles, California

After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, some students at Crenshaw High School met to discuss how they
could help their community. They were troubled because there were no grocery stores in the area.
They were driven by a desire to feed themselves better and gain a sense of ownership and
entrepreneurship. With the help of a science teacher, a volunteer business consultant, and a
volunteer corporate executive, they formed Food From the Hood, a for-profit company owned by the
non-profit Food From the Hood Entrepreneurial Training Institute, whose corporate office is located
at Crenshaw High School.
They cultivated an unused site behind the school, harvested their first crop in 1992, and
donated it to Helpers for the Homeless and the Hungry, an area food bank. In 1993, the company
joined the local organic Farmers‟ Market where it sold $300 worth of vegetables. The students then
decided to develop and market their own brand name salad dressing, Straight Out „O the Garden
Creamy Italian Dressing. For advice, they contacted Rebuild LA, a privately-funded public-benefit
corporation, which introduced the company to two local businesses that were willing to help. A few
months later, a leading salad dressing producer also agreed to help. With this assistance, the
company made financial projections, and created a marketing plan and distribution strategy.
In the years that followed, Food From the Hood has become nationally known for its remarkable
success in creating, sustaining, and growing a serious and profitable company that produces and
sells brand-name salad dressings in 27 states. In 1998, the company grossed about US$ 200,000.
Profits from the project have helped fund college scholarships for the student owners. In 1993,
Food From the Hood students awarded their first $600 in college money. By 1997, the 25 students
in the program could expect to earn between $3,000 and $12,000 each in scholarship money by the
time they graduated. The company also helps to provide after-school tutoring, college counseling,
and exam preparation. Although originally established as a company that would provide jobs for
youth, Food From the Hood is now helping to create jobs for adults, and tends to work with
companies located in the deprived areas of Los Angeles.
Although the salad dressings are no longer directly linked to the vegetable garden on the
school property, the garden remains a vital part of the program. It is “where the new recruits build
sweat equity, learn to function as a team and learn all sorts of critical lessons about the work ethic”.
Produce from the garden is now given to a nearby homeless shelter for people with AIDS.
Contact: Food from the Hood (see Appendix F for complete address).
The European Federation of City Farms, formed in 1990, has nine partners that have
run youth and family farm programs for 20 years.21 These youth programs:
establish contact between youth and animals, gardening, and the food system;
make cheese and butter;
prepare meals from food they have produced themselves;
participate in direct marketing, and
participate in youth exchanges.
There is sometimes resistance to agriculture in the city by immigrant youth from rural
areas, but youth born in the city do not usually express such resistance. Urban youth
frequently enter urban agriculture as street hawkers. Others begin as field workers
planting, harvesting, or weeding. Another entry point has been through secondary school
programs. Where such programs have been applied in correctional institutions they have
been particularly constructive in turning wayward youth toward productive careers.

Immigrant and Migrant Farmers

In many cities, groups migrating from other countries or from rural areas within the same
country bring new technologies and crops from their native country or region. Japanese
immigrants are well-known market gardeners in California and southern Brazil. On the
North American east coast and in Argentina, Italians have been important urban
gardeners. In Côte d‟Ivoire, Vietnamese immigrants have far higher yields per hectare
than the native farmers. In Senegal, the most productive farmers are Lebanese; in
Panama, as in much of Asia, it is the Chinese. In Argentina, Brazil, and California, the
Japanese have a strong presence as farmers.
Expatriate participation in urban agriculture is more pronounced in some farming
systems (such as fish, mushrooms, vegetables, and ornamental horticulture) than in others
(livestock, fruit orchards and poultry). Those who migrate from countries with an urban
agriculture tradition are more likely to take up agriculture in their new settings. But as
opportunities present themselves in growing urban food markets, other immigrants will
join them. Cornell University and the Just Food project in New York City have been
recruiting recent immigrants, mostly Hispanics with farming backgrounds, to responsible
suburban jobs with farmers producing for center city farmers‟ markets. 22
Ethnic foods provide a market niche for urban farmers in countries accepting refugees
and immigrants, a burgeoning trend worldwide. Hundreds of vegetable varieties and
small livestock are in demand for regional cuisine in countless cities. Cultivating
expressly for these markets is proving to be a boon for urban farmers from both the host
and other countries.
Differences in the levels, rates, and types of migration into and from cities are often
reflected in the urban agriculture labor force. For example, many urban farmers are fairly
recent migrants in many cities, including Cairo and Istanbul (Case 3.8). In Lebanon, by
contrast, those who operate farms in peri-urban areas are mostly long-standing
agriculturists who use cheaper labor from other countries such as Syria, Egypt, or Sri
Lanka.
Case 3.8 Migrant farmers in Istanbul

Almost all the vegetable needs of Istanbul, one of the first „world cities‟, were at one time met by an
extensive system of neighborhood vegetable gardens known as bostans, complemented by home
gardens. As many as 15-16 square kilometers of bostans supplied the vegetables consumed by a
million people at the height of the Ottoman Empire.
The great expansion in the population of Istanbul in the 20th Century, now exceeding 10 million,
led to a loss of most bostans. While much of this system has now disappeared, a variety of urban
agricultural activities still remain in and around Istanbul. These range from balcony and rooftop
production, to interstitial small plots and household gardens, to farming on communal land, to
nurseries and seed suppliers.
Throughout its history, ethnic groups and migrants have played special roles in Istanbul's
agriculture. During the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks and Armenians were traditionally the master
gardeners. Successive waves of migrants from the Balkans (Bulgarians, then Albanians) gradually
took over the trade late in the Empire. Migrants continued to take over farming the bostans after the
founding of the Turkish Republic, but this time coming from the East.

Today, 9 of 10 bostans are operated and managed by people originating from a single district
(Cide) along the Black Sea. One difference relative to previous migrant urban farmers is that the
bostancis from Cide do not own their land (the largest plots are still held by former Albanians). The
bostans not only supply Istanbul‟s food bazaars, but also provide between one-quarter and one-
third of the produce consumed by the migrant farmers themselves. Most bostan households must
supplement their income with other employment. Still, the demand for bostans by Cide migrants
exceeds the availability of land.
Food production serves migrants to Istanbul in a different way as well. When waves of migrants
from across Anatolia built gecekondus (squatter settlements) from the 1950s into the 1970s, they
built their residences with house gardens in mind, ranging from 30 to 200 square meters, often with
some room for livestock. This enabled some sale of farming surplus (fruits, vegetables, milk), and
generated important savings for the household (the proportion of income spent on food in Istanbul is
among the highest in the world).
Continued growth of migration, combined with granting of land tenure security by the
government starting in the 1970s, has meant that many of the former sites of home gardens now
have buildings on them. Nonetheless, a number of gardens have managed to survive in
gecekondus, and they remain very important to their migrant owners for food and income. Typically,
they provide over one-half the summer fruits and vegetables for the gardening household. There is
a long history of links between migration and agriculture in Istanbul.
Contact: Paul Kaldjian (see Appendix F for complete address).
Immigrant farmers often face problems in gaining access to markets. Moreover, urban
agriculture is perceived in some places as being of „low status‟ because it is practiced by
immigrants.23 Being viewed as an immigrant trade can have cultural and policy
implications for the industry because the stigma sometimes discourages native groups
from participating.
Crisis Farmers
United Nations data suggest that there are about 50 million refugees and internally
displaced persons in the world today, about one-half labeled as so-called „environmental
refugees‟.24 The hardships caused by war, long-lasting civil conflict, division of
countries, and economic blockades have all meant that residents of these areas have had
to achieve greater agricultural self-reliance. Urban areas especially have significantly
transformed their food systems under such circumstances and dramatically expanded
urban agriculture. This expansion is most notable under protracted conditions. In the
Middle East and North Africa alone, a number of current cases of survivors of disasters
(of both natural and human causes) can be identified.
The long history of displaced people engaging in urban agriculture is thus varied.
Whether these refugees were formerly rural or city dwellers, they all had to learn a new
agricultural system in order to survive. In each case, they found, invented, or were
presented with an agriculture model to produce vegetables and small livestock on a small
scale.
Refugee camps, whether formal or informal, generally have urban characteristics.
This is particularly true of the increasingly common camps of long duration, some of
which become semi-permanent. From the day of formation, each camp begins to shape its

own special economy — part subsidy, part trade, and part production. Because the largest
part of such an economy is food, urban agriculture can play a special role.
Clearly to be a farmer under such circumstances is very different from farming under
„normal‟ circumstances — from practices and choices of what and how to cultivate, to
access to resources and access to farmland. However, despite the „specialness‟ of crisis
farming, what may begin as a temporary adjustment to a hardship may have long-term
implications beyond the the conflict. Being a crisis farmer can provide a basis to become
an urban farmer after the crisis has subsided.
The recent trend among refugee organizations is to emphasize a degree of self-
reliance among refugee camp inhabitants, and independence that can encompass
nutritional self-reliance, particularly in micronutrients. Since some of the inputs to
agricultural production will be the camp waste, the burden on the infrastructure of the
surrounding local community can be reduced. The camps can achieve some food self-
reliance if agricultural inputs are provided to the refugees (Case 3.9). The farming
activity is also likely to lead to some social satisfaction and increased community
interaction.
Case 3.9 Liberian refugees in Danane, Côte d'Ivoire

A biointensive vegetable production project for Liberian refugees at the edge of Danane, Côte
d'Ivoire was started by a medical doctor working with the refugees. It was supported by Africare in
February 1994. With the influx of refugees, Danane had grown from 40,000 to 80,000.
Production was from seeds and self-produced seedlings. Shade structures for seedlings were
made from materials found on and near the site, as well as some lumber. Water was drawn from a
well that the refugees dug themselves. Products were distributed directly to the refugees, sold to
Caritas (a Swiss NGO) for distribution to other refugees, and sold in weekly markets.
Africare provided training, seeds, tools, and other inputs. It hired Liberian expert advisors to
help with marketing. The Ivoirian government provided free access to land and the services of
extensionists. The refugees and Ivoirian families provided management and other inputs.
Benefits included improved food security, improved nutrition, economic development, and
positive use of domestic waste without environmental degradation. A survey by UNICEF in 1995
found that the Liberian refugees had a better nutritional status than the local Ivoirian population,
which the Africare project manager, Erin Marshall, attributed to the share of their diet contributed by
fresh vegetables. In 1999 international support was withdrawn. Many refugees in and around
Danane are not returning to Liberia because they are from the region of the hometown of ex-
president Dow.
Contact: R. Montanez (see Appendix F for complete address).
The results of these community and individual enterprises have been reported as very
beneficial. Small intensive plots were farmed at the edge of Palestinian camps in the
Gaza Strip (1960s-1990s) and by Bihari people after the Pakistan civil war in Bangladesh
(1972-1980). In Sarajevo, Bosnia (1992-1996) farming was done in open spaces in the
city and in and on residences. News photos of women and men risking sniper fire to tend
their plots showed both the risk and necessity of this activity.

Crops with a short maturity cycle can be grown even in short-term refugee camps.
Animal husbandry (such as raising day-old chicks into broilers) can be particularly suited
to such situations.
Urban agriculture may have a role to play not only in emergencies where large
population movements take place, but also when a temporary breakdown in food supply
to cities occurs through natural, civic, economic, or wartime disasters. Rural food
production may come to a standstill, the infrastructure may collapse, and distribution may
fail. In addition to taking steps such as recycling and reducing consumption, portions of
the population may temporarily turn to farming to survive the crisis. Such temporary
farming activity was noted recently in Baghdad, Kinshasa, and Bosnian cities.25
Many mayors of disaster-struck cities have responded to economic crises by making
public land available to residents for food production. This practice was particularly
widespread on both sides of the Atlantic during and after World War II. The most recent
such occurrence may have been in Jakarta in 1998. After initially resisting to no avail, the
metropolitan governor made thousands of cultivation sites available to emergency
farmers.
People from all backgrounds become engaged in urban agriculture. In Havana, when
Russian food and agricultural inputs were cut off, one of the prime initiators of the
revolution in agricultural practices was a Chinese-Cuban who remembered his family‟s
vegetable market garden in Havana‟s Chinatown.26
As in most places, crisis farmers are more likely to be women and the aged than
young men, in part because the early stages are a survival strategy. An interesting case is
the community kitchens of Chile and Peru, organized by women to economize on money,
fuel, and time. Shortly after becoming operational as kitchens and eating places, the
organizations began food production on vacant lots and along stream and roadsides.
——————————————————
Although urban farmers represent a significant share of the population in numerous

developing-country cities, they face considerable obstacles and biases. They are pioneers
in an important industry without the benefits accorded most industries by government,
associations, and commercial organizations. Nonetheless, in one place after another,
urban farmers are beginning to be heard and noticed. National policies favoring urban
agriculture are being established, national associations are being formed, surveys are
being conducted, and in a few cities and countries, government departments are
becoming operational.

Notes
1. Diana Lee-Smith and Davinder Lamba. 1991. The Potential of Urban Farming in
Africa. Ecodecision, Dec, p. 39.
2. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. 1990. Family Food Production Program
for Negros: IIRR Annual Report. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: IIRR.
3. See ECHO Development Notes, Issue 40 (and other issues), published by Educational
Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO), North Fort Myers, FL 33916-2239 USA.
4. Christine Furedy and Dhrubajyoti Ghosh. 1983. Ecological Traditions and the Creative
Use of Urban Wastes: Lessons from Calcutta. Presented at Ecological Aspects of
Solid Waste Disposal, Hong Kong, 18-22 Dec.
5. Bishwapriya Sanyal. 1985. Urban Agriculture: Who Cultivates and Why: A Case
Study of Lusaka, Zambia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7:15-24.
6. Carole Rakodi. 1988. Urban Agriculture: Research Questions and Zambian Evidence.
The Journal of Modern African Studies 26(3):495-515.
7. Carole Rakodi. 1985. Self-reliance or Survival: Food Production in African Cities,
with Particular Reference to Zambia. African Urban Studies 21:53-63.
8. Z.S.K. Mvena, I.J. Lupanga, and M.R.S. Mlozi. 1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania:
A Study of Six Towns. Draft.
9. Rakodi, 1988, op. cit., p. 496.
10. This was a finding of several surveys, including those by the Mazingira Institute
(Kenya) and Sokoine University (Tanzania).
11. A.W. Drescher. 1996. Management Strategies in African Home Gardens and the
Need for New Extension Approaches. Pages 231-246 in Food Security and
Innovations — Successes and Lessons Learned (F. Heidhues and A. Fadani, eds.).
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
12. Andres Dasso, REDE, Lima, Peru, personal communication, 1993.
13. Vera Niñez. 1985. Working at Half-Potential: Constructive Analysis of Home Garden
Programmes in the Lima Slums with Suggestions for an Alternative Approach. Food
and Nutrition Bulletin 7, p. 9.
14. D.E. Vasey 1981. Functions of Food Gardens in the National Capital District. Port
Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea, p. 41.
15. Malongo R.S. Mlozi. 1992. Urban Women and Agricultural Extension: The Case of
Tanzania. Pages 174-175 in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Adult Education
Research Conference (Adrian Blunt, ed.). Saskatoon, Canada: University of
Saskatchewan, AERC.
16. David Crouch and Colin Ward. 1988. The Allotment: Landscape and Culture. London
and Boston: Faber and Faber.

17. Julio Prudencio Böhrt, personal communication, May 1993.

18. J. Moreno. 1993. African Development Bank loan to Addis Ababa. Presented at
Arroya Instituto de Promocion de la Economica Social (IPES ), Lima, Peru, at a
USAID-sponsored workshop on the Habitat II conference, Arlington, Va., 11 April
1995.
19. G. Thomas-Lycklama a Nijeholt. 1980. Women‟s Access to Land. Pages 75-82 in The
Household, Women, and Agriculture (C. Presvelou and S. Spijkeers-Zwart, eds.).
Misc. Paper No. 17. The Netherlands: H. Veenman & Zonen B.V.
20. Mike Hamm, Rutgers University, USA, personal communication, 1998.
21. European Federation of City Farmers, report on Youth Programs, posted in 1999 on
www.cityfarmer.org.
22. John Ameroso. 2001. Farming Alternatives. (a Cornell University newsletter.) July.
23. Manshard, Walther. n.d. Market Gardens in West African Urban Communities.
Freiburg, Germany: Institut für Kulturgeographie der Universität, p. 7.
24. IDRC. 1998. Annual Report. Ottawa, Ontario: IDRC.
25. Roger Thurow. 1994. Amid Destruction, Sarajevo Blooms as a Garden Spot. Wall
Street Journal, 14 July; Kinshasa: The garden spot of Africa. 1992. Telegram from
the U.S. Embassy, Kinshasa, Zaire to the Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., 10
April.
26. Field interview, Cuba, 1999.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 4
Where Is Farming Found in the City?
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
4
A close look at most cities reveals that urban agriculture is everywhere. It is so much a
part of the landscape that it often escapes notice:
fruit trees along streets,
a backyard vegetable garden,
trees for fuel and construction wood in peri-urban areas,
vegetables grown on slopes in low-density areas,
fish ponds,
a chicken farm inside an industrial district, or
a greenhouse behind a petrol station.
The widespread perception, however, is that cities are solid with buildings, with no
area to spare. Agriculture and urbanization are viewed as conflicting activities, and any
non-built land use is seen as temporary. The World Bank, for example, in an otherwise
perceptive analysis, labeled the considerable open space in greater Moscow as „vacant‟.1
Yet most of this land is in fact agricultural and helped Moscow‟s population sustain itself
as the Russian food system collapsed during the last decade.
In most cities in developing countries, considerable vacant and underutilized land and
water surfaces in the urbanized sphere are or can be used for agricultural production
(Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Furthermore, the agricultural use of areas at the edge of cities is not
a marginal use, but rather is an integral part of an expanding productive system that
exploits urban markets. As the city grows, agriculture can grow with it, even as the
periphery extends and housing and commerce take over farm sites.
Historically, towns were established at a particular place for a variety of reasons,
perhaps a strategic crossroads or sheltered harbor. No matter what the reason, the site
typically had to be accompanied by adjacent surfaces that were sufficiently fertile to feed
the settlement‟s population.
The towns that survived, flourished, and grew to be the metropolises of today were
often situated in the most fertile parts of a country or region, especially those that grew as
„market towns‟. It is no coincidence that capitals such as Bogotá and Cairo are located in
the midst of productive plains. The most fertile lands are often the easiest places to
extend infrastructure, and therefore the most suitable for urbanization.
Urban places have been the centers of a great deal of agricultural innovation, often
within specific urban settings. Two former swamp areas — the chinampas of pre-
Columbian Mexico (Case 4.9) and the marais of 19th-century Paris (see Case 2.2) — are
Chapter 4 Second Revison — 13 Nov 2001 Page 1

equally significant for biointensive agriculture. Other methods include mushrooms in

sheds, zero-grazing in enclosures, hydroponics in greenhouses, and aquaculture in tanks.
The locations of food production and urbanization are intimately connected and
should be evaluated jointly. In addition to the diverse types of characteristically urban
sites described in this chapter, there are „quasi-urban‟ sites where variations on the
principles of urban agriculture apply. For example, if refugee camps are viewed as
temporary cities, certain types of cultivation and husbandry are appropriate and help
reduce dependence on assistance programs, as well as provide a worthwhile
socioeconomic activity. Recent history includes Kurdish camps of a few weeks‟ duration
in Turkey to Palestinian camps stretching over two generations.
Table 4.1 Percentage of urban land used for agricultural purposes in selected cities
during the 1980s and 1990s
Country Percentage of land used for agriculture
Africa
Mozambique In Beria, 88 percent of the ‘green spaces’ in the city are used for
family agriculture
Nigeria In Zaria, 66 percent of city area is cultivated
Asia
China In Beijing, 28 percent of the city is in agriculture
Fiji In Suva, it is estimated that 50 percent of the open land on the
peninsula is under cultivation
Hong Kong Ten percent of the land is in agriculture, which produces 45 percent of
the fresh vegetables, 15 percent of the pigs, and 68 percent of the live
chickens consumed by its population. Vegetable growing and fish
ponds occupied 31.1 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively, of all
agricultural land use in Hong Kong.
Papua New Guinea In the National Capital District, about 80 percent of all households
take part in some food production with a mean area of 372 square
meters.
Thailand In Bangkok, 60 percent of land in the metropolitan area is in
agriculture.
Europe
Spain In Madrid, 60 percent of the metropolitan area is in agriculture.
Americas
Costa Rica In San Juan, 60 percent of the metropolitan area is in agriculture.
Toronto Over 40 percent of metropolitan Toronto is being actively farmed.

Table 4.2 Types of land used for urban agriculture in selected cities
Country Type of land
Africa
Kenya Less than one-quarter of farmers surveyed in Nairobi use their own or their
family’s land. The lots are cultivated for an average of 7.2 years.
Of the farm land studied in Nairobi, 41 percent was owned by the households, 22
percent by the municipality, 20 percent by the government, 7 percent by private
firms, and 11 percent by other entities. Households obtained access to this land
through purchasing (21 percent); gifts (59 percent); renting (4 percent); or other
means (16 percent).
General Nearly 60 percent of all urban farmers do not own the land on which they farm,
and over 40 percent use public lands.
Americas In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Los Angeles, California, thousands of acres under
electric power lines are contracted to farmers.
Asia
Fiji In Suva, 20 percent of home gardeners plant along road frontages, and another
20 percent grow crops on unused open land.
Europe Zurich, Switzerland and Copenhagen, Denmark, among many others, lease
municipal land, parks, and land for future expansion to farmers.
Urban agriculture includes many farming systems with widely different demands for
urban space. Horticulture without soil and small-livestock production are compatible with
neighborhoods that are entirely built up and paved. Orchards and agroforestry require
relatively large parcels of land with a long-term lease or permanent ownership. Thus,
although the simple answer to this chapter‟s title query is „everywhere‟, the more
complete answer is that there is an appropriate place for many different kinds of farming
systems somewhere in between the city center and the rural-urban fringe (see also Table
5.1).
In answering the question of where in the urban region farming occurs, this chapter
addresses four issues:
What types of physical space are used?
How long are the growing surfaces available?
Where within the metropolitan area are the growing surfaces located?
Under what form of tenure are the land or water surfaces held?
Classification schemes set up in response to these questions are neither comprehensive
nor mutually exclusive because categories overlap. Nevertheless, they provide a useful
framework to examine the many different locations for urban agriculture.

Types of Spaces Used

Urban agriculture takes place in many different places, including spaces on and around
buildings, community lands and parks, areas allocated to other uses such as road sides
and other rights-of-way, and areas not suitable for building, such as floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes, airport buffers, and bodies of water.
Around the House

The best known place to grow food within an urban area is the yard around a house.
While the backyard is the most significant yard for food production, side yards and front
yards are also exploitable. The front yard, however, presents some particular concerns —
it is more accessible and therefore more exposed to theft and vandalism, and the crops are
more easily contaminated by lead from vehicle exhausts.
In Haiti, the German technique of shallow-bed farming was introduced by a Florida-
based organization, Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization. Many low-income
farmers now produce vegetables in shallow beds (1-2 inches of organic waste) in yards
with no soil and on rooftops (see Case 5.2). Another project focusing on household
gardens was organized by CARE and Haiti Gardens (Case 4.1).
Many urban residents, especially in larger cities, do not have yard space but do have
other household surfaces where food can be grown. The potential to use rooftops, patios,
or balconies to grow vegetables and raise microlivestock for consumption and sale is
significant.
Vertical space can be used effectively to grow food. Walls can hold cages for poultry
and livestock as well as vines. Recent hydroponic techniques minimize space needs with
plastic tubes that can be suspended on brick walls. Some city farmers attach long, narrow
planters or boxes to their walls. Others hang plastic pots or halves of plastic soda bottles.
Plants such as cucumber and melon can grow up a wall or fence if supported with sticks
or twine.
Residences have the potential to be three-dimensional places of agricultural
production. Field visits to some homes provide an eye-opening experience in how
resourcefully home surfaces, even in apartments, can be used. The range of what is
grown in and around homes goes beyond just vegetables and fruit trees. Medicinal herbs
are grown on rooftops in Santiago, silkworms on balconies in Old Delhi, pigeons in
downtown Cairo, rabbits in Mexico City shanties, and orchids inside rooms in Bangkok.
The organization SUSTAIN in London (Case 4.2) has a popular program called Edible
Building, which promotes food production in three dimensions of a building — on the
inside, walls, and roof.
In the early 1990s, COCODER, the agriculture department of Mexico‟s capital
district, helped promote cactus farming as a low-cost fresh crop among urban households
that do not have access to yard space. As a result, cactus is now grown in boxes and pots
on rooftops and patios, with the department providing marketing assistance.2

Case 4.1 CARE/Haiti Gardens project in Port-au-Prince

In 1993, CARE-Haiti began studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Port-au-Prince. Based on
the studies, a pilot program in urban horticulture was established in late 1996 in two bidonvilles of
the city, in partnership with Haiti Gardens/ODEJHA, a local organization that has been promoting
gardening in Haiti since 1986.
Initially, demonstration gardens — mostly on rooftops — were established with 14 participants.
Interest grew rapidly, with a number of organizations and individuals from across Haiti inquiring how
to get involved in urban agriculture. By mid-1999, about 200 gardens had been established in nine
slum areas of Port-au-Prince and two in Gonaives.
Four extension trainers were hired to teach participants different forms of home gardening,
including rooftop and container gardening. Building on the initial emphasis on home gardens, the
program broadened its interest to also cover school and community gardens. The training takes
place through a series of groups with shared characteristics. In May 1999, there were 26 active
groups with close to 20 participants in each group. Plans are under way to increase the number of
participants and expand the geographic scope.
Contact: Mildred Regis and Miradieu and Dieula Estinvil (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).
One analyst has identified four advantages that household gardens have over other
food production sites in urban areas. First, tenure of the land around a house is generally
more secure relative to other locations. Second, proximity to the home saves time and
effort — there is no „commuting cost‟ to gardening. Third, water is more available for
irrigation than, say, along roadsides. Finally, the homegrown crop is normally less prone
to theft.3
What home gardens can contribute, however, is not limitless. Many homes are
overcrowded and have little or no surplus space available. Even though the space in each
home may be limited, many home sites exist without any home garden. In particular, the
poorest households are least likely to have access to a home garden, so the household
garden is often located away from the home. The full potential of home gardens remains
to be exploited throughout the world.
Community Spaces
After the home, community gardens are the most common site for urban food production.
A community garden is a condominium or cooperative, in which shareholders or
participants each cultivate their own plots and share responsibility for common garden
elements such as pathways, fences, water supply, storage, and security. Community
gardens are particularly common in cultures where a long tradition of urban multicrop
gardening exists.4 Berlin has more than 80,000 community gardeners on more than 2,000
sites.5
Community gardens and allotment gardens have institutional, locational, and social
characteristics. They are often supported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
local government. Some become a social center for their community. This was made
clear by surveys prepared for the official development plan for Seattle, Washington,

which found that community gardens were the most efficient infrastructure to bring the
community together. 6 In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, most gardens are first and
foremost a center of production. Some are concerned more with the quality of production,
others with the quantity. The ideal (though often not the reality) is to have the garden near
the center of the community. Although many of these gardens are short-lived, some
continue for generations (Case 4.2)
(photo 7.12 shows one dating to the First World War, in Zschortau, Germany).
Case 4.2 British allotment gardens

During the week of April 10, 2000, the British House of Commons heard arguments for both
expanding and maintaining the status quo of allotment gardens in England, Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland. Around 200,000 individual allotments have been eliminated during the last 25
years. At the same time, 13,000 applicants are on waiting lists. There are approximately 300,000
plots at 8,000 locations. This deterioration is in contrast to an increase in allotments in several other
countries, including France and the USA. (The environment ministry in France issued a decree
establishing a new policy and government subsidies for allotments in 1979.)
British allotment gardening may have had its early roots in ‘town commons’. Newcastle-on-Tyne
traces its commons back to the 13th century. It was let annually for grazing cows and cultivation,
which was formalized by the Parliament in 1772. Nottingham traces its allotment to 1605 wherein a
site was divided into 30 plots. In 1842, this site was redivided into 400 plots rented for about 1
pound per year, typically to factory workers. In Birmingham as early as 1731, the allotments were
known as ‘small gardens’ and ‘guinea gardens’.
The Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908 consolidated all previous legislation obliging
local authorities (urban and rural) to provide allotments for the ‘laboring population’. World War I
had a large impact on the allotment program, increasing the holdings from between 450,000 and
600,000 in 1913 to between 1,300,000 and 1,500,000 by the end of 1916, one for every five
households. This wartime expansion took allotment farming beyond the working class. Estimates at
the time of World War II indicate a similar level of allotments for a larger population, about
1,500,000 for a larger population.
In more recent years, allotment participation increased during the 1970s, then dropped off
during the 1980s and early 1990s. In the late 1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest and
applications. The current surge is fueled by an interest in good and safe food and community
development. The decentralization of governmental authority has engendered support by some
local authorities, particularly in Wales, to support locally-based food security and small-scale
enterprise.
A portion of the impetus is to follow the lead of the United States in community gardening and
farmers’ markets. American entrepreneurs are helping their British cousins to organize and operate
farmers’ markets. Possibly the first British ‘community garden’ was established in 1987 as the
Culpeper Community Garden in Islington in the heart of London. Urban farmers are petitioning their
local councils to permit them to sell produce from their allotments, which is historically not allowed.
Perhaps with the new parliamentary interest, the national government will once again, as in 1908,
empower local authorities to establish new allotments.
Contact: James Petts (see Appendix F for complete address).

Community lands are usually owned by the government, public agencies, or social
institutions such as schools and churches. Those used for farming may include land
unsuitable for building, land awaiting future development, recreation areas, parks, and
lots left vacant after building demolition. They may be as small as 20 square meters or as
large as 20 hectares.
The farming systems of community gardens are usually mixed or multicropping
horticulture, but there are no inherent limits except those of space. Community gardens in
larger cities frequently help the individual farmer with access to water, security,
technology, inputs, insurance, and most importantly, access to land. Many NGOs and
municipalities charge a fee for services.
There is a significant amount of data on community- and household-garden farming
systems, including from several FAO projects (beginning in the 1950s) and AVRDC
projects (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre) during the past 40 years.
Some data show that community gardeners eat more vegetables and that their families are
healthier. The plot holder in a community garden can often raise one-tenth to one-third of
his or her family‟s annual vegetable consumption.
Schools may have community gardens — their aims include improving the nutritional
status of school children and instilling in them the techniques and habits of growing what
they eat. In some cultures, elementary school gardens have been particularly effective in
introducing urban farming to students‟ families. In Africa, some school gardens also raise
money for the school. Hospitals and churches have gardens for similar purposes.
In some countries, including Peru, Brazil, Senegal, and Indonesia, there is a new
tradition of women‟s community gardens. With an inherent link to gender, some special
community gardens are extensions of communal kitchens — part of what is cooked and
served to the members is what they have grown.7 (Case 7.2 describes community
kitchens in Peru.)
Community gardens have a long tradition in Europe and North America. They
reached a peak during World War II with the famous „victory gardens‟ (Photo 3.8). They
declined after the war but have enjoyed a resurgence in developed countries since the
1970s, generating newsletters, associations, technical support, and recognition by
municipalities.8
The socioeconomic changes of the late 1980s to early 1990s in central and eastern
Europe have stimulated community gardens and attracted technical input from Western
Europe and North America. The U.S. Agency for International Development has actively
promoted community gardens in the region since early 1992.
Some planned neighborhoods have community gardens designated in the initial
layout. In most squatter settlements, community gardens emerge more haphazardly along
with houses. Community gardens are sometimes promoted by government, as in
Mozambique and Cuba after independence and at the end of the cold war. Because
community gardens may be located on land slated for later development, they sometimes
have to move, disrupting the lives of the families that depend on them.

Surplus or Reserve Public and Private Spaces

Large tracts of public or quasi-public land that are reserved for landscaping or urban
extension purposes can provide significant space for urban agriculture. Examples include
universities, schools, factories, churches, ports, airports, hospitals, prisons, military bases,
parks, and recreation areas. Putting this land into agriculture provides additional rents for
the establishment as well as maintenance for the land. The rewards to both farmers and
consumers can be significant, as was shown in Accra (Case 4.3).
Case 4.3 From urban wasteland to urban market gardens in Accra, Ghana
The Vegetable Growers Association of Accra (VGAA) represents an estimated 400 gardeners, most
of whom are migrants from northern Ghana and Burkina Faso. Since the association’s formation in
the late 1970s, market gardening has become a legitimate practice with increasing support from city
officials. Urban Market Gardens, a project of the VGAA, provides the city with vegetables and
supplements the income of low-income workers. The VGAA helps them transform urban wasteland
into vegetable plots that are watered with wastewater that the gardeners have filtered themselves. It
is an innovative activity to earn formal and informal income, which simultaneously improves the
urban environment by upgrading previously unattended land and adjacent drainage canals.
Gardens are cultivated on small, inaccessible, unserviced, and vacant areas, averaging 200-
400 square meters. As a way to avoid maintenance responsibilities, property owners allow rent-free
use by gardeners, often without a written agreement. Gardens have also been set up on
government properties.
For irrigation and other reasons, market gardeners attempt to find plots that are located
adjacent to culverts, canals, and storm water channels. In order to use wastewater, they construct
filtration gates. Gardeners also rake the waste stream to gather organic material to be composted
for fertilizer. In addition, they gather discarded materials to use as farming tools and fencing
material.
No storage is necessary because the produce is sold directly at the farm. Clients include
expatriates and other high-income residents, but the bulk of the produce is sold as entire beds
rather than individual units to women who sell at the city markets. Relationships have developed not
only with a regular clientele, but also with formal institutions. Farmers have savings accounts at the
Agricultural Development Bank, and purchase seeds at shops established by the Ministry of
Agriculture throughout the city. The Ministry of Health, instead of prohibiting gardening, now works
with the gardeners to constantly improve their practices and reduce contamination.
Through vegetable production on marginal strips of land, gardeners in the metropolitan area are
now able to provide Accra with about 90 percent of its vegetables. The average daily income of
gardeners is up to three times higher than the average daily wages in the formal economy. The
Urban Market Gardens have provided greater economic opportunities for market women and
expanded this previously small sector of Accra’s economy. They also have had significant positive
effects on the city’s drainage and wastewater system (at their own expense), and have put to
productive use a considerable amount of marginal lands.
Contact: See source listed in Appendix C.

Public entities that have leases for urban agriculture include an airport in Cameroon,
the University of Manila, hospitals in Lima, a racetrack in Jakarta, the Presidio military
base in San Francisco, and the palace grounds in Bangkok. A golf course in Kampala
ignored the presence of squatter farmers on land around the course. The golf course
received the benefit of free maintenance because farmers kept it weeded and also
controlled weeds around their plots, and therefore did not interfere with the golf.9
Similarly, vacant land held by large private corporations for speculation, later
expansion, or landscaping purposes can also be farmed. Such land can be found, for
example, at manufacturing complexes in industrial zones. It can be rented out, producing
an income for the owner, or made available for employees to cultivate. In Durgapur, a
large planned industrial city in West Bengal, India, the plant managers leased land to the
workers‟ union for farming and provided access to a water reservoir used to cool the
steel. Workers could thus supplement food and income by gardening at the job site
without spending extra time and effort to reach a distant field.10
Another case is the petrochemical complex COPEC, located near Camaçari in the
state of Bahia, Brazil. One of the largest complexes in Latin America at more than 8,000
hectares, hundreds of hectares lie fallow as green belt or reserve for the future. The
PRONATURA project was designed to put this vast wasteland into agricultural
production.
Its objectives included generating jobs for some of the unskilled workers who subsist
on the periphery of the complex without being employed there; providing land and water
to employees and their families to enhance their income, nutrition, and access to fuel;
putting the idle, state-owned lands to productive use while discouraging their invasion by
squatters; and converting some of the industry‟s own treated waste into inputs for energy
and food production. The project foresaw multiple uses of the land — controlled
exploitation of the forests; beekeeping; fish and frog breeding upstream of the complex;
orchards upwind from it; raising some root crops (manioc and sweet potatoes) as raw
materials for a micro-distillery; and production of certain vegetables based on their
sensitivity to pollutants.11
Industrial and Brownfield Areas

Agriculture can have a place in industrial areas beyond temporary use of surplus or
abandoned lands. Special types of industrial areas may be established, or at least
accommodate, certain agricultural uses. Inactive industrial buildings may be adapted to
such indoor crops as mushrooms. In Chicago, a sprout-growing business has been
operating successfully for a dozen years inside an ordinary industrial building, employing
a full-time staff of eight.12 (Photo 4.?).
New photo 4.?: The inside of ?The Indoor Garden?, a hydroponic sprout plant in
Chicago, IL, USA.

Singapore has taken the recognition of agriculture as an industrial-type activity to

another level. It has set up six „agrotechnology parks‟, run by the government‟s
Department of Primary Production. They are organized on the model of classic industrial
parks, but instead of widgets and microchips, the parks contain fish farms, hydroponic
and aeroponic farms, poultry farms, and even a crocodile farm (figure 4.?).
New figure 4.?: Layout of Sungei Tengah Agrotechnology Park, Singapore.
Areas that have degenerated and are abandoned can also be used for farming, for
example, deserted sections of neighborhoods and run-down factory buildings. Such areas
are usually farmed illegally or informally. In many countries, legal procedures may not
exist for land agreements that can provide secure tenure to the farmer and security against
squatting for the landowner. A focused effort to use such space has the potential for
enormous benefits, as demonstrated by Buffalo‟s Village Farms (Case 4.4).
Case 4.4 From steel plant to hydroponic farm — Village Farms in an old industrial area of
Buffalo, New York, USA
The mission of the Buffalo Economic Development Renaissance Corporation (BERC) is to bring
business and industry back to the inner city of this aging American factory town at the confluence of
Lake Erie and the Niagara River. BERC spearheads business retention or development projects
which otherwise would not happen. One of its major successes is Village Farms, a large-scale
greenhouse facility that produces hydroponic tomatoes for sale to local food stores and smaller
grocery owners.
The project’s success is multi-faceted. The city invested almost nothing, yet receives rent from
the site (which is still owned by the city). The former steel factory is surrounded by vacant lots on all
sides, and was reclaimed by federal grants of US$ 850,000, given its ‘brownfield’ status. Village
Farms received a bank loan (with backing from the city), and its owners have an option to buy the
land in 15 years, with all their rent payments counting toward the final sale price. Even if the
business does not last, the city would have a reclaimed and improved site.
From the company’s perspective, the venture is profitable because it leased a reclaimed, cost-
free site in the heart of the inner city that was partly funded through a bank loan arranged by BERC.
Given the location, they also receive a number of special advantages to encourage such
enterprises in inner city areas — reduced gas and electric rates and numerous tax benefits
(investment tax credits, property tax abatement, capital tax credit, employee tax credit, and sales
tax refund).
Greenhouses cover half of the 35-acre site. The rest of the land includes over 50,000 square
feet of packing and support facilities. The ‘factory’ contains 175,000 plants, yielding about 8 million
pounds of tomatoes annually. A state-of-the-art computer system controls ventilation, shading,
heating, fertilization, water flow, carbon dioxide levels, recirculation, and pasteurization of the
nutrient feed. Nutrients are fed to the plants in pipettes that are networked with computers that
monitor the volume and strength of the nutrients. Workers carry pagers connected to the computers
that beep whenever the nutrient level is too low or too high.

The plant has about 100 full-time employees. Pickers and packers (one-fifth of the workforce)
come from nearby neighborhoods, the rest commute from elsewhere in the Buffalo metropolitan
area. Some of the growers hired by Village Farms had been growing tomatoes on their own in the
Buffalo area, but have opted to join the plant as growers, which they found more profitable.
Although the site has been reclaimed, the entire greenhouse floor is covered with plastic sheets
to ensure the quality of the product. Parallel pipes on the floor heat the greenhouses, and also
serve as tracks for the trolleys used carry the harvest. Blocks of special rock materials on the
ground are the growing medium for the tomato plants, which are supported with string tied to
overhanging heating pipes. The tomato seedlings are grown from seed and supplied yearly by the
parent company, Eco Science Corporation. For pollination and pest control, honeybees and
beneficial insects are used to keep the use of pesticides in check.
This enterprise has received national acclaim as a model for the redevelopment of urban
vacant land. It was featured, for instance, in an exhibition on this subject at the National Building
Museum in 2000.
Contact: Stuart Levy (see Appendix F for complete address).
Sheffield, Pittsburgh, Duisburg, and hundreds of other Industrial Revolution

boomtowns now have thousands of vacant or derelict industrial, commercial, or
residential sites. In a number of large American cities in particular, there are thousands of
such lots in the city and the adjacent counties. Despite a recent revival in a number of
these sites, considering the record of the past 50 years, these areas will require several
decades to come back to life with new buildings. In many such cities, urban agriculture
has appeared as an interim use. „Plant First, Build Later‟ was a popular slogan as
Germans reconstructed bombed out cities after World War II, and may be equally
applicable today in many cities.
Producing food on the site of a former furniture factory or tannery or gas station
requires careful planning and technology. The basic tool is phytoremediation — growing
vegetation that removes toxic substances from the soil before planting food crops. Deep-
rooted fescue grasses or fast-growing deciduous trees or shrubs may be cropped for a
season or two until soil tests show that it is safe to grow vegetables or fruit. This
sequence may require a government subsidy to the small-scale producer.
In some cases, one of the most appropriate production methods is agroforestry —
trees cleanse the soil, yet saleable products such as wood or ornamentals are generated.
Another alternative to phytoremediation is to bypass any direct contact with the
contaminated soil by plants and animals. The most common form of brownfield urban
farming may be to place clean soil on sheets of plastic, whether in the open air or in
greenhouses (photo 4.?). Such an approach eliminates any waiting period to cleanse the
soil. This approach can be found from the poorest to the richest countries.
In the year 2000, we are remediating or otherwise planting on old manufacturing and
row house sites. Twenty-five years from now, the locus of brownfield urban agriculture
may be former shopping malls and high-tech campuses.

Roadsides and Other Rights-of-Way

Roadsides and other rights-of-way are a special case of farming on public lands. Because
such land is distributed in long, narrow plots throughout the urban area, farming in rights-
of-way is usually on a wider scale than on other idle public lands. It can extend far
outside the metropolitan area and still be part of its food-shed. The location along a road
makes it easier to move fertilizer, water, and other supplies to the garden, which can be
intercropped or monocropped. Roadside farmers can often sell their crops where they are
grown.
Other rights-of-way include railroad tracks, electric transmission lines, natural gas
pipelines, and other utility lines. The land is typically owned by a government or public
or quasi-public agency. In Bombay, vegetables are grown along the entire length of the
metropolitan rail system. In Rio de Janeiro and Los Angeles, the power company leases
land under transmission lines for farming, providing the company with free land
maintenance and rental income. In Europe, right-of-way farming can be found along
19th-century railroads and canals.
Right-of-way agriculture (especially horticulture and grazing) is increasing on all
continents. It plays a particularly crucial role for lower-income farmers who do not have
space to farm where they live (Case 4.5).
Case 4.5 Growing vegetables along roadsides in Dar es Salaam

In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, vegetables can be seen growing along roadsides where strips of land
are vacant. Roadside strips in the city are fairly wide and are kept vacant for future road expansion.
A low-income entrepreneurial farmer practices intensive, raised-bed monocropping of spinach
on a 1-acre stretch along the roadside, in partnership with four or five other farmers. The land was
not officially allotted to them. The farmer plants seed once a week and harvests spinach daily for
sale at the local market. He transports water by hand from a municipal standpipe and pays for the
water on an informal basis. Composting and chicken manure are used to fertilize the soil. The
farming is efficient and productivity is high.
Contacts: Camillus Sawio and L. Keith Lilley (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Right-of-way agriculture has several unique problems. Because it is principally rain-

fed, farming is often seasonal, and conflicts can occur between farming and traffic.
Because crops can be stolen, farmers tend to grow low-value crops. They do little to
improve the soil because they generally lack secure land title. Passing traffic poses the
risk of lead pollution for certain crops. However, the double advantages of ease of access
and ease of marketing offered by roadside farming often overcome its drawbacks.
Typically, this kind of agriculture is not supported by either research or extension
services, but solutions exist for many of its problems. Irrigation can be provided from
streams and wastewater sources that follow utility or highway rights-of-way. Conflicts
with traffic can be resolved through negotiation and restrictions on hours of farming.
Theft can be reduced through a cooperative arrangement between farmers and public and

private agencies. When high-value crops are grown, a night guard is sometimes
maintained.
Increased yields through better soil management and better selection of crops require
tenure security for the farmer through usufruct lease agreements negotiated with
government, NGOs, or farmer associations. Official rent agreements would bring some
income to the city and tenure security to the farmers, thus increasing their efficiency.
Careful selection of crops that are not susceptible to absorbing or adsorbing lead helps to
increase safety.
In some countries, particularly in Africa, horticultural road shoulders have been
observed extending radially for 20 miles outside major cities and five miles outside
smaller towns. In other countries, roadside farming is intermittent. It is predominantly a
low-income farming activity. Although most commonly practiced by small-scale
individual entrepreneurs, highway authorities and utilities sometimes lease blocks of
property to community farmer associations.
The policy of municipal governments toward right-of-way agriculture ranges from
banning, to condoning, supporting, or leasing such land to farmers. In the planned low-
income town of San Salvador in Peru where some streets are very wide, half the roadway
is used to grow fruit, vegetables, and flowers. In Jakarta, farmers rent the space
underneath and beside elevated toll roads. São Paulo has incorporated right-of-way
farming into its long-term master plan. In Nairobi, most roads connecting the city center
and its periphery have crops along their edges.
Because of its long-term nature, roadside arboriculture could not exist without
government sanction. A few cities actually encourage the use of roadsides for fruit trees
— examples include cities in China, India, Morocco, Argentina, and Chile. In Senegal,
roadside trees and shrubs produce medicines, basket materials, and fuel. In wet tropical
climates such as West Bengal, it is common to produce both a fruit crop and a grain crop
on the roadside.
Streamsides and Floodplains

There are usually no buildings along streamsides and floodplains within cities because of
hazards from storm water. These areas have some of the most fertile soils available as
well as proximity to water, so they are well suited to farming.
Streamside agriculture, including creeks, rivers, and canals, differs from roadside
agriculture in that it is irrigated, less subject to air pollution (although water pollution can
be a concern), and less subject to theft. For these reasons, streamside horticulture usually
has higher-value crops and farmers make a larger investment in soil preparation and
terracing. Some of the outstanding examples of streamside horticulture include Baghdad,
which farms the ancient floodplain with manual irrigation; Bangkok, which farms the
banks of the klongs from boats and markets on the river; and Bamako along the Niger
River (Case 4.6).

Case 4.6 Cultivation on the floodplain of the Niger River in Bamako

Bamako, the capital of Mali, is located on both sides of the Niger River. It has a large number of
agricultural areas within its urbanized areas. One particularly significant area is the floodplain of the
Niger (Fig. 4.1). In 1987, more than 1,000 hectares of floodplain were available for cultivation. With
irrigation from the river and fertilizer from organic urban and local wastes, a complex combination of
farming systems has developed in these areas.
Kalabancoro is a peri-urban village located on this plain, upstream along the Niger River just
south of Bamako. Land use in Kalabancoro depends on its proximity to the river and the way it is
held. Most interesting is village land located directly along the Niger, where use and users change
between the rainy and dry seasons. During the rainy season, rice is harvested by women from the
landowning families, taking advantage of the very wet conditions. During the dry season, the
owners transform one portion of the land into a vegetable garden. The rest is open to the
community for gardening after the customary request for approval from the owners.
The land is at the center of the local food production system. Surplus vegetables are sold at the
market. The value of parcels located in the lowlands is much higher because of the wet-dry
cultivation. Rice cultivation is conducted exclusively by older women, giving the riverside plots a
unique gender role.
With the expansion of the Bamako urbanized area, conflicts over land in the area are
increasing. However, most new housing construction is on the Kalaban plateau, away from the
river. Cultivation in the fala (riverbank fields) continues, partly because of the land value and partly
because, unlike ordinary fields, these fields cannot be sold freely. The fields are in ‘bounded
ownership’, which means that the owners’ property rights are acknowledged and respected by the
entire community to the extent that they do not negatively affect the perceived benefits that the
community accrues. The threat of ostracism by the community prevents individual members from
openly selling their lands.
As with right-of-way agriculture, legal access to the land and security of tenure are
concerns. Monitoring and extension services to prevent food contamination from polluted
water are essential, particularly because many urban streams in developing countries are
little more than drainage channels or open sewers. At these sites, agricultural
development must include water treatment. Alternatively, farmers can bypass the
problems of pathogen removal by planting crops that are more resistant to contamination.
Aqua-terra farming systems, combining land and aquatic crops and animals, are
especially well suited to floodplains.
Water Bodies and Wetlands

Contamination from city waste can make bodies of water dangerous for human use.
Using aquatic plant and fish production to biologically treat the waste can mitigate this
problem (Case 4.7). Streams can be diverted into sewage treatment ponds, and rivers —
outside boating channels — can be tapped to transform wastewater into food for the city.

Case 4.7 Wastewater fisheries in China

Farmers in China have used solid organic waste to fertilize farmland and fish ponds for centuries.
Modern use of municipal wastewater for aquaculture began in the early 1950s. Using wastewater
reduces the cost of fertilizer (when treated sewage is used to irrigate crops) and commercial fish
feed.
Most municipal wastewater in Chinese cities drains into various water bodies that are used as
fish ponds (particularly grass carp), with about 10 percent used to irrigate or fertilize land. In the
ponds, aquatic plants (for example, duckweed and lotus) remove various heavy metals and other
pollutants, thus treating the effluent before it is used as fish feed. Fish production also reduces the
pollutants in the wastewater.
Yields of fish raised in waste-fed ponds are reported to be 2-4 times higher than those raised in
normal ponds. In 1985, China produced 30,000 tons of wastewater-fed fish — 1.3 percent of its
freshwater fish production. Wastewater-fed fish accounted for more than half of the production for
the cities of Wuhan and Changsha.
Wastewater-based aquaculture has declined significantly in a number of cities as a result of the
increasing mix of industrial sewage with domestic sewage (three-quarters of all wastewater by one
estimate). In cities such as Wuhan, the practice was even banned due to concerns about public
health. At the same time, changes in sanitation systems have led to reduced availability of night
soil, which is increasingly replaced by inorganic fertilizers and formulated feeds. China’s centuries-
old leadership in linking aquaculture to waste reuse is now being severely tested.
Contact: Peter Edwards (see Appendix F for complete address).
Bodies of water within urbanized areas — bays, rivers, lakes, canals, ponds,
reservoirs — are often available for public fishing. Fishing rights may be leased by the
authorities. In addition, fish farms are an important component of food systems in some
cities such as Hong Kong.
It is ecologically vital to maintain sizable wet areas within each metropolis in „wild‟
form. These areas are needed to conserve and regenerate natural resources, but of course
it is impossible to preserve all wetlands in urban areas in an undisturbed condition. In
Kampala, for example, farmers drain and reclaim swampy areas in the city for farming
without help or permission from city authorities.13
Several forms of aqua-terra farming can help preserve wetland biodiversity. One of
the best-known examples of appropriate use of wetlands for agricultural purposes is the
centuries-old chinampas farming system in Mexico City, which combines aquatic, tree,
vegetable, livestock, and flower production with recreation and tourism (Case 4.9).
Equally ancient systems exist in other parts of the world. The hortillonages of the Somme
River valley in northern France, which date to pre-Roman times, are today both an
important tourist attraction and a productive market gardening district. Farmers resisted
built-up urban uses of the area by forming an association to help improve maintenance of
their properties and increase productivity.14
Not all wetland areas can or should be put into agricultural use. Because wetlands are
extremely sensitive habitats and their biodiversity and long-term survival can suffer from
harmful practices, cultivation requires special care. Thus the question becomes how they
can be used with minimal environmental damage.15 The cultivation of aquatic plants, if

practiced properly, can keep wetlands from deteriorating. Wetlands in East Calcutta, for
example, have been converted to sewage-fed lagoon fisheries, thus maintaining the
wetland habitat (see Case 3.5).
In all these examples, aquaculture is a presence in bodies of water in urban areas.
Indeed, aquaculture is replacing fishing as the primary source of seafood in developed
and highly urbanized countries, and the industry is discovering and inventing niches.
From city reservoirs to sewage ponds to floating containers in peri-urban rivers, the range
of locations for aquaculture is diverse. Conceptually, aquaculture is best sited „below the
city‟. The city‟s wastewater can then be directed downstream to where aquatic plant and
animal life can benefit from its nutrients, and where the aquatic production process can
purify the water for another use.
The production of aquatic plants and animals is not restricted solely to bodies of
water. Aquaculture is found on a rooftop in Brisbane and Heifer Project International
raises Nile perch in 50-gallon drums in basements in Chicago.16, IIRR in Manila
introduced raising eels in metal drums, which allows garbage to be used as food and
supplies an excellent source of protein. Eels require little care because they can go
without food for two weeks.
Steep Slopes
Steep slopes, like wetlands and water-logged areas, are difficult, expensive, and
dangerous to develop and service for built-up urban uses. Unfortunately, these areas are
often occupied by people who have no alternative places to live. Building on steep slopes
may have disastrous effects such as deforestation, soil erosion, and excess water runoff,
which in turn lead to houses cracking and sliding downhill, fires blowing out of control,
and perhaps lives lost.
Steep slopes are often among the last areas of a city to be developed for built use, and
thus remain available for agriculture. Mexico City, for example, is maintaining a „green
belt‟ on its surrounding mountains.
Some types of agriculture — especially forestry and terraced horticulture — are often
the best use for steeply sloping land. They stabilize the slopes, prevent erosion, and
absorb air pollution while providing jobs and food. The presence of tree cover improves
the city‟s climate and temperature, and a managed forest on slopes can also be a good
source of wood, crops, and animals (Case 4.8).
Case 4.8 Fruit production and erosion control through tree planting in Nampula City,
Mozambique
The capital of Nampula Province, Nampula City, is the third largest city in Mozambique, with a
population conservatively estimated at over 200,000. Mozambique’s civil war has caused large
numbers of refugees — dislocados — to flock into the cities, establishing homes in bairros, peri-
urban squatter settlements. At least 80 percent of Nampula’s current population lives in the bairros.
Located on steeply sloping lands around the original hilltop city, the bairros have no proper drainage
system, and are prone to soil and gully erosion so that houses and productive land are washed
away in heavy rains. All registered dislocados are entitled to small plots of land for agricultural

production (machambas), but these are often located a long way from the city and are not served
by public transport. There is also an increasing fuelwood problem in the area.
Since 1987, the Irish charity CONCERN has been working with local people to develop soil
conservation and sustainable land-use techniques in the bairros through a project that includes
horticulture (fruit trees), agroforesty, and the construction of non-erodible drains and check-dams.
Overall objectives include improving farming practices, reducing rural deforestation and urban soil
erosion, and promoting environmentally sustainable land-use practices. CONCERN tries to work
with and strengthen the capacity of the relevant government bodies to ensure institutional
sustainability once funding is withdrawn. An early part of CONCERN’s work was to support the
establishment of an Environmental Division of the Nampula City Council, known as GAMA, which
has now become an official structure, and since 1991 has received its own funding.
Much of the agroforestry tree planting program focused on Leucaena leucocephala, a species
that provides fuelwood and at the same time conserves soil. About half the seedlings were
distributed free of charge in the bairros and to farmers interested in setting up alley-cropping trials.
The balance were distributed to other projects. A wider variety of tree species is now available in
response to local demand.
Demand for fruit and fuelwood tree seedlings has increased as a result of an awareness
campaign funded by CONCERN. The campaign included radio coverage and a forestry play.
Despite the positive response, it is uncertain whether the campaign will influence the behavior of all
bairro residents. Willful damage to trees, and simple neglect or failure to protect saplings from
browsing animals remain problems.
Contact: Jane Carter and Howard Dalziel (see Appendix F for complete address).
In the 1980s, a tree nursery with bamboo and other species used for animal feed, fruit,
and fuelwood, was established in Mont Ngafulla, a squatter area on the outskirts of
Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). Training, seminars, and site
visits were organized for farmers to learn more about management of tree crops as well
as how to prevent soil erosion. A committee of community members was responsible for
overall planning of the farming activity to ensure prevention of soil erosion. 17
Terraced farming is found in steep areas around the globe. Terracing is an ancient
technique, capable of developing flat fields on slopes and increasing soil and water
retention. Firm tenure arrangements are essential because of the high investment that
terracing requires. When tenure is secure, terraces can be and are developed and
maintained in many a hilly town.
Duration of Use
The length of time that a particular space is available to a farmer significantly influences
the farming activity. The time period affects the choice of crops, the amount of care the
farmer gives to the land, and the level of planning he or she undertakes. A plot may be
available for permanent agricultural use, long-term use, or short-term use. All three are
considered here. Figure 4.2 schematically represents some of the most important types of
spaces available either permanently or for a long period.

Permanent Use
Some areas are permanently available to farming because they are not suitable for built-
up uses. These include water bodies, streamsides, floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes.
Construction on these areas is not desirable because they are expensive to develop and
service, and building on them is particularly damaging to the environment. For these
reasons, it is often worthwhile to use them for agriculture in concert with recreational
open-space activity. From the use of aquatic and marshy areas by pre-Columbian
civilizations to the ancient Javanese, Chinese, Inca, and Maya mastery of intensive
farming on steep slopes,18 many historical practices in such areas are appropriate today
and are being reinvented (Case 4.9 and Fig. 4.3).
Case 4.9 The chinampas of Mexico City

Integrated agricultural systems using alternating raised fields and canals were developed by various
cultures in Latin America during pre-Columbian times. When the Spaniards arrived in the 16th
century, ‘floating gardens’ among the waters of the five lakes of the Valley of Mexico were
producing most of the food consumed by a city of 200,000 inhabitants.
A living example of these ancient floating farms is the chinampas at Xochimilco in Mexico City.
Livestock, poultry, vegetables, ornamental plants, flowers, and trees for fuel are produced on land
that is punctuated by canals that provide transportation, irrigation, pisciculture, recreation, and
tourism.
The floating raised beds were initially created by the Aztecs by weaving thick mats of grass and
other organic matter and covering them with mud from the lake. Over time, farmers kept adding
layers of organic matter and mud, and the floating beds eventually took root. The canals were a
source of nutrient-rich sediments, and ahuejote trees were planted alongside the beds to stabilize
them. The chinampas in effect functioned as a kind of hydroponic garden, wherein the maintenance
of water levels had a particular relationship to crop roots.
After the arrival of the Spaniards, the waters of the lakes were drained or diverted for other
uses, and most of the floating farms died over time. Pablo Torres, an expert on this farming system
found that the production of the chinampa per unit of space increased with the introduction of
European vegetables and livestock by the Spanish. The waters for Xochimilco were also cut off
over time, and urban development took over much of the area. Sewage effluent was directed into
the chinampas canals, choking the waters and harming the farming activity.
In 1987, UNESCO declared the area a World Cultural Heritage site, and the city began a
program to restore the chinampas. Wastewater treatment was introduced, raised-bed fields were
rebuilt, and the canals were cleared of the water lilies choking them. A flower market was built
within easy access to farmers of the chinampas.
Today, hundreds of farmers are farming the chinampas and making a living. Farmers are again
enriching and repairing the beds by lifting mud from the bottom of the lake and spreading it on the
beds. Water pollution, however, is causing a continuous production shift from food to flowers, which
are not only safer but more profitable. A shift is also taking place from the traditional reeds to water
hyacinth to purify water in the canals. Xochimilco is a good example of urban agriculture that
combines production, marketing, and recreation.
Contact: Alfonso González Martinez and Pablo Torres Lima (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).

Because many unbuilt and unbuildable lands are permanently available public goods
(commons), it is especially important for city governments to create long-term
agreements to manage their use. Greater involvement of civic authorities is required
because mismanagement of these resources could have environmentally disastrous
consequences. For instance, the schedule of tree harvesting on a slope may need to be
regulated by a municipal agency, even though tree orchards on the slope may be owned
by several private farmers.
Long-Term Use
Some space in urban areas is reserved for eventual non-agricultural uses, but in the
interim such land can be used for food production, biological waste processing, and other
activities that both enhance the environment and provide rent from the site. These idle
lands, covering vast areas, may be public, quasi-public, or private and include most
community spaces, surplus or reserve lands, roadsides, and other rights-of-way (Case
4.10). The electric company in Rio de Janeiro, for example, allows farmers to use land
under its transmission lines.
Case 4.10 Cultivation in industrial zones and highway rights-of-way along the Lebanese
coastal area
The coastal zone of Lebanon is one of the most built-up areas in the Middle East, yet there is
vibrant agricultural activity interspersed throughout this zone, in both the denser sectors of the
Beirut metropolis and in the sprawling suburbs to the north and south. Part of this phenomenon —
though not all — can be explained by the influence of the 15-year war and its aftermath (see Case
7.14).
Some of the agricultural activity has been maintained for years or decades in zones
surrounding residential and commercial multi-story buildings, and may remain for years to come.
Two types of such zones are described here.
Urban Planning. Rights-of-way for future roadways (including a bypass highway around the
capital) were placed under reserve beginning in the 1950s. Most of these highways remained
unrealized for decades. Some were built in the 1990s as part of the country’s reconstruction, and
others remain only on paper. Meanwhile, many of these land reserves are now long-term farms,
and these farmers feel more security of tenure than many who plant on privately-held properties.
Industrial Zones. Some decades ago, numerous industrial zones were planned for the country,
including its coastal strip, as part of the drive to develop industry. This activity never approached the
levels conceived by the country’s economic planners, and the war that began in 1975 set back
ambitions even further. As part of the planning, a number of controls were imposed on these large
industrial zones. As a result, much of the industry located purposely (and illegally) outside the
designated zones to avoid controls. With residential and commercial uses precluded in these
sectors, their value froze. These zones have become important agricultural reserves, and one is
even located adjacent to the main airport, with only scattered industrial buildings sited among the
fields (photo 4.?).
Contact: Joe Nasr and Habib Debs (see Appendix F for complete addresses).

New photo 4.?: Fields near Beirut airport
A change in thinking is needed to farm these spaces on a wider scale. If someone

asked the question “Why is this land not being used productively” about every vacant
piece of land — both public and private — many potential agricultural areas would be
identified. The use of the legal system combined with assistance from NGOs and farmer
associations is crucial to more systematic leasing of land and water for medium- and
long-term farming.
Short-Term Use
The use of idle urban lands for agriculture does not need to be permanent or even long-
term. As a city grows, its perimeter grows more rapidly than its built area, thus there is
always new land available for the short-term at the edge of the city. Moreover, because
cities also tear down and rebuild older neighborhoods, temporary sites for urban
agriculture also exist near the center, for example, old factory buildings can be used for
mushroom and greenhouse agriculture. Land held for speculation or future use can be put
into agricultural production as well, although in most countries tenancy laws work
against such use and farming occurs informally or illegally.
Lack of secure tenure may hamper farmers who do not know whether they will see
the fruits of their efforts. However, tenure that is ensured for three or more seasons,
whether informally or through a contract, may be sufficient (depending on the crop and
the condition of the land) for a farmer to be willing to invest time, money, and effort in
farming the land. The case of the Matalahib gardens in Manila illustrates that interim
availability of land is sufficient to encourage farming, as long as the time period is
understood (Case 4.11).
Case 4.11 Community gardens in Barrio Matalahib, Manila

Community gardens were started on unused and fallow land in the squatter area of Matalahib in
1980, with the assistance of two volunteer policemen. The objectives were to provide income and
improved nutrition for the 2,400 residents, as well as to make productive use of a degraded and
squalid area that had become a site of criminal activity.
Most inputs were obtained at no cost — permission to use the land was granted by the
government, seeds were obtained from discarded market vegetables and from public and private
companies, and water was delivered by the police department. Technical assistance was provided
by the University of the Philippines at Los Baños and an NGO, the Earthmen Communications
Foundation. The land was divided into small plots that were allotted to families interested in farming.
The program had its ups and downs, but through the involvement and enthusiasm of the
community, three good crops were obtained. By the third crop, the 1.0-1.5 hectare area was
producing enough vegetables to supply 80 percent of community demand, and some farmers sold
fresh produce on the roadside near the barrio. The physical environment of the area was
considerably improved and crime reduced, and the success of the Matalahib farm led the
government to promote community gardens elsewhere in the city.

In 1982, the land was sold to a private developer and farming was abandoned even before the
land was developed. Access to land has been identified in field interviews in the Philippines as one
of the principal constraints to urban agriculture.
The project demonstrates the catalytic benefit that an NGO advocate can bring to a project
which serves a perceived need. It also shows that urban farming has a short learning curve and
rapid returns. Even though the life of the Matalahib gardens was short, the success of this case lies
in the acceptance of farming as a profitable economic activity and in its replication.
Contact: Isabel Wade, José Deanon, and Mario Chanco (See Appendix F for complete
addresses).
The concept of usufruct, essential for validating interim urban agriculture, is

beginning to be accepted by a number of countries and local governments. Peru is urging
public and private landowners to make „free land‟ available to farmer associations. The
government of Indonesia and the municipality of Jakarta have a policy and program to
persuade public and private landowners to make „sleeping land‟ productive.19 New York
City makes more than 1,000 vacant lots available to community groups through a
municipal agency, Green Thumb.20
Locations within the Metropolitan Area

Large cities and metropolitan areas can be divided into four main zones:
one or more city centers (cores) with offices and retailing activities;
several high-density development corridors along highways and railroads;
wedges of lower-density development between the corridors; and
an urban-rural (peri-urban) transitional area at the metropolitan periphery (Fig. 4.4).
We have already said in Chapter 1 that we will not debate nomenclature — a number
of other categories may appropriately be used to differentiate the components of an
urbanized area. We also indicated there that the labels of intra-urban versus peri-urban
provide another useful way to characterize a metropolitan area.
The principal differences among the four zones of core/corridor/wedge/periphery are
the intensity and type of land use. Core zones have the highest population density, the
greatest coverage of land surfaces by built structures, and the greatest mixture of land
uses, followed by corridor zones. Wedges are patchy in character, and the periphery is
constantly changing. Agriculture in each of the four zones thus displays a particular
character derived from the nature of the zone itself.
The outer portions of a metropolitan area tend to have a greater presence of
agricultural activity than the inner areas. It is in peri-urban zones that the most land is
available, and where the presence of farming as an entrepreneurial activity by urban
residents would be most likely. There are significant variations in what dominates where.
For example, Table 5.2 shows that in peri-urban areas of Mexico City, there are far fewer
hens than in inner suburban areas, and barely more than in intra-urban areas. Indeed, each
zone in the Mexican capital is specialized in different types of productive processes:

intra-urban (core and inner corridor) areas — family gardens, backyard poultry, and
pigs;
suburban (wedge and inner fringe) areas — legumes and flowers, family orchards,
greenhouses, and market gardens;
peri-urban areas (outer fringe) — nopal (cactus) production, orchards, maize, forestry,
grasslands, bees, and sheep.21
Farmers often farm in more than one zone. A household garden in the core or in one
of the corridors where high-value vegetables are grown for home consumption may be
complemented by a streamside garden in a wedge or in the periphery that yields lower-
value crops for sale at the market. Farming systems are chosen by farmers for each
location based on, among other things, different land values and risk of crop loss. In some
places local governments have been active in defining what kind of agriculture goes
where. In Havana, Singapore, and Beijing, land use and other regulations specify the
types of crops/products that can be produced in various parts of the city.
Before examining the nature of agriculture in each of these zones, it is useful to note
that this is a simple model which cannot fully capture the dynamism and diversity of the
world‟s cities.22 One analyst notes that the classic model that predicts declining land-use
intensity as one moves farther from a central point (the von Thünen model) does not
correspond to the spatial distribution of urban agriculture in contemporary cities. Many
large cities have a „multicentered structure‟ with many lower-density spaces in the urban
pattern.23
There are exceptions to the zone model. In the Randstad concept in the Netherlands,
for example, several large cities encircle an agricultural core. Colonial cities, especially
in Africa, featured an exceptional amount of open space between the „colonial city‟ and
the „native city‟. Much of this space survives today and is actively farmed (in
Mozambique, for example, a golf course was converted to rice culture). Furthermore,
agriculture undertaken by urban residents in distant peri-urban areas or rural areas, such
as on the Russian dachas, would not be covered by this model. Despite these exceptions
and the rapidly disappearing line between what is urban and what is rural, the four-zone
model is still useful to examine where agriculture takes place in the urban context.
Core
The core (or cores) of a city has the highest population and building density, with a
predominance of commercial space. At the city center and in the major nodes, urban
agriculture is found most commonly on rooftops and balconies, on temporarily vacant
lots, in converted buildings, and in public parks. Certain farming systems and crops that
have a higher value and require greater investment naturally dominate— mushrooms,
pigeons, flowers, and salad crops (especially for restaurants).
There is considerable scope for small-scale plastic greenhouse farming systems,
including hydroponics. In older cities, redevelopment sites may be used temporarily for
farming, with greater social and environmental benefits than the usual parking lot. Most
of this cultivation is not expected to remain for long in a specific location due to urban
renewal of the core.

In addition to these short-term uses, there is a surprising amount of permanent open

space even within the dense fabric of cores. These usually include parks and a variety of
unbuildable surfaces. In particular, agriculture can be found on the waterfront and within
water bodies. Cultivated areas in wetlands adjacent to the city center can be found from
Calcutta in India to Amiens in France. In Managua, unstable sections of the central part
of the city were put into agricultural use following the devastating earthquake of 1972.
Corridors
Most interim farming takes place in corridors along main roads and railway lines because
this is where most construction takes place, and large lots without buildings are common.
These corridors have more developed transportation and are linked to markets, and the
higher density of residential areas increases demand for produce.
As the city grows, the farming systems of the corridors become similar to those of
nodes or city centers. Careful selection of pollution-resistant crops is as necessary in
corridors as in city centers. Corridors are the site for ornamental horticulture, roadside
horticulture and grazing, market gardening, greenhouse vegetables and flowers, and
poultry and microlivestock. Farming at home is another major type of agriculture in
residential corridors. Frequently, corridor agriculture includes retail outlets (roadside
stands and markets).
In many cities and towns, these corridors have low-intensity crops, recycling little
waste and producing low returns on labor because farmers are insecure about their tenure,
or at least about how long they can hold onto their land. The authorities often perceive
agriculture as an inappropriate long-term activity. Interim access to land can be
efficiently brokered by a unit of local government or an NGO bringing together the
owner, developer, and farmer.24
Wedges
The wedges between development corridors, together with the periphery, provide the
principal areas of land for urban agriculture in most larger cities. This is the locus of milk
and egg production, orchards, and fish ponds. Land use is mostly a mixture of residential
and agricultural, with housing gradually replacing farmland.
Wedges are where the greatest amount of urban land not suitable for development is
found, such as steep slopes and wetlands. These areas sometimes offer opportunities for
specific types of urban agriculture. Traditionally, the wedges also contain low-intensity
uses such as cemeteries, universities, military bases, solid waste dumps, and forest parks,
creating a large area of unused or underutilized land that can be put to productive use
through agriculture.
Some unbuilt wedge spaces are in the form of a ribbon. These linear strips often
follow a natural element, such as a river or ridge. The 1986 plan for greater Beirut, for
example, clearly shows an agricultural belt that partly follows the Beirut River (Fig. 4.5).
That belt formed the periphery of the city decades ago, and later became an agricultural
zone wedged between built-up districts. Since the fighting in Lebanon ended in 1990,
parts of this wedge was built up, but much farmland remains. So while the continuous

agricultural stretch has been turned into a series of swaths, its function as productive a
„green lung‟ for the metropolis persists.
One of the oldest and best-known corridor and wedge plans is the so-called Finger
Plan in Copenhagen, which was first adopted in 1948, and renewed in 1961, 1973, and
1989. It was the model for plans in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and many other cities.
The majority of built urban uses there have been concentrated along rail and express
highway lines, and the majority of non-built uses, including agriculture, are in the „green‟
wedges.25
Cities in Asia, and increasingly in the rest of the world, today recognize that
agriculture is an appropriate permanent or long-term land use in wedges, and that
government and NGO programs are needed to help farmers adapt to the urban market.
The contribution of farming in these areas can be measured in terms of environmental
conservation and enhancement and food security, rather than purely as returns to land
rent.
Periphery
The periphery is the rural-urban fringe or peri-urban area that surrounds cities in the
majority of countries. This zone can usefully be considered part of the urban area and
urban system. It is characterized by small- and medium-size farms oriented to the
metropolitan market that are more diverse than those in rural areas. In the periphery, a
large proportion of families have both farm and off-farm income. Typically, the
agricultural industry in this area is constantly shifting to new sites and adapting to new
opportunities.
In both developing and developed countries, metropolitan areas are always
expanding. The periphery is fluid, always shifting outward. It is a transitional area, not
heavily built up, and close enough to the city (based on time rather than distance) to be an
integral part of its food- and fuel-sheds.
What is grown within the peri-urban area, how it is grown, and by whom are all
directly responsive to the city or metropolitan market. Accessibility plays a determining
role. The size of this urban agriculture zone is largely determined by transportation
efficiency and landscape features. For example, in greater Calcutta where transport is
congested and expensive, the rural-urban fringe may extend no farther than 25 kilometers
from the center, even though Calcutta is at present a city of over 10 million people.
Manila, with a somewhat smaller population, has built express highways and has an
urban fringe that extends 50 kilometers or more.
In cases such as the savanna of Bogotá, the limits of the peri-urban farming area are
determined by mountains surrounding the plain, although some urban farming climbs the
hillsides. In some places, for example, near Nairobi, between New York and
Philadelphia, along Japan‟s Tokaido (Tokyo to Osaka), and in the Dutch Randstad, the
fringe urban agriculture zones overlap those of nearby cities.
Peri-urban regions frequently become zones of intensive vegetable production
because transport costs are lower relative to rural areas given the proximity to town, higher
land costs associated with this proximity, and quicker commercialization that is enabled by

that proximity — which is advantageous for fresh products. When the roads in a region are
poor, vegetable production and other higher-value crops (such as poultry) tend to be more
intensive and closer to the settled area.26
Within a peri-urban area, there can be considerable variation in what is cultivated in
different locations. This can clearly be seen around the villages in Mexico City‟s
periphery. There are still traditional practices within the villages — backyard animals,
family orchards, milk production, and draft animals. Cultivation of nopal cactus
(replacing maize) along with some market gardening forms a ring around each village,
and further out is a ring of agroforestry systems. Finally, the forest often forms the
outermost ring around each settlement, providing additional resources for the community
(resin, firewood, timber, fungi, etc.).27
Access to Land and Tenure

In previous centuries, village elders, rulers, and other decisionmakers typically allocated
land on a predetermined schedule to farmers (a practice that continues to the present in
the mostly rural areas of some developing countries). When different civilizations started
building towns and cities, the civic administration continued to allocate town land to
farmers and foresters — as is still done in cities from Zurich to Singapore today. A
particularly well-known case is the planning of town commons or greens by colonists in
North America from the 17th century onward.
Beginning in the late 19th century, steam and electric railroads provided peri-urban
and rural farmers in developed countries with improved access to city food markets. As
„industrial cities‟ rapidly grew to high density, land for home and community gardens
became scarce, and many home and market gardeners lost their previously held right of
access to land. Some public provision of farm land continued in various settings, and over
the past few centuries, a range of organizations has provided access to land for farming to
their members in and around settlements — religious groups, manufacturing
corporations, military establishments, poor houses, and others.28
Urban farmers around the world today farm on land or in water under a variety of
legal and extralegal arrangements. Some own the land on which they farm, while others
rent, lease, or have access from a landlord that may be a private individual, public
agency, or other government entity. Most, however, simply farm informally or illegally.
At times, illegal cultivation of land becomes such a common, unstoppable practice
that government authorities bow to pressure by legalizing the practice after the fact. This
usually leads to further expansion of the practice because it has become legitimate. Under
some circumstances time-limited permits are issued by governments rather than more
durable forms of tenure. This occurred in Jakarta in response to the economic crisis of the
late 1990s. The capital‟s governor gave permission to use idle government land to grow
food, but only after receiving a request for permission.29
Urban farming occurs under a variety of arrangements (Table 4.3). These include:
Economic rent or lease — the farmer has official access to the land and pays rent as a
share of income earned on it.

Usufruct rent or lease — access is official and rent is decided on a usufruct basis.
Examples include excess land around airports and other public facilities that would
otherwise be unused.
Farming under permit — the farmer has official access in return for maintenance of
the land (for example, within rights-of-way, or on port authority land).
Informal agreements — the farmer does not have official access or tenure but does
have the landowner‟s permission.
Unsanctioned farming — farming occurs without the landowner‟s consent.
The first three arrangements are good for both the farmer and the landowner as long
as tenancy laws ensure the rights of both, yet much urban farming take place under
informal and illegal arrangements. In the case of public lands, most farmers are squatters.
Permits for farming on bodies of water are common in several Asian countries, but less
so elsewhere.
Low-income families, often living in tenements and apartments or other dense
neighborhoods, have less access to land in cities than single-family or free-standing home
owners/renters. Refugees from environmental and civil disasters are the most in need of
access to land for food security, and are the least likely to have such an opportunity. Thus
we find that access to land has frequently an inverse relationship to need.
In a survey of urban farmers in Nairobi, one-half were farming on public land,
one-quarter on their own land and one-quarter on land owned privately by someone
else.30 Most of the third group were farming informally or illegally (without the owner‟s
consent). Typically, public land was simply occupied, without receiving permission or
paying rent.
A survey in Kampala found that 60 percent of farmers used public land, 33 percent
were farming their own land, and only 3 percent farmed land that was owned by another
private individual.31 Of those using public land, 65 percent had no formal agreement.
Only 10 percent of the surveyed farmers held secure tenure to the land they farmed, and
40 percent could be considered as squatters. The survey also found tenure security to be
most lacking for lower-income farmers.
There are many examples around the world of permits or leases arranged between
local governments, large corporations, or national government departments on one side,
and NGOs, cooperatives, or farmer associations on the other. The use of the land for a
limited purpose and time is sometimes assigned by one entity to another. The
organization managing the farming may in turn then lease certain limited rights and
space. Thousands of farmers operate this way on the garbage dumps of Calcutta and in
many other cities. Under such arrangements, the owner benefits from maintenance of the
land and in some cases has other „good-will‟ benefits, including employee well-being,
improved relations with the community, and protection from competitors for the land.

Table 4.3 Ownership of land in urban settlements
Category Subcategory Access Urban farming potential
Private Owner occupied Closed. Usually strongly High. Ornamental

land controlled by owner gardening and food
production. Horticulture,
livestock, and fisheries
possible
Tenanted (short term, Closed. Fairly controlled by Low
perhaps one year) owner and tenant
Leased (often long term Closed. Controlled by Medium. Less long term
owner and lessee than owner-occupied land
Illegally occupied Variable, as is control by Low, unless tenure is
occupant and owner over perceived de facto as
land use fairly secure
Company Large premises Closed. Probably strongly High. Excess space can
land controlled by company be farmed
Small premises Closed. Control by Variable. Depends on
business owner probably excess space
varies
‘Public’ State/municipal control Often open. Control varies Probably high. Vacant
land (highways, irrigation spaces can be farmed and
projects, excess public trees planted
space
Community land owned Usually controlled by Collective farming
collectively under common property possible
customary law or donated arrangements
for use of local people
Church, temple, or school Usually controlled by Medium. Possibilities for
land common property community farming
arrangements
Illegally occupied (may fall Variable, as is control by Low, unless tenure is
under any of the above occupant and owner over perceived de facto as
categories, but most likely land use fairly secure
state or council land)
Source: Based on E. Jane Carter. 1993. The Potential of Urban Forestry in Developing Countries.
Draft. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, June, p. 20.
All these advantages have come together in a project that is providing secure tenure to
workers in Zambia‟s copperbelt region. Through facilitation by the local office of CARE,
agreements have been negotiated between a large mining company, ZAFFICO, and four
farmer associations. Substantial expanses of unused land owned by the company near
urban areas in the copperbelt have been made available to agriculturists. They are
grouped into these four associations which ensure that their members adhere to specified
terms of the agreement. The farmers are allocated land for agriculture under secure
tenure, and ZAFFICO is happy to reduce the uncontrolled use of its land.32

In Denmark, the municipality purchases land that it intends to develop for other
purposes at a distant date, and leases it to small-scale farmers.33 In Ahmedabad, India the
city leases vacant land, including greenbelt land, to community groups on 5-year terms
under strict conditions.34
Public land management becomes more efficient where agriculture is considered one
of the permitted land uses. Since much urban agricultural use is shifting or usufruct,
agreements are required that provide security to both the landlord and the farmer.
————————
There is seldom a lack of space, land, or water bodies to farm in urban areas. The
problem lies in gaining legal access and secure tenure to farm the area. Once an entire
urban sphere is explored for potential surfaces for farming and the appropriate
arrangements are worked out to permit such an activity, the next question is “What can be
grown or raised, and how”. These alternatives are examined in Chapter 5.

Notes
1. Alain Bertaud and Bertrand Renaud. 1994. Cities without Land Markets: Lessons of
the Failed Socialist Experiment. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 227. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
2. Manuel Barcelo, formerly at COCODER, Mexico City, personal communication,
1992.
3. Friedhelm Streiffeler. 1993. General Principles and Approaches for Sustainable
Urban Greenbelts with Special Reference to Africa. Department of Rural Sociology.
Berlin: Technical University of Berlin, p. 9.
4. Isabel Wade. 1987. Community Food Production. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 9(2):29-
36. She compares three community garden programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America.
5. Stephen Kinzer, Dread of Builders in a City Woven with Gardens. New York Times,
Feb. 18, 1994.
6. Stanley Hallet, Northwestern University, Chicago, personal communication.
7. School gardens have been supported in Asia and Africa by the Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center (Taiwan, province of China) and in Asia and Latin
America by the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (Philippines).
Comedores populares gardens are being supported by CARE, HUFACAM in Peru,
and others.
8. For a history of community gardening in the United States, see an unpublished 1980
paper by Thomas J. Bassett, Vacant Lot Cultivation: Community Gardening in
America, 1893-1980.
9. Daniel Maxwell and Samuel Zziwa. 1992. Urban Farming in Africa: The Case of
Kampala, Uganda. Nairobi: African Center for Technology Studies Press, p. 36.
10. Jac Smit. 1968. Durgapur Structure Plan. West Bengal: Government of West Bengal,
India.
11. Sergio Catao Aguiar and Jaire José Farias. 1986. Food and Energy from Industrial
Wastes. UNU Work in Progress 10:3, Oct.
12. Field visit, The Indoor Garden, October 1999.
13. Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992, op. cit., p. 38.
14. Brochure of the Association pour la protection et la sauvegarde du site et de
l‟environnement des hortillonages.
15. Daniel Maxwell, personal communication, 1993.
16. Geoff Wilson, TUAN-Western Pacific, Brisbane, personal communication, 2000;
Alison Meares Cohen, Heifer Project International, Chicago, personal

17. Ann Westman. 1986. Food Production in the City. The Hoe 2, fall.
18. The Mayas not only used but indeed created relief in their cities through terracing to
support planting, curb erosion, and serve as sites for composting. Elizabeth Graham,
personal communication, 2000.
19. Buku Panduan. 1991. Paper presented at a seminar on urban agriculture organized by
the Indonesian Agronomists Association, Jakarta, 30-31 Aug.
20. Green Thumb. 1993. Annual Report. New York: Green Thumb.
21. H. Losada et al. 1998. Urban Agriculture in the Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City:
Changes over Time in Urban, Suburban and Peri-Urban Areas. Environment and
Urbanization 10(2):46 and 51, Oct.
22. Socioeconomic models can complement this spatial model.
23. Streiffeler, 1993, op. cit., p. 8.
24. Jac Smit. 1980. Urban Metropolitan Prospects. Habitat International 5(3-4):499-506.
25 Euronet/ICLEI. 1997. Case Studies. In Local Sustainability, Best Practices Database.
Brussels: European Commission.
27. H. Losada et al., 1998, op. cit., pp 49-50.
28. D. Crouch and C. Ward. 1988. The Allotment. London: Farber & Farber, Chap. 4.
29. Jakarta Governor Says Poor can Farm City Land, Agence France Press English 6
Aug 1998.
30. Donald Freeman. 1991. A City of Farmers: Informal Urban Agriculture in the Open
Spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. Montreal: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, pp. 71-72.
31. Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992, op cit.
32. Gail Thomas, CARE, Ndola, Zambia, personal communication, 1999.
33. Ollie Olsen, Dan-Agro, Copenhagen, Denmark, personal communication, 1999.
34. Liliana Marulanda. 2000. Ahmedabad Green Partnership. Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Urban Agriculture and Horticulture: the Linkage with
Urban Planning, Berlin.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 5
Producing Food and Fuel in Urban Areas
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
5
Urban agriculture includes many diverse production systems, each with multiple
processing methods and marketing procedures. These systems often link to each other,
with the waste from one typically feeding another. In greater Mexico City, for example,
sewage is used to irrigate and fertilize alfalfa, which is sold as fodder to small-scale
producers of guinea pigs and rabbits, as well as to cattle growers. The small-scale
livestock producers barter their manure to vegetable and flower growers, who mix it with
compost made from household and street waste. They also sell it to the nopal (cactus)
producers in the peri-urban area.1 Thus the waste stream is transformed into food, beauty,
and biodiversity while supporting six different farming systems: fodder, cattle, small
livestock, vegetables, flowers, and cactus.
Although urban agriculture practices vary widely from continent to continent, from
country to country, and even from town to town, for purposes of discussion, this form of
agriculture can be divided into five broadly defined farming systems:
horticulture,
aquaculture,
animal husbandry,
forestry, and
other urban farming production systems
The categories used in this chapter do not correspond precisely to any classification
of farming systems taught in agricultural schools, but rather reflect the authors‟ field
observations (Table 5.1).
The patterns described in this chapter are not exclusively urban — many of the
farming methods also show up in rural areas, but all are especially appropriate to urban
situations. When growing vegetables, for example, product freshness is critical, so rapid
access to an urban market combined with intense cultivation makes horticulture an
especially important part of urban agriculture.
Data are persuasive that urban agriculture contributes to cultivation and conservation
of diverse crops. In the Washington, D.C. area, the number of tomato varieties available
on the market rose from 12 to 72 in the period 1982 to 1996.2 The explanation may lie in
the greater need for the city farmer to cultivate for daily market demand.3 Many high-
value specialty („niche‟) products are also grown or raised close to their urban consumers.
These two phenomena (diversity within and across crops) can have a significant impact
on the variety of plants (and, to a lesser degree, animals) found in an urban area. Some of
these are generally native species.

Table 5.1 Farming systems common to urban areas
Farming system Products Where and how
Aquaculture Fish, other seafood, Ponds, streams, cages, estuaries, sewage,

vegetables, seaweed, fodder lagoons, wetlands
Horticulture Vegetables, fruit, compost Home sites, parks, rights-of-way, rooftops,

containers, hydroponics, wetlands,
greenhouses
Livestock Milk, eggs, meat, manure, Zero-grazing, rights-of-way, hillsides, coops,

hides, fur peri-urban, open spaces
Agroforestry Fuel, fruit, nuts, compost, Street trees, home sites, steep slopes,
building and handicraft vineyards, greenbelts, wetlands, orchards,
materials forests, parks, hedgerows
Miscellaneous Houseplants, medicine, Ornamental horticulture, rooftops,

beverages, herbs, flowers, containers, sheds, beehives, cages,
insecticides, mushrooms greenhouses, rights-of-way, urban forests
Source: Compiled by The Urban Agriculture Network from various sources
In the past couple of decades, there has been a resurgence of small-scale private
research into urban farming methods such as biointensive raised-bed gardening, shallow-
bed gardening, vermi-composting, zero-grazing, small-scale wastewater-based
aquaculture, and hydroponics. Only a few subsystems of urban agriculture, such as
chicken and egg production, have benefited from long-term public and private research
and development. In most sectors, the special requirements of urban cultivation have
received little attention. Agricultural research centers and extension services can play an
important role in increasing the appropriateness of the varieties, farming systems, and
techniques to the specific context of each city.
Urban agriculture produces fuel and other products in addition to food. For instance,
fuel briquettes are produced from wood, cow dung, and other agricultural by-products
such as the husks of cashew nuts (in East Africa) and coconuts (in eastern India).
There appear to be patterns in the scale at which various kinds of farming are
practiced. Roadside cattle grazing and vegetable farming systems are predominantly
small operations. Urban aquaculture, poultry farming, and orchards are dominated in
most countries by medium- to large-scale operators.
The health hazards of producing food in urban areas must be recognized when
looking at farming systems in the city. Pollution levels of soil, water, air, and wastes tend
to be higher in the city than in rural areas. The presence of a large human population that
potentially could be affected by its proximity to urban farms is another inherent
characteristic. These two factors increase concerns about the potential health effects of
farming in the city, and make selection of product and method especially vital in urban
areas.

Certain parts of cities are too polluted for farming (at least directly in the soil),
because plants and animals can transfer poisonous chemicals, heavy metals, or disease-
carrying pathogens to farmers and consumers. Pathogens from irrigation in horticulture
may represent a particular danger for spreading communicable diseases. Farmers
themselves may face additional health risks by coming in direct contact with the heavy
metals or pathogens. In certain cases, farming activity may increase the habitat for
disease vectors, such as ponds in fields that may allow malaria-carrying mosquitoes to
breed. Chapter 8 discusses health and urban farming, and ways to manage risks. Health
risks always need to be balanced with the nutritional gains that fresh fruits and vegetables
yield (as detailed in Chapter 7) to obtain a full picture of the health dimensions of urban
horticulture.
Some aspects of intra- and peri-urban agriculture may be inherently more sustainable
than those of rural agriculture. The former typically consume less land per unit of
production because of higher land prices and greater competition for use of land. Given
the greater availability of waste from human habitation, there is greater potential in urban
farming to use waste as an input, thus reducing pollution and enriching the soil.
Furthermore, urban farming is often less likely to include large-scale commercial
practices that degrade the environment. Intensive urban practices generally use less water
per unit of production.
A word of caution — some of the most unsustainable agricultural practices can also
be found in urban areas. Concentrated livestock farms are sometimes located in peri-
urban areas, threatening both local health and the environment, as does the use of
unsorted waste as fertilizer. In some rich countries, low-intensity grain cultivation (e.g.,
in France) or rearing horses (in the U.S.) may be maintained around metropolitan areas
through special land-use regulations and subsidies. Within an urbanizing setting, these
are inefficient, unsustainable uses that can accelerate the sprawl of a metropolis. These
few examples give a sense of the complex relationship between urban agriculture and
sustainable agriculture.
Horticulture
Intensive production of vegetables and fruits (including market gardening or truck
farming) is the most common and varied form of urban agriculture. Urban horticultural
production takes place on all continents. Farmers range from the poorest slum dwellers
growing a few tomatoes on some space around the hut to large agribusinesses.
Urban horticulture includes a vast variety of crops, depending on local tastes. A
growing trend is the use of plastic-sheltered cultivation, which provides protection from
cold, rain, wind, sun, birds, and insects. Urban crops are generally perishable, high-value,
or specialty crops, including culinary and medicinal herbs. Some special horticultural
crops are discussed at the end of this chapter.
The dominant image of horticulture today is a field with a single crop, whether
tomatoes or artichokes. Unlike contemporary mechanized horticulture, urban agriculture
is both labor and land intensive rather than extensive, and is typically multicropped. Thus
urban horticulture is a candidate to increase biodiversity in horticultural systems, and

possibly in cities. If public policy favors urban biodiversity and sustainable agricultural
practices, this increase becomes more likely.
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute found in Africa that because
“market gardening in urban areas [has] a narrow base in species and varieties”, it can
result in a “loss of access to plant diversity”.4 On the other hand, studies by ICRAF,
UNU, and FAO have found remarkably diverse crops being grown in rural and urban
household gardens. A recent UNU study found that seeing 50-75 varieties in a single
garden was not unusual.5
The urban horticulturist has a much greater opportunity to compost organic waste
than the rural one, in some cases mixed with appropriate inorganic material. The Mid-
Peninsula Institute in California, long a leader in biointensive horticulture, claims that it
can „make soil‟ up to 40 times faster than Mother Nature.6
At the same time, urban horticultural practices are sometimes environmentally less
friendly. Monocropping and the heavy use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides are
especially common in market gardening, both of which can contaminate the soil and
lower fertility, and perhaps produce unsafe food. Hence, urban horticulture can either
enhance or degrade the environment and biodiversity, depending on its particular context
and practices.
Household gardening is the most common form of urban horticulture (on-site at
lower residential densities and off-site at higher densities). Its incidence varies from city
to city and country to country. Evaluations of household gardens in the Philippines by the
International Institute of Rural Redevelopment found that a family could feed itself from
an 80-square-meter plot in a tropical climate using intensive horticultural techniques such
as those developed by the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center and other
institutes.7 In some cases high-value crops fulfilled a minimum living standard for a
family on 160 square meters, providing food and other essentials.
A study in Java by FAO found that intense multicropped household gardens produce
three times the monetary value per unit of land as three-crop rice farming.8 The multicrop
model generates crops every week of the year. In part, this is accomplished by operating
on four layers — high trees, low trees and bushes, ground level, and root level. Crops
include vegetables, fruit, culinary herbs, medicinal herbs, and flowers. This „layered
horticulture‟ used in Java and other Pacific islands is also found in West Africa.
Streiffeler notes that “mixed cropping can be an effective use of limited space,
especially if the plants have different nutritive requirements.” It also spreads “the risks of
climate and attacks by insects, fungi and so on”9 (Case 5.1).
Case 5.1 VAC yard horticulture in Viet Nam

Farmers in Viet Nam are increasing the productivity and sustainability of their backyard farms with
help from the Vietnamese Gardeners Association. The association is promoting VAC — a process
of mixed cropping that provides crops with improved nutrition, nourishes the soil, and provides cash
crops. The VAC program is partly sponsored by UNICEF and promotes integrated farming of
vegetables, pigs, and fish.

A farmer in Xuan Phuong outside Hanoi is growing vegetables in his 720-square-meter front
yard for direct marketing in the several open markets in Hanoi. The yard grows grapefruit, oranges,
bananas, papayas, sapodilla, mint, squash, onions, amaranth, protein-rich sauropus, and sweet
potatoes. The plants grow at different levels and heights, providing shelter, shade, and nutrition to
each other. The leaves of some plants are fed to pigs, while other parts — such as sweet potatoes
— are for human consumption. The yard is fertilized with pig manure and human waste.
The farm includes a small fishpond that has about 1,500 fish. Species are carefully chosen to
be symbiotic. Tench tend to feed near the top of the pond, carp in the middle, and tilapia at the
bottom, feeding on waste from the two species living above it. The pond is covered with water
hyacinth, which provides oxygen for the fish, protects them from the sun, and is fed to the pigs. The
yard also has a pigsty with a sow that produces up to 20 piglets a year. Yard greens and fish-laced
meal are fed to the sow.
In 1992, one farmer using the VAC system made about US$ 450 from his yard. (The average
Vietnamese annual income is US$ 240.) UNICEF estimates the income of VAC farmers to be from
three to ten times higher than that of rice farmers.
VAC gardens are also established by schools, churches, orphanages, old-age centers, and
factories in Viet Nam, providing their users with free or subsidized nutritious food. The gardeners
association has a corps of extension workers who are experts in the various technologies and
farming systems, and provide extensive and regular advice to the VAC farmers.
Contact: Vu Quyet Thang (see Appendix F for complete address).
Household horticulture is primarily for consumption by family and barter within the
community, but it can also be expressly for the formal market. Families in Thailand
generate thousands of dollars by growing orchids on their verandas. Housewives in Latin
America produce chilies and market homemade salsa. Lettuce grown on home rooftops is
sold directly to supermarkets in Bogotá.
Families that do not have a yard at their home practice horticulture in allotments and
community gardens or on plots located at the city‟s edge. The best known example is the
Russian dacha, or small plot of land, within a couple of hours of the city center. Dachas
have evolved from being primarily a form of recreation to an essential for the well-being
of millions of urban Russians since the Gorbachev liberalization beginning in the 1980s.
In some places, types of farming differ depending on location within the metropolitan
area. In Lusaka, Zambia, for instance, there are two distinct horticultural practices —
vegetable cultivation around the home or inside the community, often using irrigation;
and cultivation of staple foods at distant sites in the peri-urban areas, only in the rainy
season.10 Income tends to vary between these two practices because the lowest income
groups generally do not have the resources necessary to practice dry-season cultivation.11
To previous generations in Europe and North America, urban horticulture may have
been synonymous with market gardening, and in some places, it still is. Intensive
production of fruits and vegetables in peri-urban areas by medium- and large-scale
growers is common where transport costs are high and governments recognize its value.
Thus market gardening is common along the rail lines at the edge of cities — congested
Bombay (with no government support) and Tokyo (with government subsidy). New
Jersey, where most of the population is urban or suburban, is still referred to today as the

Garden State, and produces fresh vegetables and chickens for the New York and
Philadelphia metropolitan areas.
Market garden crops differ from rural crops — they are planted in response to
estimated weekly market prices, and are produced because the farmer is located near a
market, not because the climate and soil are necessarily best suited for the particular crop.
Market gardening can be distinguished from community-based, consumption-oriented
horticulture in that it is larger in scale, predominantly monocropping, and solely market
oriented.
Small-scale low-income market gardeners form a significant population with a large
productive capacity in poorer cities such as Bamako, Mali and La Paz, Bolivia. Market
gardeners are usually among the wealthier farmers and sometimes are corporate. They
rely more on hired staff, and many have professional managers.
Market gardeners often organize to enhance their pre-production, production, and
post-production capacities. In some locales, for example, Taiwan (province of China),
market gardeners have an information and technical assistance system established in
cooperation with government. Farmer cooperatives provide extension services, inputs,
credit, and marketing assistance.
Some horticultural practices, such as container horticulture and soilless horticulture,
are particularly relevant in the urban context. Plants need only light, water, and a medium
in which to take root. This medium may or may not be soil transported to urban settings.
We will discuss next a range of such alternative horticultural practices.
Container Horticulture
Plants can be cultivated in a variety of containers — boxes, rain gutters, pots, used tires,
even plastic bags — that can be placed in a variety of locations, including patios,
balconies, open stairwells, and flat roofs. While container horticulture tends to be soil-
based, the next sub-section will introduce several approaches that do not rely on the use
of soil.
Restricted space in high-density quarters encourages container farming. In Mexico
City, a typical field crop such as potatoes is grown in stacked used truck tires, producing
a vertical cylinder of potatoes. In Santiago, Chile, the Centre for Education and
Technology has a 20-square-meter demonstration city garden plot. The researchers make
the most of the small space by planting crops in containers stacked in pyramids (Photo
5.5). Plants grow on the walls and the same vines that provide a ceiling of shade also
provide crops. By using containers, walls, and even air space, 20 square meters provides
twice that much productive farm space.
Container farming has both the usual concerns related to agriculture (access to water,
credit, and marketing) and its own special technical requirements. During the 1980s,
container agriculture became a sustainable source of food security and income for an
increasing number of low-income farmers. In the area of ornamental horticulture, it has
also become a viable middle- and high-income farming system. The use of plastics for all
kinds of containers has expanded dramatically, making them more readily available than
traditional pots made from clay or expensive cloth.

Container farming is popular worldwide. Growing houseplants in plastic pots on the

roadside and cactus in a box on balconies was mentioned earlier. In Hong Kong,
vegetables are grown in containers that rest on top of the floating cages used for raising
fish. In Old Delhi, silkworms live in boxes on verandas.
Soilless Horticulture
Another urban horticultural practice is soilless farming. Several forms of horticulture do
not use, or at least do not require, soil. Some of them do include a small amount of soil to
start plant growth, but the main medium may be any other organic matter. Crops may be
grown in compost without soil, or even directly on solid waste. Two forms of soilless
horticulture need to be highlighted — shallow-bed gardening and hydroponics.
Shallow-Bed Gardening
Shallow-bed gardening (sometimes called „lazy-bed‟) is a technique that can be used to
grow crops intensively on rooftops and other non-fertile surfaces (parking lots, paved
schoolyards). It is useful for people who do not have land space on which to grow crops
and for those dealing with contaminated urban soils. In this process, organic waste can be
spread directly on a barren surface. Crops are seeded or set as seedlings in small amounts
of soil (a bucket full) and the plants claim nutrition from the uncomposted waste.
Shallow-bed gardens need more frequent watering than plants grown on land. If the
gardens are kept well-watered, the roots do not need soil. Many crops that send their
roots deep on land can be grown in shallow beds.
Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO), a U.S. non-profit
organization, promotes rooftop shallow-bed cultivation among low-income residents in
several locations, including Russia (Case 5.2). In Port-au-Prince, Haiti, the method has
been particularly successful on the roof of a hospital and on paved patio surfaces. The
shallow-bed garden is made up of a 3-6-inch bed of compost, 4-5 feet wide and several
feet long. Fresh organic matter — such as wood chips, grass clippings, rice hulls, corn
husks, or bagasse — is used where compost is not available. (Bagasse is plant residue left
after a product has been extracted, such as juice from sugarcane or grapes.)
Case 5.2 Shallow-bed gardening on inner-city rooftops in Russian cities

ECHO’s activities may have been most remarkable and enduring in Russian cities. It has been
working in Saint Petersburg since the early 1990s on rooftop gardening in shallow beds. Along with
a number of high-rise apartment buildings, a prison presents an outstanding case.
Local peat is used. The individual seedling is planted in a liter or two of soil set into the organic
waste growth medium. Soil is not added to the bed — the compost has all the nutrients required,
and soil would add weight that could cause structural problems on rooftops. The beds do not
usually need a base or sides — the bags of peat are simply opened and used as containers.
Several gardeners improved their ‘soil’ with compost from kitchen waste. One farmer set up a
vermiculture operation in the basement to generate worms to make the cultivation more effective.

Environmental pollution of the food is one of the fears that constrain the expansion of shallow-
bed farming in town. Tests carried out by the Russian State Committee on Standards showed
almost identical results to those of Cornell University in New York — produce grown on rooftops
contained up to ten times fewer contaminants than produce bought at local markets or grown on
suburban plots.
After its initial success in the Saint Petersburg apartment buildings, the roof of a center for
invalids (mostly soldiers who returned injured from Chechnya) was put in use in 1996. ECHO has
been working with another U.S.-based organization, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, to expand
rooftop gardening, starting with Moscow in 1996. They trained local trainers to improve practices,
targeting the disadvantaged. The first site in Moscow was the roof of an orphanage.
Contact: Martin Price and Will Easton (see Appendix F for complete address).
Market crops can be grown in rooftop shallow beds in the heart of the city. Plants that
can be grown include broccoli, cabbage, peas, beans, onions, tomatoes, herbs, maize,
eggplant, and flowers. Pumpkin and watermelon can also be grown, with the vines
flowing out of the beds. Root crops are not suitable for shallow beds.
UNICEF used shallow-bed horticulture successfully in Ethiopia during the 1980s. In
Texas, tomatoes are „traditionally‟ grown at home in a bale of straw. In the south Bronx
in New York City, shallow beds were built on plastic placed over contaminated soils, and
vegetables grown in the beds were judged safe by New York state inspectors.
Hydroponics
Hydroponics is the most important form of soilless horticulture, a plant-feeding
technology in which plants are grown in sand, gravel, cinders, volcanic ash, or float in
water with minerals and nutrients, as required. Hydroponic farming is highly resource
efficient, using one-tenth or less water than field crops. Crops can be fed by hand or
through a pump. Its low water usage makes this technology especially useful in areas
with water shortages.
The importance of this decades-old technique expanded significantly in the 1980s.
Developed in Europe and North America as a capital-intensive farming system,
hydroponics has been modified in a few developing countries to be a low-capital, high-
labor „popular‟ system (Case 5.3).
Case 5.3 Farming without soil — women’s hydroponic cooperative, Jerusalem, Bogotá
A cooperative of more than 100 low-income women in Jerusalem on the outskirts of Bogotá
produces hydroponic vegetables (up to 30 different varieties) on contract to a supermarket chain
that supplies the metropolitan area. Production on rooftops and other household surfaces began in
1985. Technical assistance has been provided by Centro Las Gaviotas, which developed the
technology in Bogotá with funding from the UNDP office in Colombia and later through the
supermarket chains.
The women in the APROHIJE cooperative (Asociacion de Productoras de Hidroverduras de
Jerusalem) earn as much as their husbands earn in semi-skilled jobs (if one can even be found).

They produce all their own inputs except seeds (which are imported), including nutrient solution,
which they also sell to other growers. The crops are of a good quality, but overripe or less-than-
perfect crops are consumed by the farming family or fed to microlivestock.
The technology of hydroponics has received much attention. From Bogotá, it was transferred to
the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Chile. In Bogotá, however, the project has
suffered since assistance ended, which demonstrates the necessity for locally manufactured
nutrient solutions.
Contacts: Dr. Jorge Zapp and Cesar Marulanda (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Hydroponics has two great advantages in low-income urban situations. First, it is

virtually safe from water and land pollutants. Second, since the production is soilless and
in some form of container, it does not depend on land space — plants can be grown
anywhere, including the market roof. Consumers benefit from a fresher product.
Hydroponic horticulture requires a great deal of organization to be established as a
viable commercial farming system. Some inputs (for example, seeds and fertilizers) may
need to be imported, or a new local production system may need to be set up. And
because each crop requires careful tailoring to the local climate, good collaboration
among farmers, technical experts, and marketers is needed.
A variant is aeroponic horticulture, a newer system with great potential. One of its
advantages is the ability to manipulate root zone temperatures, which allows crops to be
grown far from their climatic region.12 Aeroponic horticulture, however, requires
advanced growing techniques in controlled environments, and is thus far from being
adaptable to ordinary settings and ordinary farmers. Training courses in hydroponics and
aeroponics techniques began in 2000 in Singapore, perhaps the leading nation in this
cultivation method.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector of agriculture.13 It includes fish crops of all
types as well as many vegetable crops. It takes place in man-made tanks or in ponds,
lakes, rivers, estuaries, and bays from tropical to temperate climates. Calcutta raises over
one-fifth of its fish demand in sewage-fed lagoons.14
Urban aquaculture includes a diverse range of production methods. The most evident
split may be between saltwater and freshwater aquaculture. As water shortages become
increasingly prevalent in one region after another, the former is becoming more
important, especially to coastal cities. The potential of urban aquaculture remains
substantially untapped. Obvious candidates such as the Gaza Strip in Palestine remain
devoid of saltwater farming.
Aquaculture has the capacity to increase biodiversity or diminish it, to enhance the
urban environment or harm it. Instead of a mechanical-chemical-polluting sanitation
process, beneficial aquaculture can convert a substantial portion of a city‟s wastewater
(and some of its solid waste as well) into food, greenery, and biodiversity. Fish and water
vegetables can be raised in wastewater that is purified less completely than that needed

for direct human consumption. In many cases, the process of raising these crops purifies
the wastewater to a cleaner state than some current sources of potable water.
On the other hand, however, aquaculture that uses high levels of external inputs can
pollute surface and groundwater and reduce biodiversity. The fastest growing aquaculture
crops of the 1980s and 1990s have been monocropped, particularly shrimp and seaweed.
These technologies have had substantial negative environmental impacts, both by
destroying other species in the farm area and by adding chemicals to the downstream
watershed. Lagoon shrimp production requires eliminating other aquatic life, and use of
antibiotics interferes with nature‟s biotic patterns. In the Philippines and elsewhere, the
sea bottom is sanitized to monocrop seaweed on trellises. Hybrid fish raised in cages can
escape and cross-breed with indigenous species, potentially causing widespread
ecological problems.
Multicrop aquaculture has not had the large investments of monocrop, but research is
showing very good results.15 The multicrop methods will show greater secondary benefits
for towns and cities — greater biodiversity, better links to land-based aquaculture, and
capturing the synergy between crops without the risks of monocropping.
Aquaculture is sometimes a significant contributor to the urban ecology in a
symbiotic relationship with other forms of urban agriculture. Thailand is known for
raising poultry over fish tanks, and periodically the bottoms of the tanks are dredged and
used for biointensive raised-bed vegetable production. Another aspect of this synergy is
slaughtering chickens near fish farm tanks, with the offal going directly to feed the fish.
Urban aquaculture can be undertaken in bodies of water not in current productive use,
many of which are publicly owned. It is also compatible with many recreational uses.
Raising fish and crustaceans in urban and peri-urban water can be an economical
complement to ocean fish and rangeland meat, conserving the global ecosystem as well
as reducing consumption of energy for refrigeration, transport, and storage.
The production of aquatic plants and animals is not restricted solely to bodies of
water. Aquaculture is found on a rooftop in Brisbane and Heifer Project International
raises Nile perch in 50-gallon drums in basements in Chicago.16 IIRR in Manila
introduced raising eels in metal drums, which allows garbage to be used as food and
supplies an excellent source of protein. Eels require little care because they can go
without food for two weeks.
Aquatic Plants
Water spinach, water cress, water chestnuts, lotus stems, and various so-called seaweeds
are common low-cost foods in Asia and Africa. Water spinach is a leafy plant grown in
marshy areas and on streamsides in India, southeast Asia, Taiwan (province of China),
and southern China. It is consumed as a vegetable and used as feed for livestock and fish.
It takes root easily, requires little weeding, and can be harvested at any time. With heavy
applications of treated night soil, water spinach yielded up to 90,000 kilograms per
hectare in Hong Kong.17
Floating aquatic plants such as duckweed and water hyacinth have considerable
potential as livestock feed and as a base for compost and fuel. When raised on

wastewater, they offer a biologically sustainable solution to the problem of urban water
pollution. These plants purify wastewater by rapidly breaking down and consuming
nutrients from sewage, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. The plants can then be fed to
livestock or fish in a pond, and the nutrients are thus recovered. The purified water can be
recycled into other uses, including irrigation and groundwater recharge (Case 5.4).
Case 5.4 Wastewater purification using duckweed in Bangladesh

While not a common activity in Bangladesh, wastewater reuse in aquaculture did have a small
presence there. What little activity existed was in decline because some ponds were disappearing
due to rapid urbanization, and the remaining ones were overloaded with organic matter. The best
hope for wastewater reuse may lie in the introduction of duckweed into the system.
In experiments conducted in Bangladesh by the Prism Group (a U.S. non-profit organization)
and the UN Capital Development Fund, wastewater from the Kumudini Welfare Trust Complex was
channeled into duckweed farms. It was completely purified in 20 days, with less than 0.5 milligrams
of nitrogen and phosphorus per liter.
Other aquatic plants such as water hyacinth have water purification properties similar to
duckweed, but the latter has the advantage of being a much more valuable commercial crop. In the
Bangladesh experiments, duckweed farmers are harvesting about 1 ton per hectare per day,
making more than US$ 2,000 per year by selling the crop as a high-protein animal feed that is
cheaper than its alternatives.
As fish feed, duckweed can triple the yield of fish over unfed ponds. The Prism Group
experiments with feeding duckweed to fish yielded an average of 10 tons of fish per hectare per
year (the Bangladesh average is 400 kilograms), generating a gross profit of US$ 16,000 per year.
Based on these experiments, Prism has begun to spread the technology. At Mirzapur, it
operates duckweed treatment systems using wastewater from a hospital, and at Khulna using
municipal sewage. Prism has also introduced a household, latrine-fed pond system to about 50
villages in Bangladesh, with duckweed cultivated to improve sanitation and feed fish in nearby
ponds.
Contact: William Journey and Peter Edwards (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
In the United States, the Lemna Corporation has nine facilities purifying wastewater
with duckweed, a process that offers savings of 50-75 percent over competing
technologies. Lemna is also treating waste in Torreon, Mexico, and plans to do so in
Egypt as well.
Duckweed grows quickly in many climates in temperatures ranging from 15 to 30 °C
(Photo 5.1). It doubles its wet weight in 2-4 days with per acre yields as much as 10
times those of soya bean. Dried duckweed has about the same amount of protein (35-50
percent) as soya bean. Israel exports the weed as a salad crop to European health food
stores.
Fish and Other Seafood

In addition to fishing in open public waters, urban residents engage in urban pisciculture,
breeding and producing fish and other seafood in controlled environments in ponds or

cages in rivers or lakes within metropolitan areas. In Jakarta, for instance, the city‟s
reservoir is leased to fish farmers, and 1 hectare of water produces the same income as 1
hectare of land.18 In Panama, one small-scale farmer who has four one-quarter-hectare
ponds raises tilapia, carp, shrimp, and native fish for separate urban markets, all fed by
waste from pigs and poultry (Photo 5.2).
In West Bengal, including greater Calcutta and several smaller cities, fish yields
increased six-fold during the 1980s, primarily in man-made tanks and wastewater-fed
lagoons.19 In Hong Kong, fish are raised in small tanks with fences around them
(providing open space in the center of high-density residential areas), and in cages in
bays and lagoons. Some of the floats suspending the cages are used as the foundation for
vegetable and chicken production.
In some cities surrounded by water, particularly in Asia, the contribution of
pisciculture can be truly significant. Around metropolitan Manila, total fish production
from within the city and off-shore was 226,000 tons in 1998, covering about two-thirds of
the area‟s total fish demand. About 2 percent of the area of metropolitan Manila is
covered with fishponds.20
It appears that fishing is by custom a male occupation around the globe, even in
countries where women are traditionally accountable for food production. Urban
pisciculture may be an exception, however, particularly for small-scale operations.
Pisciculture typically demands a large amount of capital, thus poor farmers are generally
precluded from participating, although there are some exceptions. For example, the
Jakarta reservoir and the fishermen‟s cooperative at the sewage lagoons in Calcutta offer
opportunities for lower-income farmers (see Case 3.5).
Fish from waterways that have high levels of heavy metals or pathogens may be
hazardous to human health and lead to chemical poisoning or communicable diseases.
Aquaculture that uses waste can also be a health hazard if proper control is not
maintained to ensure that pathogen activity is below the relevant threshold. Pathogens
that are not removed in the treatment can be passed from fish to consumers or to workers
in the ponds. Aquatic snails can also serve as host for the schistosoma pathogen that
causes schistosomiasis or bilharzia, which has been identified in some aquaculture ponds
that use sewage.21
Standards from the World Health Organization (WHO) issued in 1989, or other
stricter international standards such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, can be used. Use of wastewater for aquaculture is safe if the wastewater is
treated in stabilization ponds before being discharged into the fishponds.22 One of the
sustainable and safe solutions being promoted is a two-stage process in which aquatic
macrophytes like duckweed, or „trash‟ fish like tilapia, are raised in the sewage for use as
feed for fresh fish in treated sewage.
Fish fed on sewage are commercially produced in China, India, Viet Nam, Germany,
Hungary, and elsewhere. In most of these places, this farming activity is long established.
Currently, there may be two parallel trends:
a decline in the pioneering large cities, particularly in Asia, because sewage is
contaminated with toxic industrial waste as urban areas expand; and

new systems in a number of smaller cities. The best prospect may lie in semi-arid and
arid countries such as Egypt and Peru (Case 5.5). The production of fish meal for
animal feed may be another growth area.23
Case 5.5 Sewage-fed aquaculture in San Juan, Lima

Reuse of wastewater is especially important in arid Peru. The San Juan de Miraflores complex in
Lima was created as an experimental facility to optimize reuse and recovery of wastewater.
Stabilization ponds have been processing wastewater drawn from the neighboring communities of
about 150,000 residents since 1969. The complex processes sewage to provide communities with
treated effluent for use in horticulture and silviculture. The communities use the wastewater (legally
and illegally) to irrigate crops such as maize, alfalfa, fruit and nut trees, and vegetables. The water
is also used to water livestock and woodlands.
In 1983, aquaculture was initiated by the Pan American Centre for Sanitary Engineering and
Environmental Sciences (CEPIS) as a demonstration project to test the possibility of producing fish
in mature wastewater stabilization ponds. With World Bank support, CEPIS undertook research to
examine both the productivity of the fish culture and any associated economic and public health
aspects.
Nutrients in wastewater are beneficial for fish growth, however, fish rarely survive in untreated
wastewater. Even when fish do survive they may contain pathogens, chemicals, or heavy metals
that make them unsuitable for human consumption. The CEPIS/World Bank-funded experiments
confirmed that tilapia and carp grown in partially treated (tertiary) city wastewater are suitable for
human consumption. The self-purification capacity of tilapia was also observed, and its limits
established through testing. The productivity of the waste ponds (4,400 kilograms per hectare of
tilapia per summer season, with an average weight of 0.25 kilograms) compares well to tropical
fishponds using expensive feeds.
Thus commercialization of aquaculture was shown as a possibility. CEPIS is also conducting
socioeconomic studies to establish the size of the market for the fish. The sale of wastewater-fed
tilapia was acceptable to Lima consumers even though they were aware of the origin of the fish.
City authorities hope to replicate the San Juan experiment in other parts of Lima.
Contact: Carl Bartone and Julio Moscoso Z. (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Animal Husbandry
Animal husbandry, including raising birds, is a common type of city farming. It
dominates in some very large cities such as Cairo and Mexico City, where it is more
common than vegetable cultivation. Scant research has examined this common practice
as distinct from raising animals in rural areas. Low-income urban livestock farmers,
receive little advice or assistance, including veterinary services, that is attuned to their
special problems.
Urban livestock rearing is practiced by both large- and small-scale producers as well
as high-income and low-income farmers. The large-scale producer may be a poultry
farmer with thousands of birds, cold storage facilities, purchasing agreements for large
amounts of feed, and specialists on staff. The small-scale producer might have a small
herd of goats or a few pigs and some agreements about access to grazing land and access
to restaurant waste.

The range of livestock raised in cities includes chickens, quail, pigs, cows, goats,
guinea pigs, rabbits, ducks, geese, pigeons, worms, and hybrid members of the rat family.
Exotic fauna such as antelope, ostrich, and emu are also raised close to urban customers.
The larger and more diverse market and the smaller production facilities allow the urban
producer to offer a wider range of products. Sometimes the animals‟ presence is not
apparent since they are fed and raised in backyards.
The greatest presence of livestock within a metropolitan area is in the peri-urban area.
Table 5.2 illustrates the distribution of livestock in Mexico City. Distribution is not
uniform because some types of livestock tend to be found in significant numbers in inner
areas, while others are overwhelmingly peri-urban.
Table 5.2 Distribution of selected livestock across

the Mexico City metropolitan area in 1990
Intra-urban Suburban Peri-urban
Cattle 2,931 6,597 13,591

Pigs 1,541 12,992 43,807
Hens 132,902 411,191 189,842
Turkeys 310 4,010 15,500
Rabbits 4,271 9,780 15,101
Beehives 200 2,789 3,738
Note: Many of these numbers may be underreported,
due to fear of prosecution (particularly in intra-urban
areas).
Source: H. Losada et al. 1998. Urban Agriculture in the
Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City: Changes over Time
in Urban, Suburban, and Peri-Urban Areas.
Environment and Urbanization 10(2):46, Oct.
Animal husbandry generally has a main product (meat) and a number of useful by-
products, including milk, eggs, fur, hides, feathers, and dung. In Hindu and Buddhist
countries, and for many poor families elsewhere, some of these by-products are more
important than the meat. The animals are often treated by the poorest as insurance — they
can be sold in an emergency as a source of quick cash.
From sheep grazing in a park to pigeons flying over rooftops to guinea pigs squealing
in cages on shelves, rearing animals offers multiple benefits to many in the city. First,
family nutrition is improved through fresher, higher quality protein. Animal husbandry is
an efficient way for a poor family to obtain expensive meat protein and fresh dairy
products. Second, refrigerated shipping is not needed, reducing energy use, pollution, and
traffic. Third, grazing livestock along roadsides and on public park grasslands can be an
environmentally sound method of maintaining urban open spaces that reduces or
eliminates costs. Finally, although livestock in the city may initially seem dirty, in fact

animals are efficient recyclers, and with some management, can improve the soil and
thereby the environment.
While the blanket prohibition against urban livestock commonly found in many cities
all over the world goes too far, some concerns of those who resist urban livestock are
valid. Raising animals in congested quarters in proximity to (or in the midst of) a dense
concentration of homes and workplaces can cause a variety of genuine problems —
disease, overgrazing, unpleasantness (dung on the sidewalk), contamination of water
sources, and a range of other health hazards.
Livestock waste can be a source of disease, as can unsanitary conditions in livestock
holding pens. Intensive production of animals can pollute the soil and water table through
leaching of animal excreta. Livestock feeding on untreated waste may pick up pathogens,
and roaming animals can spread diseases they may carry. Potential health hazards also
exist for workers through improper handling of livestock. Hazards are highest with larger
livestock, relative to poultry and small livestock. They are also magnified when poultry
or large livestock are concentrated in industrial-scale facilities housing thousands of
animals or birds.
Stringent regulations and precise monitoring are vital to ensure appropriate animal
husbandry practices in urbanized areas. More details on the potential health and
environmental hazards of animal husbandry and ways to limit their effects are discussed
in Chapter 8.
Poultry
Urban poultry production has an important role to play in the future food supply of the
world‟s cities. It is growing fast and varies considerably among countries. In Asia,
poultry production is shifting to large-scale „factory‟ systems. In Africa, it is becoming a
middle-income farming system, with indigenous breeds being replaced by American lines
(Case 5.6). In Latin America, there is a closer balance than in Asia between large-scale,
modern producers and the use of improved technology by small-scale farmers. In richer
countries, massive units of production within and adjacent to metropolitan areas are very
common, generating a range of problems.24
Case 5.6 Backyard poultry farms in Morogoro

For several years, professors living at Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogoro, Tanzania have
been raising chickens in backyard coops, with some having as many as 100 birds. Two-thirds of
faculty families raise chickens or grow fruits and vegetables in the backyard.
The chicks and the technology are imported from Zambia, yields are good, and they run quality
operations. The chicken farmers get free piped water and electricity from the government, and the
household plots are rent-free. Extension help is available from staff at the university. (There has
been a debate in Tanzania about the appropriateness of government staff using free resources and
university expertise for personal profit.)
The efficiency of the poultry farms is high due to good in-house technology, and research and
extension capacity. Considerable expertise in poultry production has emerged, and the university

staff could easily transfer the technology to low-income farmers, and provide them with extension
support, thus making their efforts even more productive for the city.
Contact: Zebadato S.K. Mvena (see Appendix F for complete address).
An intermediate technology exists between chickens scratching in the backyard for

scraps and offal and the chicken factories so common to the fringes of large cities in
industrial countries. This intermediate technology is exemplified by the bookcase-style,
stacked, small-livestock cages at the Centre for Education and Technology in Santiago,
Chile (Photo 5.7). In this farming system, shelves with cages for chickens and rabbits are
attached to a wall or fence. If there are four shelves in a typical set-up, then layers,
broilers, chicks, and rabbits may each occupy one shelf. Their feed consists not only of
household and vegetable garden scraps, but also worms and maggots that have fed on
offal. Such systems incorporate recycling waste from local businesses (restaurants and
green grocers) and waste from other urban farming systems.
Ducks, geese, pigeons, and other poultry each have an appropriate place in urban
agriculture. In India, raising ducks is an important agricultural activity in urban areas.
One government official said that “duck eggs are in great demand in urban markets and
contribute much to the food requirements of the vegetarian [unfertilized eggs] and non-
vegetarian communities.”25
Quail, which are between pigeons and chickens in size, are growing in popularity for
urban or cage production, particularly in Latin America.26 One bird is a main course for
both wealthy and moderate-income adults. Bright colored and articulate tropical forest
birds such as the parrot and parakeet are being more widely grown in many cities for
local and export markets. Sparrows and other small birds are produced for religious and
cultural uses.
Poultry production provides fertilizer to horticultural crops and food to aquatic crops.
The farmer in Bangkok, for example, feeds bird droppings to his fish and uses sludge
from the bottom of the pond as a manure on his vegetable plot. Pigeons are an efficient
rooftop farming system. Ducks and geese fit particularly well with some pisciculture
systems because they eat grasses and weeds on land and in the water, and their offal
provides the fish with nutrients.
Small Livestock
Microlivetock are widely raised by low- and middle-income farmers. They are now seen
by many as an important technology for sustainable development. Small animals are
generally more efficient converters of feed to meat than large animals. In many cities,
microlivestock are a particularly common form of urban agriculture — especially rabbits
and guinea pigs in Latin America and Africa (Case 5.7).
Rabbits in particular are ideal animals to raise in the city. They do not take up much
space, are cheap to feed, and are prolific breeders. Rabbits can be fed grass, leaves, food
scraps from the kitchen, alfalfa or other forage crops, commercial chicken or pig feed, or
greens thrown out by stores, markets, and restaurants. For some, the rabbits they raise

may be their only source of meat. Fur and skin from rabbits and other microlivestock can
be sold in the local market, and their dung can be used as garden fertilizer.
Rabbits made the pages of newspapers because of their contribution to the survival of
the besieged population of Sarajevo, Bosnia in the mid-1990s. In the Washington, D.C.
area, agricultural extension agents were having trouble keeping up with requests for
information on rabbit raising in 1999, due to a burgeoning local demand led by
restaurants.27
The biggest constraint to raising microlivestock is health regulations about both
production and marketing. In addition, farmers often use inefficient practices, and
improvements in extension services may be needed. Small producers would benefit from
marketing cooperatives.
Case 5.7 Raising guinea pigs in Cameroon

Although guinea pigs originated in the Andes, over time they have established a foothold as a
domesticated animal in a number of African countries. Because there was little information about
guinea pigs as a food source, a joint Italian-local research team decided to assess their contribution
to the household diet in Cameroon.
The study found two very different agroecological regions where guinea pigs are commonly
raised in homes (both urban and rural) — the western savannah plateaux and the equatorial forest
zones of the center and south (which include the capital Yaounde). Raising these little animals was
found to be primarily an activity of lower-income women and children that occurred inside the home,
specifically in the kitchen.
While raising them is primarily for food security, half the breeders also use them as a source of
revenue and financial reserve. Guinea pigs are also used frequently for ritual purposes in the
forested region. As a high-value animal (the most expensive local meat product in Cameroun), they
are sold primarily around holiday periods.
Guinea pigs were found to be well-integrated with other livestock, roaming freely between them
(although this does lead to some mortality from predators and from being stepped on). On average,
households keep 17 Guinea pigs each. They are fed both fodder gathered nearby, as well as
kitchen refuse and crop residue. Their own waste is used as fertilizer. The study found the animal to
have great potential for expansion into new households.
Large Livestock
The significance and form of large livestock production in the city varies considerably
from country to country. In Africa, where built-up areas in many cities still have low
density, the practice of raising livestock for milk and meat is now widespread (Case 5.8).
A recent survey in Kenya, however, found that low-income Nairobi cattle farmers lost
more cattle to disease than they brought to market. In Latin America, where raising
livestock has been a way of life in many locations, it is now being pushed out of the
cities.

Case 5.8 Milk production in the Oyster Bay district of Dar es Salaam
Influential upper-income families in Oyster Bay — a rich residential area of Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania — raise imported cross-bred cows in backyard stables for milk production. The cows are
herded by hired help and graze on roadside verges, stream banks, parks, and private yards.
Grazing helps maintain the roadsides and parks, but the beachside park may have been
overgrazed.
Oyster Bay is a former colonial residential neighborhood with expanses of open space. The
farming activity in Oyster Bay started with some residents perceiving a market need. Milk is in short
supply and sells at a high price in Dar es Salaam, thus good profits can be made with just a few
cows kept at home.
According to a survey reported by Sokoine University, at least 90 percent of officials residing in
government houses in Oyster Bay raise several head of cattle and goats. (The Dar es Salaam City
Council officially permits each household to have four animals.) That upper-income farmers are
raising cattle shows the range of the industry.
This farming activity is controversial and criticized as unsanitary and unsuitable for urban areas.
Livestock rearing in the city had been illegal, but gained acceptance under policy changes enacted
in the 1980s, although grazing native cows on public land at the city fringes has always been
practiced in Dar es Salaam. Rearing livestock in a wealthy neighborhood, and other similar farming
activities, may lead to increased acceptance and policy support for urban farming in Africa.
Contact: Zebedato S.K. Mvena and Camillo Sawio (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Sheep and goats in the city are making a return. These animals have trimmed the
street sides of Rome since before Julius Caesar, and the great central Maidan of Calcutta
since 1800. Indeed, in much of Asia, grazing on public land and milk production in urban
locations are still common. Urban land-use regulations, based on Hindu and Moslem
traditions, often do not contain the blanket ban on raising livestock in cities that is
prevalent in European and American cities.28
In southern Europe, livestock grazing in public parks and other open spaces continues
wherever there is continuity of Roman law. Today goats are transported by truck 1,000
miles up and down the megalopolis from Georgia to Maine on the Atlantic seaboard of
the United States.29 They are hired by municipalities and institutions to ecologically trim
grass, weeds, and shrubbery.
Large and small livestock can be produced at high densities in „zero-grazing‟ (stable-
or cage-fed) farming systems, where fodder is brought to the animal instead of the animal
being taken to graze.30 Zero-grazing has many benefits as a symbiotic link in the cycle of
urban agriculture. It also requires stringent quality control, necessitating cooperation
among public entities and private farmers and processors. Research is needed to bring the
benefits of zero-grazing now enjoyed by large-scale producers to small-scale producers.
Serious problems can arise from urban rearing of large livestock. As one analyst
states, some “urban agriculture activities are not as benign as others”.31 This observation
may apply more to keeping large livestock than to any other agricultural activity, thus
this activity must be assessed not just by itself, but also in comparison to alternative
activities. Risks encountered in the practice of urban animal husbandry include health

problems such as bovine tuberculosis, environmental problems, and overgrazing (see

Chapter 8).
Forestry
In much of the developing world, wood is the primary fuel for cooking and heating. As
cities grow and demand increases, access to fuelwood becomes more difficult,
exacerbating desertification and erosion.32 Residential construction is often dominated by
timber, a commodity that is becoming more scarce and expensive as urbanization
increases. Managua, Nicaragua was a particularly tragic example after a decade of war
and economic sanctions. When petroleum imports were cut off, the forests around the
city disappeared. A similar situation has occurred more slowly around Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Urban agroforestry can help mitigate these problems and contribute other benefits.
Urban forests have the potential to be managed for social, economic, environmental, and
recreational benefits (Case 5.9). Managed forests that produce fuelwood and construction
materials can also produce fruit and other food through intercropping with vegetables and
grasses. There is a huge untapped potential to combine urban forests and urban waste
management. Furthermore, large peri-urban forests, of which there still are many around
the world, have a unique role in maintaining biologically diverse domains close to
urbanized centers. In the long term, urban agroforestry may also be important to reduce
the indirect impacts of cities on surrounding and more distant ecosystems. All these
functions complement the special contributions that woodlands provide to the physical
and mental well-being of urban residents — trees reduce noise and pollution, and are
aesthetically pleasing.
Case 5.9 The Bountiful City Project, Asheville, North Carolina

Asheville’s Bountiful City Project is being established as the USA’s first edible public park system
(although Boston’s park system has some similar elements). Such an endeavor involves multiple
elements — a community-oriented approach to urban ecological health and economic sustainability,
community recreational space that raises awareness of urban food security issues, and an
educational forum for neighborhood residents, students of all ages, and visitors to Asheville. Each
park is a combination of an edible forest ecosystem and safe city park.
The Bountiful City Project is modeled after permaculture forest gardening principles that mimic
the design of natural forest ecosystems by incorporating the seven layers of a forest ecosystem —
canopy trees, dwarf fruit trees, shrubs, vines, herbaceous plants, groundcover, and root layers. By
facilitating and accelerating the first stages of natural forest succession, the volunteers of
CitySeeds, a grassroots, nonprofit organization based in Asheville, are able to create a system that
is self-sustaining, highly productive, environmentally sound, and beneficial to the local economy and
community. The parks are conceived, designed, and built through a process of public design
charettes and public workdays scheduled throughout the seasons.
The first 1-acre park was built adjacent to the Stephens-Lee Community Center, behind City
Hall. The City of Asheville Parks and Recreation Department allocated the land for the project. The
next park is being implemented in the historic Montford community. Both existing Bountiful City
Parks are located adjacent to community centers that run after-school and summer camp programs
for children. Both Centers are collaborating with CitySeeds to serve children. Interns, volunteers,

and various student groups from colleges and universities around the region, as well as at-risk
youth, have been extremely active in the Bountiful City Project.
The Bountiful City sites are public parks open to everyone. The trees require less work than
annual vegetable gardening, with nearly 90 percent of the financial investment occurring within the
first year. Because they are perennial, they will continue to produce nutritional benefits, park space,
and environmental benefits for years or decades. The parks are partially funded by the citizens of
Asheville, several private foundations, and local businesses.
Contact: Jonathan Brown (see Appendix F for complete address).
In most places, street trees help to modify the climate serve aesthetic purposes. In a
few places, they play a more significant role. Bangalore, India uses a substantial share of
its street trees for fruit production. In Hungary, the harvest from street-side plum trees is
auctioned. In Argentina and Chile, oranges are grown on streets for hospitals, schools,
and orphanages. Fruit trees provide shade over sidewalks from one side of the
Mediterranean basin to the other (Photo 5.?).
In Greece, olives are grown in cemeteries, while Adelaide, Australia promotes olive
planting for use by the population. In Beijing, persimmon and walnut trees are grown in
parks. Singapore‟s Housing Authority plants fruit trees in housing areas.33 Foods like
baobab leaf, tamarind, and processed parkia seeds are very popular in large towns in the
African Sahel. Trees are also important for medicinal purposes and as sources of animal
fodder. In China, 17 percent of the trees in Beijing (and as much as 42 percent in some
other areas) are estimated to be fruit trees.34
Urban forestry generates a large variety of economic enterprises. In particular, urban
trees offer the poorest urban residents a means of generating income. Activities include
collecting nuts; recovering fallen trees for use as fuelwood, construction material, or
wood for handicrafts; and gathering fodder, herbs, or shrubbery. In Panama, agricultural
shantytowns produce forest and vegetable crops just across the Panama Canal from
downtown Panama City. In peri-urban Nairobi, urban agroforestry produces coffee,
vegetables, and fruit. Leaves are collected throughout the Sahel for marketing as food and
as medicine. Indian peri-urban areas have numerous nurseries for small palm trees that
are grown for nutritional as well as decorative purposes.
An early example of a managed food and fuel production program was started in Lae,
Papua New Guinea. It helped meet the needs of the city while rehabilitating the
surrounding hilly area. The peri-urban Aztera Hills region had suffered severe
deforestation and degradation as a result of city residents stripping fuelwood or farming it
for short-term use. The program created zones for ecological rehabilitation and
conservation, fuelwood cropping and agroforestry, and other farming. The agroforestry
program granted access to plots averaging one-tenth hectare to farmers for symbiotic
planting of trees and vegetables. The city also planted fruit and nut trees in public areas
and provided free seedlings to city residents for planting at their homes.35
Relative to the other categories of urban agriculture described here, urban
agroforestry has exceptional advantages that add to whatever productive functions (food,
fuel, herbs, etc.) it may also have. In other words, a farmer may plant a tree for its fruits
or profits, but she may also gain a range of environmental assets. The environmental

contributions of urban forests and other treed surfaces are indeed vast. The capacity of
woodland to absorb wastewater for irrigation is just beginning to be tapped, for example,
in Lima and Cairo.36 Kuwait, Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Aden (Yemen) also recycle their
wastewater into urban forests, flowers, and food.37 In addition to the treatment of
wastewater, important aquifers lie under many metropolitan forests. The maintenance of
these forests thus plays a role in the supply of drinking water to the city.
Urban forests act as natural filters and are central to combating urban air pollution,
especially carbon dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter. They effect considerable
modifications in the microclimate, consequently conserving energy by reducing the need
to heat and cool buildings. A pioneering study sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project has quantified the
impact of forest vegetation on local climate, energy use, and air quality.38
For some cities like Dakar (Senegal), Beijing (China), and Ismailia (Egypt), tree
cover provides crucial protection against the encroachment of sand and dust from nearby
arid or desert areas. The capacity of shrubs and trees to preserve the soil, protect against
erosion, and maintain steep slopes and wetlands has been underrated by most urban
administrations. At Mont Ngafulla in Kinshasa, low-income farmers, with help from a
horticulturist and the forestry department, created orchards and nurseries to control soil
erosion through a productive use. In the floodplains of the Nairobi River, slum dwellers
planted fruit trees and other crops to save themselves from river floods.
The benefits of green space and forestry in urban areas (as detailed in Chapter 7) are
coming under increased attention in both developed and developing countries.39 The
European Forest Institute (EFI) of Finland is presently conducting a comparative study of
urban forests in Europe — with emphasis on forest policies — in 30 cities in 16 European
countries. FAO has a global program on urban and peri-urban forestry. The Tree City
Initiative in Germany focuses on urban greening, especially resource-poor citizens and
trees in developing countries, and provides technical assistance.40
Urban forestry has some special constraints and problems in addition to those that are
common to all forms of urban agriculture, as described in Chapter 9. In particular, the length
of time required to grow a tree is longer than for any other crop. Consequently, security of
tenure or license is especially important for the longer-term investment in tree planting. In
dense urban areas, the roots of larger trees or their falling branches can cause structural
damage to buildings. Damage can be minimized through species choice and maintenance.41
Further, the harsh conditions in an urban ecosystem mean that the urban tree is more
vulnerable to a variety of environmental stresses, including disease, pollution, poor soils,
and vandalism, than its rural counterpart.42 The survival rate for planted trees can be low
— in Mexico City, for example, fewer than one-half the trees planted survive to
maturity.43 Research to continue to develop or identify trees that can adapt to the urban
environment, as well as diffusion of what is known about the benefits of urban forestry,
are crucial to surmount these special hindrances.
Urban forests have long been an intricate part of the life in many cities. In many
European examples, urban forests have become part of the city‟s identity —
Fontainebleau near Paris, Epping forest in London, Grünewald in Berlin, and the
Zonienwoud near Brussels. While the historical purpose of these urban forests was for

food and fuel, they have become mainly recreational and environmental enhancement
areas that are critical to the character and „liveability‟ of the cities.
Forested reserves, sometimes in the form of greenbelts around settlements, can be
found in some parts of the developing world. While the potential role of sustainably
managed greenbelts around urban areas for food, fuelwood, and timber supply has long
been recognized, few cities have included protected green space by design. Lilongwe
(Malawi) is designed to intersperse housing areas with forestry areas, yet the forestry
areas are not managed to supply either food or fuelwood to residents. The same is also
true in Rabat (Morocco).
Urban forestry projects in greenbelt-type zones were funded by FAO and GTZ in
Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly
Zaire), N‟Djamena (Chad), Nouakchott (Mauritania), and Maputo (Mozambique). They
did not all meet with success, however, due to a blanket design and species approach, and
lack of dialogue and involvement with communities.44 With some notable exceptions
such as Ethiopia, to date such plantations (usually of exotic species) have not improved
the fuelwood supply. This is either because higher-priced building materials were
produced instead of fuel, or because poor people could not afford the fuelwood. Solutions
recommended by Kuchelmeister include forestry that allows co-existence of agriculture
and trees, and the provision of incentives for community involvement.45 Urban forest
reserves need to be rethought in terms of multiple functions — in a way, the concept
needs to revert closer to its original form.
Other Urban Farming Systems

Urban agriculture fills additional market niches beyond food and fuel. Some of these
might be labeled „exotica‟, but they are economically significant. Snails are raised
indoors and in yards. Ornamental fish for living room tanks are an important crop in
some cultures. Straw and small branches (rattan, willow) are a common crop for basket
weaving.
Singapore illustrates the potential of exotica as a major farming activity. Despite the
limited surface available for cultivation, it has become a leader in the worldwide export
of tropical ornamentals, orchids, specialty fish, exotic birds, and even crocodiles raised in
Singapore‟s „agrotechnology parks‟.46
The various „minor‟ urban agricultural crops may be the most important for urban
biodiversity. Bees are essential for both agricultural and natural ecosystems, and worm
production is essential for composting, fishing, and silk production. Countless medicinal
plants for humans and animals are produced in small urban spaces.
Medicinal plants are part of an important subsector of urban agriculture —
„biopharming‟. This includes edible vaccines, medicinal herbs and insects, and sources
for vitamins. Biopharming holds promise of reducing the cost of new medicines and
keeping traditional medicines available to low-income families.47 It is particularly suited
to small-scale production (rooftop, window box, greenhouse) and needs precise policy
interventions.

Three forms of cultivation should be noted in particular — apiculture (bees),

vermiculture (worms), and mycoculture (mushrooms). In addition, some specialized
forms of horticulture not discussed earlier deserve mention — beverage crops, medicinal
crops, and most notably, ornamental horticulture.
Fauna
Apiculture involves specialized techniques for beekeeping. A labor-intensive activity,
apiculture can be a significant employment generator or a sideline for small farms (Photo
5.?). Wax obtained as a by-product has much commercial utility, particularly as a source
of lighting material.48 Finally, the role of bees as pollinators is clearly vital to promote
biodiversity.
An emerging form of intensive culture is raising snails. Long common in European
countries, this crop is now increasingly found in developing countries with traditions of
eating snails. In a number of Central African countries, for example, giant African snails
had traditionally been gathered from the bush for consumption and sale. Depletion of this
resource has led to development of production techniques to keep up with rising demand
from consumers, particularly restaurants. „Achatiniculture‟ has thus become a common
activity for urban residents from Guinea to Angola.49 (Achatina is a genus of land snails
that are often large and common in the warm parts of Africa.)
Vermiculture has diverse uses in the urban context. Silk is spun by worms in boxes on
verandas — the worms eat mulberry leaves that are delivered daily from urban forests.
Worm larvae are also raised as fodder, especially for chickens. Worms greatly increase
the effectiveness of composting, and their excreta have a high value as a soil additive.50
Flora
Mushrooms
Many cultures around the world include mushrooms in their diet. As the world has
become more urbanized, mushrooms that once were collected in fields and forests are
now mostly grown in cellars and sheds, making mycoculture a primarily urban form of
production. The technology is being transferred from Asia and Europe to Latin America
and Africa, usually first to corporate ventures and well-to-do farmers (Case 5.10).
Case 5.10 Asian roots of mushroom cultivation in Ghana

In an exciting project supported by UNDP and the International Trade Center, a Thai mushroom
expert working in Sri Lanka taught Ghanaians how to grow mushrooms in sheds behind their
houses. Mushrooms have always grown wild in Ghana, and Ghanians have for centuries used them
as a meat substitute. Traditionally, the mushrooms common to Ghanaian cuisine had been
collected in the forest and at the edge of roads. Eventually, however, demand came to exceed the
supply, which led to importing large quantities of mushrooms.
In 1987, Kwesi Ahwoi, Executive Secretary of the Ghana Export Promotion Council, visited the
UNDP-supported National Mushroom Project in Sri Lanka and talked with its main consultant, Prof.
Anon Auetragul, a leading Thai mushroom expert. Consequently, the National Mushroom

Development Project (NMDP) was launched under the auspices of Ghana’s Food Research
Institute.
The NMDP’s success depended on reciprocal visits by Prof. Auetragul to Ghana and by Leslie
Sawyeer, a young local mushroom expert who came to head the project. NMDP’s activities included
establishing a laboratory to produce mushroom spawn, studying propagation techniques, and
training cultivators. Mushroom species were also collected and evaluated.
The country’s favorable climate for mycoculture and the great demand for mushrooms as a
source of protein has meant that Ghanaians have taken enthusiastically to mushroom cultivation.
One Ghanaian who has become a part-time mushroom farmer is Cudjoe Tsegah, a civil servant. He
uses some of the mushrooms for his family’s consumption (in salads, with rice, or even as
sandwiches). The rest of the mushrooms are sold for extra income. Starting with an investment of
US$ 760, he now has more clients (including restaurants) than he can supply.
The high domestic demand, the high value of the product, and the small space requirement
thus make the mushroom production an industry with significant growth potential in and around
Ghana’s cities. The surplus is also marketed easily by GEPC, which is still maintaining its support
for this activity.
This crop has multiple advantages over other food sources because mushrooms:
have a higher protein content than any other vegetable product, as well as a higher
concentration of essential vitamins and minerals;
can be grown on a variety of agricultural waste products which can then be used as
compost for other plants;
require a very small amount of land for cultivation; and
require a minimum of water and sunlight.
Transnational agribusinesses are producing mushrooms in several developing
countries, frequently in urban areas. At the same time, small growers are producing for
the local market. Like hydroponics, mushroom farming requires less access to land and
water than horticulture and livestock rearing.
Restaurants in London and other UK cities are serving Irish mushrooms, made
possible by a combination of small-scale urban farming and high-speed ferry service. A
corporation produces and distributes mushroom growth medium and spore to small
growers with heated plastic greenhouses. All production is done in plastic bags. The
individual grower keeps the „farm‟ at the right temperature and humidity for six or so
weeks, and the corporation then picks up the mushrooms at a prearranged price. The
product is delivered to the UK the same day.51 In the United States, a suburban area
adjacent to Wilmington, Delaware, is in fact the „capital of mushrooms‟ in the country. In
Philadelphia, Kaolin Mushroom Farms Inc. is planning to replicate the Irish system in an
abandoned 40,000 square foot warehouse.52
Beverage Crops
Beverage crops include grapes, hibiscus, palm, tea, coffee, sugar cane, and matte (an
herbal tea). A number of these are grown intensively in urban areas. Grapevines, for
instance, are planted on slopes that are too steep for buildings in the very heart of

European cities such as Freiburg and Würzburg (Photo 5.11). Post-production processes
— in particular, the processing necessary to turn the crop into a beverage — are crucial,
and provide important downstream entrepreneurial activities. Street and door-to-door
sales of „homemade‟ beverages are common in cities of the developing world.
One study of the rural-urban interface in Tanzania found that two out of five farmers
in and around the town of Biharamulo included alcoholic beverage crops in their product
mix.53 The income generated by these crops ranged from 46-78 percent of the farmers‟
total income. The most common type of beverage was beer made from bananas; the
second was distilled spirits. Production was strictly divided by gender — all beer was
made and sold by women, while all spirits were produced by men. Most significantly, the
households that combined alcohol production and sale with other agricultural crops had a
constant cash flow to meet the household budget.
Medicinal Crops
Medicinal crops are another important urban agricultural crop. Along with culinary herbs,
which require similar management, they provide an important cash supplement for small
urban farmers. As medical care turns more and more to herbal over synthetic
medications, the urban grower of medicinal plants is gaining market share and
recognition, as the case of Durban illustrates clearly (Case 5.11).
Case 5.11 Production and sale of medicinal herbs in Durban, South Africa
Growing out of ancient Zulu traditions, the production and sale of medicinal herbs has long been a
major activity in Durban and its surrounding region. Herb growers and gatherers scattered in the
growing metropolitan area led to an innovative project in the 1980s. More recently, the proliferation
of traders selling herbal cures has resulted in a creative intervention by the post-apartheid
municipality.
The Silverglen Medicinal Plant Project started in 1983 as a low-key operation at the
experimental plant nurseries at the Silverglen Nature Reserve near Durban. In 1986, the nursery
operation that provided thousands of groundcover plants for parks in Durban moved closer to the
city to save on transportation costs. The relatively few Zulu medicinal plants that were cultivated
were given more room in the reserve and allowed to grow to their full potential.
With the influx of people into the metropolitan area, the Health Department as well as the Urban
Foundation requested help with upgrading programs in the settlements. The task at Silverglen
became to provide the expertise and plants to people for the sustainable production and marketing
of medicinal plants, alleviating the problem of supplying medicinal plants to a growing urban
population from a diminishing wild stock in the natural areas of the city.
The principal point for marketing the herbs from Durban is Warwick Junction, a major transport
hub that emerged at the point where busses carrying blacks and Indians were prohibited from
entering the inner city. This junction became the largest herbal medicine market in southern Africa.
The conditions at the site where an estimated 500 informal traders gathered raised environmental,
health, and planning concerns. The city council helped the herb traders organize themselves into a
traders’ street committee, and in cooperation with the traders, converted a nearby warehouse into a
market structure. The success of the project gave the city council credibility and access to a larger
trading community.

In Cuba, every pre-school has a medicinal garden, exposing each child to the lessons
of Mother Nature‟s cures for illness. This national program is supported by impressive
research, and underlines the importance of bringing nutritionists and health care
specialists into urban agriculture studies to define opportunities and risks.
Cactus
Cactus cultivation for salads is well established as a cash crop in countless small-scale
family enterprises in suburban Mexico City, and has recently been rediscovered by the
well-off population of Mexico. Half of the crop is consumed within Mexico City itself.
Some of the cactus is also exported to the western United States and Japan. As a result,
cactus cultivation has greatly expanded in Mexico City‟s peri-urban areas, increasing
from 1,600 hectares in 1980 to over 7,000 hectares by the late 1990s. It has emerged as
the most important economic activity in the city‟s agriculture.54
Cactus can have other functions too. All over Gaza, hedges made from cactus bushes
as the most common form of barrier (Photo 5.?). In addition to the impenetrability they
offer, they have the added benefit of bearing fruit for the property owner. Cacti are also a
very popular form of ornamentals that are typically grown within the space of
metropolitan areas — as are numerous other ornamental plants.
Ornamental Horticulture
Ornamental horticulture is predominantly an urban farming system because the market
exists almost entirely in cities, and flowers and other ornamentals are highly perishable
(Photo 5.12). Moreover, the urban producer has the advantage over the rural grower of
being better able to target the crop to feast days (Easter, Christmas, etc.). In most cities,
we found large numbers of ornamental plant farmers and floriculturists. Most often, this
was as a peri-urban phenomenon, but it has been moving toward downtown, roadside
verges, and plastic containers.
Ornamental horticulture has the twin distinctions of being aesthetically pleasing and
in demand by the elite. These plants are therefore found in areas of the city where
vegetable or livestock farmers may not be welcome. The crops can be grown at a
temporary site for as little as one season. It is most commonly a middle-income farming
system (Case 5.12). Large growers and corporations tend toward flower markets more
than production of trees, house plants, and shrubbery.
Case 5.12 Growing ornamental crops at home in Lusaka

A middle-income family in Lusaka, Zambia produces a second income by growing potted house
plants in their front and back yards. The family produces its own pots, makes soil from
neighborhood waste, and markets the plants directly to homeowners. The husband is the principal
farmer, but the wife holds a government job and is the expert horticulturist and market specialist.
She works on the business in her spare time, and the children help as well.
This successful ornamental horticulture enterprise is supported by a farmers’ association that
provides both technical advice and some credit. There is a large market for houseplants in most
cities worldwide, and several low- to middle-income farmers are supplying each local market.

Contact: Lyson Phiri (see Appendix F for complete address).
Access to water and credit are particularly important issues for ornamental
horticulture. Production in greenhouses can have negative environmental effects from
intense monocropping with heavy applications of fertilizers and insecticides. When not
grown in greenhouses using intensive chemical inputs, the product itself can be friendly
to the environment, helping to clean the air. Depending how it is practiced, ornamental
horticulture can be an aesthetic amenity, twinning perfectly with „agro-tourism‟, which
may be exemplified in the chinampas of Mexico City.
There is a trend in some countries to return ornamentals to native rather than exotic
plants, which contributes to biodiversity of other species. Indeed, ornamental horticulture
can be one of the more biodiverse sectors of urban agriculture.
————————————
Each of the urban farming systems discussed in this chapter has the potential to
contribute to sustainable development and sustainable cities. Bringing agriculture — with
its capacity to transform waste into crops — into cities can move them toward
sustainability. It can also reduce pressure on rural areas that are frequently subjected to
unsustainable farming systems. While both urban and rural areas have a great need for
sustainable agriculture, its benefits are greater in urban settings.

Notes
1. H. Losada et al. 1999. Assessing the Sustainability of a Peri-Urban Agroecosystem:

The Terraced Production of Nopal-Vegetable (Opuntia Ficus Indica) in Milpa Alta,
Mexico City, unpublished paper.
2. Data from the Tuscarora Cooperative north of Washington. This trend was
substantiated by field observations in weekly inner-city farmers‟ markets.
3. Michael Olson. 1999. Up against Goliath. Santa Cruz, Calif.: TS Books.
4.. IPGRI (International Plant Genetics Research Institute). 1997. Project Activity C13B:
Biodiversity of Green Leafy Vegetables in Africa. Rome: IPGRI.
5. Bede Okigbo, UN University, Accra, Ghana, personal communication, 1992.
6. John Jeavons, personal communication, 1998.
7. International Institute of Rural Redevelopment/UNICEF. 1991. The Family Food
Production Program in Negros Occidental 1986-1990, final project report.
8. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1990. Technical Report (Farm
Management/Farming Systems): Development of Pekarangan Land, project
TCP/INS/8852.
10. Harrington Jere, Human Settlements of Zambia, personal communication, 1999.
11. A.W. Drescher. 1996. Management Strategies in African Home Gardens and the
Need for New Extension Approaches. Pages 231-246 in Food Security and
Innovations — Successes and Lessons Learned ( F. Heidhues and A. Fadani, eds.).
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
12. Sing Kong Lee, National University of Singapore, personal communication, 1994.
13. Peter Drucker. 1999. Atlantic Monthly Magazine, Dec.
14. Interview with Sujit Banerji, commissioner, West Bengal Department of Fisheries,
Sep. 1992.
15. Such as those by Prizm in Bangladesh and by Lemna and Living Machines in the
USA.
16
. Geoff Wilson, TUAN-Western Pacific, Brisbane, personal communication, 2000;
Alison Meares Cohen, Heifer Project International, Chicago, personal
17. National Academy of Sciences. 1976. Making Aquatic Weeds Useful: Some
Perspectives for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
Sciences, pp. 127-144.

18. R. L. Meier, University of California at Berkeley, personal communication, Aug.

1991.
19. West Bengal Department of Fisheries. 1990. Annual Report. Calcutta: West Bengal
Department of Fisheries.
20. Mubarik Ali and Fe Porciuncula. 1999. How Urban Agriculture Can Benefit the
Urban Poor of Metro Manila, Philippines. Paper presented at the International
Workshop on Growing Cities Growing Food - Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda, Oct, Havana, Cuba.
21. Gregory D. Rose. 1999. Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse: Options for Urban Agriculture. Cities Feeding People Series
No. 27. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.
22. M.B. Pescod. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture. Report 47. Rome:
FAO.
23. Peter Edwards. 1998. Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture: State of the Art. Keynote address
to the International Conference on Ecological Engineering, Calcutta, Nov.
24. For the problems in the Netherlands, see The Dutch Dung Problem, Reuters News
Service, Oct. 11, 1999.
25. G.K. Choudhury, chief planner, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority,
personal communication, 1992.
26. Patricia Phumpiu, personal communication, 1998.
27. James Hanson, University of Maryland, personal communication, 1999.
28. See, for example, the master plan of Amman, Jordan, 1990.
29. Ellen Perlman. 1999. And Little Lambs Eat Ivy. Governing, Jul., p. 18.
30. The concept is not new of course, dating back at least to a manger in Bethlehem.
More recently, the famous American nature thinker Thoreau referred to the idea in
1858. Henry David Thoreau. 1991. Essays of Thoreau (Richard Dillman, ed.).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31. Christine Furedy, personal communication, 1993.
32. One estimate for Dakar, for example, is that urban charcoal consumption exceeds 1.5
million cubic meters, which would correspond to 3,000-5,000 hectares of savannah
and steppe. Thus fuelwood production is an obvious function that cannot be ignored.
See E.H. Sène. 1993. Urban and Peri-Urban Forests in Sub-Saharan Africa: The
Sahel. Unasylva 173(2):48.
33. E. Jane Carter. 1993. The Potential of Urban Forestry in Developing Countries: A
Concept Paper. Rome: FAO.
34. George Profous. 1990. The Structure and Management of the Urban Forest in
Beijing, the People’s Republic of China. New York: Northeast Forest Experiment
Station, USDA Forest Service. Quoted in Stephen Dembner. 1993. Urban Forestry in
Beijing. Unasylva 173(2):16.

35. Urban Resources Systems. 1984. Urban Agriculture: Meeting Basic Needs for the
Urban Poor. Prepared for UNICEF. Urban Examples for Basic Services
Development in Cities (UE-9). New York: UNICEF.
36. E. Jane Carter, 1993, op. cit., p. 34.
37. F. Karajeh et al. 2000. Using Wastewater for Agriculture. ICARDA Caravan 13:30.
38. Jason Navota and Dennis Dreher. 2000. Protecting Nature in Your Community.
NIPC/USDA.
39. For a review, see Mark Sorensen. 1997. Good Practices in Urban Greening.
Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
40. Personal communications, Susan Braatz, FAO, Rome, and Guido Kuchelmeister,
Tree City, Germany, 1999.
43. M. Caballero Deloya. 1993. Urban Forestry in Mexico City. Unasylva 173(2):31.
44. E. Jane Carter, 1993, op. cit.
45. G. Kuchelmeister. 1997. Urban Trees in Arid Landscapes: Multipurpose Urban
Forestry for Local Needs in Developing Countries No. 42, Fall/Winter.
46. Some species raised in the park are endangered (such as the dragon fish and a type of
crocodile), however, only second-generation stocks are raised under registration with
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Agrotechnology Parks
Singapore, pamphlet. Singapore: Primary Production Department, Ministry of
National Development, n.d.
47. Harrington Jere, Human Settlements of Zambia, personal communication, 1999.
48. Gopal Choudhury, personal communication, 1992.
49. J. Hardouin, C. Stiévenart and J.T.C. Codjia. 1995. L‟achatiniculture. World Animal
Review 83(2):29-39.
50. www.ecological-engineering.com/ctbook.html.
51. R.J. Stamp. 1998. Article in Spore Prints 46(6), Jun.
52. Alan Hunter, PhillyFarms Mushrooms. Unpublished, Philadelphia.
53. Jonathan Baker. 1994. Survival and Accumulation Strategies at the Rural-Urban
Interface in North-West Tanzania. Urban Perspectives 4:12-17, May.
54. H. Losada et al. 1998. Urban Agriculture in the Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City:
Changes over Time in Urban, Suburban and Peri-Urban Areas. Environment and
Urbanization 10(2):49, Oct.; and Losada et al., 1999, op. cit

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 6
Which Organizations Influence Urban Agriculture?
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
6
Which Organizations Influence
Urban Agriculture?
Urban agriculture is intricately tied to a variety of urban systems, including health and
nutrition, the economy, land use, ecology, infrastructure, waste management, and
transport. Thus it requires more interaction with, and is more sensitive to, the influence of
civic, governmental, and private agencies than most other industries — a fact that may
have played a role in hindering its full development.
The organizational constraints that face the industry — and the policies needed to
overcome them — are discussed in Chapters 9 and 11, respectively. This chapter
discusses the kinds of policies and actions now being pursued by various organizations. It
is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Different Roles for Different Organizations

A great number of organizations influence urban farming. They can be categorized into
six groups: (i) farmers’ associations, (ii) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
other support entities; (iii) local and national governments and other public authorities;
(iv) institutions, including independent and university research centers; (v) private firms;
and (vi) international development agencies.
These actors can be classified according to the four roles they fulfill — regulating,
facilitating, providing, and partnering (Table 6.1). One organization can fulfill multiple
roles simultaneously or through different components. Moreover, actors not only
influence urban agricultural activities, but are also affected by them, either unfavorably
(as when poor agriculture practices cause health problems that require government
intervention) or favorably (as when farmers properly use the sludge from a wastewater
treatment plant).
Regulating. Urban agriculture is regulated through a variety of laws, rules,
regulations, and programs. Impacts of the regulatory framework range from a generally
favorable or unfavorable climate resulting from policies that grant or deny a stamp of
approval to agriculture, to concrete actions of evicting farmers, cutting down crops, or
confiscating livestock. Legislation affecting urban agriculture includes land use, building,
environment, and health codes, and enforcement is most often the responsibility of local
governments. National governments have important roles in establishing and enforcing
health and environment laws and regulations and in setting policy.
In addition to government laws and regulations, other less obvious regulating
instruments include international codes, on which many national and local codes are

based; crop quality or purity standards established by farmers’ associations for their
members; and informal community controls on farming practices, often based on tribal,
cultural, or religious views.
Facilitating. As used here, facilitation includes providing technical advice and
training; brokering relationships with markets, government, bankers, and other groups;
leading or supporting policy or regulatory changes; eliminating constraints; providing
information; and assisting with organization. All actors described in this chapter can play
facilitating (as well as constricting) roles.
Providing. Actors intensify their involvement in urban agriculture when they move
from facilitating (which is equivalent to providing services) to providing resources and
inputs. This assistance includes supplying seeds and tools, granting access to land and
water, or providing a processing facility or insurance. It can also include providing
financial resources, such as credit for purchasing inputs or land, funding for research, or
seed money to initiate an endeavor. Efficient marketing requires market information,
weekly radio programs as well as other private and public media; and information about
the latest techniques, neglected crops, and the shifting pattern of the urban market.
Table 6.1 Roles played by various organizations influencing

urban agriculture
Organization Regulate Facilitate Provide Partner
Farmers’ association — —
NGO —
Local government
National government
Institution — —
Research institute — —
International agency — —
Other stakeholder —
= primary role = substantial role — = insubstantial role
Source: Compiled by The Urban Agriculture Network from various

sources
Partnering. In most countries, governments and institutions are large holders of

certain urban resources, especially land. They thus have a bigger stake in urban
agriculture than most other actors, which gives them a special role in the provision of
these resources. When they act as a landlord or an active participant in, for example,
sewage-based pisciculture, their role moves from that of an important outside actor
(regulator, facilitator, provider) to that of a directly-involved party. This more intimate
involvement is referred to as partnering. It occurs when there is a strong collaborative
relationship — a university allows farmers to cultivate part of its vast land holdings in
return for a share of the crop, a highway authority allows farmers to graze the verges in

return for maintenance, or a river port authority deposits dredge material on farmers’
fields in agreement with a farmers association (Photo 6.1). Partnering can be the most
fruitful of the four types of relationships for all parties involved. A number of potential
partnerships are identified in Chapter 10.
Support Organizations
A variety of organizations support the activities of urban farmers (Table 6.2). It is useful
to differentiate three types. Farmers cooperatives were discussed in Chapter 3, wherein
agricultural producers organize themselves into collective units to take advantage of
certain economies of scale in production, marketing, and other activities. Whereas
cooperatives are production entities similar to an agribusiness but run by their members,
farmers’ associations bring together independent farmers or farming cooperatives that
share certain interests or farming systems to help them gain access to possibilities (and
overcome barriers) through lobbying, obtaining information, and reforming laws and
regulations.. Finally, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) generally do not include
farmers, but are independent organizations that want, in addition to other commitments,
to help farmers.
Table 6.2 Examples of support organizations active in urban agriculture
Organization Location Project description
Urban Food Foundation Philippines Instrumental in forming a co-op of 500 small

livestock producers
SODEM Chile Uses model gardens to train home gardeners;
provides extension help
Undugu Kenya Supports urban farming for food security,
enterprise and disaster management
CET Chile Training and extension to low-income women
for intensive gardening
Peru Mujer Peru Training and organizing community gardens for
low-income women
Grupo de Estudios Mexico Provides technical advice to Chinampas
Ambientales farmers
Kinshasa farmers' cooperative Zaire Facilitates access to inputs, land, and markets
Indonesia national agronomists Indonesia Provides information and lobbies the
association government
American Community Garden USA Provides an extension service ‘From the Roots
Association Up’ and manuals
CityFarmer Canada For 20 years has provided advice and
references for urban agriculturists in
Vancouver and (through the Internet) globally
CGIAR Global Provides information to national research
programs through several of its 16 research
centers around the world

The line between these three types of organizations can be fuzzy. Their structure and
purpose can evolve over time — a cooperative may grow into a city-wide farmers’
association; a farmers’ association in turn can become independent and acquire a variety
of other roles such as education and health improvement, thereby becoming an NGO.
Since cooperatives have already been discussed at length in Chapter 3, farmers’
associations and NGOs are discussed in detail here.
While a number of international, regional, or national support organizations are
involved in urban farming, the majority of concerned organizations are typically based
locally. Many of the food system innovations mentioned in this book emerged from the
energy of thousands of successful community organizations. Examples are sprinkled
throughout the book. Some of these organizations were focused on overcoming hunger,
others on community development, and many on survival of the poor in the city.
Enhancement of the ‘food system’ was frequently not the objective, but rather a means to
other objectives, or even an unanticipated discovery through other activities. In many
places a supplementary locally-based food system has appeared unobtrusively as a result
of the actions of community-based organizations. For instance, microcredit NGOs
discover over time that most of their loans serve entrepreneurs in the food system.
Where food security is specifically targeted, community-based organizations can
begin with food production (with community gardening perhaps the most common
occurrence) or with food distribution, including community kitchens. Farmers’ markets,
which can be regarded as organized direct marketing, have been growing particularly
rapidly in developing and developed countries alike, successfully competing with
supermarkets. Central and Eastern Europe have experienced a particularly rapid growth
of direct marketing as the free market system replaces the command economy system.
Direct marketers sometimes organize themselves in order to market their products more
efficiently. In some cities, local food policy councils are establishing food distribution
systems.
A noteworthy type of support organization is the irrigation association. The core
function is not food production per se, but distribution of the water on which it relies.
These bodies not only serve to ensure efficient (and often ecologically sound)
management of urban irrigation water, but can be central to the organization of a city’s
entire food system. This is particularly evident in the case of the two Syrian cities of
Homs and Hama, where associations have long been essential to the maintenance of the
city’s agricultural canals (Case 6.1).
Case 6.1 Organizing the water supply in the urban gardens of Hama and Homs, Syria
The two largest cities of the valley of the Orontes River in central Syria, Homs (population 615,000)
and Hama (370,000), have always contained intra-urban and peri-urban horticultural zones.
Occupying the river banks, these areas ensured production of most fruits and vegetables for the
urban population until the 1940s. The nature of these zones was very different — one
homogeneous unit (1,000 hectares) located at the western edge of Homs, and a chain of small
areas (encompassing 500 hectares) scattered along the river like beads on a string in Hama. These

zones belong to various townsmen — notables, merchants, and craftsmen. Their cultivation is
assured by gardeners, farmers, or sharecroppers who live in town and constitute a specific
professional class. The organization of this professional class largely evolved from an irrigation
system that differed significantly between the two cities.
In Homs, 60 percent of the horticultural zone was irrigated by a principal canal supplied by an
antique weir located about 15 kilometers to the south of the city. This canal, which was the
exclusive property of Homs, fed a network of secondary and tertiary canals according to very
precise water rights. The system was under the responsibility of a notable who held the title of
‘Head of the Gardeners’. The lateral and tertiary canals were controlled by the most influential
families of gardeners, and a council of these family members was the link between the Head and
the other gardeners.
In Hama, lifting wheels (norias) provided irrigation water for the horticultural zone for a long
time; indeed, the norias have become the best-known feature in the city. The gardeners were
organized around the collective use of these norias, thus constituting a number of small
autonomous communities, not requiring the installation of a central authority and a more general
and coercive organization.
These two systems have evolved greatly since the 1940s. In Homs, the construction of a large
new canal replacing the old one integrated the horticultural zone within a vast regional system of
irrigation, shifting control of the large canal to a far-off state administration. Most of the gardeners
dug artesian wells at the end of the 1980s, and now alternate use of groundwater and canal water.
Individual irrigation management has thus replaced the larger administrative management, which
itself replaced the traditional community system.
In Hama, the prime change was replacement of the norias by motor-driven pumps beginning in
the 1950s, drawing water directly from the Orontes River. Initially, they were installed and run
collectively, but quickly became individually owned and operated. Their multiplication hastened the
demise of the small autonomous communities.
The access to water has become increasingly individualized in Homs and Hama. Traditional
associations of irrigators are being replaced by other forms of collaboration, usually on the basis of
family, friendship, solidarity, or common interest.
Contact: Thierry Boissière (see Appendix F for complete address).
Farmers’ Associations
Farmers’ associations can be organized either vertically or horizontally, or sometimes in
both directions. They may seek to integrate the urban agriculture industry vertically by
improving access to inputs, resources, and services, or to processing, distribution, and
marketing information and facilities. In other cases, farmers’ associations are organized
horizontally within a farming system, cutting across urban and rural lines.
An example of the latter is the association of fishermen cooperatives in the West
Bengal area of India. Fishermen in the sewage lagoons in Calcutta perceive themselves as
a part of the larger community of fishermen in the state. The association is organized at
the state level, with regional and local subdivisions in both urban and rural areas. The
fishermen thus express their needs, first through small cooperatives, and then through the
statewide association (see Case 3.5).
In Taiwan (province of China), urban farmers constitute the majority of farmers’
association members. The associations also manage access to water. They decide each
year how much water each farmer will receive and on what days, and crops are then
planted accordingly. The Taiwan National Farmers Association is an excellent model as a

credit provider from within the farming community. All members in good standing have
access to credit with streamlined procedures. The risk is reduced by the large membership
and reinsurance by the national government.
In Jakarta, the urban members of the National Agronomists Society organized a two-
day conference in 1992, with a focus on influencing national government policy. In
Zambia, the National Farmers Association is reaching out to medium- and small-scale
urban farmers. A farmers’ association in Dakar, Senegal not only regulates the use of
water to its members, but also leases the lagoon it controls to annual migrant farmers who
raise rice. The very vocal and powerful association of 80,000 community gardeners in
Berlin (Case 6.2) shows the potential influence that farmers can have when they
consolidate their forces.
Case 6.2 Schrebergarten associations in Germany

Allotment gardens in Germany had modest beginnings in the mid-19th century as children’s
gardens. The first formal family allotment gardens, which came to be known as Schreber Gardens
after the head of a local clinic, were organized in Leipzig in 1868. Originally they were also meant to
better conditions for children, but parents quickly took over the garden. From the start, a gardeners’
association was formed, naming itself Schreber Association, and an entire movement was born.
From a few hundred plots in the mid-19th century, the number of gardens rose to about
450,000 in the early 1930s. In 1949, post World War II food shortages had given the movement a
boost, and the number had risen to about 800,000. Today, the federal union of allotment holders
counts about 1 million members who have organized themselves into about 14,000 allotment
garden associations all over the country, including about 650,000 households.
In 1919, strong political associations of community gardeners and state interest led to the first
act targeting allotment gardens, the Allotment Garden and Small Land Lease law, and the
implementation rules that followed. More than 100,000 people now serve in allotment-holders’
associations in Germany in a wide variety of roles — officers, gardening consultants, certified
experts in plant protection, volunteers on commissions to evaluate gardens and nurseries, and
volunteers in other matters of community gardening self-administration.
Municipalities were involved from the early days in regulating and charging rent to use
municipal land for allotments. Gardeners’ associations commonly dealt with the parks department,
planning department, real estate department, and other municipal authorities. Interests of the
various parties interact with each other and ultimately shape the politics of community gardeners in
Germany. Whether the interests of allotment gardeners are served or not depends upon their
strength as an organization, which is what community gardeners in Germany have understood from
the beginning.
A clear example of their influence on municipal policy came in 1993-94 in Berlin. Schreber
associations confronted the city’s minister of construction when he attempted to allocate some of
the land where gardens were located (often prime locations) for development sites. They were able
to secure the future of 85 percent of the allotment gardens in Berlin by lobbying the Berlin Senate to
approve an allotment garden designation within the city’s land use plan.
The pressures on the Schrebergarten today come from multiple sources. In addition to the
expected real estate pressure on these largely unbuilt lands, some uses expose them to loss of
their special status. In a number of cases, many users put these lots into more recreational and less
productive uses, sometimes without any food production at all. If a garden area falls out of
compliance with the food production requirements, it can lose its Schrebergarten status. With the
loss of the special rates granted to Schreber associations, rents can then increase 10-fold. For this

reason, the self-policing role of an association is vital for the maintenance of its privileges and
activities.
In Germany, the Schreber associations are not just about gardening. They believe that the
more the associations shape themselves according to their particular needs and bring the individual
gardeners together as a team, the more they will contribute to a civic education. Small-garden
managers in local associations, as well as statewide and nationwide unions, enliven the democratic
constitution of a country. Community gardens therefore provide a social framework for a number of
garden-related activities that many perceive as a vital enhancement to their quality of life in an
urban environment.
Contact: Gert Gröning (see Appendix F for complete address).
Vertically organized farmers’ associations are perhaps more the rule in Europe than in
developing countries. In Poland, for instance, small-scale farmers are organized on a
local and a national basis. With notable exceptions, there has been little vertical
organization focused exclusively on urban farming. In some of the examples given in this
book, vertical organization has occurred spontaneously in response to a need. Thus
community kitchens in Peru have moved backward into production to secure access to
micronutrients from vegetables (see Case 7.2). A cooperative of women producers in
Colombia became a marketing cooperative in order to assure a market (see Case 5.3). The
Washington D.C.-Baltimore metropolitan area is served by the Tuscarora Organic
Growers Marketing Cooperative. With growing recognition of the industry and some
international support, national, and regional organizations are forming.
Urban farmers’ associations are nonetheless more the exception than the rule. Many
operate with only limited contact with their peers. Urban farmers are still less likely than
rural farmers to see themselves as members of a common group or industry. 1
Non-Governmental Organizations
Local NGOs are often the primary facilitators of urban agriculture. NGOs often perceive
themselves as pioneers and are playing crucial roles in developing innovations. Along
with community-based organizations, NGOs have the closest relationship with, and are
most supportive of, urban farmers, especially the poorest and most disenfranchised.
NGOs can serve as links between farmers and the market, credit agencies, research
institutions, and the government. They assist through a number of means —
empowerment and general organization; technical assistance; extension and training;
access to land, credit, insurance, and inputs; and organizing markets and market
information. Similar to farmers’ associations, NGOs can remove constraints that hamper
small-scale farmers and push governments and other institutions for policy changes.
NGOs are becoming increasingly active in urban agriculture. Not surprisingly, the
countries with the highest level of NGO development among those examined —
including Chile and the Philippines — appear to have the highest level of NGO interest in
feeding the cities through grass-roots efforts by the urban poor. In both countries, NGOs
support production and processing with research and marketing programs.

After having been a key part of the so-called alternative movement in the 1970s and
1980s in Latin America, some NGOs that support urban farmers are now working in
collaboration with new democratic governments. Most typically, they are involved in
promoting community development and self-reliant technology. KAIROS, a small NGO
working with the poorest of the poor, particularly recent arrivals in metropolitan
Santiago, supports horticulture at a solid waste dump, among other efforts. NGOs are
active in urban agriculture in Poland and Singapore, and in Africa in Zambia, Tanzania,
Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Uganda, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Cameroon, South Africa, and Kenya (Case 6.3).
Case 6.3 Promotion of urban farming by the Undugu Society in Nairobi

The Undugu Society is a non-governmental organization in Kenya working to empower poor people
engaged in handicrafts. The society noted that food is the major expense for the urban poor, and
decided to promote farming as a strategy for food security, nutritional self-reliance, and well-being.
Starting in 1988, access to land was negotiated and small plots of 165 square meters were allotted
to 105 households along the Nairobi River. Extension advice and assistance were provided for two
years, focusing on vegetable production.
Farmers grow several crops, including onions from waste bulbs collected in the market.
Farmers are also helped with livestock — goats, ducks, rabbits, and chickens — at their homes.
Fruit trees, including mango, paw paw, and avocado, are grown as companion crops to vegetables.
In the slum of Kitui-Pumwani, Undugu has helped to establish a banana plantation to protect the
slum from flash floods.
Undugu is promoting the use of organic pesticides from local material in place of imported
chemicals. Composting of household waste (including waste paper and plastic and organic waste)
is adopted for soil renewal and as a solution to the problem of waste disposal. The Nairobi City
Council denied the farmers’ request to collect garbage from nearby high-income residential areas
by truck, although it is permitted by collection by hand cart.
Agriculture is integrated with handicraft activities (including soap and candle making) and with
environmental improvement projects. In general, farmers faced better nutritional conditions than
non-farmers. The mean monthly income of households participating in the Undugu project was 1.5
times that of other households in 1994. The effect of greater purchasing power is difficult to
separate from the farming effect in the study because the urban agriculture program of Undugu was
accompanied by other enterprise development efforts as well as with shelter improvement — all of
which may have added to the welfare of participating households.
Contact: Paterson Kuria-Gathuru (see Appendix F for complete address).
Reports identify similar activity in South Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia. Human Settlements of Zambia has worked for 20
years with international agencies — including UNICEF, the World Bank, and the
American Friends Service Committee — managing urban agriculture projects in settings
from kitchen gardens to rain-fed plots at the periphery of the city (see Case 9.1). The
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has provided services to small-scale growers in

Philadelphia for a similar period. Throughout Europe, from West to East, allotment
gardens have long been supported by NGOs.
NGO involvement in urban agriculture is relatively limited in Asia except in the
Philippines, where the Urban Food Foundation is providing active support to urban
farmers (see Case 9.7). Another NGO in the Philippines, the International Institute for
Rural Reconstruction, is helping intensive home and community horticulture and small-
livestock farmers.
Urban agriculture often fits into a local organization’s basic agenda of service to the
poor, which includes alleviating poverty and overcoming hunger and malnutrition. For
many NGOs, urban agriculture starts as a secondary activity, but when they recognize the
benefits farming offers to the low-income residents whom they assist, they gradually add
urban agriculture to their areas of support. In Peru, community kitchens began their own
food production, in one case in cooperation with the national government and an
international NGO. Self-help housing groups sometimes include urban agriculture as an
informal activity.
In addition to their principal role as facilitators, NGOs are sometimes resource and
input providers. For example, they may provide seeds, ease access to land, or contribute a
water tank, perhaps as a ‘funnel’ for an international development agency or a charitable
organization. Less frequently, NGOs actually go into partnership with the farming
community by establishing and running a hawkers market or a hospital garden for
producers within a community. Many of the small loans made through micro-lending
funders are used by very small-scale urban food producers to purchase essential tools to
expand. The Trickle-Up Program is a small American NGO that makes small grants to
entrepreneurs on the basis of a completed business plan. This small-grant program is one
example of a range of international NGOs that perform specific functions in support of
urban farming globally, including The Urban Agriculture Network, which serves as a
worldwide knowledge center.
Governments and Public Authorities

Of all the actors in urban agriculture, governments and public agencies assume the most
complex and comprehensive functions. They play the same roles as NGOs in relation to
urban agriculture — setting policy, regulating, and facilitating. In addition, they are major
landowners and the managers of wastewater, solid waste, and water supply systems, a
role that gives them the highest potential for partnership with urban farmers, as well as
the potential to hinder their activities. Finally, they often hold the key to bringing the
different stakeholders together, as we will see in the section on partnerships at the end of
this chapter.
Most governments still perceive urban food and fuel production as a marginal and
temporary activity. In general, the trend toward increased urban agriculture is being
followed, not led, by organizational changes in government. Lack of communication with
NGOs, farmers groups, researchers, and institutions within the urban region can result in
missed opportunities.

On the other hand, governmental leadership in facilitating urban agriculture can

attract other support and contribute to food security and other benefits (Table 6.3). This
leadership has manifested itself in diverse ways. For example, land management to
enable urban agriculture has been inventing or rediscovering powerful new tools. The
types of intervention have varied enormously —the resurrection under President
Gorbachev of the dacha system of family farms on the urban fringe in Russia, state-of-
the-art ‘agrotechnology’ parks in Singapore, planned large-scale allotment gardens placed
in strategic city-owned sites between white and black areas in South Africa, and planning
farmland in the center and fringes of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
The efficient and ecological management of water, land, and other resources for
urban agriculture needs to engage government at all levels. Health concerns require
collaboration between different levels of government, which in turn must have the
support of research and educational institutions at the national and international level.
Within the government, advancing the potential for urban farming requires collaboration
among city planners, environmental experts, food systems specialists, economic
development specialists, land and legal experts, and those responsible for infrastructure,
water, sanitation, and solid waste.
Table 6.3 Examples of governmental organizations active in urban agriculture
Organizaton Location Involvement
Water authority Mexico City Provides irrigation and oversight of peri-

urban farming
Jakarta Formed joint venture with fisherman to
harvest reservoirs
Port authority Calcutta Leases land and lagoons to co-ops
Highway authority Indonesia Leases right-of-way land to urban farmers
Electricity authorities Canada Produces vegetables in greenhouses
Military authority United States Leases land on bases to farmers
Municipality Munich Produces fish in sewage lagoons
Maputo Acts as land-owning partner with women’s
food production cooperative
Jakarta, Mexico City, Created urban agriculture agency
Buenos Aires
National government Argentina, Peru Has national agency for urban agriculture
Panama, Romania, Adopted policies that favor urban agriculture
Russia, Tanzania,
Zambia
Italy, China, Japan, Has long-standing urban agriculture policy
Singapore, Netherlands and agencies
Malawi, Tanzania Plans for a new capital include urban
agriculture

Local Governments
The most frequent reaction by local governments to urban agriculture is to limit it. Most
municipal regulators are concerned first and foremost with health and aesthetics, and
view agriculture as a rural activity that is inappropriate in the modern city. Local
government limitations range from disallowing any form of urban agriculture to setting
specific limits, such as four cows per household in Dar es Salaam.2
Yet some municipal and metropolitan governments are beginning to recognize urban
agriculture’s role and establish agricultural departments. Mexico City, Singapore, and
Jakarta have such departments, including research and extension divisions. In many
cities, the parks department is accountable for agriculture and often grows its own trees
and shrubs.
In Dodoma, the new capital of Tanzania, the Capital Development Authority supports
agriculture within neighborhoods, in green belts around neighborhoods, and in peri-urban
zones.3 The municipal government in Lilongwe, the new capital of Malawi, also
officially recognizes urban agriculture as an activity, as does Brasilia.
The facilitator and provider roles of local government are thus very broad,
particularly in relation to various issues of access. A few cities have also become partners
in some urban farming practices, such as school gardens, primary agricultural education,
street trees that bear fruit, and fish farming in municipal waters. In Maputo, Mozambique,
the municipal government is a land-owning partner in the green belt farming cooperatives
that are a major source of food and employment for residents.4 In Shanghai and other
Chinese cities, the government actively promotes urban farming (Case 6.4 and Photo
6.3).
Case 6.4 Government-planned farming in the Shanghai urban region

When the boundaries of Chinese municipalities were expanded in the 1960s and again in the early
1980s, one criterion defining each municipality was nutritional self-sufficiency. In most larger cities,
vegetable corporations were created, which in turn established relationships with the authorities
responsible for land, solid waste, sewage, industrial waste, and farmers’ cooperatives. Production
and processing were integrated within a single system. Each city established or renovated public
and private markets, and individuals and cooperatives could choose their market.
During a period of very rapid urbanization from the 1960s onward, Chinese urban planners and
managers supported urban agriculture. The urban regions (which are much larger than those in
most other countries, although their size contracted somewhat in the 1990s) have become self-
reliant in perishable foods. At least half the major cities export some products to surrounding areas.
Fresh vegetables, fruit, and meat are available in all small and large cities. Vegetables picked in the
morning are available at retail for dinner, and chicken, pork, and fish are also available fresh daily
(see Case 4.7, wastewater fisheries).
A number of factors contribute to the successful promotion of nutritional self-sufficiency in
China. First, the authorities were philosophically committed and sought less reliance by urban
populations on rural ones. Second, the cooking customs created a demand for fresh ingredients,
even though there was no dependable transport system to provide them from a distance. The great
cost of food products relative to other household expenditures also gave great importance to

maximizing urban food supply. As recently as 1989, some urban residents spent 58 percent of their
income on food, 74 times the amount spent on rent. Probably most important was the centuries-old
tradition and technology of urban agriculture, based on recycling urban waste into food.
Shanghai is a standout among the country’s many cities. Since the 1950s, the Shanghai
municipal government has planned and managed food production in the municipal region to
effectively satisfy the food demands of a population that now exceeds 14 million. The government’s
objectives were to create local food self-reliance within the urban region and to reduce
transportation, storage, and fuel consumption.
The municipal government divided the urban region according to the type of agriculture for
which it is best suited — farming, forestry, fisheries, or animal husbandry. An integrated urban food
policy and technology research, assistance, and extension programs are geared to local needs.
The economic and managerial aspects of farming are integrated, and the city supervises the
collection and usage (for farming) of solid and liquid waste, including night soil.
Until recently, the system supplied all of Shanghai’s fresh vegetables, as well as a significant
percentage of the grain, pork, poultry, fish, and other food demands. Fresh vegetables can be
bought in the market within 10-15 hours of harvesting. The government supply system has
successfully combated food shortages since 1949. However, loss of agricultural land combined with
changes in the links to waste management and population growth have gradually led Shanghai and
other Chinese cities away from self-sufficiency, with an increasing reliance on imported agricultural
products, from both rural areas and overseas.
Contact: See source listed in appendix C.
In municipalities, one key individual who becomes interested in urban agriculture can
often act as a catalyst to gain acceptance and more active support for the industry. For
example, in Bulawayo, the second-largest city in Zimbabwe, the town clerk has become a
dynamic force in initiating a municipal program to support urban agriculture. The city’s
Department of Housing and Community Services now makes available both garden
allotments (irrigated with reclaimed water) and rain-fed maize field allotments (larger but
farther away). In parallel to these allocations, the city also grants permits for commercial
cultivation in residentially zoned areas (which cover most of the city). The city thus plays
the role of regulator, as well as facilitator and provider.5
Regulation and enforcement functions tend to operate at the city level. Even where
the country’s governmental controls are highly centralized, the oversight of many
ministries tends to take place through some geographic divisions that provide a level of
local control over the various aspects of urban agriculture.
Local agencies usually have the responsibility to ensure the hygiene of urban farming
and the tasks of soil, water, and waste testing; food safety monitoring; zoning land for
agricultural use; farmer education on health risks and management practices; and
monitoring the collection, treatment, and reuse of waste. Few cities, however, are
organized to perform this range of tasks adequately, particularly in poorer countries.
Moreover, as is frequently the case, where cities do not recognize urban farming as a
legal activity, they are not likely to enforce its hygiene.
In cases of intensive dairy or poultry farming, city authorities are responsible for
monitoring and regulating the hygiene of the facilities and manure disposal or use. Food
safety monitoring is undertaken by many cities, but the complexity of regular testing and

enforcement may exceed the capacity of certain municipalities. In some cities, urban
authorities undertake soil and water testing in different areas of the city to determine the
safety and adequacy of the area for farming. In Poland and the region around Jerusalem
(Israel) and Virginia Beach (Virginia, USA), a zoning system was developed for
farmland near industrial areas, with different crops allowed in each zone, based on
sensitivity mapping.6
For crucial urban issues such as water supply and disposal, several departments of
local government need to coordinate their programs and cooperate with others to best
oversee and manage the resource for urban farming. This includes allocation by the water
department for agricultural and other uses. The departments that manage liquid and solid
wastes must collaborate with farmers to reduce pressure on their systems through reuse,
but also to protect farm waste from contaminating the environment.
The challenge lies in the fact that waste management in most large cities has been
organized around collection and disposal, rather than sustainable reuse in farming,
although in some instances, local governments are moving in that direction. For this to
function well, local waste collection agencies need to be organized to treat waste, monitor
levels of heavy metals and pathogens, regulate reuse, and educate farmers on proper
handling and management of the waste. At the community or neighborhood level, local
governments have a vital role to play in the introduction and adoption of innovative
approaches such as Ecological Sanitation, which is spreading with support of UNDP and
others.
Planning and building departments may need to revise their codes to direct runoff to
fields rather than to a river, and introduce alternative dual sewer systems. They must also
be more concerned with the share of land covered by buildings and pavement, as well as
preventing construction over aquifers. SUSTAIN in London and other organizations are
promoting ‘edible buildings’ — a concept that will require changes in building and
construction regulations to reach its full potential.
Lubbock, Texas uses all of its wastewater for agricultural irrigation.7 The much larger
municipality of Jakarta, Indonesia leases hectare-sized portions of its potable water
reservoir to fish farmers. The metropolitan governments of Cairo and Mexico City pump
wastewater uphill to green the desert and produce crops for the city, but most of the
production in these two cities is not very efficient because the wastewater is used
primarily for animal consumption and tree crops.
National Governments
National governments influence urban agriculture by setting policies, defining
regulations, facilitating processes, providing resources, and sometimes by being a partner.
Peri-urban areas are usually zoned for farming, so farmers in these areas may get
assistance from agricultural extension agents, who are generally employed by the
ministry of agriculture. In Peru and Argentina (Case 6.5), national government
organizations provide seeds and seedlings, training, and information to hundreds of
institutions and NGOs.

Case 6.5 Pro Huerta, a national agency supporting small-scale urban farmers in Argentina
In 1991, INTA (Instituto Nacional de Technologia Agropecuria), SAGP (Secretaria de Agricultura,
Ganadaria y Pesca), PFS (Programa Federal de Solidaridad), and SDS (Secretaria de Desarrollo
Social) formed Pro Huerta with aid from the Italian government.
Program objectives are to improve nutrition and food security, promote small-scale in-town
production, and advance community participation in solving food-related problems. Its action
programs include training trainers; enrolling institutions; providing inputs such as seeds, seedlings,
and livestock; and technical assistance in sustainable methods, including organic production.
Pro Huerta listed over 500,000 beneficiaries in 1994 (up from 43,000 in 1991). By 1999,
support was being provided to over 440,000 families, thus close to 3 million Argentinians are
involved. Sixty-two thousand community, school, and institutional huertas (gardens) produce
vegetables, fruit, and small livestock (particularly rabbits). Pro Huerta reaches these small-scale
and home farmers through 1,100 cooperating institutions in 1,800 towns and cities and its 13
regional offices.
Unfortunately, Pro Huerta is currently threatened with cutbacks or elimination, despite its
significant countrywide contributions.
Contacts: Daniel Norberto Diaz and Francisco D. Garra (see Appendix F for complete address).
A great deal of urban agriculture grows on national government land such as

highways, railways, ports, and parks. Many branches of government can affect farming
activities in urban areas, including some whose mandate is neither agriculture nor food
supply. The Mexico City regional water authority, for example, provides irrigation from
sewage as well as oversight for nearly 100,000 hectares of farm area that feed the city. 8
Indonesia’s toll highway authority leases land within the rights-of-way to urban farmers.
In the United States, some military bases lease surplus land to farmers.
Typically, national governments originate and then monitor regulations that are
applied by local governments. National governments direct agricultural research and
provide extension agents, and urban agriculture functions within national food, urban,
and agricultural policies. Some countries (including China, Japan, the Netherlands, and
Italy) have policies and agencies that have supported urban agriculture for decades,
sometimes using tax codes to provide incentives for urban farming.
In other countries, policy shifts are more recent — and emphatic. Undoubtedly the
most dramatic example by far is Cuba, where the national government played an essential
role in this shift when it adopted urban agriculture as a national priority in the early
1990s. Within five years, it built the most comprehensive program in the world,
integrating every municipality in the country, employee unions, emerging private firms,
and other actors. Besides its integrative role, the national government also played a direct
role through extension services, a weekly television program, transformation of markets,
making public lands available, education and research, and more (see Case 7.6).
Recent efforts are focusing on more comprehensive strategies and programs, such as
planning for agriculture throughout a watershed. In Brazil, there is a new effort to have

all governments and concerned civil organizations prepare plans and programs to use an
entire watershed.9 In the United States, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture and
the Environmental Protection Agency established a new watershed planning process in
1997. It places all levels and sectors of resource planning, both urban and rural, on a
single geographic database, managed by the Geological Survey (which is an agency of
the Department of the Interior). The urban planning, infrastructure, waste management,
and other city planning data will for the first time be integrated with natural resource data
on a systematic basin-wide basis.10
Governments in arid and semi-arid climate zones have historically been more deeply
engaged in water management for both agricultural and potable human consumption.
Examples include the Indus (Pakistan and India) and the Euphrates (Turkey, Syria, and
Iraq). Rapid urbanization and growth of urban agriculture in these countries are requiring
more precise water management schemes. This increased complexity must be balanced
with the ecological enhancement that is possible through good urban agriculture
practices, as guided by wise public administration.
Public and Semi-Public Institutions

The role of institutions in relation to urban agriculture is focused in two main areas —
providing resources (particularly surplus land) and conducting research. Many
institutions can do the first, while the second is the realm of universities and public and
private research centers, whether based inside or outside the country. The relationship
between an institution and producers may take the form of a partnership that involves
both resources and research.
Institutional Providers
Institutional support for urban agriculture from universities, utility authorities, hospitals,
churches, and charities has a long history. In Haiti and Peru, hospitals lease land to NGOs
for food production. In the Philippines, it is the national university, while in Canada,
some electric utilities produce vegetables in greenhouses heated by the water used to cool
their generators. In Brazil, utilities partner with farmers to maintain the land under power
lines (see Case 4.9). Church-based community gardens are common in many countries,
and some churches provide essential inputs.
In India, the Port Authority of Calcutta is a partner with fishermen cooperatives in the
sewage lagoons, while the Bombay Port Authority enables its workers to raise vegetables
for the market by providing land and technical assistance. In the same country, the
Durgapur steel mill leased land and access to its cooling pond to its employees
association/union. The workers hired local farmers and provided part-time volunteers to
produce fresh food for members’ families and the local market.
Research Institutes
Although there appear to be few formal programs labeled ‘urban agriculture’ at
universities or research institutions, a great deal of expertise and information is being
accumulated by individual researchers. A number of doctoral and master’s degree

candidates in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands,
South Africa and elsewhere are focusing on urban agriculture. Most of these students are
from developing countries and survey their native country as part of their research.
No uniform, comparative, formal global survey of urban agriculture has been
undertaken to date, however, a number of universities and research organizations have
conducted city and national surveys, especially in Africa. A two-year survey by Sokoine
University in Tanzania in the early 1990s provided a foundation for projects supported by
the German and Dutch governments.11 Similar surveys, although generally less
comprehensive, have been conducted in Kenya, Uganda, Togo, Zambia, Argentina,
China, Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, and Poland. At the start of this new century,
the Resource Center for Urban Agriculture and Forestry (RUAF) is currently overseeing
surveys on urban agriculture needs being conducted in at least half a dozen countries in
each of several regions — so far, Latin America, West Africa, East Africa, and the
Middle East-North Africa.
Although not explicitly under the heading ‘urban research’, a large body of research
has been conducted on techniques that are particularly relevant to farming in urban
conditions, generally at institutions in developing countries. These techniques involve
poultry, biointensive gardening, hydroponics, aquaculture, various greenhouse-based
technologies, and most waste-processing farming methods.
The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), with 16
centers worldwide and nearly 100 regional offices, has recently instituted a global
support program, the Strategic Initiative on Urban and Periurban Agriculture, that seeks
to integrate some of the fragmented research under way on this subject at its member
centers. It reaches out to national agricultural research centers.12 The Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center (AVRDC) has a 40 year history of supporting urban
vegetable production throughout Asia and also more recently in Africa and Latin
America (Case 6.6).
Research is an essential catalyst for the development of urban agriculture, and
provides a clearer understanding of the industry’s contributions and limits. Without this
knowledge, credit and investment will be difficult to attract. Universities and other
institutes often play a central role not just in developing knowledge, but also in its
dissemination, yet few of them explicitly recognize the specificity of urban extension.
Their significant role in extension thus remains potential rather than actual. For all these
reasons, research institutions are crucial actors in urban agriculture (Table 6.4).
Case 6.6 AVRDC’s multi-pronged program

The Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC), in Taiwan (province of China),
is dedicated to improving production techniques and the quality of vegetables in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. The center conducts technological research, carries out field research, and provides
training and extension to farmers and promoters of farming. AVRDC also works to increase the
research, training, and extension capacities of similar research organizations, and collaborates with
other international agricultural research centers.
Although AVRDC is not primarily concerned with urban horticulture, its horticultural research is
often relevant to urban farming. The center holds workshops on intensive vegetable production in

household gardens that provides increased vitamin A and essential minerals, produces improved
varieties of vegetables and disseminates them to farmers through linked research and extension
agencies, and works on improved crop and soil management practices.
As part of the group’s Vitamin A Gardening Project in Africa, training in vegetable gardening
and nutrition is provided to African agricultural institutions. AVRDC has worked on several urban or
peri-urban horticulture projects, including one in Tanzania. In 1993, it began expanding its activities
to Central America. Among others, it is looking at helping communities that have experienced
devastating natural disasters.
Contact: Lowell Black (see Appendix F for complete address).
Private Sector Entities

The private sector provides urban farmers with credit, inputs, information, and an outlet
for their goods, and of course farmers themselves operate largely within the private
sector. The range of urban producers was discussed in Chapter 3; in this chapter we will
only provide an overview of the range of private sector entities that support activities of
urban farmers.
Urban agriculture requires not only participation by producers, but also by various
others in pre-production and post-production processes. A number of private actors
currently or potentially have a stake in the urban agriculture industry, including input
providers (such as seed suppliers), banks and credit agencies, food processing companies,
landlords, wholesalers, distributors and marketers, and recyclers and waste managers.
Urban farmers operate between two relatively well-organized economic subsectors,
agricultural inputs and food marketing, while small-scale producers are often
unorganized and disparate. In countries where urban agriculture functions as an
integrated industry, as well as those in which it is a cottage industry, participation by
miscellaneous ‘other actors’ (most of them based in the private sector) is vitally
important in these non-production aspects of urban agriculture. They play an especially
significant role in encouraging producers to move beyond growing for family and friends,
as illustrated by some livestock producers in Manila (see Case 9.7).
Wherever small-scale producers dominate urban farming, they face high sales costs
unless the market is organized to their requirements. Urbanized economies like Taiwan
(province of China) and the Netherlands have efficient auctions run by farmers’
associations. In most cities, however, wholesalers are not set up for small-scale urban
producers. To counter this obstacle in the capital of Brazil, Brasilia, the local government
instituted a successful program to help local farmers compete with the chain
supermarkets. The program included finance, extension, retail sites, training and
processing support.13

Table 6.4 Examples of universities and other institutions involved in research on urban
agriculture
Organizaton Location Research involvement
Sokoine University Morogoro, Tanzania Two-year survey of six cities

Asian Institute of Technology Bangkok, Thailand Pilot projects on intensive
agricultural techniques
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines Research on small-scale
farming
Centre pour le Dakar, Senegal Research and extension on
Développement de urban horticulture
l’Horticulture
Asian Vegetable Research Kaohsiung, Taiwan Research and extension on
and Development Center urban horticulture and
household gardens in East
Asia, Africa, and Central
America
CEPIS Lima, Peru Wastewater aquaculture and
horticulture
Centro el Canelo de Nos Santiago, Chile Nine research projects in urban
farming technologies
Mazingira Institute Nairobi, Kenya Survey of urban agriculture in
six cities
University of Cairo Giza, Egypt Plastic tunnel horticulture
Centro Las Gaviotas Bogotá, Colombia Hydroponics for low-income,
high-density communities
Makerere University Kampala, Uganda Research and surveys on
urban agriculture
Botanical Garden Jakarta, Indonesia Research on composting with
small-scale urban farmers
University of California Davis, California, USA Experiments, surveys,
research
Agricultural University of Wageningen, the Netherlands Manuals, periodicals, study
Wageningen tours
Credit providers, including banks, credit unions, and farmers associations, are
essential because farmers must always invest before they harvest, and it often takes years
before a farmer sees a return on investments in capital improvements. Farmers often find
it difficult to obtain credit for a number of reasons (see Chapter 9). A few banks and other
organizations have successful urban agriculture lending programs. An outstanding
example is the Cooperative and Rural Development Bank of Tanzania, which in the past
several years has made hundreds of loans, primarily to middle-income farmers.
There is a growing trend for large firms to contract production to small-scale urban
producers, including mushrooms in Ireland, chicken in Thailand, and potatoes in Turkey.
Case 3.4 reports on Del Monte’s support to vegetable and fruit producers in metro

Manila. Large farms may also discover urban agriculture as a means to transform by-
products from their operations. The global conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland has
become a large provider of brewery waste for its own fish production in Illinois.14
Private corporations can play a role similar to that of ‘institutional providers’
discussed above. For example, a factory can allot space to its workers for small gardens,
or a restaurant can give its organic waste to its workers for use as fertilizer.
Agents, such as shippers, food processors, street vendors, and sellers and buyers of
compost, also play a role. Much is still to be learned and documented on the interaction
between these actors and urban food and fuel producers. Only street food providers have
been seriously studied so far.15
International Development Agencies

Until recently, international assistance had not followed the growth trend of urban
agriculture. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, even as more developing countries
requested urban assistance and donor countries shifted policies toward supporting urban
development, international funding for urban agricultural programs still lagged behind.
But interest is now increasing (Table 6.5). In 1991, UNDP began the survey of urban
agriculture in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that culminated in the first edition of this
book. Since then, UNICEF, the World Bank, FAO, CGIAR, and CARE International
have renewed or initiated programs in urban agriculture. Within particular regions,
WHO-Europe has supported urban farming, as has the Inter-American Foundation (IAF)
in Latin America.
Some bilateral aid agencies have urban agriculture assistance programs. GTZ, the
German bilateral aid agency, has a groundbreaking project in Tanzania, where a number
of donors are active (Case 6.7). Italy has supported a large project in Argentina, and the
British Department for International Development has been supporting peri-urban
agriculture for several years. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of
Canada is the most notable agency. It has supported dozens of urban agriculture studies
and projects worldwide over the past decade or so, and helped fund several international
workshops as early as 1993. 16 IDRC, with principal funding from the Dutch development
agency DGIS, is assisting the RUAF global program mentioned above in setting up
several regional focal points and regional exchanges on urban agriculture.

Table 6.5 Examples of international agencies supporting urban agriculture
Organization Location Support
FAO, IDRC Latin America Supports new regional network

FAO Global Supports street food upgrading projects
UNDP, FAO Latin America Supports shantytown hydroponics projects
UNDP/World Bank Global Support programs in wastewater-fed fish and irrigation.
Supported urban agriculture initiative in 1991-1993, and
two editions of this book
UNICEF Global Supports policy studies on household and community
gardens
United Nations Global Funded Food-Energy Nexus program in the 1980s
University
UN Center for Tanzania Supports urban agriculture as environmental intervention
Human in open space
Settlements
International Peru Manages the worldwide CGIAR Strategic Initiative on
Potato Center Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture
Urban Latin America Supports research and advocacy regionally
Management
Program
NRI/ODA Tanzania Supports city center and peri-urban vegetable production
and training
IDRC Global Funds urban agriculture surveys and research projects
USAID Philippines, Supported urban agriculture in its Managing Energy and
Thailand Resources Efficient Cities (MEREC) program (1980s)
GTZ Mexico City, Supports sewage-fed fisheries, composting, and
Tanzania vegetable projects
Italian government Argentina Supports community gardens
SIDA Mozambique, Provided support for urban agriculture in the 1980s
Ethiopia
JICA Philippines and Supports urban agriculture and marketing
other countries
Taiwanese Panama Supports urban agriculture and provides fellowships for
government study in Taiwan
Inter-American Chile Supported urban gardening programs
Foundation
Ford Foundation Kenya Supports Undugu Society, an NGO
Oxfam Peru Supported Peru Mujer, an NGO
Save the Children Central America Supported local gardening
Fund
CARE Haiti Promoting entrepreneurship in urban agriculture
International

Case 6.7 International agencies promoting urban agriculture in Tanzania

Coinciding interests have attracted several international development agencies to urban agriculture
activities in Tanzania. While the combination found there is probably unmatched in other countries,
this case illustrates the range of interests and types of involvement possible elsewhere.
In the mid-1980s, the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC) supported
a major study by Sokoine University on the status of urban agriculture in six small, medium, and
large cities in Tanzania. The national census conducted during the same period found that one of
every five employed adults in an urban census zone was working in agriculture. In the early 1990s,
with this information and a new national policy favoring food production in towns and cities, two
major international development agencies began urban agriculture projects.
GTZ, the German bilateral aid agency, started a three-city project in 1993 called the Urban
Vegetable Promotion Project. The objective of the project is to increase the consumption of
vegetables in urban Tanzania and later in southern Africa by increasing production in urban and
peri-urban locations. The project is underway in Dodoma, the new capital (photo 6.5); Arusha, a
medium-size city in the highlands; and Dar es Salaam, a coastal metropolis of 2 million people. The
first 18 months were spent collecting data and establishing relationships, and the production phase
began in 1995. Excellent relations have been established with the Capital Development Authority in
Dodoma, which strongly favors urban food and fuel production. This project has continued to evolve
(although it no longer seeks to become a region-wide project), but it is now well established as a
successful, long-term activity that is still going strong almost a decade later, with many links to the
other relevant programs in the country.
At the same time, the British Natural Resources Institute (NRI), with backing from the Overseas
Development Agency, was establishing one peri-urban and one in-town pilot urban agriculture
project in Dar es Salaam. NRI established a collaborative relationship with Plan International, a UK
private voluntary agency operating in the city. Like the GTZ project, the two NRI projects work with
the Ministry of Agriculture and Land.
Another important project is the Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project of Habitat, which has also
been operational since 1993. It includes an open space sub-project that is studying urban
agriculture as a tool to maintain open space, conserve the environment, and generate jobs. IDRC is
supporting the project by funding an effort at Dar es Salaam University that provides information
about urban agriculture. Another university team is collaborating with NRI and GTZ on related urban
agriculture projects.
Other international agencies undertook initiatives in the 1990s. The Danish development
agency (DANIDA) supported low-income women in small urban agriculture entrepreneurial efforts in
Dar es Salaam. The LIFE (Local Initiatives for the Environment) project of UNDP offered support to
an urban farming project on Zanzibar emphasizing youth participation. The Swedish aid agency
(SIDA) studied cultivation in a small town in Tanzania. Others, such as the Dutch government, also
expressed interest in supporting urban agriculture in Tanzania. From these seeds, an integrated
national urban agriculture program may emerge.
Contact: Petra Jacobi and Rudy Schippers (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Studies and workshops initiated by international agencies are helping to gain

recognition of urban agriculture as an important and legitimate activity, as well as
providing concrete information on which governments can base policies.
In some cases, international agencies provide financial resources. For instance, the
African Development Bank contributed to a major urban fuelwood project in Ethiopia.

Others lend their assistance to specialty crops, for example, FAO has funded mushroom
cultivation in Ghana. Over the past couple of decades, international agencies have
supported important research in wastewater and solid waste management and established
standards for use of urban waste as an input to food production.
As the aid community shifts its focus to sustainable development, sustainable
agriculture, and sustainable human settlements, it is beginning to discover the synergistic
role that agriculture plays in towns and cities. International development agencies can
contribute most effectively in certain areas, in particular, model codes and regulations,
introduction of new crops, and standards for use of chemicals and waste inputs.
Partnerships Among Organizations

A wide range of partnership models exist. Partnerships can be created between farmers
and private business, farmers and NGOs or institutions, farmers and government, and
governments and international interests.
Partnerships between farmers and private businesses are typically farmers’
associations or cooperatives with production relationships between large firms and small-
scale producers (for example, outgrowers). Farmers’ partnerships with NGOs and
institutions are commonly organized to ease access to markets, inputs, land, extension
advice, etc. Partnerships between government and farmers vary widely and are formed
mainly around common needs of access to land, water, markets, information, and
extension. International partnerships at their simplest are with agribusiness for production
or with aid groups for inputs, technology, and information.
Partnerships between agribusiness and small-scale farmers are usually outgrower
relationships. These require government oversight to ensure the rights of farmers. These
partnerships can be arranged and managed through NGOs and may have a public-private
board of directors.
Farmers’ associations sometimes represent only small-scale farmers and sometimes
both large- and small-scale farmers. In other cases, they include manufacturers and
marketing organizations. Community organizations, including women’s and youth
groups, are active in supporting urban farmers and frequently are linked to non-
governmental organizations at a national or state level. Community organizations often
work in partnership with local government as well as with the farmers and NGOs.
Research organizations, frequently related to a university or national department of
agriculture, are normally found in partnership with farmers’ associations and NGOs. Less
commonly, they provide direct assistance to urban farmers.
Non-governmental organizations at the state or national level are the most ubiquitous
members of partnerships. NGOs are in partnership with community organizations, local
governments, national governments, international organizations, research organizations,
and banks. NGOs may in fact be the most vital partner that urban farmers can have.
Government agencies also have a wide range of partnership roles to play. In the areas
of policy, enabling legislation, technology, and credit, national governments hold great
power over the viability of urban agriculture. Frequently, they are also important for

international links. Partnerships with banks and credit unions are also vital to the health
of the industry.
Finally, regional and international networks and organizations will be important
partners during the next few years as the industry matures. The right lessons can be
learned expeditiously from other countries and regions through international partners.
Rich sources for learning range from specialized regional or global gatherings such as
those that took place in Havana in 1999 and Berlin in 2000, or through comparative
publications such as the reader that was funded by DSE and launched following the
Havana conference.17
Comprehensive worldwide networks and exchange forums (such as The Urban
Agriculture Network and the CityFarmer web site), as well as more specialized global
groups (such as one currently being formed that would focus on rooftop cultivation) are
now emerging, providing a framework to trade ideas and techniques. Under the
leadership of the Netherlands-based firm ETC, the recently established umbrella
organization RUAF is setting up a global system of regional focal points, complemented
by global support tools that include a magazine, a resource person list, and a list of
publications on the web.18
The horse racing club in Jakarta described in Chapter 2 is an outstanding example of
a multi-partner arrangement. Farmers are allowed to produce agreed-upon crops on the
margins of the racetrack in return for collecting and processing the waste. The
neighborhood has agreements with the same farmers to collect and compost their waste
as well. The farmers trade access for services, land, organic waste, water, and a strong
iron fence.
Marketing urban produce involves many actors. In some places, NGOs and
governments help small-scale farmers by establishing markets. The Jerusalem producers’
cooperative outside Bogotá has a joint marketing board that includes five cooperative
members and four members from a supermarket chain.
Single actors can be partnered with a range of entities depending on the context.
Tanzania’s Urban Vegetable Promotion Project (Case 6.7), illustrates this complexity. It
works through the government’s entire hierarchical structure — ministry, region,
municipality, ward, mtaa (neighborhood unit), and finally farmers’ group. It also links
with NGOs, community-based organizations, and private initiatives, and whenever
possible, links with other international initiatives such as the Sustainable Dar es Salaam
Programme. For its school education program in Dar es Salaam, the project works
directly with individual headmasters, along with city-wide school health coordinators.19
This is only a partial picture of the links the project established in order to successfully
fulfill its mission.
It is also possible for many actors to coalesce around a certain issue. When these
actors form a coalition, the sum of their influence can overcome the lack of recognition
that individual organizations have suffered (Case 6.8).

Case 6.8 The Community Food Security Coalition in North America

Building on the older concept of food security, Community Food Security (CFS) is a concept that
achieved recognition in North America starting in the mid-1990s, drawing together individuals and
organizations from a number of fields related to food and agriculture. An initial target for the
formation of the CFS Coalition in 1994 was to help shape the food policies contained in the 1995
U.S. farm legislation. While the impact on that legislation was limited, CFS objectives did manage to
make it into the 1996 law. Its most noteworthy feature was a 6-year Community Food Projects
Program that supports a wide range of activities to promote self-reliance while meeting the food
needs of low-income populations. This success was followed by approval of a CFS initiative at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1999. This initiative now mobilizes resources within that
department and coordinates programs that are relevant to CFS.
The Coalition has managed to combine several constituencies that had largely been separate
— anti-hunger, local and smallholder agriculture, sustainable agriculture, community gardening,
food system, open space conservation, environmental justice, community development, and others.
These are reflected in the Coalition's board of directors, where these constituencies are or have
been represented by such organizations as the Milwaukee Hunger Task Force, National Family
Farm Coalition, California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, San Francisco League of Urban
Gardeners, Farmers' Market Trust, Urban Habitat Program, and Knoxville Community Action
Corporation.
The Coalition was not only able to form a more powerful group by assembling numerous
constituencies and organizations, but also broadened the horizons and agendas of these bodies. It
made community the focus for action on food and agriculture, while simultaneously anchoring the
community within a continuum of levels, from the household to the globe, all part of a complex
system to deliver food to urban areas. Within the U.S. and Canada, the CFS Coalition has thus
been an effective mechanism that can serve as a model for potential coalitions in other parts of the
world on the issue of food security as well as urban farming. The Urban Agriculture Network is
assisting the Coalition, particularly through the increasingly dynamic Urban Agriculture Committee.
Contact: Andy Fisher (see Appendix F for complete address).
Productive partnerships can do much to promote urban agriculture, as some examples

illustrate:
In Manila, the Urban Food Foundation persuaded Del Monte Corporation to buy from
hundreds of small outgrowers rather than maintain its own plantations.
In Calcutta, a cooperative working with the metropolitan sewer and water authority
and the port authority doubled fish production and improved quality.
In Peru, the ministries of health and agriculture work with community kitchens and
CARE International to enable the members to produce their own vegetables to
supplement the contributed rice and beans.
In Bogotá, Colombia, a women’s cooperative in the low-income area of Jerusalem
has a partnership with a supermarket chain and the local municipality, a partnership
that was facilitated by UNDP.
In Baltimore, Maryland, two student researchers work on urban forestry issues
through a program with the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies.20

Organizing for urban agriculture in the future may reasonably jump over municipal
bounds and extend beyond the peri-urban area as well. In the case of small island nations,
a national organization is logical — a step that Singapore and Cuba have already taken.21
In larger nations, the province or state may be appropriate, as exemplified by New Jersey,
USA, the Federal Capital District in Mexico, and Ile-de-France (the Parisian region).
The ‘bio-region’, most typically a watershed, is a logical planning and administrative
unit to support a good split of rural and urban agricultural practices, although this is
always challenging to implement whenever this unit cuts across several political
boundaries (as is usually the case). By selecting an area that shares a common water
source, climate, and market, participatory planning by both rural and urban stakeholders
becomes desirable. Urban concerns for a clean water source can be addressed. Rural
needs for information about urban markets can be made more efficient. Farmers’
associations will be more likely to include city and country folk. Unfortunately at the
time of writing, we were not able to find a good example of such an administrative setup,
with the possible exception of Taiwan.
A step-by-step process to attain this future view will begin by encouraging and
strengthening urban-rural links to benefit both urban and rural populations and ecologies.
In such a setting that is administered at the level of the bio-region, we may anticipate,
among others, rain-fed grain production in rural zones and wastewater-irrigated fish
production in the urban zones. A key element of such a process will be to define
appropriate indicators to steer such development.
——————————
The many government, institutional, and agency interventions in urban agriculture

that are documented here are but a fraction of the global activity in this area. Happily,
there is an increasing level of collaboration among organizations active in the field — a
relatively recent phenomenon. Our hope is that in the not-too-distant future, there will be
strong, mutually beneficial links among urban farmers in the south and north, and that all
concerned institutions can help bring about new cooperation and sharing. The
possibilities for such interactions are explored in Chapter 11.
Notes
1. Friedhelm Streiffeler. 1993. General Principles and Approaches for Sustainable Urban
Greenbelts with Special Reference to Africa. Berlin: Technical University of Berlin,
Department of Rural Sociology, p. 27.
2. Camillus J. Sawio. 1993. Feeding the Urban Masses: Towards an Understanding of the
Dynamics of Urban Agriculture and Land-Use Change in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ph.D. dissertation., Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
3. L. Keith Lilley. 1993. UVPP Project Report, Arusha, Tanzania. Unpublished
manuscript, Kent, United Kingdom: GTZ.

4. J. Holmberg, International Institute for Environment and Development, personal

communication, October 1992.
5. M.M. Ndubiwa, town clerk, City of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, personal communication,
1994.
6. Kathleen Flynn. 1999. An Overview of Public Health and Urban Agriculture: Water,
Soil and Crop Contamination and Emerging Urban Zoonoses. Cities Feeding People
Program, Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center.
7. Governing Magazine, April 1998.
8. Carl Bartone. 1995. Report at a workshop on urban agriculture sponsored by the Inter-
American Development Bank and the World Bank, Washington, D.C., June 26.
9. Mentioned at the International Workshop on Rural-Urban Linkages, Curitiba, Brazil,
1998.
10. USGS (United States Geological Survey). n.d. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters
— Nutrients and Pesticides. Circular 1225. Washington, D.C.: USGS.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
11. Z.S.K. Mvena, I.J. Lupanga, and M.R.S. Mlozi. 1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania:
A Study of Six Towns, draft. Morogoro, Tanzania: Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Education and Extension.
12. See www.siupa.org
13. Mentioned at the International Workshop on Rural-Urban Linkages in Curitiba, 1998.
14. Geoff Wilson, personal communication, 2000.
15. Irene Tinker. 1987. Street Foods: Testing Assumptions about Informal Sector
Activity by Women and Men. Current Sociology 35(3).
16. See www.idrc.ca/cfp.
17. Nico Bakker et al. 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food — Urban Agriculture on the
Policy Agenda: A Reader on Urban Agriculture. Feldafing, Germany: DSE-ZEL
18. See www.ruaf.org
19. Petra Jacobi, personal communication, 2000.
20. W.R. Burch, Jr., and J.M. Grove. 1993. People, Trees and Participation on the Urban
Frontier. Unasylva 173(2):20.
21. Case 9.5 (Singapore) and Case 7.6 (Cuba).

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 7
Benefits of Urban Agriculture
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
7
Urban agriculture benefits the economy, environment, and well-being of those active in
the industry, as well as residents who enjoy its products (Fig. 7.1). It plays a role in
programs and projects that target health and nutrition, the environment, enterprise
development, income generation, water and sanitation, youth and women, and food
production and supply.
The current and potential roles of urban agriculture differ from country to country. In
countries that must export agricultural products to earn foreign exchange, urban
agriculture can feed the cities while rural farmers concentrate on exports. In countries
with a fragile ecology, the intensive production technology of urban agriculture and its
capacity to absorb urban waste may be essential to averting environmental disasters in
urban areas.
Food Security, Nutrition and Health

Factors that influence the health and well-being of individuals include the quantity,
quality, regularity, and nutritional balance of their food, as well as the quality of their
living environment. Urban agriculture contributes to the health and well-being of a
community by reducing hunger, strengthening access to food, improving nutrition, and
improving environmental conditions that affect health (Table 7.1). The benefits offered
by urban agriculture are thus both quantitative and qualitative — increasing food
quantities reduces hunger, while improving food quality fosters better health and
nutrition.
Determining the potential nutrition and health benefits of urban agriculture in
different locations first requires identifying the extent of urban food insecurity,
malnutrition, and hunger. Food security, a prime condition for personal and family well-
being, is initially definable as the absence of food insecurity. Malnutrition and hunger are
the result of food insecurity.
Urban agriculture can contribute significantly to combating urban hunger and
malnutrition in several ways:
Production for self-consumption and barter increases the food security of the poor by
making it possible to obtain food they could not otherwise afford or find — even
during bad financial times. Because daily food intake does not depend on their
unstable daily income, poor families gain control over the quantity, quality, and
stability of their diet.
Chapter 7 Fourth Revision — 1 Dec 2001 Page 1

Table 7.1 Impact of urban agriculture on health, nutrition, and well-being
Country Impact
Africa
Kenya Twenty-five percent of the country's urban population depends on self-
produced food for nutritional survival.
Uganda In Kampala, children of low-income farming families were found to be as
healthy as children of wealthy families and healthier than children of non-
farming low-income families.
Save the Children Fund recommended that supplementary feeding programs
in low-income areas of Kampala were not needed, and that urban food
production was a factor.
Zambia A severe economic crisis led to increased food production in Lusaka. By
1977, 43 percent of a low-income community was farming home gardens and
57 percent in other city farms — saving 10-15% on food costs.
Asia
China In Shanghai, vegetables grown in the metropolitan area are very fresh, and
reach markets 10-15 hours after harvest.
Indonesia In Java, home gardens supply about 18 percent of caloric consumption and
14 percent of proteins.
Nepal In Kathmandu, 41 percent of the average daily total food intake was derived
from household production. Thirty-seven percent of households polled in a
survey reported that they met plant food needs through household
production. Households reported consuming an average of 72 percent of
home plant production and an average of 86 percent of home animal
production.
Philippines On the island of Negros, malnutrition among urban and rural children was
reduced from 40 to 25 percent two years after the start of biointensive
gardens.
In Cebu City, horticulture combined with public health interventions increased
vitamin A levels significantly among children and provided other nutritional
benefits that supplementation and fortification interventions alone did not.
Latin America
Argentina In Buenos Aires, 20 percent of nutrition needs of the city is produced by part-
time farmers.
Urban agriculture provides the poor with control over the nutritional balance of the
family diet. More expensive food items such as fruit, vegetables, and meat can be
supplied through home production. This improved nutritional balance reduces protein
and energy malnutrition as well as deficiencies of essential micronutrients and
vitamins.
Urban agriculture provides fresher food. Food from outside the city — especially
perishables like fruit, vegetables, and fish — loses part of its nutritional value during
transit and storage.

Local production may reduce prices because food passes through fewer middlemen,
and transportation and storage costs are lower. Local production makes food available
in the neighborhood and thus improves physical access.
By reducing the percentage of the family budget that is spent on food, urban farming
makes income available for other expenditures, including healthcare and education.
In many countries, urban farmers are more likely to be female than male. Thus urban
agriculture helps ensure children‟s access to food, enhances their health status, and
contributes to empowering women.
Food Security
Urban agriculture has proven its contributions to urban and national food security
countless times, most notably in recent years. As more frequent and more damaging
disasters confront a population that is moving to the world‟s cities, urban farming often
offered a critical solution.
Food Security and Poverty

Food insecurity can be measured at many levels — from the individual all the way to a
region or country. The Economic Research Service of the USDA states that “ . . . food
insecurity is the most severe in sub-Saharan Africa followed by south Asia. South Asia
has the highest number of food insecure. Certain countries in Central America and the
Caribbean have very high levels of food insecurity”.1 Slightly over 10 percent of the
population in the USA is food insecure. Table 7.2 identifies 23 large cities in the
developing world in which the total population spends over half of its income on food.
Within those cities — and many, many others — a very large share of the population is
food insecure by definition because the majority of the population in those cities earns
less than one-half of the mean family income used in the table.
Rapid urban expansion that races ahead of the requisite infrastructure and service
systems, including the food system, engenders food insecurity. This is particularly true
for essential protein and micronutrient elements of the diet. Food insecurity has most
commonly been measured at the household or family level, where the hurdle to food
security is most commonly access to good food. Access, compared to availability, implies
that the family has either money or direct access through self-production or barter.
Availability within the city or market does not provide access. In developed economies,
food insecurity tends to be co-located with poverty, while in underdeveloped economies
the spatial patterns of food insecurity are more dispersed. Urban agriculture as an agent
of food security can be effective throughout a city, core to periphery, and thus has special
relevance in low-income countries.
Food security is becoming an increasingly critical issue as the rate of urban poverty
rises, and evidence indicates that food security and nutrition are worse among the urban
poor than the rural poor. A study undertaken by IFPRI in eight large countries
(representing two-thirds of the global population) found poverty to be increasing in urban
areas more than in rural, and the locus of poverty shifting to urban areas.2 Although on
average the nutritional status of children (stunting and underweight) is better in urban
than in rural areas,3 intra-urban differentials among the rich and poor are very high. In

cities, malnutrition, morbidity from diarrheal diseases and parasitic infections, and infant
mortality are up to three times higher in lower income areas than in upper income areas.4
Table 7.2 Cities spending 50 percent

or more of household income on food
(among the world’s 100 largest
metropolitan areas). A comparable
number of cities spend 40-49 percent
of household income on food.
Household
income spent
City on food (%)
Ho Chi Minh City 80

Lima 70
Katowice-Bytom- 67
Gliwice
Dhaka 63
Kinshasa 63
Bangalore 62
Calcutta 60
Guangzhou 60
Istanbul 60
Lagos 58
Bombay 57
Pune 56
Algiers 55
Nanjing 55
Shanghai 55
Wuhan 55
Harbin 54
Recife 54
Beijing 52
Shenyang 52
Tianjin 52
Alexandria 51
Sao Paulo 50
Source: Reprinted from Sally Ethelston.
1992. Food Costs in Cities. Hunger
Notes 18(2):16.

Lower-income groups are generally likely to gain the greatest advantages from urban
agriculture. Farming improves the food security of the poor through increased availability
and access to food, as well as through increased availability of cash to purchase food.
Farming can also raise the nutritional status of the poor household by improving the
nutritional balance of the diet and providing micronutrients.
Simultaneously, research in cities from sub-Saharan Africa to the Indian subcontinent
has shown that two-thirds or more of their economies resides in the informal sector. Food
is procured in both rural and urban areas by purchasing, self-production, or through
transfers — public (food aid, food coupons) or community-based (barter with relatives).
Beyond these general similarities, food procurement and consumption behavior by the
poor in urban and rural areas differs significantly.
Food security for the poor is more difficult in urban areas because:
self-production is lower and dependence on cash to purchase food is higher,
urban areas have fewer community safety nets, and
complex formal supply channels that are subject to failure and constrictions that raise
food prices play a greater role.
Moreover, poor urbanites often pay more for food than richer urban residents because
they purchase small quantities and must travel further to reach places where food costs
less.5 In most low-income cities, non-farmer food costs represent a substantial share of
total household expenditures. In urban areas of low-income countries, 40-70 percent of
the family budget is spent on food and fuel (Table 7.2). The poorest people in those cities
often spend 60-90 percent of their budgets on food, often facing hunger when they cannot
afford such price levels. Thus urban agriculture can make a substantial contribution to the
economy of poor urban households.
Urban Agriculture and Food Security

Urban farming is an integral part of the urban food supply in most lower-income
countries. It tends to provide products that rural farming cannot supply as well —
perishables that suffer during transport, high-value crops that need close monitoring of
the market, and certain export crops that require rapid delivery when ready. It is thus
complementary rather than competitive with rural farming, contributes to the national
economy, and increases the efficiency of the food supply.
Urban food security is often contingent on urban agriculture, particularly for millions
of urban poor who depend heavily on cash for procuring food. With undependable day
labor or insufficient income, self-production is a critical strategy for food security.
A majority of urban farmers (70 percent in Kenya) are low-income agriculturalists,
producing first for household consumption.6 Improving household food security and
well-being is the main motive for the poor to farm in cities — as is shown by the repeated
evidence from countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America throughout this book. In Dar
es Salaam, urban farming contributes 20-30 percent of all household food supplies.
Including contributions to income, urban farming satisfies about 40 percent of household

food needs, particularly through vegetables.7 One-fifth of the food consumed by squatters
in Jakarta is produced within the community.8
Food producers in Nairobi slums interviewed in 1995 stated that they placed a high
value on home-grown food because “the food we harvest has a greater value compared to
any wages we would get if I or another family member got a job”, given the high cost of
purchasing food. While most farmers reported that they do not grow crops expressly for
sale, at times crops are sold to finance emergency expenses. Some crops may be sold in
part if perishability is high and storage is not possible, and others that are easy to sell are
selected for growing.9
Urban farming can make a difference in both farming and non-farming households. In
the Korogocho area of Nairobi, at least one-half of the food consumed was derived from
self-production. Non-farmers, however, have a higher dependence on donations, gifts,
and barter (from farming households among others) as a food source.10
The contribution of urban agriculture to urban food security is particularly significant
when rural supplies are inadequate or in situations where economic or political factors
(war, civil strife) cause disruption to food supplies. Urban agriculture was a significant
source of food in European cities during World War II, as well as in Sarajevo in the
1990s. Most longer-established refugee camps and communities — such as the camps
along the borders of Rwanda and Burundi in Tanzania, and the Mozambican refugee
communities in Malawi in the 1980s — have developed urban-style farming to supply
food for the communities and for local sale. Contributions made by urban agriculture
during such special times are detailed later in this chapter.
The increasing problem of food insecurity for the urban poor in many developing
countries has led government and development agencies to address the problems of
hunger and malnutrition by instituting a range of safety-net and coping strategies. These
include food aid, food coupons and subsidies, price control over basic foods, programs
aimed at school children and feeding mothers, and targeted distribution of iron, vitamin A
supplements, and iodine tablets. Most require high and continuous costs to the state.
Among these strategies to combat hunger, farming in poor urban neighborhoods is
rarely promoted (notwithstanding exceptions such as Argentina, Cuba, and Romania), yet
it is the main coping strategy of the poor and is a self-help strategy. More cost-effective
and more empowering than providing food aid, urban agriculture is thus more
sustainable. Urban farming is increasingly encouraged by particular agencies as a food
security intervention, but has yet to constitute a central component of broader
government strategies.
NGOs often act as the catalyst to push for food security measures (including urban
farming), with governments later seeing food security as more than just hunger relief. In
Haiti, a CARE International project helps the poorest urban residents grow food for
consumption and sale. Also in Haiti, Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization of
Florida is helping poor residents grow vegetables intensively in shallow beds on rooftops
(see Case 5.2, Russia).
The full benefits of urban agriculture become clearer by going beyond the idea of
food security to consider the recent concept of community food security (CFS) (defined

in Chapter 1). This hybrid concept borrows elements from several fields, including “anti-
hunger‟s concern for the food needs of low-income persons; ecology‟s systems-thinking;
sustainable agriculture‟s concern for how food is produced; public health‟s prevention-
based strategies; and community development‟s community-building and place-based
focus”.11
Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security

Urban agriculture is one of the essential components of community food security, and
should be incorporated into any strategy that seeks to achieve its objectives. When
reviewing the elements cited above, urban agriculture:
has a special capacity to strengthen access to food by low-income and other
vulnerable groups;
exemplifies the multiple links among an urban food supply system and other systems
(transportation, land use, waste management, etc.);
incorporates innovative food delivery processes, such as community-supported
agriculture and organic hydroponics;
enables preventive health measures, notably nutritional improvements and safe waste
management, among groups that may not otherwise access good food; and
localizes food production, bringing it close to the consumer and making it place-
specific (because certain crops are especially suited to certain places).
The last point is advantageous on several levels. Besides the obvious transportation
savings, other benefits include fresher products, higher correspondence between supply
and demand, and greater awareness of the role of agriculture.
The principal relevance of CFS is the focus on the poor and others who are vulnerable
to food insecurity. In the past decade several innovative urban farming approaches have
contributed to local food security. In the USA,12 for instance, examples abound. 13
The importance of healthy school meals has gained new attention, with Santa
Monica‟s Market Salad Bar and its links to vegetable farmers in Southern California
perhaps serving as the exemplary case.
In Atlanta, a program provides skills and income to inner city teenagers by training
them to produce, process, package, and market specialty products such as pickled
peppers and loofah sponges.
Within the Cook County Jail complex, inmates harvest vegetables for Chicago‟s poor
and homeless through a food distribution site operated by the federally-funded
Women, Infants and Children program, and through a restaurant for the homeless.
The recent growth of gleaning programs to distribute food to those in need depends in
particular on farms that are in and around American metropolitan areas.14
From inner-city Los Angeles to small towns in Iowa, the Community-Supported
Agriculture (CSA) model is being adapted to deliver produce weekly to low-income
households.
In Austin, Texas, a farmers‟ market was set up alongside a community garden within
the poorest neighborhood in the city.

Direct marketing relationships have been set up between small-scale farmers from
Southern California and food service managers at food banks and residential
rehabilitation centers in Oakland, California.
Among many urban residents, a survival mentality often overwhelms such desires as
a clean, unpolluted environment and a safe, nutritious food supply. Programs such as
those of the Hartford Food System (Case 7.1), however, have helped many people regain
control over an environment that has been made hostile, thereby making food a vehicle
for empowerment.
Case 7.1 The Hartford Food System and food security in Connecticut, USA
The Hartford Food System (HFS) is a private non-profit organization that has been working since
1978 to establish a localized food system by developing community food projects in the city and
the surrounding state of Connecticut. The projects are meant to fill gaps left by the market
economy and its „conventional‟ food system.
Hartford proper (population about 135,000) has an overall poverty rate of 24 percent and a
childhood poverty rate of 44 percent, making it one of the poorest cities in the nation. There are
only two supermarket chain stores that serve the entire city, severely curtailing access to
affordable food. A large poor and minority population suffers from chronic diet-related diseases
and an infant mortality rate that exceeds the national average. Compounding the problems in
Hartford, since 1982 Connecticut has lost 17 percent of its farmland to development. The state‟s
food is also more expensive and lower in quality than the average for the USA.
The Hartford Food System has been using farmers‟ markets, a Community-Supported
Agriculture (CSA) project, community gardens, youth gardens, solar greenhouses, and a direct
farmer-to-school marketing program to put the urban consumer back into the food picture. The
overall program is called Farm to Family and its purpose is two-fold:
to restore the links between Connecticut‟s farmers and low-income communities by launching
programs that target both consumers and institutional food providers such as the school
lunch program; and
to give low-income residents an opportunity to participate in their food system through food
production and distribution projects.
In 1987, HFS established Connecticut‟s Farmers‟ Market Nutrition Program to provide low-
income mothers, their children, and seniors with the opportunity to purchase locally-grown fresh
fruits and vegetables in their neighborhoods, while also creating an incentive for local farmers to
market their produce in the inner city. The program began with 21 farmers at three markets that
provided more than 4,000 Hartford women and children with 80,000 pounds of produce for US$
21,000. By 1994 the program had expanded across Connecticut to include 40 markets and 155
farmers who received well over US$ 300,000 in coupon sales from 43,543 low-income clients and
5,800 senior citizens.
In 1994, HFS embarked on its newest venture in hands-on food production, the Holcomb
Farm CSA project. Located on a 318-acre farm owned by the nearby town of Granby, CSA is the
Hartford area‟s first community-directed farming project. CSA unites the region‟s residents in a
common effort to build a local source of high-quality safe food. In its first year, CSA produced
more than 32,000 pounds of vegetables on 5 acres, which was distributed through five Hartford
community organizations. The program doubled in size the next year.
The majority of Hartford's schoolchildren are at risk of hunger; for many, the school lunch
program provides their only complete meal for the day. Recently, HFS launched Farm Fresh

Start, a demonstration program designed to increase the amount and variety of locally-grown
produce served in public school meals, while also creating market opportunities for organic and
low-input growers.
Contact: Mark G. Winne (see Appendix F for complete address).
In Great Britain, as in many wealthier countries, community-based food system

movements include a shift from individual or family gardening as a constructive leisure
pursuit to organizing a community to be accountable for its food security. As part of this
change, there is a movement to convert allotment gardens to community gardens. As
some observers remarked, “Allotments could not aid the local economy like community
gardens may, with the selling of produce and perhaps running the garden as a business
venture.”15
Nutrition and Health

Nutritional status is a function of environmental and physical health, food security,
caregiving, and nutritional quality of food. Urban agriculture has the potential to enhance
the nutritional status of urban residents in general, and the urban poor in particular, by
directly improving food security and nutritional adequacy.
For the poorest with unstable incomes, daily dietary intake varies depending on that
day‟s income and prices in the market. They may thus suffer from hunger for part of the
year. Many studies show that low-income urban dwellers spend a very high share of their
income on food and yet face nutritional deficiencies due to poor diet, poor sanitary
environment, and high rates of infection.16
The World Bank and others have developed „healthy days of life‟ and other quality-of-
life indicators to measure a society‟s health and well-being. Studies indicate that 40-75
percent of adults and children living in low-income urban areas in poorer cities have
diseases that limit their capacity to learn and work.17 By reducing hunger and malnutrition,
urban farming makes the urban poor healthier, more productive, and more resistant to
diseases. While the health benefits are generally greatest among the poor, other income
groups also gain nutritionally from urban agriculture — middle-income kitchen gardens, a
common sight throughout the world, contribute to improving the nutritional status of
middle- and higher-income families.
Nutritionists have determined that the dietary intake of preschool children is an
important factor for healthy mental and physical development. Hunger and nutritional
deficiencies can lower productivity and shorten life. Child hunger can occur as a result of
poverty, an inadequate food supply, or a distribution system that both increases the cost and
availability of food.18 In some social groups, women and female infants may be given less
food than male members of the family, making them particularly prone to hunger and
malnutrition.
The few studies available on nutritional differences among urban farmers and non-
farmers show significant nutritional benefits associated with urban agriculture. A striking
example is provided by a study in Kampala, which found that children of low-income

farming families were as healthy as children of high-income families and healthier than
children of non-farming poor families.19 A 1994 study in Nairobi found average kilocalorie
intake to be highest, and stunting and wasting among children to be lowest, in households
that participated in an urban agriculture program run by the Undugu Society, followed by
households that independently practiced urban farming, and finally in non-farming
households.20
Household gardens as nutritional solutions have been promoted by several international
agencies — including FAO, UNICEF, Save the Children, Mennonite Christian Committee,
American Friends Service Committee, and Oxfam — especially to increase the vitamin and
micronutrient intake of mothers and growing children. The U.S. Agency for International
Development‟s Vitamin A Field Support Project (VITAL) reports several studies that found
a significant increase in vitamin A consumption is related to home gardens.21 Most of these
programs, however, target only the rural poor, which in many countries ignores the majority
of food-insecure poor — the urban poor. Important exceptions exist, such as the gardens
associated with community kitchens in Lima, Peru (Case 7.2).
Case 7.2 Growing food for community kitchens in Lima
Community kitchens (comedores populares) in Lima, Peru are run mainly by women who serve
cooked food to their members, who are predominantly from poor communities. Traditionally, rice,
beans, and oil are subsidized by the government and international aid. Kitchen members raise
small livestock at home for use in the kitchen.
In the first half of the 1990s, CARE International collaborated with HUFACAM (the division of
the Ministry of Agriculture that promotes urban farming) and the Ministry of Health to promote
community gardens for the comedores, which grow vegetables and fruits to improve the
nutritional quality of the food. These gardens, typically 100 square meters, are on government
land, for example, in small parks, at health centers, or playgrounds. CARE provided seeds and a
technical expert, while the government provided a social worker to help organize the farming
activity. In some cases, CARE and the government helped with access to water.
The farmers used household and street waste, as well as the manure from their home
livestock, to enrich the soil. Facilitating health workers reported that the gardens have immense
nutritional benefits and help create self-reliance and empowerment within the communities.
Starting in the mid-1990s, governmental support for the community kitchens (through
HUFACAM) was withdrawn as part of a more general shift in priorities (see Case 2.9).
Contact: Manuel Orozco Ramos and Lucila Alegre de la Cruz (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).
With adequate crop selection and awareness of nutritional qualities, household

gardens can be expected to have a beneficial impact on nutritional balance and
micronutrient intake of the farming household. The Helen Keller Institute implemented
pilot home garden projects in Bangladesh, and an evaluation of program participants
found improved nutritional status of women and children.22

Two examples of urban projects that promote gardening for nutritional benefits are
the Sup-Sup Garden Project in the Solomon Islands and the Thailand Vitamin A
Improvement Project. In the Solomon Islands, the Honiara city council worked with the
Sup-Sup Garden Club to increase the number of home gardens by 20 percent in two
years.23 The Thai project used a strategy similar to the Sup-Sup Gardens, except that a
single food, ivy gourd, was promoted. An initial review showed expanded production and
increased consumption by children.24 It is important, however, for gardening initiatives to
be well planned so that they fit local circumstances. For a number of reasons, many
household gardening projects have failed.
Where farming by the poor has been systematically supported by development
agencies, long-term and sustainable benefits are reported, as shown in two Philippines
cases. In Negros, malnutrition was reduced in two years from 40 percent to 25 percent
among participant families in a program that promoted biointensive home gardens.25 In
Cebu City, horticulture as a public health intervention provided more significant
increases in vitamin A levels among children (as well as other nutritional benefits) than
other, more standard supplementation and fortification interventions (such as targeted
supply of iron, vitamin A, iodine tablets).26
The benefits of fresher food from local production are available not just to farm
families, but to the entire city. Too often, market fruits, vegetables, and meats go bad due
to long journeys and lack of proper storage. Urban agriculture helps make fresher
produce and meat available. In Shanghai, production and supply of vegetables is
managed so that they reach the market within 10-15 hours of harvest, which maximizes
freshness and nutritional content (see Case 6.4). Urban agriculture is particularly adept at
stretching the season (and consequently the period of nutritional gains) through the use of
compost, waste heat, plastic, and other forms of sheltered production.
Nutritionists have been surprised that even civil war or economic crisis often produce
relatively little additional urban malnutrition or hunger in some cities. After Zaire‟s
economic collapse in 1991, malnutrition in Kinshasa was less prevalent than might have
been expected.27 In Baghdad and Sarajevo in the 1990s, residents planted gardens to
provide for their nutritional needs.
Nutritional gains are clearly the greatest health benefit from urban farming, but they
are far from the only benefit. Farming also cleans and greens the living environment,
reducing pollution and disease-causing pathogens and vectors. Household waste and
refuse can also be recycled for agricultural uses, providing additional environmental and
human benefits by reducing waste scattered around the urban environment.
Finally, the presence of green spaces (including agricultural ones) undoubtedly
increases the sense of well-being of urban residents, particularly at a child‟s level.
Greenery is likely to benefit mental health, as empirical studies have demonstrated. For
instance, patients at a hospital in suburban Pennsylvania were found to suffer less
depression if their windows looked out on trees rather than a brick wall. Beyond the
passive act of looking at plants, the therapeutic benefits of actively participating in
planting and other agricultural efforts have also been recognized. Therapeutic horticulture
has become a specialty in its own right within the health professions, and has its own
association.

Improved food security and nutrition are the main direct benefits to poor households
that farm in cities, and are a very critical coping strategy. Yet most governments, rather
than promoting and encouraging this coping strategy, tend to oppose it, even if only on
paper. In many instances, the food security and health gains are largely obtained
haphazardly through the sheer efforts of farmers themselves. Food security and health
improvements within the community can be planned by a range of public and other
institutional interventions (see Chapter 11). The first step should be a proper
understanding of the food system of a community, a city, a region, a country.
Social Benefits
The benefits of urban agriculture to farmers and their families are a springboard for its
benefits to society. Urban farming improves social equity by improving the health and
productivity of poorer populations and providing an opportunity to earn additional
income. The health, income, environmental, and other benefits of urban agriculture to
low-income farmers all make strong positive social contributions.
The poor are not a single homogeneous group. Some are more vulnerable than others.
As a survey by the International Labor Organization found in Tanzania, urban agriculture
often helps the weakest members of poorer communities disproportionately, a group that
includes the aged, youth, women, migrants, immigrants, refugees, and people in long-
term civil crises. The work opportunities provided by urban agriculture generate
employment and income for those who have the fewest employment opportunities.
Urban agriculture is a way for people in these groups, and day-wage earners and the
unemployed, to become entrepreneurial. Women growing hydroponic vegetables in the
slums of Bogotá, for example, typically produce incomes that exceed their husbands‟
salaries (see Case 5.3). Through urban agriculture projects such as a Peace Corps project
in the Dominican Republic, youth have not only learned to achieve stable income, but to
become accountable for the environmental well-being and food security of their
communities.
Urban cultivation is frequently undertaken through community organizations. When
successful, such community efforts in urban agriculture are an effective means of
empowerment, as the International Food Policy Research Institute found through a home
gardening project it studied in Guatemala.
Urban agriculture also contributes to a community‟s well-being by improving its
aesthetics and solidarity (Case 7.3). Neighborhoods that include urban agriculture
generally have higher levels of social interaction and better security, in part because the
activity is on the streets rather than behind closed doors. Neighbors tend to share a
concern for the success of the enterprise and often the fruits of its labor as well.
Food insecurity for the individual of any age is an increasing problem because urban
families in the 21st century tend to be less cohesive. Diseases, including AIDS and
malaria, break down the family structure. The number of urban homeless is growing in
many countries, both rich and poor. Urban agriculture has the potential to empower each
of these social groups to recover food security as a first step to well-being.

Case 7.3 Relocated households gardening in a new neighborhood in the desert near Cairo
Gardening can be a crucial tool for dislocated households to adjust to new environments, an
important step in the formation of new communities. This was exemplified in Cairo following the
October 1992 earthquake. Starting only one year after the earthquake, 10,000 families obtained
apartments in a new housing complex on the desert plateau east of the city. As early as 1995,
while the area (nicknamed Earthquake Quarter by its inhabitants) was still a construction site,
small gardens could be detected outside many ground-floor apartments.
While some gardens were planted with only decorative and shade plants, many other
residents planted herbs and vegetables and raised small livestock. Interviews confirmed their
adaptive role within this new and harsh environment. Most of the new residents used to live in
dense neighborhoods of inner Cairo, so they had not been accustomed to gardening except on
balconies and roof tops. They saw gardening as a new opportunity, one that mitigates the hostile
environment provided by the new housing.
Interviews revealed that the residents always regarded their gardens as multifunctional —
food production combined with other purposes such as greening, rest, and privacy. As one
resident put it, “I set up a garden with my husband in front of the housing block, to have a nice
view, to raise some chickens, to plant some lettuce and radish.” The gardens, while small,
mitigated some of the high food prices at the neighborhood market, prices that were partially
explained by the neighborhood‟s isolation at the edge of Cairo.
The privacy offered by densely planted ground-level gardens cannot be underestimated, nor
can their social and recreational functions. The latter is particularly important since no collective
public facilities (other than a public park) were provided on site. The less tangible purpose of
adjusting to a strange new setting is also vital. Claiming the space outside the apartment (often
spilling onto the public domain, with a narrow passageway left for pedestrians to pass) occurred
as rapidly as the transformations that were applied to apartment interiors. Gardens were a vital
element of acculturation to a new setting.
Contact: Bénédicte Florin (see Appendix F for complete address).
A less tangible benefit than those already identified is individual empowerment. This
became clear in the Peruvian capital of Lima. Peru Mujer, a non-governmental
organization (NGO) administered a comprehensive and well-planned community
gardening program until 1994 that contributed to improving the food security, nutrition,
and health of 5,000 families in Lima.28 Most of the community gardens, each consisting
of about 40 plots of 60-200 square meters, were farmed by low- and middle-income
women growing biointensive vegetables, mainly for consumption. Besides providing
training, extension, marketing, and processing support, Peru Mujer created organization
and leadership structures among the farmers. This experience showed the improvements
that urban agriculture can bring to women‟s lives beyond nutrition and income — better
self-image, higher standing within the family, and elevated social and economic position
within the community. This benefit is especially important because in most countries a
high percentage of urban farmers are women.

Economic Benefits
The economic importance of urban agriculture has received little attention to date.
Scholars have tended to regard it as a subset of rural agriculture or the informal sector, or
as merely a temporary phenomenon. The available data suggest, however, that the
economic benefits of urban agriculture are at least as great as the nutritional and
environmental benefits.29
Food is the largest single element of the urban economy in the majority of towns and
cities in the developing world, and one of the top three elements in high-income
countries. Adding to the economic base of a city with agricultural production and
processing provides it with a solid foundation.
Urban farming is a competitive economic activity and the industry of choice for
millions of urban entrepreneurs. It provides income-generating opportunities for people
with low skills and little capital, as well as for people with limited mobility, including
women with children and the elderly. For many private and public entities — including
port authorities, hotels, restaurants, airports, municipalities, and electric and water
utilities — it provides opportunities for a secondary income.
Urban agriculture often exploits unused resources in the city — wastewater, solid
waste, vacant lots, bodies of water, and rooftops. It puts idle land to productive use, either
by paying competitive rent or through usufruct use, and maintains the land in good
condition for the owner. For countries with foreign exchange problems, urban agriculture
can be an import-substituting industry.
The economic benefits of urban agriculture can be discussed in terms of its role in:
employment, income generation, and enterprise development;
the national agriculture sector; and
land-use economics.
Employment, Income Generation, and Enterprise Development

It is not surprising that both low- and high-income entrepreneurs choose urban farming as
their industry. Risk is low because food is a basic consumption item with a stable and
dependable demand, even during an economic downturn. Because they are close to
markets, urban farmers can tailor their production to demand and supply high-value and
perishable items. Proximity to the market also gives farmers a competitive advantage by
saving transportation and storage costs.
Whether small or large, legal or illegal, informal or formally recognized, urban
farmers around the world are producing competitive incomes through farming(Table 7.3).
In Jakarta, a group of farmers runs a profitable vegetable farm on allotted land in return
for services inside the grounds of a racetrack. Poultry farms holding a few thousand birds
are a common sight on the outskirts of many cities.
Urban food production has a significant multiplier effect on the urban economy. It
generates economic activity in related industries, including those that supply agricultural
inputs, as well as storage, transportation, canning, marketing, and food processing (Case
7.4). Street food vendors in Bangkok and elsewhere grow their own food and cook it for

sale every morning.30 In Bamako, Mali, entrepreneurs supply compost excavated from
garbage dumps to meet farmers‟ demand for fertilizer.
Urban farming provides secure jobs to many in the city. In some cities, as many as
one-fifth to one-third of all families are engaged in agriculture, with up to one-third of
these having no other source of income.31 Tanzania‟s 1988 census found that urban
agriculture was the second largest employer in the district of Dar es Salaam, population
about 2 million (the first was petty trading and labor). One in five adults of working age
in Dar es Salaam is a farmer.32 In greater Bangkok, the Choroe Polphord conglomerate
has contracts with no less than 10,000 poultry outgrowers. A great many of the
outgrowers are small-scale entrepreneurs who provide employment to others. In Manila,
the Urban Food Foundation farmers‟ cooperative includes 500 small-livestock producers.
Thousands of such examples exist globally.
Table 7.3 Impact of urban agriculture on job- and income-generation
Country Impact
Africa
Tanzania In Dar es Salaam, urban agriculture was the second largest employer in 1988
(petty trading and labor were first). Twenty percent of working-age adults
participate in urban agriculture.
Zambia In a program to expand and improve food gardens in Matete, the average
annual income of participants nearly doubled in two years.
Asia
India Intensive farming on 800 hectares of garbage dumps in Calcutta employs
about 20,000. Fisheries in sewage-fed lagoons employ 4,000 fishermen
families and produce 6,000 tons of fish every year.
Thailand In Bangkok, a poultry conglomerate contracts to approximately 10,000
outgrowers.
Latin America
Argentina In Buenos Aires, backyard gardens can provide 10-30 percent of the cost of a
nutritious diet.
Colombia Urban hydroponics supported by UNDP generates approximately US$ 30 per
month on 10 square meters and requires only 1 hour of daily care. Up to 2
monthly minimum salaries (US$ 90-180) can be made on 30-60 square
meters of planting.
North America
USA Kona Kai Farms in Berkeley, California generated $238,000 from one-half
acre in 1988 through sale of organic specialty greens. Three employees are
starting their own garden-farms.

The urban farmer has a competitive advantage in specialty crops and specialty markets
such as exports. Food processing and marketing corporations benefit from urban farmers
because their proximity ensures better contact and control over supply and quality as well as
lower transportation costs, especially for perishable items such as mushrooms.
Large enterprises employing farmers or maintaining outgrower contracts bring the
benefits of organization and scale to farmers. Agribusiness organizes marketing, financing,
and technical assistance that allow the farmer to concentrate on production. The farmer is
also assured that all his produce will be purchased so long as it meets quality requirements.
The large enterprises use their size to gain access to markets, market information, and credit
— difficult for small, individual farmers to obtain. Del Monte Corporation purchases fruits
and vegetables from more than 100 small outgrowers in Manila (see Case 3.4).
Urban agriculture is an easy industry to enter. It can be started on a small scale, on
informally accessed land (sometimes paying no or little rent), with few and inexpensive
inputs, and limited technical knowledge and skills. The output at this stage is usually low
and inefficient, but an enterprising farmer can, over time, improve the inputs, increase skills
and knowledge, enhance production efficiency, and widen the scale of the activity — all
with small incremental investments. Poor farmers, however, have little or no financial
capacity to absorb economic shocks, especially when they have little official support.
Case 7.4 Integrated urban farming in Pikine, Dakar
In the community of Pikine in Dakar, Senegal, a cooperative of small entrepreneurs has

succeeded in farming an unbuildable wetland area of tribal land. The farmers, who are mostly
men, grow vegetables under trees and raise livestock, primarily for the market. Women do the
marketing. Both men and women process and market related products such as dried fish, tanned
leather, and handicrafts made from palm fronds. In addition, the marshier parts of the land are
leased to rural itinerant rice farmers, and the rent is used for common projects.
The farmers follow sustainable agriculture practices, using waste from households, markets,
and animals to fertilize the soil. In some cases, wastewater is diverted from sewage pipes to
irrigate the crops, but in most cases water for irrigation is lifted by hand from shallow wells.
Animals are raised in home compounds and grazed in turn by tribe members on roadsides
and vacant land. The women marketers buy fish from fishermen, process the fish, and barter the
waste to the farmers for fertilizer.
The farmers‟ cooperative operates under the leadership of an elected president, who is also
their tribal chief (photo 5.4). The farmers receive political support from the city mayor and
technical assistance from the Centre pour le Développement de l‟Horticulture, a government
research institution working on horticultural techniques such as raised-bed monocropping. The
institution is partly funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization.
The success of the farming activity stems from a strong organizational structure and the
integration of marketing, processing, and land management.
Contact: Michael Bassey (see Appendix F for complete address).

Urban agriculture provides opportunities for unskilled youth, homebound mothers, and
the elderly to participate in commercial activities. In Lusaka, for example, urban agriculture
provides jobs for those whose skills do not qualify them for formal sector jobs — including
women, teenagers, and retirees — at a higher rate than other informal sector activities.33
Much urban agriculture work can be done at any time of the day, and there may even be
certain advantages to working outside business hours (butchering, harvesting for same-day
or next-day sale). Many tasks can be done on weekends.
On plots as small as 10 square meters, gardeners in Maipú, Chile and Takoma Park,
Maryland, USA produce herbs and spices that they process and package at home for sale.
The most dramatic example of enterprise development is probably that of a multi-
millionaire urban agriculturist in Jakarta who began by selling eggs door-to-door that were
produced by chickens raised on his parents‟ back porch (Case 7.5).
Case 7.5 Development of an integrated urban agricultural enterprise in Jakarta
In the early 1970s, Bob Sadino, a young high school graduate in Jakarta, Indonesia recognized
the market for specialty food products and began a business that has turned into a multi-million-
dollar urban agriculture success story. He began by importing chicks from the Netherlands,
raising them in his parents‟ backyard, and selling the eggs to neighbors door-to-door.
Sadino expanded his business activity rapidly, selling chicks to other poultry farmers and
dressed chicken to luxury hotels while continuing the door-to-door sale of eggs. In about four
years, he had established a retail outlet in his family home and then purchased a meat
processing plant, where he processed chicken as well as other meats.
Within a few years, Kem Chicks concentrated on processing, wholesaling, and retailing. The
enterprise produces specialty products for which there is less competition. High quality and
reliability allow the company to command higher-than-market prices. A national or international
expert is generally called in to set up production and train staff in new products. Kem Chicks also
provides support to its medium- and small-scale outgrowers.
Kem Chicks now also includes a hydroponic vegetable farm, established with the help of a
Japanese expert, and vegetable farms in the peri-urban area. High-value, rare vegetables are
distributed overnight after harvesting to maintain freshness.
Kem Chicks exports several food products to Singapore, including dried fruit. The company
has grown to employ about 800 people in addition to the outgrowers.
Contact: Bob Sadino (see Appendix F for complete address).
The economic base of cities is particularly strengthened because urban agriculture is

counter-cyclical. Food is a basic consumption item with a fairly inelastic demand. Thus
even when the economy is depressed, urban farming can still sell its products. Yet despite
all its advantages, urban agriculture is frequently excluded from economic data collection
and unreported in labor statistics. Individuals may not count their self-employment in
farming as a job, and statistical surveys may ignore the money a family saves by growing
food at home.

The National Agriculture Sector and Urban Food Supply

Urban agriculture not only contributes to improved economic conditions for individuals
and families, but also offers a variety of macroeconomic benefits. In most countries, food
is among the largest industries, and in many places, a significant portion of food
production occurs within urban regions, where urban farming is a well-established and
extensive industry (see Table 2.2). In many countries urban farming satisfies a significant
percentage of the urban food demand and comprises a fair share of the nation‟s
agricultural industry, in addition to being the main source for non-cereal nutrition for a
large proportion of the urban poor,.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that one-third of the nation‟s agricultural
product (in dollar value) is produced within urban metropolitan areas on one-ninth of the
agricultural land.34 Within their metropolitan regions, 18 large cities in China produce 90
percent or more of their vegetable demand, as well as a significant portion of their fish
and small-livestock protein demand.35 In the Dar es Salaam area, GTZ found that 90
percent of the spinach that was consumed was grown in the urban area. Urban agriculture
is a major industry in these countries, in part through a policy decision to pursue urban
food self-sufficiency.
In countries where food and fuel represent an even larger share of the total economy,
urban agriculture may have an even more important economic share. Russia‟s small
farmers produce 30 percent of its agricultural produce on 3 percent of the land, and three
in five families in greater Moscow farm on a small scale, up from one-fifth in 1970.36
Kampala, Uganda produces most of the poultry consumed by its residents. Bamako, Mali
produces nearly all of its vegetables, as does Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), and until
recently, Shanghai (China).
Urban farming is particularly important in countries where the national agricultural
marketing infrastructure has failed to catch up with growth in urbanization, particularly in
most rapidly growing African cities. The importance of urban farming also increases
when the rural food supply or the national agricultural marketing infrastructure is
disrupted due to civil strife, such as in Baghdad, Kinshasa, and Sarajevo.
In addition to contributing to the city‟s food supply, urban agriculture helps low-
income farmers produce food they cannot afford to buy. This does not displace rural
supply because the poor have limited financial resources to purchase food in the market.
Most developing-country food imports are undertaken to feed the cities. Egypt and
Tanzania are two well-documented examples of countries that import food with a priority
for their urban population. Urban agriculture can substitute for some of the imported
food.
The economic consequences of the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s are
well known. The World Bank found that per capita income in dozens of countries was
lower in 2000 than it was in 1990. In some countries, economic conditions have been
worsening since the mid-1970s. One common response was to earn foreign exchange by
exporting rural crops — the same crops consumed in urban areas. Policies were also
instituted to encourage urban residents to grow their own food to save money and ease
the economic situation (these efforts in Zambia are described in Case 9.1).

An early such case was Operation Feed Yourself in Ghana. It had considerable
success during its 4-year life (1972-76) in reducing imports and feeding cities. Plantain
crops increased from 202,000 to 840,000 acres, while okra acreage increased from 18,000
to 42,000. Urban farmers‟ associations operating today date to this period and still focus
on urban farming for self-consumption.37
In the 1980s, Sri Lanka found itself in a balance-of-payments crunch because of the
need to import rice, wheat, and other foods. Import restrictions imposed to save foreign
exchange caused price increases and food shortages. This decision immediately generated
a counterbalancing need for urban agriculture to feed half the country‟s population. To
ease these problems, the government encouraged consumption of indigenous staple crops,
including manioc, yams, and dry grains, which urban residents farmed in school gardens
and their backyards.38
Many developing countries faced the new millenium deeply in debt and with a poor
foreign trade balance. For some, it is possible and appropriate to put their good rural
agricultural land into export crops and let the cities provide their food and fuel needs as
much as possible through urban agriculture. Self-reliant cities thus advance rural
agriculture‟s export goals. Nicaragua‟s government, for example, made a decision in the
early 1990s to earn foreign exchange through agricultural exports. All the examples cited
so far pale in comparison to the revolution in food supply that has transpired in Cuba
during the past decade (Case 7.6).
Case 7.6 Cuban urban agriculture — from ‘modern’ to sustainable farming
In 1990, Cuba embarked upon the first national transformation from conventional modern
agriculture to large-scale organic and semi-organic farming. The agricultural sector and the
country's food security had been highly dependent on imports, a strategy that faltered when the
Soviet Union crumbled. Suddenly, a country with a highly modernized agricultural sector found
itself almost without chemical inputs, and with sharply reduced access to fuel and irrigation.
Average daily caloric and protein intake by the Cuban population may have fallen by as much as
30 percent from the levels of the 1980s. Prior to this „special period‟, and despite significant
progress in domestic food production during the 1970s and 1980s, 57 percent of the total calories
in the Cuban diet came from imports — a consequence of focusing on sugar production for
export.
Cuba was now faced with a dual challenge — the need to double food production with less
than half the inputs, and at the same time maintain export crop production so as not to further
erode the country's meager foreign exchange. To Cuba‟s credit, with only 2 percent of Latin
America‟s population, it has nearly 11 percent of its scientists, an advantageous position for the
necessary transition.
Fortunately for Cuba, it had begun a National Food Program in 1989 that emphasized a
dramatic increase in the production of viandas (traditional starchy crops) and vegetables, and to
make the area in and around Havana as self-sufficient as possible. The leadership of Cuba had
already embraced an „alternative model‟ promoting crop diversity, organic fertilizers, and
biological control. Eventually, a highly organized composting program using crop residues and
urban garbage was developed, as was a composting program using worms. Crop rotations,
intercropping, green manuring, and succession planting were officially adopted. Additionally,
more than 200 factories were created to produce beneficial insects and pest pathogens.

Since 1991, more than 27,000 organic gardens covering 500 acres have been created in the
Havana metropolitan area, producing an estimated 1 million tons of food annually. Within the 15
Havana municipalities and the abutting peri-urban districts, Havana is over 80 percent self-
sufficient in vegetables. This achievement is particularly remarkable because the vegetable
consumption by Havana‟s children increased four-fold during the 1990s.
Urban gardens take on three basic levels of organization in Cuba — individual and family
gardens on private land, organized groups of neighbors on public land, and institutionally
organized gardens. Garden sites are usually open or abandoned plots in the same neighborhood
or even next door to the gardener‟s home.
A 1993 government decision to break up the enormous farms that accounted for 80 percent
of Cuban agriculture turned those farms into profit-seeking cooperatives. As a result, Cuba had
significant levels of production for 10 of 13 principal domestic food items for the 1997 growing
season. Since 1989, Cuba has fully accepted the policy to promote a new approach to
agriculture, including recognition of the importance of urban agriculture, and has moved
substantially to implement this policy in research stations, extension services, and with farm
producers.
Contact: Catherine Rosset and Maria Caridad Cruz Hernandez (see Appendix F for complete
addresses).
In a world that is facing food shortages in many countries, an expansion in urban

agriculture can reduce the pressure on rural land, especially the push onto new low-
quality agricultural land. Intensified production methods mean that more people can be
fed on existing cultivated land without putting additional stress on marginal lands.
Economic Use of Land

Urban agriculture is thriving in a variety of settings, from rich Tokyo to poor Kampala,
and from high-density Hong Kong to low-density Managua. Many are still skeptical that
agriculture can pay urban land rent and that it is appropriate to provide urban
infrastructure for agriculture. As discussed in Chapter 4, however, the legality of tenure
rather than land availability or the competitiveness of farming are the main problems.
Urban agriculture is an economical use of land for a number of reasons. Urban
agriculture:
generates income from temporarily available land at the growing urban periphery and
the renewing core;
puts idle water bodies, wetlands, and steep slopes to productive use and maintains the
land (Case 7.7);
generates income from idle, unbuilt parts of oversized facilities such as hospitals,
factories, military bases, and airports;
is a compatible open-space use in parks, sports facilities, universities, roadside
verges, utility rights-of-way, riparian and floodplains along rivers and bays,
cemeteries, and other locations;

is a competitive land use in many cases (for example, poultry farms and ornamental
horticulture on the outskirts of cities); and
generates a considerable number of jobs for the relatively little land it requires.39
Case 7.7 Using old garbage dumps to grow vegetables in East Calcutta
Calcutta, India has some of the most outstanding waste-to-farming systems in the world (Case
3.5 describes the wastewater-based fisheries). At Calcutta‟s main garbage dump, the Municipal
Corporation leases about 800 hectares of former dumping plots with rich compost for intensive
farming. Small-scale farmers and cooperatives produce 150-300 tons per day of up to 25
varieties of vegetables which fetch high prices in Calcutta. The intensive farming generates
employment for about 20,000 people.
The site is fingers of land jutting into a series of ponds east of the city, formed over time
(since 1874) by building up ridges of land with ponds between them. The fields are served by
unpaved roads. Farmers provide their own security by rotating night duty. The farming system is
labor-intensive, including hand-carried irrigation water.
All inorganic reusable materials are removed from the garbage by an informal recycling
industry at the source before the waste gets to the dump site. What remains in the mature sites is
some unusable inorganic materials (such as construction debris and — increasingly — plastic)
that the farmers clear from the sites. The remaining organic substrate is rich in nutrients, and no
chemical fertilizers are needed or used (although pesticides are). Newer garbage is mixed into
the soil, after one week for fermentation. This traditional farming is environmentally sustainable,
and no significant problems of vegetable contamination has been identified.
Produce is sold to middlemen at the farm gate and to city center markets. Rent is paid to
thika tenants, or landlords, who lease large tracts from the Calcutta Municipal Council. The West
Bengal State Department of Agriculture provides monitoring and tests for food safety.
Contact: Christine Furedy (see Appendix F for complete address).
Where the entrepreneur is using land solely for farming, it is likely to be a

competitive land use. Where farming is a second use of the land, the opportunity cost of
using that space for farming is much lower than the economic land rent. In the case of
utility rights-of-way and public facilities (such as airports) where land is held for future
expansion, urban agriculture is mutually beneficial to the facility owner and the farmer.
The economics of urban land change when urban agriculture is added to the mix of
land uses. The usufruct principle — an additional productive use can be added to land
insofar as it does not deny the current or future owners the benefits of ownership — plays
a vital role here. The application of this principle increases the total rent that is available.
Thus public and private organizations with excess space in their establishments can earn
a second income by renting space to farmers. Airport buffer and expansion areas can be
farmed extensively for many years. In Jakarta, land under the elevated highways is leased
to farmers. In West Bengal, the highway authority leases roadside land to rice farmers.
Urban agriculture may reduce the maintenance costs for public and private facilities,
for example, roadsides and parks can be put to productive use rather than being mowed.

CERJ, the electric utility in Rio de Janeiro, has long made the land under transmission
lines available to farmers. In the early part of the century, CERJ leased the land, mainly
to Portuguese immigrants producing for subsistence. More recently, the company would
give the land out on a permit or loan-contract (with no charge). These permits have
clauses obligating the farmer to keep the area under cultivation, fenced, and without tall
vegetation. Permits help the farmers receive credit as well as technical and training
assistance from government agencies. One-third of the farmers produce mainly
vegetables to sell, with the utility buying some of the produce for its canteens. For CERJ,
this arrangement ensures maintenance of the land under the lines and prevents
squatting.40
Sustainable Urbanization
Cities need to close the open loop of „resources in, partial consumption, garbage out‟. In
an open-loop system, natural resources, some as inputs to production and some as
consumables, are imported into urban areas and the remainder dumped as polluting waste
(Fig. 7.2). To improve sustainability, cities and towns must diminish the „throughput‟ of
resources.
A number of definitions of sustainable urbanization have evolved since the 1992
Earth Summit in Brazil. The authors agreee with Herbert Girardet:
A sustainable city is organized so as to enable its citizens to meet their own
needs and to enhance their well-being without damaging the natural world or
endangering the living conditions of other people, now or in the future.41
Clearly several urban systems and their interface with rural systems must be managed
holistically. A human settlement will not perpetuate itself as a complex element in the
natural ecology of its region unless all its systems are synchronized to that end — social,
political, economic, food, infrastructure, etc.
Urban agriculture contributes to closing the open loop by re-using and transforming
by-products and waste from other industries (see Fig. 1.1). Urban farming increases local
production, reduces imports, and decreases the amount of discarded waste.
Since the 1960s, a number of models of ecologically sustainable human settlements
have been proposed and sometimes tested in small experimental communities. These
include the „organic house‟ (Berkeley, California), the „edible landscape‟ (Eugene,
Oregon), „eco-ville‟ (Yoff, Senegal), and „Auroville‟ (Tamil Nadu, India). Other
approaches to sustainable urbanization now being considered emphasize trees, recycling,
reduced consumption, and infrastructure efficiency. Urban agriculture is integral to all
these models and incorporates certain features from each one. Unlike these models,
however, urban agriculture has emerged from a multitude of practitioners around the
globe rather than through a theoretical construct, and it adds an economic dimension to
the nutritional and environmental contributions of these models.
Sustainable urban agriculture is probably a prerequisite to both sustainable
urbanization and sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture has particular
importance to low-income countries and communities that reside in a state of food
insecurity. This is because low-income producers often cannot afford the costly inputs of

industrial agriculture, nor can they acquire credit to buy these (often ecologically
unsustainable) inputs. And this in regions where the sale price of farm produce is a
fraction of the world price. In an inland town Africa, a package of insecticide or fertilizer
costs twice as much as the same product in New York or Rome. It is feasible for low-
income communities to gain access to urban solid waste and wastewater as a means to
improve and irrigate the soil.
Urban agriculture contributes to the ecological sustainability of cities by (a)
enhancing the environment, (b) improving urban management, (c) contributing to waste
management, and (d) conserving resources.
Environmental Enhancement
In most low-income countries, rapid urban population growth and unmanaged expansion
are degrading the environment of not only cities, but also their surrounding regions. The
result is polluted air, water, and soil; increased temperature; soil erosion; sharply
diminished biodiversity; and increased vulnerability to disasters such as floods. Urban
farming can not only reduce the negative environmental impacts of urban growth, but can
even help improve the urban environment.
The environmental health benefits of urban greening (including crops and particularly
agroforestry) include:42
enriched biodiversity,
habitat for wildlife,
microclimate modification,
reduced temperatures,
increased humidity,
improved air quality,
reduces vulnerability to disasters,
landscape enhancement,
sense of well-being,
site for physical exercise,
shade and shelter from sun and rain, and
noise reduction.
Biodiversity
Agriculture can provide greater biodiversity than many other urban land uses. This
assertion is based on agriculture‟s contribution to a rich healthy soil, a range of crops and
livestock, and the insects and birds supported by agriculture.43 Its contributions are
greatest when conceived in partnership with other urban improvements that lead toward
more sustainable, „greener‟ cities.
Producing food in the city conserves biodiversity in the countryside. Urban farming
can produce 5-15 times as much per acre as rural farming. Consequently, it is not

unreasonable to perceive each community garden plot and backyard garden as conserving
an area 10 times as large in a remote rain forest or mountain range.
Farming in the city often converts packed soil to loose, open soil while in other cases,
it converts pavement and rooftop to soil. Soil is the most biodiverse material in the
biosphere. Open loose soil cleanses water and promotes plant growth that cleans the air.
Fruit and vegetable crops often replace lawns or other grass-covered sites. Grass is a
form of monocrop, which sheds rather than absorbs water. Soil under grass is frequently
low in biota.
Some forms of urban agriculture such as ornamental horticulture may have the
greatest potential to expand biodiversity, particularly the breadth and quantity of native
plants. In general, urban horticulture is likely to be more diverse in its cropping patterns
than commercial (largely rural) agriculture, given more direct access to the varied urban
market (Case 7.8).
Case 7.8 Diverse edible landscape at the site of a factory near Brisbane, Australia
Andrew Christie wished to take a bold approach in landscaping the site of Neumann Steel, a
factory he manages located in a conventional industrial area at the outer edge of Brisbane. He
hired Steve Cran, a permaculture designer, to introduce some food plants and permaculture
designs around the factory. He then introduced Cran to another manager, Wayne Dugdale, who
felt that the company‟s new distribution warehouse at another suburban location could do with an
even more ambitious transformation.
As a result, Cran was able to change one-half hectare of compacted clay land into a food
forest. The metamorphosis was very rapid. Within a week of meeting with Dugdale, and with the
aid of two helpers and a bobcat, Cran had already implemented changes to the landscapes. He
created a food forest with a pond containing fish, edible plants, and an „herb spiral‟ (Fig. 7.3). The
spiral was made of sandstone blocks and measured 2.3 meters in diameter and 1.2 meters high.
Chickens and bees were introduced at a later stage.
[insert here new Figure 7.?: General layout of fruit forest at Neumann Steel
warehouse, Marsden, near Brisbane, Australia]
Fragrant herbs border the forest‟s paths. Twice as many types of leguminous trees and
shrubs were interplanted among 30 types of trees. Cran placed the taller trees on the south side
and lower trees on the north to allow good solar access. He planted native trees in the poorer
surrounding soils. A pergola with lush vegetation of bananas, tamarillos, and pawpaws creates a
rainforest effect and provides a cool area for workers to eat their lunch. The beds are mulched
with a mixture of tree mulch, rock dust, and chicken manure.
Not only were the workers thrilled with the garden and help maintain it (and of course reap its
fruits), but it inspired many of them to start gardens at home. The managers and workers of the
original factory also stepped up conversion of that site‟s „landscape‟ into a food forest by

volunteering after hours. Clients are also astonished and even bring family and friends back to
visit.
Urban agriculture has the capacity to conserve and enhance biodiversity where we
live. This potential is multifaceted. In addition to the benefits already mentioned, other
benefits include:
Organisms living in the soil have access to oxygen because the soil surface is open,
rather than compacted, paved, or roofed, and rain is absorbed into the soil instead of
running off with silt.
Soil is frequently enriched through the addition of organic waste, which is readily
available in urban areas.
Plant and related insect and animal life are promoted through the reuse of nutrient-
rich wastewater.
By mitigating air and water pollution, urban farming enables biodiversity to thrive
more easily in urban environments.
Improved Climate and Associated Energy Savings

It is now well established that trees have an ameliorating effect on the immediate local
climate. Urban forestry improves a microclimate through cooling, and in the case of arid
climates, increased humidity. Radiational heating, which creates urban „heat islands‟, is
greatly reduced by the presence of urban trees.
Chinese planners have for many years planted trees in cities for climate control and
claim to have attained significant success. In Nanjing, an industrial city of over 1.5
million, 23 trees per inhabitant were planted between 1949 and 1981. The trees were
planted on degraded hillsides, windbreaks, and along rail lines and streets in order to
reduce summer temperatures and improve air quality. An average drop in summer
temperature from 32.2 ºC in 1949 to 29.4 ºC in 1981 has been reported — and attributed
by planners to the tree planting.44
Trees keep their surroundings cooler in the summer by providing shade and
evaporating water from their leaves. Tree cover reduces the cost of summer cooling and
winter heating. In California homes with tree cover but no air conditioning, inside
temperatures were cooler by 20 ºF in summer. It is estimated that the cost of air
conditioning a building can be reduced by 50-60 percent with planned tree cover.45 In
studying the effects of urban vegetation on a city environment, the Chicago Urban Forest
Climate Project estimated that shade, lower summer air temperatures, and a reduction in
wind speed by increasing tree cover by 10 percent could lower total heating and cooling
energy use by 5-10 percent annually.46 These temperate climate figures from Chicago
would clearly be even higher in tropical cities such as New Delhi and Lagos.
American Forests, a non-profit organization, developed a method of urban ecological
analysis (UEA) that measures the economic value of the ecological benefits of urban
green in conserving energy, reducing storm water run-off and peak flow, improving air

quality, and maintaining wildlife habitats. A UEA in Atlanta, Georgia and 10 surrounding
counties estimated annual saving in cooling costs of US$ 4.6 million, a cost reduction of
about 35 percent in mitigating the effects of storm water (resulting in savings of US$ 1
billion), and indirect savings in air pollution management of US$ 3.4 million.47 However,
energy conservation through strategic planting of trees — and particularly fruit trees — is
seldom deliberately included in urban housing projects in low-income settlements.
Fuel Production
Eighty percent of Africans use wood for energy, which is about 65 percent of the fuel
they consume. Current trends indicate a three-fold increase in demand for fuelwood by
2020, creating the potential for serious shortages. More than 50 million Africans already
face shortages. In 2000, urban populations accounted for 50-75 percent of fuelwood
demand in most countries in the region.48 If the urban bioregions are not to be destroyed
in the ever-expanding search for wood fuel, managed forestry in urban and peri-urban
areas is imperative.
Some countries already manage urban forestry for energy and other uses, but the
practice must be expanded and improved. The Bandia forest in the Dakar-Mbour-Thies
triangle in Senegal has been managed for fuelwood production since 1950.49 Burkina
Faso has managed the natural forests near Ouagadougou for fuelwood since 1981. Many
towns in sub-Saharan Africa have had green belts since the 1970s — plantations of
eucalyptus around Ouagadougou, mixed forests of timber and fuelwood around Bamako,
eucalyptus and other plantations in peri-urban Niamey, and neem, rosewood, cailcedra,
and acacia plantations around N‟Djamena. The African Development Bank is funding a
project to better manage fuelwood production for Addis Ababa (Case 7.9).
Case 7.9 Fuelwood from peri-urban plantations in Addis Ababa
With a growing need for wood fuel and construction timber, deforestation in the hinterland of
Addis Ababa became an increasing problem. Eventually, a system of controlled harvesting of the
nearby natural forests was introduced. Eucalyptus plantations were also introduced around the
city, and each resident was required to plant and tend 100 seedlings.
This private ownership of eucalyptus plantations continued until the 1974 revolution in
Ethiopia, after which the State took over forest ownership. By this time, some 20,000 hectares of
plantation had been established by private growers around Addis Ababa. These came under
control of state agencies, urban dwellers‟ associations, and peasant associations, and were
rapidly exploited in an unplanned manner. Estimates based on satellite imagery indicate that in
the 3-year period 1973 to 1976, the peri-urban plantations of Addis Ababa decreased by 33
percent.
Addis Ababa is now a city of several million people and continues to have a heavy demand
for fuelwood and construction timber. The bulk of the former is supplied from forests and
plantations within a 100 kilometer radius of the city. Efforts to improve fuelwood supplies have
brought to attention the large number of fuelwood carriers and their families who depend upon
this work for their livelihood. Collectively, they supply Addis Ababa with about one-third of its
fuelwood requirements.

In recent years, the government of Ethiopia has taken steps to improve wood supplies to
Addis Ababa through programs to upgrade the eucalyptus plantations in collaboration with
international donor and lending organizations such as the World Bank and the African
Development Fund. A draft forest policy aims to reintroduce private forest ownership.
Abatement of Air Pollution and Dust

Most large cities in developing countries are suffering from air, water, soil, and noise
pollution. In Latin America, some 30 million children, 47 million adults ages 15-59, and
4 million elderly were estimated to be exposed to air pollutant levels that exceeded WHO
guidelines.50 The Parks Department in Jakarta has attributed lung-related diseases among
29 percent of residents in part to limited green cover in the city.51 Air problems are
increasing dramatically with the growth of large cities and industry. In Mexico City,
particulate suspension rose from 65 milligrams per cubic meter in 1974 to 400 milligrams
per cubic meter in 1990, and atmospheric sulfur dioxide rose from 60 to 120 milligrams
per cubic meter.52
Negative health effects range from mild irritation to serious cardiorespiratory
diseases. They are caused by sulfur dioxide and particulates from fossil fuels,
photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide from motor vehicles, and miscellaneous
pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide, lead, and cadmium emitted by smelters, refineries,
manufacturing plants, and vehicles. The Inter-American Development Bank found that
planting and maintaining trees would cost one-half as much as adding effective pollution
controls on Mexican vehicles that would clean the air an equal amount.
While tree and vegetation cover alone cannot solve the air quality problem, the cover
certainly helps ameliorate the situation by reducing the concentration of pollutants and
suspended particulates. Urban agriculture cleans the air by reducing dust and absorbing
pollutants through its foliage. In arid areas, tree belts shelter settlements from sand and
dust, such as in the greenbelts around Ouagadougou and Nouakchott.53
The Chicago study mentioned above determined that trees in the Chicago area removed
some 6,145 tons of air pollutants in 1991, providing air cleansing valued at US$ 9.2 million.
The trees sequestered approximately 155,000 tons of carbon per year and provided energy
savings in residential heating and cooling that in turn reduced annual carbon emissions
from power plants by about 12,600 tons. The projected net present value of investment in
95,000 trees in Chicago is US$ 38 million, indicating long-term benefits that are more than
twice the cost. These benefits accrue to all portions of the city, especially those that include
urban forestry.54
Other Enhancements to the Environment of Settlements

In developing countries, environmental quality is usually lowest in low-income
residence/mixed-use areas of cities:
These neighborhoods are often crowded and located on land that is ill-suited to
human habitation.
The level of urban services is generally low.

Low-income areas are often „dumping grounds‟ for other portions of the city.
Sanitation and hygiene are poor, increasing the incidence of diarrheal and respiratory
diseases, as well as pests such as rodents, houseflies, and cockroaches.55
Farming in low-income communities has the potential to improve environmental
health. If properly managed, it can turn unsightly lots into neatly cultivated areas,
improve sanitation by reusing solid waste and wastewater in farming, regenerate soil by
returning organic material and microbes, and reduce air pollution through greening (Case
7.10). Farming and trees in the slums also reduce the vulnerability of the community to
disasters such as floods and landslides.
Case 7.10 ‘Productive ecological settlements’ in Ajusco, Mexico City
Ajusco is a forested, rocky region southwest of Mexico City where squatter settlements
developed along the highway in the 1950s. By the 1970s, the area had become heavily degraded
and polluted. The government, landowners, and the real estate industry made repeated attempts
to evict the squatters from the region. In 1980, the area was zoned by the city government as a
„green‟ zone. The decision was made to evict the settlements, restrict development, and reforest
the area to restore the ecological balance, reduce pollution in the city, and replenish groundwater
aquifers.
To resist eviction, some squatter settlements decided to cooperate in the greening efforts and
create ecologically sustainable settlements. The communities organized themselves and
implemented programs of tree planting, vegetable gardens, and pollution control. University
biologists and environmental NGOs (particularly the Group of Alternative Technology) provided
assistance.
The local group „Bosques del Pedregal‟ proposed an initiative in 1984 to fight diseases
affecting the forest, protect all vulnerable trees in the settlement, reforest the Bosques Zone with
20,000 fruit trees and 20,000 other trees to improve air quality, and establish composting facilities
in order to create an integrated „productive ecological settlement‟ through reforestation,
microlivestock, fisheries, mushroom farming, and horticulture. The settlement had already planted
more than 5,000 trees. As part of an integrated recycling system, compost and rabbit waste were
used to fertilize trees and vegetables.
The conservation and pollution-control efforts of the settlements convinced the Mexico City
Federal District to adopt such activities as part of its ecological plans for the area and allow the
settlements to remain in the zone. The concept of ecological zones around Mexico City continues
today.
The Inter-American Development Bank is helping the district to prepare plans for two other
mountainous areas (Guadalupe and Santa Catarina) at opposite sides of the valley enclosing
much of Mexico City, with a particular focus on sustainable reduction of air pollution. As part of
this effort, the bank has conducted cost-benefit assessments that found peri-urban reforestation
to be an economical investment compared to other pollution mitigation techniques.

Along stream banks, waterways, and other fragile areas, tree planting not only
reduces vulnerability to flooding and landslides, but also protects against soil erosion and
siltation while producing timber and firewood.56 Instead of lining canals with concrete,
lining with trees is a cheaper solution and a better use of seepage water. This approach
has been successful in Egypt, India, and China.57
The combination of environmental improvements can be illustrated by the residents of
the slum of Kitui-Pumwani in Nairobi, and by the Undugu Society, a local NGO that helped
them set up community projects. The residents created a banana plantation to protect from
flash floods and produce income from the bananas. Household waste is composted and
added to the soil, which also solves a waste disposal problem. The Undugu Society also
promotes the use of local organic pesticides instead of imported chemicals.58
Several cities in Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United States have urban
farming and forestry strategies. Trees on lots that are reserved as green space or planted
along streets are common throughout the world. Only a few cities, however, such as in
Bangladesh, India, China, Chile, Argentina, and Senegal, plant trees that produce an income
through fruit, fuelwood and other tree products.
Trees and vegetation also help reduce noise pollution, one of the stress factors in
urban living, by absorption, deflection, reflection, refraction, and masking of sound.
Mexico City has high noise levels near major highways and the airport. Prolonged
exposure to such noise levels can damage hearing. Trees are believed to selectively
absorb higher frequencies and can measurably reduce noise.59
The environmental benefits of urban agriculture are substantial. But when poorly
practiced, urban agriculture degrades the environment. Its potential negative effects are
addressed in Chapter 8.
Efficient Urban Management

To date, the role of urban agriculture in managing towns and cities has been little studied.
Urban farming can contribute to more efficient urban management — its benefits can
help city managers overcome some of their most vexing problems, particularly in low-
income areas.
In most low-income neighborhoods, open spaces of many kinds attract refuse and are
unhealthy. Urban agriculture can clean and maintain them, produce food, green them to
improve the quality of the environment, and help free them of anti-social behavior — all
at very little cost to the municipality. The improved appearance of these sites is
invariably a source of community pride. More generally, properly maintained urban
agriculture can be a visual asset to any site, as the example of the Australian factory made
clear (Case 7.8).
In some situations, urban agriculture enrolls the poor in urban management. Lower-
income groups assume responsibility for the environmental quality of their own
neighborhoods when they are provided the means to do so and if they get a good
economic return on their labor.
Community- and city-wide farmers‟ associations, whose formal status and ties to the
municipality may vary, contribute to management of riparian rights, land use,

environmental quality, food quality, and processing and marketing of food products.
Urban farmers enhance security in the community as they protect their crops.
Large and small cities throughout the world include urban agriculture in their package
of management tools. In São Paulo, for example, land-use regulations encourage
intensive farming on utility rights-of-way. In Mexico City, land and water farming are
part of the city‟s industrial and open space plans. Shanghai and other Chinese cities have
in the past been self-sufficient in vegetable production by promoting managed farming
(see Case 6.4). In Bangkok, vacant factory sites are routinely rented on a short-term basis
to small-scale farmers. In Dar es Salaam, floodplains within the city are intensively
farmed by well-organized farmers‟ associations. Since antiquity, Rome has allowed
livestock grazing under usufruct arrangements to efficiently manage its open spaces
(photo 7.11). In Rio de Janeiro, where periodic mud slides in slums on steep slopes result
in hundreds of deaths, the state government has initiated a forestry program to hold the
soil and provide incomes for residents.
Field visits, interviews, and published sources suggest that many Asian cities manage
urban agriculture relatively well, as do some European cities. Latin American and
African cities generally have less well-organized systems and procedures to manage
urban agriculture. One of the outstanding exceptions is Bulawayo, the second largest city
in Zimbabwe (Case 7.11).
Case 7.11 Urban management and urban agriculture in Bulawayo
Urban agriculture in Zimbabwe, especially cultivation of staple food crops by urban households, is
as old as the human settlements themselves. The practice of farming in urban areas is
undertaken by people from different social and economic groups for varying purposes. Cultivation
by the poor, who are the majority of the urban population, dominates. Urban agriculture is
practiced under different circumstances and arrangements.
In Bulawayo, urban agriculture is getting positive recognition and attention. As a follow-up to
Agenda 21 set forth at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the City Council convened a group of
officials to study urban agriculture with the goal of formulating a policy for its development. The
City of Bulawayo master plan has zoned a number of areas for residential and agricultural
purposes. The food produced is readily marketed in the city through the many wholesale and
retail outlets.
The most prevalent urban agriculture activity is cultivation occurring in areas not zoned for
this use — in particular areas earmarked for future urban development. Whenever the local
authority has acquired land that sits idle, it is occupied and cultivated until urban development
takes place. Even if the vacant pieces of land are surveyed and serviced, as long as there are no
structures, they are cultivated. The people occupying the land are well organized, using the same
piece of land for many years. The fields are usually worked by women and children, and tillage by
hoe is the most common method of cultivation.
Some low-density suburbs have tended to maintain their agricultural activities, which is
perfectly legal if they have user rights that include farming. Garden allotments have been
established in selected areas of the city, particularly in the relatively fertile areas along water
courses. These allotments are mainly set aside for the destitute who grow vegetables for
subsistence and sale. Market gardening and poultry can be allowed in some residential properties
of reasonable size, as well as in some open spaces, through special consent of Council.

Women's groups, youth groups, cooperatives, and other groups wishing to engage in urban
agriculture are encouraged to identify suitable sites for their activities.
Contact: J.J. Ndebele (see Appendix F for complete address).
Urban agriculture that is not well managed and monitored can spawn diseases and
pollute land and water. Therefore, changes in administrative organization and operations
are required when urban agriculture is introduced or expanded within a city. For example,
governments may need to impose certain land-use regulations on agriculture near
industrial sites and along highways, permit only selected crops to use wastewater
irrigation, or prohibit certain fertilizers and insecticides near residences, hospitals, and
schools. Standards that are useful in setting such regulations are available from the Food
and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, among others.
Waste Management Benefits

From the earliest times, urban settlements have incorporated farming that uses organic
waste generated by the settlement. Maps of walled medieval cities show sizable areas
within them being gardened, in addition to intensive horticulture and livestock beyond
the city gates. Urban wastes were delivered to these sites by oxcarts and handcarts.
Similar waste management systems were practiced — and continue in some measure —
in China, Egypt, Mexico, India, and Singapore. The reuse of wastewater has also long
been customary.
In Almaty, Kazakstan, with the support of the International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), urban waste water is treated and stored in a reservoir
of over 1 million cubic meters, and over 6 square kilometers. This resource is used primarily
for industrial, forest, and fodder crops. Currently fish production is being initiated as a
protein source for livestock.
During the rapid urbanization of the late 19th century, urban farmers paid good prices
for the waste from slaughterhouses (hides and bones). They competed for access to the
manure of draft animals, and composted waste of many kinds.60 A large share of waste
management in small and large cities was in the private hands of market and truck
gardeners.
During the 20th century, by contrast, in most countries influenced by the European
and American style of development, urban waste management and agriculture have been
separated into the public and private sectors with relatively little interface —
municipalities and special waste management districts deal with waste and private
farmers raise food, generally with no access to urban waste as inputs. At the same time,
farmers have moved away from waste toward agrochemical inputs to nourish the soil.
During the last third of the 20th century, however, many parts of the world have
generated models of efficient, sanitary, and ecologically sound waste management
systems that can place this essential urban function inside the community. It is as feasible
at the beginning of this century, as it was in the year 1900, for a family, apartment
building, restaurant, or university to contribute to the economy, ecology, and food
security of its immediate community by the way it manages waste.

Most cities today face acute problems in managing their waste. In the USA, food
waste is the third type of urban waste in total weight (after yard waste and paper). Solid
waste dumps are piling up, and landfill space is fast running out, yet less than 3 percent
of food waste is recycled.61 While this is an extreme example, similar patterns can be
found in many other countries in the North and South. Sewage discharge is polluting
ocean estuaries, bays, rivers, and groundwater. Wastewater and solid waste collection
systems are costly for a city administration, and most municipalities in developing
countries do not currently have the capacity to serve an entire city. As a result of
inadequate waste collection and processing, waste decomposes on the streets, causing
pollution and putting the public health at risk.
The use of biological waste in urban agriculture has many advantages. It contributes
to natural resource conservation, turns waste from a problem into a resource, reduces the
public cost of waste management because the private sector gets involved, and provides a
better living environment, especially in areas not receiving waste management services.
A sustainable future for cities would require a move toward technologies that
transform waste into useful products rather than dump it. Urban farming can contribute to
this process in several ways — by producing crops for human and livestock consumption,
composting, and processing wastewater for direct production and irrigation. Some
examples are listed in Table 7.4.
For centuries, farmers the world over have used composted organic waste to fertilize
and enrich soils and as a form of pesticide. Some city governments, such as Shanghai
(Case 7.12) and Jakarta, have developed citywide programs to collect, compost, and sell
organic waste. Similarly, a number of cities — in Germany, Israel, Jordan, Mexico,
Morocco, Tunisia, and California in the USA — use treated wastewater for irrigation of
urban and peri-urban crops. Urban density and relatively cheap transportation should
make decentralized solid waste management that is intended for reuse in urban farming
more and more practicable and accessible.
Many farmers prefer wastewater over freshwater or groundwater because of the
nutrients it provides to the soil. Use of wastewater for irrigation at a significant scale is
now a common practice in countries as hydrologically diverse as Tunisia, Mexico,
Jordan, and Singapore.62 Recent technological advances are improving the benefit of this
principle at the same time as water shortages are growing in one-third of the major river
basins on Earth. 63
A very promising use of urban farming is biological treatment of sewage ponds and
wastewater-contaminated lakes with aquatic plants such as duckweed and water hyacinth
(see Case 5.4). These crops purify the water and are commercially useful as high-protein
animal and fish feed. This technology is being used with profitable results in Bangladesh,
India, Mexico, and the USA.

Table 7.4 Benefits of urban agriculture on waste management
Country Impact
Solid waste management
Africa
Sudan Approximately 27 percent of all garbage in Khartoum is consumed by urban
animals such as goats, sheep, and cattle. These animals are also a valuable
source of income and nutrition for poorer families.
Asia
China In Guangzhou, nine crops are produced each year on open sites using
nightsoil and urban compost.
India In Calcutta, 800 hectares of mature dump land produce an average of 150-
300 tons per day of vegetables without the use of chemical fertilizers.
Europe
Sweden In Vasteras, a waste composting room is provided at the entrance to all
residential blocks. Some of the compost is applied to community gardens.
Latin America and Caribbean
Brazil Curitiba provides solid waste compost to urban farmers. The waste is
delivered by citizens who receive vouchers that they can exchange for food.
Argentina Rosario is promoting organic waste recycling for community farms, rooftops,
and household plots.
Ecuador Cuenca is providing processed organic waste products to family farms and
school gardens on public and private land.
Wastewater management
Africa
Tunisia In Tunis, 1,750 hectares (mostly forage) are irrigated with treated wastewater.
Asia
China In Shanghai, 8,000 tons of nightsoil and seepage are collected each day
(about 90 percent of the city‟s human waste). After treatment, the waste is
sold to farmers in the urban region.
India The 3,000 hectares of Calcutta’s sewage-fed lagoons produce an average of
6,000 tons of fish each year.
North America
USA Two hundred wastewater reclamation plants throughout the state of
California save 759,000 cubic meters per day of fresh water, with most of the
treated effluent put to agricultural use.

Case 7.12 Producing organic fertilizer from urban waste in China
Organic waste, including nightsoil and solid waste, has traditionally been used by Chinese
farmers to fertilize soils. In several Chinese cities, the waste management systems are organized
to recycle urban organic waste for use in the production of vegetables, fruit, and animal and fish
feed.
Waste is collected by a municipal corporation (and sometimes by farmers in the city‟s
vegetable-growing communes). The municipal corporation usually manages the allocation of the
waste, for which the communes pay. The fermented soil is added to other organic matter to make
compost or is spread directly on the soil, away from the crop. Organic waste from the city is
composted in the countryside or in municipal composting plants and sold to farmers. It is also
used as an input to pig and fish feed.
In Shanghai, the Bureau of Environmental Sanitation collects most of the city‟s human waste.
Nightsoil and seepage from public toilets, septic tanks, and dumping stations are collected and
shipped out of the city daily in sealed barges. The waste is composted for 10-30 days, sometimes
with other matter such as dead plants, and then sold to farmers as fertilizer. Repeated usage has
proven the waste to be a safe fertilizer.
The Shanghai Resource Recovery and Utilization Company produces a range of products
from the material it recycles from the city waste. The company maintains a network of 500
purchasing and processing centers throughout the 10 towns of the metropolitan municipality. The
process (collection, transportation, and processing) is labor intensive but efficient and profitable.
Until recently, Shanghai disposed of all its municipal waste through farming. The system has
begun to break down, however, since the Chinese government began to subsidize chemical
fertilizers.
There has been a recent reawakening of interest in „ecological sanitation‟ — urban

sanitation processes that do not use chemicals or large buildings and equipment to
process human waste. The application of ecological sanitation, which separates urine
from feces and treats each with different processes, has significant improved health and
environment possibilities. Urine is sterile and contains most of the fertilizing benefits of
human excreta. Collecting and treating urine at the community or settlement level and
applying it to urban agriculture can provide one-half or more of the nutrients needed to
produce the food the community consumes. With adequate oversight, composting human
feces, can improve the soil and local ecology. Composting toilets are being promoted by
private and public organizations in diverse countries, ranging from Sweden to Mexico
and Zimbabwe. The environmental and food security implications of ecological
sanitation are under study.64
Despite these examples, relatively few cities in the world have waste management
systems that are organized to comprehensively reuse waste, let alone process it as an
input for farming. Most recycling, including use of waste in farming, is in the informal
sector.
Unregulated waste management, especially by individuals, has its dangers, as
discussed in Chapter 8. However, managed at the community level, waste recycling and
composting can improve a waste management system and increase the service in more

parts of the city, while reducing or avoiding municipal costs. This is being demonstrated
through research in Indonesia by the Harvard Institute for International Development65
and at Cheikh Anta Diop University in Dakar, Senegal.66
Africa may benefit the most from transforming its waste into useful products,
precisely because the present formal waste management infrastructure is generally so
underdeveloped. Africa has the poorest soils and the least developed systems to serve
urban areas with rural food products. The lack of prior investment in landfill-based waste
management may be turn out to be a key factor because urban waste can be used as an
input.
Resource Conservation
The relationship between urban agriculture and resources is multifaceted. The potential
role of urban farming to transform urban waste into useful agricultural inputs and make
productive use of otherwise idle land has been discussed. This chapter has also shown
how human resources (individual energy, availability, knowledge and skills, as well as
the wealth of community collaboration) and economic resources (especially through
fungible income that is tapped for other basic needs) can be used productively.
Both land and water are conserved by farming in urban areas compared to rural areas.
Urban farming conserves resources by reducing the pressure to convert deserts, mountain
slopes, and rainforests into cropland and cut woodlands for fuel. As we face oceans bereft
of fish, appropriate aquaculture around cities has a major role to play in reducing
overfishing and maintaining biodiversity in the oceans by producing fish on land and
reducing pollution.
Urban agriculture methods are intensive, therefore products are produced on a
fraction of the land needed for rural production. Cultivation on small farms, as is
characteristic in cities, produces several times more output per unit of space, as shown in
a survey of 15 low-income countries as well as in the USA.67
Urban agriculture is also parsimonious in its use (and reuse) of water. The
International Water Management Institute reported in late 1999 that one-half of the
earth‟s 500 largest rivers are being depleted and/or polluted.68 The largest source of both
depletion and pollution is agriculture. Urban farming can not only conserve water, but
clean it as well. Capturing rainwater from rooftops and paved surfaces and collecting it in
cisterns for vegetable irrigation, or reusing the same wastewater for irrigation one or
more times, is many times more effective in a dense urban settlement than in a rural
setting. Urban farming is less vulnerable to water shortages than rural farming because
more varied sources (particularly reused urban wastewater) are available.
A number of farming systems and techniques that are particularly prevalent in
urbanized areas (including the peri-urban belt) — from the cultivation of mushrooms to
hydroponic greenhouses — require little water. Modern drip irrigation uses one-eighth to
one-quarter as much water to produce vegetables as the overhead sprinklers that are
characteristic of commercial extensive agriculture. Biointensive raised-bed production
uses a small fraction of trench irrigation. The use of plastic to cover the soil or as a tunnel

reduces transpiration by 50-90 percent, depending on the crop and climate (wind,
temperature, humidity). Multicropping and careful selection of crops, as commonly
practiced in urban agriculture, use much less water per unit of production, and also reuse
water that has been utilized by other urban activities.
Soil depletion is also a global phenomenon. Soils migrate down rivers or into the
wind in areas of both rich deep soils and poor shallow soils.69 Certain crops are
associated with the highest rates of soil depletion, indeed, some cynics maintain that soil
is the leading export from some countries. Maize, largely a rural crop and often massively
produced, is always at or near the top of the list. On the other hand, multicropping — a
characteristic urban practice —in most cases conserves soil.
Urban agriculture can contribute to resource conservation in yet another important
way — saving energy. Earlier in this chapter, we discussed how home heating and
cooling can be reduced through urban greening, especially agroforestry. Urban farming
also helps to conserve energy by reducing the need for transportation and cooling. 70 The
average pound of food in a supermarket in the USA travels an estimated 2,000 kilometers
(1,300 miles) between its production location and its consumption location.71 This
average distance is cut to less than 100 miles when more food is produced locally, saving
substantial fuel. Air cargo demands 14 times as much fossil fuel energy per mile per
kilogram as the same distance by rail shipment.
In poorer countries, the distance saved with increased urban agriculture may not be as
great, but the impact may be more beneficial since energy costs are higher in actual and
relative terms, and the proportion of traffic that is moving food is greater. It has been
estimated that in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, more than half the vehicles moving goods from
the north to the city transport food.72 The reduced traffic and potential savings in energy
and transportation costs from increased local production are obvious. Not so obvious are
the savings in storage (including cold storage) and product loss due to handling and
transport.
We have already seen how urban production of fuelwood (for example, eucalyptus)
can substitute for other, imported sources of energy or for fuelwood grown in more
distant locations. Such urban production helps reduce agricultural expansion into
rainforests, deserts, and other fragile ecosystems, while also cleaning the urban air. Crop
residues are used for energy, and in India and many other countries, animal dung is
commonly used as fuel.
Urban crops need less packaging because they travel for less time and over shorter
distances. Even with less package protection, there are fewer losses due to handling and
deterioration. These conservation advantages can be considerable in tropical climates.
Finally, urban agriculture transforms waste into food and thereby conserves
petroleum (used to produce and transport nitrogen fertilizer) and the world‟s phosphate
and potash reserves.
Disaster Prevention and Relief

Of all the potential benefits of urban agriculture, perhaps the least appreciated and
understood is the contribution to avoiding disasters, mitigating their impacts, and

recovering from them. The disasters it bears upon can be of two general kinds —
„natural‟ disasters, and „human‟ disasters. Urban agriculture can make two principal
contributions —helping to prevent the occurrence or intensity of some disasters, and
reducing the consequences of a range of disasters and other urgent situations.
Productive Use of Hazard-Prone and Sensitive Areas

Urban agriculture offers a productive use for urban areas that pose a high risk for natural
disasters and that are expensive to build on, such as steep slopes and floodplains.
Orchards and marketable grasses such as vetiver are excellent for reducing erosion and
vulnerability to disasters in sensitive areas. (Case 7.13). Trees and grasses are particularly
effective for holding steep slopes. Terraced crops are among the best ways to use such
slopes, and managed forestry can supply the fuel and wood demands of a city.
Floodplains offer the opportunity to plant crops that need irrigation. In both fluvial
and coastal plains, crops can be protected from floods by trees and grasses, with the latter
feeding poultry and livestock.
Case 7.13 Cultivating vetiver for environmental and disaster control
Soil erosion on deforested hills, along waterways, and in conjunction with public works is a major
problem in urban areas. It makes the land vulnerable to floods and winds and reduces the
amount of available farm land.
Vetiver is a thick, tough grass that can withstand even tropical storms. The dense grass
forms a wall against soil erosion and creates terraces on hillsides that can be farmed. The plant
has roots 6-10 feet deep and coarse blades that rise equally high above the ground. The thick
growth prevents water runoff, forcing the water to soak into the soil, thus making the land
farmable and raising the water level of aquifers. Planted across a floodplain, vetiver can slow the
force of floods and protect field crops. In Fiji, vetiver planted on a sugarcane plantation survived a
storm that dropped 20 inches of rain in 3 hours.
Vetiver thrives in the tropics but can grow in any type of climate, humidity, and soil. It does
not spread uncontrollably because it does not have runners or rhizomes and its seeds are usually
sterile. Its growth and spread are easily managed.
Vetiver can be planted along public works — railroads, roads, steel structures — to prevent
damage from washouts. It can also be planted along the sides of canals, bridges, and dams to
prevent scouring. Vetiver has commercial uses and can be used for mulch, in animal pens, and to
make ropes, hats, thatching, mats, and other woven items.
Urban agriculture is also a productive land use for hazardous areas such as airport
landing approaches, utility rights-of-ways, highway shoulders, industrial zone
peripheries, and solid waste dumps. For example, areas close to the Abidjan airport in

Côte d‟Ivoire as well as both airports outside Paris (Orly and Roissy) are extensively
cultivated. After closure, sanitary landfills and dumps require years to settle and become
safe for residential or other uses. In all these situations, building in these areas can be an
invitation to disaster, while farming can be an acceptable and economic use with many
advantages that we have already enumerated.
Urban agriculture is an appropriate use on unstable soils such as expanding clays. A
well-known example is the downtown area of Managua, Nicaragua that was hit by a
severe earthquake in 1972. Because this area is highly susceptible to future disasters, it
was not resettled, but instead planted to agroforestry and used as open space.
Mitigation and Relief in Natural, Civil, and Economic Crises

Urban agriculture can aid recovery from man-made and naturally caused disasters
Farming can be a source of nutrition in refugee camps or cities cut off from their food
supply due to civil strife. Although grain and cooking oil are generally provided by relief
agencies, fresh meat and vegetables are always in demand and can be produced by the
refugees themselves. Urban farming can contribute to survival in long-term
conflagrations as well as in their aftermath.
As advocated by the working group on Agriculture in Relief and Transition (ART) in
Washington D.C., emergency agriculture for refugees and internally displaced persons
has several beneficial attributes over historically-provided food-aid rations. Emergency
agriculture can:
empower an affected population (particularly women, youth, and the elderly) to
become nutritionally self-reliant;
improve the quality of available food (adding protein, vitamins, and minerals to
carbohydrates);
make positive use of local ecology and beneficial use of its wastes;
contribute to establishing a temporary „camp economy‟, including jobs and trade,
which supplements the local economy;
diminish the total demand for outside assistance; and
raise morale.
As noted earlier, urban agriculture is counter-cyclical to economic trends, flourishing
in times of recession or depression and expanding as unemployment grows. Urban
agriculture offers food security in times of economic and civil crisis by improving
physical access to food and contributing to an informal economy. Food is
characteristically the dominant element in an emergency economy. In a time of disaster
— whether in terms of available jobs, income generated, or expenditures — food tends to
become an even more dominant component of the economy than in a normal urban
context. The jobs and businesses supported by urban agriculture in this situation are the
foundation of the new economy. The emergency food economy may be barter, camp
scrip, the local currency, or a mix of all three.
The capacity of urban agriculture to respond to war was well documented in
European cities during World War II. A similar capacity persists today. Kinshasa,

Havana, Moscow, Baghdad, and Beirut survived crises during the 1980s and early 1990s
by quickly turning to urban agriculture.
During emergencies, the number of urban farmers growing for their own families
may increase. In some cases intensive commercial production may flourish, survive the
emergency, and become a viable market activity (Case 7.14).
Case 7.14 Greenhouse farming in response to civil war in Beirut
Lebanon was the fruit and vegetable basket of much of the Middle East until its civil war, which
started in 1975, fragmented the city and broke distribution channels for agricultural products.
Each zone had to be self-contained, including its food supply. New farmers started cultivation for
self-consumption. More importantly, horticultural methods had to be intensified, and the use of
greenhouses became widespread.
Greenhouses made their first appearance in Lebanon in the mid-1960s, but for a decade,
their growth was very slow so that only a handful of hectares were covered by 1975. The
onslaught of fighting changed this situation, speeding their adoption, in particular along the
coastal plain. By the end of the war, over 700 hectares were covered by greenhouses. While
making up only 1.5 percent of the total market gardening area, they provided 18 percent of the
produce.
Intensive commercial production not only flourished in coastal Lebanon during wartime, but
outlasted the war to remain an active market activity even today. Indeed, by the mid-1990s,
greenhouse surfaces had doubled to 1,350 hectares. While planted predominantly with a
combination of tomatoes and cucumbers, shelters are also used for a wide range of fruits,
vegetables and ornamentals. Greenhouses, plastic tunnels, and open-field cultivation today form
a green patchwork that is interspersed among the ribbon of buildings that follows the Lebanese
coastal plain. Dozens of greenhouses can even be found within the close suburbs of Beirut.
The expertise acquired in designing and constructing greenhouses has even become an
export industry to other countries of the Middle East. Greenhouses not only played an important
role for food security during the war, but also helped to sustain agriculture after the war.
Contact: Joe Nasr (see Appendix F for complete address).
In the 1960s when Indonesia faced severe hunger, farming in Jakarta was apparently
common. The Agriculture Agency of Jakarta actively developed and promoted city
farming programs to encourage people to farm all vacant land. The program was
terminated and all farming licenses revoked in 1976, but it restarted in the 1990s in
response to the economic crisis.73
When the economy and civil order collapsed in Zaire starting in the late 1980s, the
largest city, Kinshasa, already had an urban agriculture farmers‟ association of some
6,000 members.74 To reduce starvation, farming activity in the city expanded.75
And in Kampala, Uganda, residents planted the verges of streets and vacant lots to
feed themselves and their neighbors during the Idi Amin era and civil war. In 1981 (after
the civil war), UNICEF found that urban agriculture, a virtually undocumented
phenomenon, was substantially feeding the city in non-cereal foods.76 To date, there have

been no positive government interventions in Uganda, but there has been NGO support,
including from the YWCA. Food production has persisted in times of peace, and the
municipal administration is considering including urban agriculture in the new city plan.
Makerere University has been studying the process, with some future possibility of
influencing national policy.77
During the civil war following independence in Mozambique, the socialist
government initiated urban agriculture through cooperatives in the green spaces of the
capital and other cities. In one case, a colonial-era golf course was converted to irrigated
rice production.78 These „green-belt cooperatives‟ have expanded beyond food production
to health care, day care, and other economic and social enterprises.79 In 1993, the African
Development Bank made a low-interest loan to support agriculture in the „green zones‟.
Improved nutrition is a common advantage offered by emergency agriculture.80 In the
case of Liberian urban farming refugees, a study carried out by UNICEF at the end of
four years found that the refugees had a higher nutritional status than the local
population, which had poorer access to fresh vegetables.
Urban farming was not common in Havana before the mid-1980s. But by 1998, there
were 8,000 recognized farming facilities with 30,000 farmers involved in popular gardens
(huertas populares), intensive gardens (huertos intensivos), self-provisioning gardens
(autoconsumos), small farms in the greenbelt (campesinos particulares), and state
enterprises (empresas estatales), with some areas reported to produce about 30 percent of
their food needs. Workers can find affordable food close to their homes outside the ration
system.81 Five years after the crisis-era urban agriculture program began, studies showed
that children were eating four to five times as many vegetables per day as when the crisis
began, and were healthier.82
Relief supplies are often unreliable and do not always provide a balanced diet,
whereas locally-produced food can be more reliable and much more nutritious compared
to typical emergency hand-outs. Urban agriculture is particularly effective in post-
disaster situations because food can be accessed directly by consumers, and is not subject
to choke points and vagaries of the market — and it helps counter food used as a weapon.
Agriculture in a temporary residence can have important links with waste
management by reusing some solid and liquid wastes from the camp as fertilizer and
irrigation. In some instances, this benefit goes beyond the camp‟s boundaries, with the
temporary population providing assistance to the locals. In Côte d‟Ivoire and Bangladesh,
refugees not only collected and composted waste in their own quarters, but also collected
waste from nearby settlements, to everyone‟s benefit. The presence of urban farming
within and next to a refugee camp can also reduce the ecological impacts that remain
once the camp is vacated.
Food production can be a learning experience for the victims of complex
emergencies. The stress of being uprooted forces a population to learn new things
quickly. Introducing intensive agricultural production benefits this population by teaching
them some techniques of food production and greening that they can carry over into their
post-displacement lives. They experience the complex process of food production,
processing, and marketing while at the same time dealing with the special constraints of

supplies, tools, and market demands. The situation calls for creativity that is not
demanded in a stable settlement to the same extent.
—————————————————————
Urban farming is undertaken for different benefits by different interests. Farmers may
be more interested in nutrition and income, while city administrators may be more
attracted by environmental benefits, as may be communities living in environmentally
degraded areas.
The practice and benefits of urban farming can be transferred across farmers and
regions. In a place where middle-income backyard gardening is well established, the best
practices can be moved to low-income community gardens and commercial market
gardening. Where a large corporation is engaged in plantation vegetable production,
production can be shifted to small-scale urban outgrowers. Greenhouse hydroponics can
be transferred from large commercial operations to squatter area rooftops. This kind of
expansion and diffusion can have a synergistic effect, expanding the number and kinds of
benefits from any one activity.
Nevertheless, the benefits of urban agriculture do not come without risks and costs (to
be discussed next). The risks of health problems and environmental pollution are greater
than those for rural agriculture for two reasons — farming systems are more intensive,
and their proximity to dense human populations makes mistakes or failures more costly.
Thus systems must be designed more carefully and monitored more stringently.
Substantial monitoring processes currently exist, but further development is necessary in
many cities and countries to both maximize the benefits and minimize the costs.
Notes
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS). 2000. A
Millennium Free from Hunger. Washington, D.C.: USDA/FAS, p. 13.
2. Marie T. Ruel, James L. Garrett, Saul S. Morris, Daniel Maxwell et al. 1998. Urban
Challenges to Food and Nutrition Security: A Review of Food Security, Health, and
Caregiving in the Cities. Paper No. 51. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
3. Urban diets are on average more diverse than rural diets because a larger variety of
food is available, and in general urban diets are better in both energy and
micronutrient content.
4. Ruel et al., 1998, op. cit.
5. Barry M. Popkin and Eilene Z. Bisgrove. 1988. Urbanization and Nutrition in Low-
Income Countries. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 10(1).

6. Diana Lee-Smith et al. 1987. Urban Food Production and the Cooking Fuel Situation
in Urban Kenya: National Report — Results of a 1985 National Survey. Nairobi:
Mazingira Institute.
7. Camillus J. Sawio. 1993. Feeding the Urban Masses: Towards an Understanding of the
Dynamics of Urban Agriculture and Land-Use Change in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
PhD diss. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University.
8. [first name] Evers (1983), quoted in David Drakakis-Smith. 1992. And the
Cupboard was Bare: Food Security and Food Policy for the Urban Poor.
Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe 23.
9. Pascale Dennery. 1995. Inside Urban Agriculture: An Exploration of Food Producer
Decision Making in a Nairobi Slum, Master‟s thesis. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen University, Department of Ecological Agriculture.
10. Alice Mboganie Mwangi. 1995. The Role of Urban Agriculture for Food Security in
Low Income Areas in Nairobi, Report No. 54. Nairobi: University of Nairobi, Food
and Nutrition Studies Program.
11. Andy Fisher. 1999. Happy Fifth Birthday! Community Food Security News, Summer:
1 and 5.
12. While the concept as used today originated in the USA, variants can also be found in
other countries.
13. These examples were reported in various issues of Community Food Security News,
1996-1999; and Christopher D. Cook and John Rodgers. 1996. Community Food
Security: A Growing Movement, Food First Backgrounder, Spring.
14. Gleaning consists of recovering usable produce, bread, fish, and other edibles from
fields, bakeries, and food stores for distribution to the disadvantaged.
15. R. Martin and T. Marsden. 1999. Food for Urban Spaces. International Planning
Studies. 4(3):407.
16. Several that were studied are described in Mwangi, 1995, op. cit.
17. For a thorough review of the links between health and environment, see David
Satterthwaite. 1993. The Impact on Health of Urban Environments. Environment and
Urbanization 5(2):87-111.
18. In addition to the availability and safety of the food supply, food quality, and access
to it, , nutritional security of a child depends on such factors as the quality of parental
caregiving, availability of medical services, and sanitation of the living environment.
19. Daniel G. Maxwell. 1993. The Impact of Urban Farming in Kampala on Household
Food Security and Nutritional Status, paper presented at the first Crop Science
Conference for Eastern and Southern Africa, Symposium on Women and Agriculture,
Kampala, Uganda. 14-18 June.
20. Mwangi, 1995, op. cit.

21. Daniela Soleri, David Cleveland, and Timothy Frankenberger. 1991. Gardens and
Vitamin A: A Review of Recent Literature, Report No. IN-2, prepared for the U.S.
Agency for International Development, Office of Nutrition by the University of
Arizona. Arlington, Va.: Vitamin A Field Support Project.
22. Robin Marsh. 1994. Nutritional Benefits from Home Gardening. ILEIA Newsletter
10(4), Dec.
23. [first name] Schoefield (1991), quoted in Paul Sommers. 1994. Promoting Urban
Agriculture: A Strategy Framework for Planners in North America, Europe and Asia.
In Urban Agriculture and City Planning in North and South. An IDRC Panel, Habitat
94 conference papers. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: International Development
Research Centre.
24. AVRDC. 1991. Annual Report. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center.
25. International Institute for Rural Reconstruction. 1990. Annual Report: Family Food
Production Program for Negros. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: IIRR/UNICEF.
26. Florentino Solon et al. 1979. An Evaluation of Strategies to Control Vitamin A
Deficiency in the Philippines. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 32:1445-53,
quoted in Daniela Soleri et al., 1991, op. cit
27. Kinshasa — The Garden Spot of Africa. 1992. Telegram from the U.S. Embassy,
Kinshasa, Zaire to the Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., 10 Apr.
28. A change in mandate for Peru Mujer resulted in a shift of its activities away from
Lima in the mid-1990s. Andres Dasso, REDE, Lima, personal communication, 2000.
29. Some recent studies confirm the important economic contributions of urban
agriculture. See, for example, the studies by Mvena et al.; Lee-Smith et al.; Schilter
Gutman et al.; and Yeung listed in Appendix G.
30. Irene Tinker. 1993. Introductory comments, Canadian African Studies Association
Conference, Toronto, May 1993.
31. Lee-Smith et al. 1993. Urban Food Production; and Daniel G. Maxwell, Land Access
and Household Logic: Urban Farming in Kampala. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere
Institute of Social Research.
32. Sustainable Cities Programme. 1992. Dar es Salaam: Environmental Profile. Nairobi:
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, p. 8.
33. Bishwapriya Sanyal. 1985. Urban Agriculture: Who Cultivates and Why. A Case
Study of Lusaka, Zambia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7(3):15-24, Sep.
34. R.E. Heimlich (ed.). 1989. Land-Use Transitions in Urbanizing Areas. Washington,
D.C.: The Farmland Foundation and USDA; see especially pp. 207-17.
35. Yue-man Yeung. 1985. Urban Agriculture in Asia. Paris: United Nations University,
Food-Energy Nexus Programme.

37. A.E. Boakeye. 1982. Agricultural Development on Urban Fringes, unpublished.

38. Julie A. van der Bliek. 1992. Urban Agriculture: Possibilities for Ecological
Agriculture in Urban Environments as a Strategy for Sustainable Cities. Leusden,
Netherlands: ETC Foundation, Consultants for Development Programmes.
39. Fifty jobs per hectare were documented from hydroponics in Bogotá, and 40 jobs per
hectare for raised-bed salad production in San Francisco. Jorge Zapp, personal
communication, 1993; Natural Life (July/Aug 1992).
40. Emilio L. La Rovere. 1985. Food and Energy in Rio de Janeiro: Provisioning the
Poor. Tokyo: United Nations University, Food-Energy Nexus Programme.
41. Herbert Girardet. 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities. Green Books, p. 13.
42. These are elaborated in Jane Carter. 1995. The Potential of Urban Forestry in
Developing Countries: A Concept Paper. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization;
Guido Kuchelmeister. 1991. Urban and Peri-Urban Multipurpose Forestry in
Development Cooperation. Illertissen, Germany: Commission of the European
Communities; and Mark Sorensen. 1997. Good Practices for Urban Greening.
Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, Social Programs and
Sustainable Development Department, Environment Division.
43. UNESCO, FAO et al. 2001. Biological Diversity and the Urban Environment. Issue
Paper No. 1, Ecosystem Conservation Group. Nairobi: UNEP.
44. Jane Carter, 1995, op. cit.
45. Ibid.
46. E.G. McPherson et al. (eds). 1994. Chicago‟s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results from
the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, General Technical Report NE-186.
Radnor, Pennsylvania.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
47. G. Moll and C. Kollin. 1997. A Case Study: Urban Environmental Analysis in
Atlanta, USA. BUFPRA Newsletter, Nos. 1-3.
48. World Bank. 1989. Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
49. E.H. Sene. 1993. Urban and Peri-Urban Forests in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Sahel.
Unasylva 44(2):45-51.
50. M. Birley and K. Lock. 1999. A Review of the Health Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural
Resource Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Medicine.
51. Darmajanti. Integrating Informal City Farming. [Need date and
publisher]
52. Jane Carter, 1995, op. cit. Note that particulates were lower by 2000 as a result of
various measures.

53. Guido Kuchelmeister. 1997. Urban Trees in Arid Landscapes: Multipurpose Urban
Forestry for Local Needs in Developing Countries. Arid Lands Newsletter No. 42,
Fall/Winter.
54. McPherson et al., 1994, op. cit.
55. Carl Bartone et al. 1994. Toward Environmental Strategies for Cities: Policy
Considerations for Urban Environmental Management in Developing Countries,
Urban Management Program Policy Paper 18. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
56. The vulnerability of unplanted urban slopes to landslides became painfully evident after
the disastrous rainfall on the northern coast of Venezuela in 2000.
57. Guido Kuchelmeister, 1997, op. cit.
58. See Case 6.3 for sources.
59. Jane Carter, 1995, op. cit.
60. Peter Henderson. 1991. Gardening For Profit. Chillicothe, Illinois: The American
Botanist, Chapter VI.
61. Figures from the periodical Waste Management, Oct 2000.
62. M.B. Pescod. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture, Report 47. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
63. See, for example, Case 5.4 on duckweed and Case 5.5 on aquaculture.
64. For overviews of ecological sanitation, see Uno Winblad. 1997. Ecological
Sanitation, A Global View. Ecological Alternatives in Sanitation, Proceedings of a
Workshop. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Agency; and Steve Esrey
et al. 1998. Ecological Sanitation. Stockholm: Swedish International Development
Agency, Chap. 3.
65. Harvard Institute for International Development. 1992. Enterprises for the Recycling
and Composting of Municipal Solid Waste in Jakarta, Indonesia. Jakarta: Center for
Policy and Implementation Studies.
66. The Dakar research is supported by IDRC‟s Cities Feeding People program.
67. Anuradha Mittal. 1999. Small Farms. Food First 6(4).
68. See www.iwmi.org.
69. Julio Henao and Carlos Baanante. 1999. Nutrient Depletion in the Agricultural Soils
of Africa. 2020 Vision Brief 62. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy
Research Institute, Oct.
70. Ignacy Sachs and Dana Silk. 1990. Food and Energy: Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Chapter 5 summarizes the
benefits and problems of urban agriculture.
71. World Sustainable Agriculture Association, newsletter, Fall 1993.

72. Kornelis Smit, chief engineer, R.S. Means Co., Plymouth, Mass., personal
73. E. Darmajanti. 1994. Integrating Informal City Farming Practices into Green Space
Management, Master‟s thesis. Toronto: York University, Faculty of Environmental
Studies.
74. Walther Manshard. 1992. Agricultural Change: Market Gardens in West African
Urban Communities — The Case of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). In Development
and Ecology: Essays in Honour of Professor Mohammad Shafi (Mehdi Raza, ed.).
Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
75. U.S. Embassy, Kinshasa, Zaire, 1992, op. cit.
76. UNICEF and Kampala City Council. 1981. Nutritional Status of Young Children in
the Poorer Parts of Kampala.
77. Maxwell, 1993, op. cit.
78. E. Echeverria, World Bank, Washington, D.C., personal communication, 1991.
79. ????
80. Data concerning the nutrition and health benefits of food-based interventions await
study by a future researcher. Some of these data can be found in the files of the
operating relief agencies. Africare and UNICEF have data on interventions in Africa.
Save the Children America has data on the interventions in Honduras during the civil
war in Nicaragua.
81. Institute for Food Development and Policy. 1999. The Years of Crisis. San Francisco:
Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), May .
82. Eugenio Fuster. 1999. Deputy Minister Agriculture, Presentation at Growing Cities,
Growing Food conference in Havana, Cuba, Oct.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 8
Problems Related to Urban Agriculture
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
8
Urban agriculture is commonly perceived by some as an activity that is marginal,
temporary, and archaic (except within Asia). Some regard it as an activity that is actually
harmful to farmers, consumers, the environment, the urban land economy, and the
appearance of a city. Most concerns about urban agriculture are about the potential rather
than the inherent problems (Table 8.1).
If not practiced properly, urban agriculture can indeed be both unsanitary and
polluting. To cite one well-known example, vegetable irrigation with untreated
wastewater from Chilean peri-urban farms resulted in a few cases of cholera in 1992
because the vegetables were not cooked. (Fig. 8.1 and Case 8.1). This same problem was
more pronounced in Peru, but now both countries have instituted water management
regimes that have prevented a recurrence.
Government authorities have frequently responded to these problems by prohibiting
urban farming rather than trying to resolve them. In Nairobi, for example, it is illegal to
grow crops above a certain height. Lusaka, Kampala and other cities once banned maize
cultivation, which was believed to spread malaria. Most North American cities ban
poultry production. Lomé, Togo prohibits growing sorghum in the city because
authorities think it makes the city dirty. Bamako, Mali has prohibited straw-producing
cereals since 1989 because they are believed to breed mosquitoes and serve as hiding
places for criminals.
It is vital for supporters of urban agriculture to confront these potential problems
because they can also reinforce biases (see Chapter 9). The first step is to understand the
problems, how and why they can occur, and their effects. Concerns that are genuine must
be resolved if urban farming is to flourish. Those that are mere attitudinal biases and
mistaken beliefs — for example, that farming is unaesthetic or that it serves as a hiding
place for criminals — can be discarded.
The main problems that may emerge from urban farming occur because of its close
proximity to densely populated areas sharing the same air, water, and soil. Food
production in the polluted environment of cities may cause contamination. Livestock
rearing and use of chemicals and waste in farming can contaminate the soil and water
used by city residents. Although these problems are shared with rural farming, the
population concentration in cities makes their impact more serious. Many problems are
caused by poor practices through lack of information and extension assistance.

Table 8.1 Problems associated with urban agriculture
Health
Intestinal infections from contaminated food
Bronchial infections from insecticides
Malaria from mosquitoes
Tuberculosis from cows
Trichinosis and swine flu from pigs
Compost attracts rats
Fish may carry hepatitis and heavy metals
Vegetables may be contaminated by heavy metals
Insecticide on vegetables and fruit cause stomach poisoning
Offal contaminates water, which causes diarrhea
Informal community markets sell unsanitary cooked food
Raising livestock in the city leads to informal, unsupervised slaughtering
Urban agriculture close to industry can be contaminated by hazardous toxins
Environment
Water pollution from waste and chemicals
Insecticide air pollution
Damage to grassland if overgrazed
Soil pollution from waste and chemicals
Sometimes replaces forest cover with field crops
Drains wetlands and reduces biodiversity, as do all urban land uses
Some farming practices on riversides and steep slopes contribute to flooding and
erosion
Social
May cause women (often the primary farmers) to overwork, considering other family
obligations
Engages and can overwork children
Urban management
Difficult to tax
In some cases occupies a site that may command a higher rent for another use
Uses expensive potable water without paying for it
To be safe, urban agriculture requires more monitoring per unit of production than some
other urban production processes
Other
Can be unattractive, depending on how it is implemented
In some cases, the shoulders of highways used by farmers contribute to accidents
Source: The Urban Agriculture Network

Researchers and policymakers who were contacted during this study have voiced the
problems enumerated in this chapter. More research is needed to establish their extent
and seriousness. Data on the problems caused by urban farming may be more scant than
data on its benefits. The problems can be grouped into four categories, with the first two
more significant that the latter pair:
health and hygiene effects,
environmental effects,
inefficiencies, and
aesthetic effects.
Health and Hygiene Problems

A number of activities associated with urban agriculture can cause health and hygiene
problems. Farming in the city may carry higher health risks than in rural areas because
the urban air, water, soil, and waste may be more polluted and hazardous for farming.
The close proximity of urban farming to larger population concentrations increases the
risk of spreading both communicable and non-communicable diseases. Urban farming
may pollute the environment through use of agrochemicals and leaching of animal
excreta, as well as increase the habitat for certain disease-carrying vectors. Examples of
non-communicable health hazards potentially associated with urban farming activity
include neurological damage from pesticides used in farming and from lead in crops, and
infant respiratory disorders from nitrates in wastewater used for irrigation.
Pollution from industrial, commercial, residential, and other urban activities affects
the soil, air, and water that urban farming uses. Pollution in urban areas can be caused by
industrial solid and liquid waste, industrial air exhaust, inadequate waste disposal, and
automobile exhaust. These pollutants may deposit heavy metals in the soil, air, or water,
and on plants.
Heavy metals and pathogens can be harmful if consumed by humans because plants
grown in cities may pick them up from the soil, air, or water and transmit them to
consumers. However, the transmitted levels depend on a host of factors. Pollutants and
pathogens can also be transferred to individuals coming in direct contact with the soil,
water, or wastewater during farming, as well as to handlers and consumers. Children live
closer to the earth and spend more of their waking hours in contact with the outdoor
urban environment. They are especially endangered.
Pollutants can affect urban farming through the following means:
pathogens and heavy metals in air and soil affecting crops;
heavy metals, industrial pollutants, and vectors in water bodies affecting fisheries and
aquaculture;
pathogens, heavy metals, and industrial pollutants in irrigation water, wastewater
used for irrigation, and the water table affecting plants; and
heavy metals and pathogens spread through consumption of hazardous waste by
livestock.

The next five sub-sections address this range of problems, their causes, links, and
consequences. Solutions to all these actual and potential problems are discussed in the
final sub-section.
Spread of Diseases Through Urban Crop Production and Marketing

Potential diseases that can be spread by urban farming activity include:
vector-borne diseases that can spread through irrigation and wastewater use;
mosquito-transmitted diseases (malaria, filariasis, dengue);
chagas disease;
water- and food-borne parasitic diseases;
cholera;
tapeworm, hookworm, beef tapeworm;
schistosomiasis, bilharzia;
dysentry;
zoonoses;
agrochemical poisoning; and
metal poisoning.
Communicable diseases such as malaria, filariasis, schistosomiasis, and plague are
usually carried by vectors such as mosquitoes, houseflies, snails, and rodents that breed
and thrive in environments such as stagnant water, untreated waste, and wastewater
(Table 8.2). In urban areas the threat of disease transmission may be higher because
population density is higher than in rural areas. Poor communities in cities are hit the
worst because living conditions are not hygienic, sanitation facilities and waste pickup
services are lacking, and they may be located in environmentally hazardous areas.
The relationship of urban farming to these environments and diseases can be positive
or negative. It can be a part of the solution by improving waste and land management by
converting vacant spaces to farming. Or, urban agriculture can increase the spread of
diseases by expanding the environments conducive to the vectors. It can also contribute
to a higher incidence of diseases by putting farmers in closer contact with these risks
while farming.
Petty trading and street food vending has often been singled out for criticism and
targeted for elimination by urban planners, based on the belief that these activities
maintain low hygiene and nutrition standards, besides being economically inefficient and
charging higher prices. Formalization of the marketing system, while making use of
economies of scale and improving hygiene, may not improve nutrition and may prevent
families in low-income residential areas from buying the small quantities that they may
need or can afford. For the past three decades, UN/FAO has been working with local
governments and NGOs in countries on four continents to improve the safety of street
food, with considerable success.1

Table 8.2 Vector-borne diseases where urban agriculture may increase risk
Disease Vector Habitat in relation to natural resource management
Malaria Anopheline Usually rural, but also urban in India and some other
mosquito countries. Rural vector may find a niche in peri-urban
environments.
Filariasis Often Culex Commonly in heavily polluted water associated with
mosquito overcrowding, poor drainage, and blocked drains.
Dengue, dengue, Aedes mosquito Solid waste that can hold rainwater and water storage
hemorrhagic fever, containers.
and yellow fever
Gastrointestinal Houseflies Organic refuse
infections
Schistosomiasis Aquatic snail Irrigation channels and rivers where people bathe
intermediate
host
Chagas disease Triatomine bug Association with peri-urban livestock in Central America
Plague Rat flea Food stores infested with rats
Other arboviruses Hard ticks Imported livestock
and typhus
Source: Martin Birley and Karen Lock. 1999. The Health Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural Resource
Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Medicine, p. 23.
In the 1980s in Harare, Zimbabwe, government anti-street food campaigns targeted a

largely female group of street traders. The stated aim was to maintain hygiene.2 Such
attitudes are unproductive and do not recognize the immense importance of this informal
activity in not only reducing urban poverty, but also improving nutrition and the food
supply. Many such projects are on record in a score of countries. The first stage in
working to ensure the hygiene of urban farming and marketing is to recognize the activity
as legitimate and then work with farmers and marketers.
Mosquito-Borne Diseases
Malaria, filariasis, and dengue are the most prevalent diseases transmitted by mosquitoes,
which usually breed in stagnant water. The mosquito adapts to different breeding
environments such as water pools, irrigated fields, water storage jars, pit latrines, and
abandoned auto tires.
Malaria infects over 100 million people every year in about 100 countries. The
anopheline mosquito is the vector, and breeds in relatively clean water. Irrigated
agriculture in peri-urban areas is one of the many factors that provide a habitat for this
mosquito to breed. Some researchers believe that the incidence of malaria in African
cities may be linked to relatively more open space, abandoned land, and cultivation than
elsewhere. A study in Gambia found much lower malaria prevalence in peri-urban than

rural areas, and concluded that in the former, the vectors may be breeding in garden wells
and rice fields. In Brazzaville, Congo, breeding sites for the local malaria vector included
wells and waterholes in small fertile valleys (Case 8.1).
Case 8.1 Peri-urban malaria in Brazzaville, Congo

In Brazzaville the two main mosquito species are An. gambiae, the malaria vector, and Cu.
quinquefasciatus, a nuisance mosquito. A study found that there are seven potential breeding sites:
banks of rivers and streams,
wells,
installations for irrigating vegetable crops,
ditches and gutters,
puddles in ruts and car tracks on roads,
barrow pits and drainage wells at construction sites, and
marshy hollows.
The main colonies of malaria mosquitoes are found in the small, well-watered clay soil valleys
that have vegetable crops. The sites are riverbanks, adjacent hollows and the diverse installations
used for watering crops. Because of their high agricultural value, these valleys have persisted as
urban open space. The low marshy banks of streams, in zones of poor soils with little agricultural
value, have been more rapidly built out. Rainwater collection sites, such as ditches, ruts and
puddles are commonly polluted and favored by nuisance mosquitos.
The mosquito related to filariasis breeds in water polluted with organic matter such as
in pit latrines, blocked sewage systems, drains, cesspits, and septic tanks. It can be linked
to use of untreated sewage for irrigation in urban farming. The mosquito that transmits
dengue and yellow fever breeds in rain puddles, discarded tires, and drinking water jars.
Containers used in small-scale horticulture irrigation are implicated as well.
Water- and Food-Borne Parasitic Diseases

Parasitic infections are associated with poor hygiene, therefore the urban poor (and
particularly youth) are more at risk. Urban farming can increase this risk through use of
waste, and through increased contact by farmers and others with potential breeding
environments (soil and water bodies).
Protozoa are transmitted to humans by consumption of contaminated raw or partially
cooked crops, meat, or fish. Soil- and water-based helminths such as Necator americanus
and Clonorchis sinerisis pass to farm workers with skin exposed to the infected medium.
Others, such as Ascaris, are contracted by eating crops that were grown in direct contact
with soil.
Common urban parasitic pathogens that may be associated with urban farming
include round, hook, whip, and tape worms; dysentery; salmonella bacteria; cholera
bacteria; and schistosomiasis (which has a particularly high incidence in Africa).
Common symptoms range from anemia, diarrhea and fever, to wasting and damage to

organs and nerves over the long term. All these food- and water-borne diseases are
treatable through medication and body fluid replacement.
Agrochemicals
Excessive use of insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals in farming deposits
chemical residues in crops. Agrochemicals may affect the health of farmers (occupational
hazard through direct contact while spraying), neighboring communities (by inhaling,
ingesting, or contact through air, soil, and water pollution), or consumers (through
chemical residues in food). Airborne pesticides travel far in the atmosphere. The inactive
ingredients in pesticides such as petroleum distillates may also have harmful effects on
human health.
Some pesticides, especially the older types, can cause allergies, cancer, birth defects,
male sterility, contamination of breast milk, genetic mutations, respiratory diseases,
behavioral changes, and a variety of intestinal disorders. Pesticides can also affect the
skin, eyes, liver, kidneys, and nervous system.
Pesticides and fertilizer can contaminate food. In the USA, 35 percent of marketed
food is found to have detectable levels of residue, of which 1-3 percent is above legally
defined tolerance levels. In India, 80 percent of food has detectable levels of residue.3
Agrochemical use is currently lower in developing than developed countries, but is on the
increase. Globally, between 1945 and 1990 there was a 42-fold increase in the use of
pesticides, reaching about 2.5 million metric tons in 1990.4 The pesticides and fertilizer
used in developing countries are older and usually more harmful, their use is less
regulated, and awareness of safe usage and health hazards is limited.
The level of agrochemicals used by urban farmers has rarely been researched or
recorded, so it is difficult to generalize about the relative residue levels in urban versus
rural crops. Indications are, however, that small-scale urban farmers in general use few or
no agrochemicals, but larger-scale farmers — particularly peri-urban ones — may be
using sufficient quantities for there to be health concerns. Use of inappropriate chemicals
is somewhat more likely in urban than rural developing-country situations because of
broader availability and greater exposure to marketing. For instance, fumigants or
insecticides packaged for commercial or industrial use may be available to untrained
urban farmers and then used on edible crops.
Use of agrochemicals is much higher on cash crops, market crops such as vegetables,
and in intensive farming. Since a large share of peri-urban farming is city oriented, it
tends to be intensive and focused on market crops such as poultry, vegetables, and fruit.
Thus it is expected that there is significant use of agrochemicals in peri-urban farming.
Small-scale farmers in developing countries, including urban farmers, are particularly
vulnerable to pesticide problems because they lack information on safe usage, health
hazards, and economic imperatives. Up to the middle 1980s, some 50 percent of all
pesticide poisonings and 80 percent of deaths occurred in developing countries, even
though these regions were consuming only 20 percent of global pesticide consumption.5
About 40 percent of respondents in a study of urban farming in Harare, Zimbabwe
used pesticides in their home gardens, except for those in the poorest groups. On illegal

plots, less than 10 percent used pesticides.6 Agrochemical runoff into surface water
bodies was a concern expressed by the study, but not measured.
Forty percent of the vegetables consumed in the densely populated Upper Silesia area
of Poland are produced locally, despite warnings of health risks from soil and water
pollution by agrochemicals. Food safety concerns have led a group of women to begin
the Tested Food for Silesia program, which is focusing on public education to promote
organic and sustainable farming in the area (see Case 3.6).7
Chemicals released into the atmosphere by spraying are likely to affect large numbers
of people when spraying occurs in or near crowded city areas. Health concerns are
multiplied by sharing water and soil. The proximity of other sources of chemical
pollution, such as industry, may also increase the severity of the problem.
It is therefore even more important to regulate the use of chemicals in urban farming
than in rural farming, as well as train farmers in safe and appropriate application. This
problem must be addressed at the national level. Monitoring systems that do not cover
informal markets, however, will be unable to stem the sale of contaminated food by
small-scale urban farmers.
Contamination from Heavy Metals

Urban environments that are farmed may contain toxic substances such as heavy metals,
including lead, zinc, copper, tin, mercury, and arsenic. Although some levels of metals
are good for plant growth, excessive amounts may lead to reduced plant growth,
phytotoxicity, or health problems for consumers.
Chemicals are particularly harmful to pregnant women and children, and may result
in maternal and peri-natal mortality. Health problems that may occur include dizziness,
blurred vision, weakness, or coma caused by acute pesticide poisoning; heart and lung
diseases; various cancers; and fetal damage. Lead and cadmium may be the most harmful
and most researched of the heavy metals. Children with high levels of lead in their blood
may suffer from anemia, encephalitis, behavioral problems, lower IQ, and neurological
impairment.8
The main sources of metals in urban soils are from natural occurrence, pesticides,
emissions from factories, automobiles, and sewage.9 Certain plants are more resistant to
metal absorption than others. Studies indicate that green leafy vegetables such as spinach
are the most vulnerable to heavy metal pollution (especially aerosol lead), followed by
root crops. Fruit trees are the most resistant. Cabbage is the least vulnerable among leafy
vegetables because it has tight heads and grows from the inside. Plants with hairy leaf
surfaces retain more aerosol lead than those with smooth surfaces. Fast-growing leafy
vegetables, if washed before consumption, may not be a health threat.
Metal poisoning is a potential hazard in farming that is undertaken in specific areas
where heavy metals are likely to accumulate. These include:
areas adjacent to streets,
waterways with wastewater discharges,
industrial zones and areas that were previously in industrial use,

downstream from polluted areas, and

waste dumps.
There is a global need to identify vulnerable areas and regulate farming in these
locations to ensure food safety. Standards have been set by UN/WHO, EU, and several
nations.
Soils near roadways may suffer heavy metal pollution from airborne lead and
cadmium from gasoline exhaust. Automotive emissions are the main source of lead.
About 75 percent of the lead in fuel is emitted into the air, with the balance going to the
soil or remaining in the engine and engine oil. Airborne lead, which is absorbed by
surface tension of leaf and fruit surfaces, is not removed by wind. Washing may remove
only 50 percent of the lead.10
Sewage sludge produced by wastewater treatment contains heavy metals in varying
quantities depending on the waste source and the level of pollution and industrialization
in the city. Excessive zinc, copper, or nickel in sludge can cause phytotoxicity.
Metal poisoning from farming on contaminated urban soils and use of sewage sludge
in farming first became an issue in the early 1980s in the USA. Considerable research
was undertaken to estimate the levels of heavy metals found in soils in various cities,
ascertain the impact of lead on human health, and develop guidelines and standards on
the level of heavy metal accumulation considered safe for farming.
The general conclusion was that in most cities and in most parts of the city in the
USA, farming is safe from metal poisoning. Research found that sewage sludge,
especially if low in heavy metals, can be safely used when growing vegetables.11
Guidelines were provided on land and crop planning (depending on the vulnerability of
different lands, plants, and edible crops). Food safety measures were proposed to monitor
the levels of heavy metals in food for sale, as well as to prevent ingestion of any metals
that may persist.12 Technology was also developed to ensure removal of heavy metals
from sludge.
An early study in New York City in 1976 measured the lead and cadmium content in
vegetables from 17 urban gardens. The study concluded that the metal content in the
vegetables was not high enough to have a negative impact on most healthy people.
However, children, pregnant women, and adults with metabolic problems may not be
able to metabolize and excrete the lead, and thus may be at risk.13
Even where soils have significant levels of metals, they may not necessarily increase
accumulation in the bodies of consumers, as was learned in studies in Zambia (Case 8.2)
and elsewhere. In a survey in the Netherlands, lead levels in blood of people who
consumed vegetables from gardens along highways were compared to levels in people
who ate produce from gardens located away from highways. No significant difference
was found between the two groups, despite a 2-3-fold variance in the lead content of the
vegetables.14 A study in Russia found cabbages and tomatoes could be safely grown in an
area where soil cadmium levels exceeded acceptable levels.15 Food and consumers of
food from vulnerable areas need to be tested to assess whether there is indeed a health
hazard before expensive control systems are instituted.

Case 8.2 Quality of produce grown in gardens on former garbage landfills on the outskirts
of Lusaka, Zambia
Gardens on former waste disposal sites potentially bear a risk of toxic wastes and heavy metal
pollution. Such sites are popular for farming due to the high fertility of the waste-enriched soils. The
potential threat to human health from consuming food grown in such gardens was studied just
outside Lusaka, where vegetables are grown in the wet season. One garden was 1,400 square
meters, and the woman farmer grew vegetables and perennial fruit as her main cash crop (banana,
mango, and papaya). She earned the same income as a night guard in town (US$ 20-25 per
month), while also contributing significantly to the family food supply. She used no fertilizer and few
pesticides.
Soil testing revealed a significant presence of heavy metals at the waste disposal site, with high
variation in levels of concentration. Some of the samples had lead, zinc, or cadmium levels that
were above international thresholds for vegetable farming. Sewage sludge bought by commercial
gardeners also had cadmium and copper levels that exceed European thresholds.
Uptake of heavy metals by vegetables, however, was found to be within permissible levels.
There was no cadmium uptake, a low level of copper uptake was found in maize, and some zinc in
cucumbers. The relatively high pH value (7.7) and organic matter content (5.7 percent) of the soil
seem to have helped reduce plant uptake of metals, as in many other studies.
The researcher expressed concern that metal uptake might be a problem in other gardens. Soil
monitoring, as well as advice to farmers on managing soils on former waste dumps, was considered
to be critical to healthy food production.
Contact: Axel Drescher (see Appendix F for complete address).
It is difficult to estimate the level of health hazard from heavy metals in the urban
environment in developing countries because urban farming is usually unregulated and
soils are rarely tested. There tends to be little awareness among farmers or consumers
about the health implications of heavy metals and pathogens, or guidance to farmers.
Urban farming is frequently observed in areas that may be highly contaminated with
heavy metals or pathogens.
The level of heavy metals in urban areas of less industrialized countries is generally
far lower than those in industrial countries, and more likely to be within a safe standard,
although specific areas may pose a health threat. There is very little data on the health
impact of heavy metals in cities in developing countries, or the contribution of urban
farming to this health problems.
The data that do exist are mixed. Examination of vegetable quality (spinach, kang
kong, romaine lettuce) in various parts of Jakarta revealed that the content of lead,
copper, zinc, tin, mercury, and arsenic was below the threshold defined by Jakarta
Municipality.16 A recent study on the use of wastewater from a paper mill to irrigate
coconut in India found concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, nitrogen, cobalt, and
cadmium exceeding WHO guidelines.17
In the Msimbazi Valley in Tanzania, toxicology tests on the river water have shown
heavy metal concentrations higher than standards set by the Water Utilization (Control
and Regulation) Act for all but one of the rivers in this valley. River-bank levels of lead,
cadmium, and possibly zinc were also reported to be high.18 In contrast, soil testing for

heavy metals in Dar es Salaam found levels of heavy metals to be well below safety
standards for all metals, although there were warnings of potential accumulation in the
expected locations (roadsides, streams).19
Domestic and Municipal Waste

Using waste as a farming input can have many positive benefits. Composted organic solid
waste and treated household sewage contain nutrients that benefit soil fertility and crop
yields, as well as help recycle urban wastes and save freshwater. Crops grown in soils
with a high content of organic matter accumulate lower levels of heavy metals. There are,
however, several potential health hazards from using waste in farming, which have
become more serious with the increasingly hazardous content of urban waste.
Unregulated urban farming leads to discretionary treatment and use of waste by
farmers. When city farmers use uncomposted solid waste to fortify soils or untreated
wastewater to irrigate crops or feed livestock, potential food contamination is a serious
concern. In many cities in less-industrialized nations, sewage is simply discharged to
waterways from which farmers use water for irrigation. Many farmers also tap directly
into sewage systems to get fertile irrigation water. Pathogens, heavy metals, and harmful
chemicals in waste used in farming may lead to a host of communicable and non-
communicable diseases, and act as an occupational hazard for farmers and farm workers
(Table 8.3).
Human and animal fecal matter, if improperly treated, can be sites for pathogens and
vectors to breed.20 Sewage sludge and improperly treated, composted, or stored solid
waste may all contain pathogenic organisms. Some worms and protozoan parasites
entering the food chain through the use of waste may live long enough to be transmitted
to the consumer.
Primary pathogens include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and helminth eggs, which
usually enter the waste through fecal matter, and can be transmitted to consumers orally
or through the skin, causing a host of diseases including diarrhea, dysentery, hepatitis,
schistosomiasis, cholera, and hookworms. There are also less dangerous fungi and
bacteria that are called secondary pathogens, which grow during the biological
decomposition of waste and can cause infections and respiratory problems among people
working with the compost.21
Intestinal helminths such as Ascaris are frequently found to affect poor communities
in developing countries. Hookworms are more likely to enter children, farmers, or
workers exposed to the soil. Irrigation with wastewater, seepage of wastewater, or
leachate from solid waste can produce hazardous concentrations of chemicals and heavy
metals in soils.
Pests such as flies, other insects, and rodents attracted by waste can also act as disease
vectors. Diseases associated with rodents are the plague, endemic typhus, and rat-bite
fever. In 1998, fear of a potential plague outbreak from rats in waste piles in cities in
Gujarat, India caused a national panic.

Table 8.3 Summary of health links to recycling and waste reuse
Waste Links to communicable Links to non-communicable

material diseases diseases
Solid waste Attraction of rodents, poor Accumulation of hazardous chemicals,

composting and refuse disposal, smoke and dust, leachates, skin
lack of hygiene when handling, contact when sorting
smoke and dust, vector breeding
sites
Fertilizer, soil Poor composting and refuse Accumulation of hazardous chemicals,
additive, animal disposal, vector breeding sites plant uptake, leachates
feed
Liquid waste Level of treatment, retention time Mixing domestic and industrial wastes,
of domestic sewage waste, contamination of drinking water
contamination of drinking water including groundwater, plant uptake,
supplies, occupational exposure chlorination
Sludge Poor composting, vector breeding Plant uptake, groundwater
sites contamination
Source: Martin Birley and Karen Lock. 1999. The Health Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural
Resource Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Medicine, p. 91.
Waste consumed by livestock may transfer pathogens and metals to the animals and
then on to the human consumer. Cow and pig tapeworms are examples of latent
pathogens that use livestock as an intermediate host, and are transferred to humans who
eat meat from beef grazed on wastewater-irrigated areas and pigs fed on domestic waste.
Excreta from intensive (factory) livestock farming can be responsible for leaching
nitrates and phosphorus into water supplies, soil contamination with acids and ammonia,
and heavy metals in slurries. Nitrates are linked to nervous system impairment, cancer,
and blue baby syndrome.
Fish grown in wastewater or in bodies of water contaminated by waste may also be
contaminated. Pathogens that use snails in waterways as intermediate hosts include hepatitis
and schistosomiasis. An outbreak of hepatitis in Shanghai in the late 1980s was linked to
consumption of coastal water shellfish (not urban aquaculture). Consumption of fish with
excess nutrients may lower oxygen-carrying capacity in infant blood, and is possibly
carcinogenic.22
One-third or more of the vegetables consumed in Asmara, Eritrea are irrigated with
wastewater.23 In Yaounde, Cameroon, irrigation water for salad plants often contains
rubbish and sump oil or sewage. Squatters in Lusaka, Zambia irrigate their crops with
wastewater illegally channeled from a neighboring sewage lagoon. 24
It is critical that all waste be suitably treated before use in urban farming, and that the
levels of heavy metals and the persistence of pathogens be tested before the waste is used.
With adequate treatment, organic solid waste and sewage are very good soil additives —
they are less costly and more sustainable than chemical additives, as well as contributing
to a far more sustainable waste management system. While use of untreated or

inadequately treated waste is a health hazard, properly composted waste does not pose the
health threats of pathogens and pests created by untreated waste. An improved waste
collection system in Mexico City decreased the rate of cholera by 20-40 percent.25 A
similar development took place in Santiago (Case 8.3).
Case 8.3 Raw sewage in urban agriculture — an outbreak of cholera and typhoid in
Santiago, Chile
Cholera returned to South America in the early 1990s, appearing first in Santiago, Chile in 1992.
Investigations discovered that tainted vegetables, grown in metropolitan Santiago using irrigation
water polluted by raw sewage, were partly to blame. They found that 60 percent of the irrigated area
used water with over 10,000 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters.
Although Chile had enacted laws regulating sewage irrigation in 1941, they were not enforced.
Following the outbreak, the government bulldozed thousands of hectares of vegetable crops and
since then has prevented such crops from being planted where they will be irrigated with
wastewater. It then instituted restrictions on crops, along with certification programs, which led to a
reduction, not only in cholera, but also hepatitis and typhoid.
Santiago had suffered for decades from typhoid outbreaks. Rapid growth of squatter
communities had led to an increase in effluent in streams, without a comparable increase in
treatment. Although the supply of vegetables dropped the first year after the government action, it
recovered once horticultural zones were relocated to lands that could be safely irrigated.
Confidence that the vegetables no longer posed a health risk contributed to a doubling of their
prices. Unfortunately, prices have stayed high, denying the benefits of fresh vegetables to a large
share of the low-income population. Many small-scale farmers were unable to get certification and
went out of business.
The cholera control measures have had far-reaching consequences. Greater Santiago is one of
the most fertile regions of the country, providing 40 percent of Chile’s agricultural exports and 10
percent of its total exports. The handling of sewage-based irrigation therefore has national
economic repercussions, which explains why the government reacted swiftly and why it is now
seeking a more enduring solution to the problem. The World Bank supported studies, and solutions
that have been considered to date are costly — US$ 750 million for wastewater treatment, a per
capita annual cost of $7.00 to $7.50 per year.
There is a significant lesson to be learned — enforcement of existing regulations could have
prevented the outbreak. But because there are a dozen regulatory agencies, coordination of
monitoring and enforcement is difficult. A new partnership among farmers’ associations, NGOs,
local government, and the national government may be the key to solving the problem. Potential
solutions include improved irrigation methods, regulation of crops (rather than prohibition), cost
recovery from the farmers who benefit as well as from residents, modified food preparation, and
institutional reform.
Contacts: Carl Bartone and Klas Ringskog (see Appendix F for complete addresses).
Considerable testing was undertaken in the USA to assess if wastewater was safe for
irrigation and to define adequate treatment and standards. Sewage sludge, especially if
low in heavy metals, was found to be safe for use in growing vegetables.26 The United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1980 developed technology to ensure
complete pathogen kill and proper stabilization of sewage sludge for use in agriculture.

Sludge application in the USA has been regulated by the Environment Protection Agency
(EPA) since 1979.27
While treatment of waste for reuse in farming is well researched and standards and
guidelines are available, in reality formal treatment in less-industrialized countries is
often inadequate and rarely monitored. City farmers in poorly managed cities frequently
use untreated wastewater. Such use is a potential health threat, especially because most
farmers are not aware of the problem or the means to prevent health hazards.
The most sustainable solutions for urban waste management may be those that combine
urban agriculture with waste recycling, requiring source separation and waste treatment at
the community level. Current, centralized waste management systems in most cities are not
designed for such a strategy. Solutions focus on:
appropriately scaled, decentralized local treatment systems,
adequate participation in some form of treatment by urban farmers,
monitoring practices and the resulting crops for safety, and
farmer and community education.
Farming is but one of several ways in which pathogens and chemicals from waste
may enter human systems. In most cities (particularly in low-income areas), it is difficult
to isolate the health hazard specifically created by the use of waste in farming because
inappropriate waste management practices expose communities to the same health
hazards. Adding to the challenge is the question of how to assess the potential negative
health effects of recycling waste in agriculture against the potential positive
environmental effects from the practice.
Rearing Livestock, Poultry, and Fish in Cities

Evidence on the threat to health caused by rearing livestock in the city remains relatively
limited. Nevertheless, keeping livestock in the city is criticized as creating health and
environmental hazards — making neighborhoods unhealthy through offal, odors, and
noise, and clogging the sewage system.
Many cities manage their livestock responsibly. Properly handled animal refuse is
valuable as manure to fertilize soils and fish ponds. Cow dung is also dried for use as fuel
and to sanitize walls and floors of houses. However, pathogens can be transmitted
directly or indirectly (through zoonoses) to human consumers. Livestock in the city can
negatively affect human health through their meat and other products, excreta, and direct
contact during farming (Table 8.4). Populations at risk are livestock farmers and abattoir
and factory workers, consumers of animal products, people living in areas where there
are significant numbers of livestock, and people living in areas where animal waste is
discharged.

Table 8.4 Summary of livestock links to health
Livestock Links to communicable Links to non-communicable

use diseases diseases
Live animals Inhaling dust and allergens

Slaughtering Inhaling dust Inhaling dust and allergens
Products Unpasteurized dairy products,
consumption of contaminated meat
Drug residues Misuse of antibiotics Metabolites in animal products
Animal feed Contamination by infected feces of Agrochemicals and hazardous chemical
contamination animal feeds and animal products contaminants of feed
Wastes Discharge into water supplies, Heavy metals in slurries
application of slurries to land,
contact
Tanneries Handling infected hides Exposure to a range of process
chemicals
Source: Martin Birley and Karen Lock. 1999. The Health Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural
Resource Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Medicine, p. 82.
Zootonic diseases from livestock reared in the city can be spread through:
dung in public places;
consumption of contaminated meat;
consumption of unpasteurized dairy products;
direct contact with infected animals or animal matter (urine, blood);
transmission through contaminated animal feed;
spread of other pathogens by animals scavenging on waste;
unhygienic conditions in abattoir;
inhalation of airborne dust and allergens, especially in and around abattoirs;
discharge of livestock waste into waterways;
leaching of nitrates and phosphorus from animal waste into water supplies, especially
from pigs and poultry;
soil contamination with acids and ammonia; and
heavy metals in slurries.
Roaming livestock can increase the threat by spreading a disease in the environment.
Uncontrolled livestock production has led to flies and bacteria thriving in animal dung in
public places. Rearing cattle and buffalo in cities carries the risk of transmitting bovine
tuberculosis to humans, particularly through drinking untreated milk.28 Animal excreta

can carry germs that can cause diseases — tuberculosis, brucellosis, meningitis,
salmonella, and diarrhea.
Livestock waste can transmit any pathogens carried by the animal, as well as
discharge heavy metals in slurries. This is an occupational hazard for those working with
urban livestock, and the problem can be spread through inadequate disposal or reuse of
waste, and by dung from roaming animals.
Starting in the late 1980s, doctors in Dar es Salaam became convinced that dung
rotting on city roads was contributing to the spread of tetanus. Urban livestock were
reported to have exposed people in that city to zootonic diseases such as tuberculosis,
leptospirosis, anthrax, salmonellosis, and brucellosis, although a definitive correlation
between urban livestock and the prevalence of these diseases was not established through
actual site testing.29 Three quarters of poultry and livestock keepers in that city left dung
at agreed locations along roadsides for collection by horticulturists.30
The problem is exacerbated by dense populations in urban places, which increases the
threat of spreading diseases. The health threat also depends on the amount of vacant and
green space available in the city — more space reduces the threat.
Intensive livestock production (factory farms) and processing facilities in the city
may become centers of disease and pollution from animal waste. The air around abattoirs
is particularly susceptible to spreading brucellosis. Anthrax threatens abattoir workers,
animal product processors, and consumers of inadequately cooked meat. Animals may
pick up tapeworm eggs from unhygienic environments and from scavenging on waste,
feces, or dead infected animals. Abattoir workers in the Netherlands are 1,500 times more
likely to contract meningitis from salmonella infection than other workers.31 Urban
livestock may be behind some non-communicable diseases as well — asthma, allergies,
and lung diseases. Workers in intensive urban livestock and poultry farming are
particularly vulnerable.
Animal feeds of animal origin (whether urban or rural) can carry pathogens such as
Salmonella and Campylobacter, and can spread them to humans through the animal.
Feeds that contain plant products may also contain harmful agrochemicals as well as
heavy metals. In an industrial poultry farm in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, 6 percent of hens
and 12 percent of ducks tested for salmonella were found to be infected. Poultry bred in
intensive environments is particularly susceptible to aflatoxins.32
Aquaculture is useful for fish and vegetable production, waste management, and
habitat management. It can reduce mosquito breeding in low-lying and marshy areas if
the correct range of fish species is included. But urban aquaculture may increase the
habitat of some pathogens and provide a transmission route through the fish to humans,
as well as putting farmers and workers at risk. Aquatic snails in aquaculture ponds using
sewage can also serve as host for pathogens that cause schistosomiasis or bilharzia.33
Livestock farmers often ignore animal diseases. Because the testing infrastructure is
typically inadequate and the cost of animal treatment high, animals are usually not tested
for diseases. Meat and hides can be tested for presence of the anthrax bacteria with a
simple laboratory test, but this test is not usually available in developing countries.34
Farmers can fairly easily evade the public health system.35 For instance, in urban Nepal,

where sewage systems are poorly developed and sewage flows freely, pigs and cattle eat
human waste.36
Solutions to Health Hazards

Family and small-scale farmers want to produce food that is safe for their children and
their neighbor’s children. In the preceding sub-sections, we have described some of the
health risks of urban agriculture. Safe food from urban agriculture begins with educating
the farmer at the community level and providing her or him with an extension service and
technical assistance that enables safe practices. As a second line of good management,
CBOs, NGOs, and government at many levels may monitor urban agricultural practices
to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations.
The goal of a healthy city and urban population will be helped by safe urban
agriculture. Our objective is to have as many farmers in as many places within the city as
feasible. The solution to health hazards, after education, extension, and monitoring, is to
identify the most hazard-prone places — for example, near ‘dirty’ industries (such as
tanneries), adjacent to highways where vehicles use leaded gasoline, or adjacent to
garbage dumps — and impose legal controls that limit farming in those places.
Good practices in urban agriculture abound in history and today. Singapore, the
Netherlands, and Canada offer excellent examples of current good practices. The solution
to safe food from city farming, however, will usually not be found in methods being
applied in wealthy European countries or in a study of history. Rather, safe urban
agriculture will emerge by empowering community-based groups, farmers’ associations,
NGOs, and local professionals to create solutions using scientific methods and applying
adaptations of best practices.
In some developing countries these types of controls overlap traditional controls. This
dual system has been best studied in China. Collaboration between farmers’ associations
and municipal corporations based on traditional methods and modern science has worked
well for 30 years.
Some measures to prevent urban food production from contributing to the spread of
diseases in industrialized countries include:
farmer and consumer education by extension agents;
land-use planning, zoning, and regulation;
monitoring food safety;
vector control;
management of heavy metals;
control of poultry production and processing; and
monitoring solid and liquid waste treatment and reuse.
This sub-section presents the range of possible solutions to the problems described in
the previous sub-sections.

Education and Extension

Safe food from urban agriculture must be taught to every farmer through the established
education and extension systems. Educating farmers and promoting sustainable farming
practices can include a range of issues already mentioned. Recognizing urban farming as
a valid activity and including it in agricultural extension efforts is necessary. Education
should begin at the primary level and involve parents with their children’s school
gardens. Active city farmers may be part of the educational system, teaching best
practices. Public health professionals may train agricultural extension workers.
The agricultural extension service in most places will need to partner with waste
management services, the health department, food marketing services, as well as
educational institutions. In Berlin in 2000, there were 14 agricultural schools where every
elementary class had its own garden plot. The ‘Tested Food for Silesia’ program in
Poland is an example (see Case 3.6). The Developing Countries Farm Radio Network
(DCFRN) provides advice to farmers using radio programs.
Land-Use Planning and Zoning

Different land areas in the city have different levels of vulnerability to pollutants, and
different crops have different uptake rates for contaminates. A geographic information
system can be useful to identify the potential areas where heavy metals and other
pollutants may pose a health hazard. These areas can then be further tested and zoned to
either ban farming or ensure that planned cropping and farming methods reduce health
hazards. In some cases organic material can be added to the soil. In others greenhouses
may be permitted but not open row crops. Additional monitoring of these hazard-prone
areas may be appropriate.
The urban management programs of several international development agencies are
promoting increased monitoring and environmental management practices. Strategies that
focus on awareness and knowledge of crop choices, farm planning, or food safety
measures to minimize health hazards are more likely to be successful.
Food Safety Monitoring and Crop Certification

Monitoring food sold in markets (testing for metals and pathogens) is one way that food
hygiene is controlled in industrialized countries. Food safety monitoring is currently
limited in less-industrialized countries in part because much of the food is traded in the
informal sector or is raised for home consumption. In many cities monitoring needs to be
moved to roadside stands and not be limited to restaurants and wholesale city markets.
FAO has a decades-long history of improving the quality of street foods.
A good food safety monitoring system includes food safety regulations, standards,
testing facilities, and public institutions to monitor safety and enforce standards. Such a
program would also include monitoring livestock rearing, greenhouses, fish ponds,
orchards, and field crop areas.
More and more countries are adopting and enforcing food safety standards and
developing a monitoring capacity. Much of this effort is focused on exported food (in
order to ensure compliance with importing-country standards) rather than protecting
domestic consumers. Crop certification focuses on the producer rather than the consumer

level. FAO’s Codex Alimentarius provides standards and the FAO Technical Assistance
Program on Food Quality and Safety provides technical assistance to developing
countries.
Preventing Diseases Spread by Vectors

Preventing the spread of diseases by vectors can be done by expensive methods such as
aerial spraying, or by inexpensive methods that might be labeled as ‘good housekeeping’.
Control strategies logically begin at home and in primary school. The first teaching tool
is awareness, followed by best practices.
Some plants and animals absorb, retain, and transmit pathogens more readily than
others. For example, tree fruit that can be peeled transmits fewer pathogens than a leaf
crop such as lettuce. Crops that are used as livestock feed are an extra step removed from
human consumption and therefore usually present fewer health risks.37
Curative and preventive measures to avoid vector breeding include:
regulating and controlling selected farming activities and methods;
altering farming practices through education;
reducing the number of intermediate hosts through habitat management;
managing solid waste adequately;
designing sewage, water storage, and irrigation systems to reduce breeding grounds
and environmental contamination;
eliminating breeding sites by reducing standing water, keeping streams and rivers
clear flowing, and periodically allowing irrigated fields to dry; and
using chemical and biological controls in potential habitats, including Bt (microbial
insecticide) or neem tree extract (biological control).
For many cities, the solution will lie in the interaction of CBOs and NGOs with best
practices in similar cities.
Managing Farms to Prevent Heavy Metal Hazards

Soil characteristics affect the level of metal absorption by plants, and hence can also be a
factor in managing for heavy metals. Metal uptake by plants is reduced by addition of
phosphorus to the soil. Moisture in the soil can be managed to reduce the uptake of
chromium, iron, and arsenic. Salt amendments reduce uptake of cadmium and arsenic in
certain crops.38
An excellent solution to the problem of heavy metals is to add one part organic matter
to three parts of contaminated soil to lower soil acidity. Acidic soils increase the
absorption of metals, so by lowering the acidity, minerals are more readily available to
the plant. A soil pH level above 7.5 prevents lead uptake by plants, and also reduces
cadmium uptake. When organic matter is added to soils, lead sticks to it rather than plant
roots.
Lead in soil is not particularly mobile and is not easily taken up by plants. In
vulnerable areas such as near major roads, leafy vegetables can be eliminated or grown
away from the road. Lead levels fall logarithmically with distance from the road.39 One

expert recommends that where leaded gasoline is used, green leafy vegetables should be
planted a minimum of 7.5 meters from roads.40. More resistant crops, such as fruit trees or
cassava, or an intervening row of trees, particularly those that are good absorbers of
aerosol lead (e.g., white pine), can act as a hedge and protect more vulnerable crops from
exhaust fumes.
Most of the lead found on leafy plants is in aerosol form rather than lead from the
soil, which makes it possible to wash it off the crop.41 Root crops should be peeled before
cooking. It should be noted that vegetables marketed in urban areas, whether urban- or
rural-grown, also pick up some airborne lead.
Lead can be removed from soil by running a high voltage through the soil between
two poles. The lead will then line up and can be removed by trenching. Lead can also be
removed from soil by growing crops that absorb it readily, and then destroying those
crops.42
Waste is a major source of both heavy metals and pathogens. Waste management
systems that separate waste at its source, identify sources of hazardous waste, and
decentralize management and recycling are more attuned to managing the presence of
metals in waste used in farming.43 Where sewage sludge is used, the level of metals in the
sludge needs to be monitored and maintained below safe levels. Standards for safe levels
of metal in sludge are available, including those defined by the United States Department
of Agriculture.44
Where soils are already highly contaminated with metals or chemicals, crops can be
planted in media brought from outside the affected area. This practice is particularly
feasible with techniques such as shallow-bed gardening, container farming, and
hydroponics (see Cases 5.2 and 5.3). Where fish and other seafood are contaminated by
toxins in urban waters, the water can be treated biologically (see Case 5.4). In Poland, a
zoning system was developed for farmland near industrial areas, with different crops
allowed in each zone.
The greatest danger from heavy metals in urban farming is not consuming food
grown on contaminated soil, but rather contact with the soil. Workers can wear gloves to
protect themselves, but access by children should be prevented so that they don’t put
contaminated fingers in their mouths and noses.
Monitoring Waste Treatment and Reuse

Research on the safety of using waste for food production has been conducted by several
institutions, including WHO, FAO, the World Bank, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Asian Institute of Technology. Appropriate guidelines for use and
treatment standards have been created by some of these institutions, including WHO and
USEPA.45
To reduce the risk of contamination, it is necessary to create local waste recycling and
reuse programs, institute treatment and application standards, and ensure adherence to
standards. Different scales of technology are already available for waste treatment and
reuse. To reduce public expense, it may be feasible to move some of the management and
monitoring to the community level through decentralized waste management systems, 46
which will require monitoring by public authorities.

An approach that may have wide application is to study the overall areas of discharge,
treatment, and use of waste in farming, identify potential areas of health hazards, and
then concentrate treatment, crop restrictions, and certification efforts on problem areas.
At the same time, it may be useful to identify areas where farming is safe and promote it
in those areas.
Reuse of Solid Waste

Composting can occur in the backyard, at a community or neighborhood level, or as a
centralized system. It can be an open or closed system. Composting processes include
simple composting, composting two or more complementary materials together (such as
organic waste and animal waste), and anaerobic digestion (by restricting the oxygen
supply).
Solid waste and sludge treatment usually involves composting, which destroys
pathogens and helminth eggs by generating heat. High temperatures for a determined
period of time are essential for proper treatment. Composting does not remove heavy
metals.
There is considerable research on composting guidelines, and standards that define
acceptable levels of heavy metals and pathogens are available, such as the CCME
guidelines and NSDOE sludge and compost guidelines.
Informal waste management systems have been extensively studied in Dar es Salaam
(Tanzania), Curitiba (Brazil), Bangalore and Calcutta (India), Manila (Philippines), and
Mexican cities.47 In all these cases, urban poor communities play a critical role in
managing waste to improve practices that improve sanitation. A common means to
improve practices is to focus on organized waste pickers who work in cooperatives and
run buy-back depots where consumers can purchase waste. All decentralized systems
require monitoring and regulation, which has often been a shortfall in the system.48
Reuse of Wastewater
Wastewater can be treated biologically by an intermediate plant or animal, such as algae
or duckweed, which is later used as organic fertilizer or animal feed.49 A second approach
to managing pathogens in wastewater is to grow crops that are less susceptible to
contamination.
Many cities use wastewater only to grow non-food crops, including livestock forage,
forest crops for fuel and construction, and plants for ornamental horticulture. Australia
and Mexico, for example, limit the use of wastewater to irrigating crops not intended for
direct human consumption. In Zimbabwe, sewage water is used to irrigate cattle pastures
run by municipal authorities that make millions of dollars in profits through cattle sales.50
WHO guidelines defining acceptable levels of fecal bacteria and nematode eggs were
published in 1989 (Table 8.5).51

Table 8.5 WHO/Engelberg standards for wastewater that can be used for irrigation
Intestinal Wastewater
nematodes treatment
(arithmetic Fecal coliform expected to
mean no. of (geometric achieve the
Exposed eggs per mean no. per required microbial
Reuse condition group liter) 100 ml) quality
A. Irrigation of crops Workers, 1 1,000 Series of

likely to be eaten consumers, stabilization ponds
uncooked, sports public designed to achieve
fields, public parks microbial quality
indicated or
equivalent treatment
B. Irrigation of cereal, Workers 1 No standard Retention in
industrial, or fodder recommendation stabilization ponds
crops, pasture and for 8-10 days, or
trees equivalent treatment
C. Localized irrigation None Not Not applicable Pretreatment as
of crops in category B applicable required by the
if exposure of workers irrigation
and the public does technology, but not
not occur less than primary
sedimentation
Source: World Health Organization. 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in
Agriculture and Aquaculture, S.I.T. 778. Geneva: WHO.
Alternatives to the large-scale, post-World War II sewage systems have recently been
developed to treat and reuse wastewater, including bucket latrines, cesspits, and
composting toilets.52 Decentralized systems with their own treatment plants at the
catchment level are being promoted, and include reuse of wastewater in local farming.
Aerobic and anaerobic biological processes are used to reduce pathogens and recover
nutrients.53 Separating waste at its source, such as keeping kitchen and bath water
separate from toilet waste at the household or community level, facilitates reuse.
Solar-based treatment technologies use algae, plants, and bacteria in the effluent to
degrade biological components and pathogens. Land-based aerobic-, anaerobic-, and
biogas-based technologies are available at various scales.
Water-based treatment systems include wetland treatment systems using aquatic
macrophytes, water hyacinth, duckweed, water lettuce, or salvinia to break down sewage.
The crop can also be harvested for sale as animal feed. Water hyacinth, however,
promotes mosquito breeding, therefore habitat management is important. The problem
can be prevented by keeping oxygen levels low, frequently trimming plants, maintaining
fish varieties such as mosquito fish, and using some chemical agents. Duckweed, on the
other hand, prevents mosquito larvae from developing because it covers the entire surface
(see Case 5.4).54

Separating urine and feces can provide two safe products, a so-called ‘ecological
sanitation’ technique. Ecological sanitation is typically a decentralized operation, so
families and communities can recycle their own wastes.55
In China, integrated resource recovery systems that combine waste management with
rearing livestock, aquaculture, and soil-based agriculture use local natural resources for
an ecologically balanced food production system.56
With appropriate monitoring, the health of urban citizens can be improved while
minimizing risk. Inappropriate use of wastewater and inadequate composting of solid
waste can be partially resolved by retraining and assigning some government staff who
run the sanitation system to advise neighborhoods or communities to manage their own
ecological sanitation processes. Communities that use their urine to fertilize parks and
gardens and compost their feces to improve soil are much less likely to use waste in a
damaging way.
Rearing and Processing Poultry, Fish, and Livestock

Small livestock are the most common livestock that are reared in cities, particularly larger
ones. Rabbits, goats, guinea pigs, swine, chickens, and fish are ubiquitous. Less noticed
are bees, silk worms, snails, pigeons, quail, and others, including dogs and rats. The most
critical health hazards in this farming sector are in large-scale facilities rather than
backyard and rooftop production. As in all city farming, reducing risk begins with
education and extension. Strict standards are necessary for operations that exceed a
certain number of animals. Extension workers, CBOs, and NGOs need to be aware of
best practices and warning signs of diseases in animals that can transmit them to humans.
For instance, in Chile CET found that it was safe for chickens to eat worms that fed on
fetid garbage, but not for them to eat the garbage itself.
Measures to prevent communicable diseases from animals in urban areas include:
vaccinating the human population for tuberculosis and anthrax;
monitoring the sale of meat,
heat treating milk and dairy products,
controlling and eradicating diseases where animals live,
improving hygiene in abattoirs (ventilation, protective clothing),
vaccinating animals grazing in areas with endemic anthrax, and
vaccinating workers at occupational risk for anthrax.
These measures are expensive, institutionally complex, difficult to establish, and can
ultimately increase the price of protein to consumers. Health regulations comprise two-
thirds of the total cost of pig production in Mexico.57 Regulations should be flexible and
targeted as monitoring systems identify the likelihood of risk.
Environmental Problems
Resources such as land and water are used more intensively for agriculture in dense urban
areas than in rural areas. The close proximity of all phases of agriculture to a
concentrated population increases risks proportionately, thus problems caused by

chemical contamination can have even more serious implications. A number of strategies
are available to respond to these problems.
Environmental Risks
The use of agrochemicals in urban areas may persist in the soil, air, water, or food.
They cause pollution through:
accumulation in runoff, horticultural crops, and soils;
seepage into aquifers;
accumulation of heavy metals and organic compounds in aquatic life;
direct contact; and
airborne chemicals.
Agriculture in the city can have a negative impact on green space and biodiversity if
it replaces forested land, wetlands, or other biologically rich natural environments.
Farming near waterways of all types can increase erosion and silting if care is not taken.
Waste from urban agriculture frequently contaminates and degrades the environment
where urban children play. While urban agriculture can enhance urban biodiversity in
some ways, it also has the potential to do serious harm and reduce biodiversity.58 When
urban farming practices pollute, as does modern shrimp production, it reduces
biodiversity. Urban forestry has too often introduced exotic varieties in monocrop
patterns.
The introduction of exotic (non-native) plant species can reduce biodiversity. A prime
example is non-native garden plants that invade natural areas. Replacing a tree canopy with
a vegetable garden can not only reduce vegetative diversity, but also the bird and insect
populations, particularly if insecticides are applied. The use of antibiotics in fish and
livestock rearing has been particularly damaging in urban areas.
Leaching of solid and liquid waste from intensive livestock farms into soil is a major
environmental problem in urban and rural areas. In Holland, Thailand, and the USA,
surface and groundwater contamination from intensive, large-scale poultry and shrimp
production has been reported since the 1980s (Case 8.4). The main source of ammonia
contamination in Dutch soils is ammonia discharged by livestock producers, not
industry.59 Dairy farming around Madison, Wisconsin, USA is said to result in high
concentrations of nitrate and atrazine in drinking water, as well as phosphorous that is
causing eutrophication in area lakes.60
In coastal bays near Rio de Janeiro, agricultural and sewage runoff dumps excessive
nutrients in waterways, leading to massive algae growth and eutrophication of the marine
ecology from reduced oxygen levels. Costly mitigation programs and controls have been
placed on farmers in some peri-urban situations. Singapore temporarily prohibited
intensive livestock farming in the 1970s, while both Taiwan (province of China) and the
Netherlands imposed new restrictions in the 1980s as a result of environmental
degradation caused by rearing pigs.

Case 8.4 Problems and control of nutrient runoff from poultry farms around the
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Rich in nitrogen and phosphorous, poultry litter is much favored as fertilizer. But those same
nutrients can nourish environmental ills when they wash into waterways and spur the growth of
algae that rob fish and other aquatic life of oxygen. Many scientists also believe nutrient pollution
fuels the toxic microbe Pfiesteria piscicida, which blossomed in 1997 and 1999 in several tributaries
of the Chesapeake Bay, which lies west of the mid-Atlantic coast before flowing into the Atlantic
Ocean. Its watershed is nearly 64,000 square miles, including the Washington-Baltimore
metropolis.
Agricultural runoff has been blamed for the growth of fish-killing microbes in some rivers. The
Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture have drawn a Draft Unified
National Strategy For Animal Feeding Operations (AFO), which is a blueprint for dealing with
surface water pollution from all AFOs, including large-scale, confined animal factory farms with
more than 1,000 birds, pigs, etc. If adopted, this draft will limit how much manure farmers may apply
on their fields near vulnerable waterways.
Tightened state and federal environmental rules have rendered manure less of an asset and
more of a liability. Poultry companies can be liable for fines of as much as US$ 25,000 per day if
they don't follow the rules. The Maryland Agriculture Department and the Nutrient Management
Advisory Committee are drafting regulations to enforce a 1998 law aimed at reducing nutrient runoff
from farms into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Regulations tie a company's state operating
permit to its success at preventing manure runoff.
Perdue Farms Inc., the largest poultry producer in Maryland, will relieve some of its contracted
farmer/growers of the disposal burden of excess chicken manure. Perdue Farms will gather as
much as 120,000 tons of poultry litter each year and turn it into pellets that can be sold as fertilizer
in areas less susceptible to water pollution. The 120,000 tons is more than one-third of the manure
generated by the 240 million birds the company annually processes in the immediate Chesapeake
Bay watershed. Perdue will pay farmers, who grow their chickens under contract, for the manure.
Several European and American industries have learned that some polluting by-products of
their operations have commercial value. This case suggests that the poultry industry is waking up to
a missed opportunity. They might well be able to make profit and solve an environmental and public
relations problem.
Overgrazing and destruction of plantation areas by animals can lead to increased

erosion, as well as destroying grasslands. When ignored, such behavior can even
contribute to urban desertification, negating the environmental gains that urban greening
offers.61
Intensive livestock farming can also lead to odor and noise pollution. In a survey in
Dar es Salaam, about 80 percent of respondents reported bad odors from urban livestock
as a problem, and two-thirds reported noise as a problem.62 There may be, however, a
double standard inherent in some of these opinions. Odors and noise caused by livestock
are often no worse than those caused by some other urban activities, such as
manufacturing and vehicular traffic.

Managing Environmental Risks

Each and every urban agriculture methodology has some environmental risk. Managing
these environmental risks, as with any significant urban activity, is complex. Such
management may need to be founded on some or all of the following steps:
scientific description of the problem,
research,
defining and establishing indicators,
finding ‘best practices’,
providing information and incentives, and
establishing and enforcing penalties.
There are a number of more or less successful approaches that can be tapped for
techniques and other solutions to help manage urban farming’s environmental
consequences. Some of those referred to elsewhere in this book include agroecology,
permaculture, the Natural Step, edible landscape, regenerative agriculture, and edible
buildings. A number of biologically based sustainable practices, including organic,
regenerative, and biointensive agriculture, as well as integrated pest management (IPM),
are less damaging to the environment than agriculture using chemical fertilizers and
insecticides. Supplying compost and treated sewage to farmers is effective in reducing
the amount of chemical fertilizer needed by urban farmers. Multicropping practices can
substitute for some insecticide applications.
Each offers safe alternatives to some polluting practices, and current research can be
expected to yield improved solutions. We can also look to other places and times for
lessons. China has a long history of coping with the risk of urban farming. Urban areas —
from ancient to pre-20th century — had viable ecological risk management procedures,
some of which may be applicable today.
Intensive use of animal waste on soils can cause nitrate pollution in as short a period
as 5 years.63 It is critical to monitor and regulate the use of manure and other organic
waste, as well as chemicals, in urban farming. Such nitrate and phosphate leaching can be
prevented through the proper treatment and reuse of animal waste as fertilizer. In
Malaysia, UNDP and FAO are researching technologies to treat pig waste. Some farmers
are growing worms to treat pig effluent lagoons for conversion to fish feed.64
Animal-related pollution can be reduced through changes in rearing practices, for
example, by discouraging intensive rearing of a single species in one area. There is also a
need to institute proper animal waste management practices to close the nutrient loop.
Improving land and water tenure security and creating a legal system that makes farmers
responsible for the land they farm will result in better farming and soil and water
management practices.
Inefficient Use of Resources

We have shown throughout this book how urban agriculture is particularly adept at
transforming urban waste in the broadest sense (idle lands, untapped human resources,

solid refuse, soiled water . . . ) into resources. There is a potential, however, for resources
found in urban areas to be wasted or abused through urban farming.
A significant percentage of urban farming is conducted informally or illegally.
Farmers simply expand onto unused public or private land or work out an informal
agreement with the owner. While this often puts idle land into productive use, in other
cases, farmers take over land planned or set aside for other purposes (such as forested
areas) or encroach on land that should be conserved for environmental reasons (such as
wetlands). Where the use of land is not managed and an economic rent is not paid, urban
farming may be an economically or environmentally inefficient use of land.
The same is true of water used by farmers for irrigation. If farmers are not charged a
fee, they may use water designated for other purposes or follow inefficient irrigation
practices. Some urban farmers divert water from the potable municipal water supply,
which can create water shortages in the city. A survey showed that although 4 of 10
households active in gardening in Amman, Jordan use some gray water for irrigation,
most households (86 percent) rely on the public water network for at least part of their
irrigation needs.65 Overuse of surface or groundwater can reduce the city water supply.
The Savanna region of Bogotá, Colombia is experiencing a water crisis due to heavy
pumping of groundwater to irrigate export flower crops. This crisis can be mitigated by
reuse of Bogotá’s wastewater for irrigation.66
Regulation and pricing of land and water for farming use ensures that these scarce
resources are not abused and are allocated optimally. However, charges for land and
water may drive some poorer, less efficient farmers from the market. A system of
subsidized land and water allocation may be needed to enable poor farmers who are
growing food for family food security to continue farming.
Negative Aesthetic Impacts

The image of a cattle corral, pigs at a town dump, poorly tended vegetable patches in a
community park, or chickens in a front yard is offensive to many. Food and fuel
production tends to be more visible than many other urban production activities, such as
making furniture or bread, which take place inside buildings. Because urban agriculture is
more exposed to public view, it may be appropriate to place it under greater control and
measure each urban agriculture activity not only for its health and environmental impacts,
but also for its aesthetic impact.
Agriculture in the city need not be ugly if it is well managed and in appropriate
places. Sweet potato growing on the roadside, fruit trees in the park, sheep grazing on a
hillside, and fish in a pond may be acceptable images. But if urban agriculture is
unregulated and temporary, it is less likely to be neatly maintained.67
—————————
Urban farming is illegal in most cities in Africa and Latin America. Where it exists
despite the law, it is unregulated and its safety is therefore not ensured. Banning urban
agriculture outright is not an effective solution to potential problems — whether real or
imagined. If health, environmental, and other problems are to be prevented, urban
agriculture must be legalized and the institutional capacity to regulate it created or

reinvented. As a first step, cities need to undertake the research and cost-benefit analyses
necessary to decide what types of urban agriculture are appropriate in which parts of the
city.
Notes
1. Renata Clarke, FAO, personal communication, 1999.
2. (Drakakis-Smith, 1992) Is this the same as No. 6 ??
3. Yudelman M., A. Ratta, and D. Nygaard. 1998. Pest Management and Food
Production: Looking to the Future. Food, Agriculture and the Environment
Discussion Paper 25. 2020 Vision Program. Washington, D.C.: International Food
Policy Research Institute..
4. Yudelman et al., 1998, op. cit.
5. Yudelman et al., 1998, op. cit.
6. Bowyer-Bower, Tania, and David Drakakis-Smith. 1996. The Needs of the Urban Poor
versus Environmental Conservation: Conflict in Urban Agriculture. London:
Department of Geography, School of Oriental and African Studies. Quoted in Birley
Birley, M.H. and K. Lock. 1999. A Review of the Health Impacts of Peri-Urban
Natural Resource Development. Liverpool School of Medicine, UK. Draft.
7. Bellows, Anne C. 1996. Where Kitchen and Laboratory Meet: The ‘Tested Food for
Silesia’ Program. In Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experience,
Dianne Rocheleau et al. (eds.). London and New York: Routledge.
8. Chaney, Rufus L., Susan B. Sterrett, and Howard W. Mielke. n.d. (cf 1983). Potential
for Heavy Metal Exposure From Urban Gardens and Soils. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Pp. 37-83
9. It should be noted that urban residents can come in contact with metals and pathogens
in many ways — by breathing aerosol pollutants, drinking contaminated water, direct
contact with soil and water, consumption of food sold in the city that may pick up
aerosol pollutants, as well as through food grown in the city. A study of bus drivers in
Bangkok concluded that the highest absorption of lead came from food, probably
purchased from street vendors. World Health Organization. 1995a. Human Exposure to
Lead. Document WHO/EHG/95.15. Bangkok: WHO. Quoted in Birley and Lock, 1999.
Op.cit.
10. Chaney et al, 1983, op. cit.
11. Sterret, S.B. et al. 1983. Transplant Quality, Yield, and Heavy-Metal Accumulation of
Tomato, Muskmelon, and Cabbage Grown in Media Containing Sewage Sludge
Compost. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 108 (1).
12. Chaney et al, 1983, op. cit.

13. Sewell, Granville H.. 1977. The Health Threat of Trace-Metal Content in City-Lot
Vegetables. New York: Columbia University.
14. Wijn, Monique, et al. [DATE] Lead Uptake from Vegetables Grown Along Highways.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Occupational Environmental Health.
15. Flynn, Kathleen. 1999. An Overview of Public Health and Urban Agriculture: Water,
Soil and Crop Contamination & Emerging Urban Zoonoses. Cities Feeding People
Program. Report No. 30. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
16. Darmajanti, E. 1994. Integrating Informal City Farming Practices into Green Space
Management. Master’s thesis. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University:
Canada.
17. Flynn, 1999, op. cit.
18. Sawio, Camillus. 1998. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: Its Role, Planning and
Management Implications. in Proceedings from a Conference on Productive Open
Space Management, Technikon Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, March.
19. Amend, J. and E. Mwaisango. 1998. Status of Soil Contamination and Soil Fertility:
The Case of Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Tanzania: Urban Vegetable
Promotion Program, April.
20. World Health Organization. 1992. Our Planet, Our Health. Geneva: WHO,
Commission on Health and Environment,.
21. Lardinois, I. and A. van de Klundert (eds.). 1993. Organic Waste: Options for Small-
Scale Resource Recovery. Urban Solid Waste Series 1. Amsterdam: WASTE
Consultants and Technology Transfer for Development.
22. Chimbowu, A. and Davidson Gumbo, ENDA-Zimbabwe. 1993. Urban Agriculture
Research in East and Southern Africa II: Record. Capacities and Opportunities. Cities
Feeding People Series No. 4. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research
Centre.
23. Jac Smit. 1994. Evaluation of Urban Agriculture Possibilities in Eritrea. Consultancy
report to UNICEF. 31 May.
24. CTA. 1991. A Future Employment Trend — The Urban Farmer. Report No. 33. Wageningen, the
Netherlands: CTA.
25. Eitrem, G. and A. Tornqvist. 1997. Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture: Creating
the Linkages. Draft for World Bank, Nov.
26. Sterret et al, 1983, op. cit.
27. Chaney et al 1983, op. cit.
28. Christine Furedy, personal communication, 1993.
29. Chimbowu and Gumbo, 1993, op. cit.
30. A.C. Mosha. 1991. Urban Farming Practices in Tanzania. Review of Rural and Urban
Planning in South and East Africa 1.

31. Birley and Lock, 1999, op. cit.

32. Panigrahi, S. cf 1994. Parallels in Dairy and Poultry Development Strategies and
Issues Related to Urbanisation in Eastern Indian Region. Paper for Natural Resources
Institute. Kent. UK.
33. Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture. Report 47. Rome:
FAO.
35. Mosha, A.C. [DATE] Urban Farming Practices in Tanzania. Review of Rural &
Urban Planning in South & East Africa 1:83-92.
36. Christopher Lewcock, personal communication, 1994.
37. Carl R. Bartone et al. 1985. Monitoring and Maintenance of Treated Water Quality in
the San Juan Lagoons. Lima: Pan American Health Organization/World Health
Organization/CEPIS, see especially the Introduction and Table 1.
38. Flynn, 1999, op. cit.
40. Isabel Wade. 1986. City Food: Crop Selection in Third World Cities. San Francisco:
Urban Resource Systems.
41 World Health Organization, 1995a, op. cit.
42. Jack Hale. 2000. Community Greening Review. American Community Gardening
Summer Conference Issue.
43. Inge Lardinois and Christine Furedy. 1999. Source Separation of Household Waste
Materials — Analysis of Case Studies from Pakistan, the Philippines, India, Brazil,
Argentina and the Netherlands. Urban Waste Series 7. Gouda, The Netherlands:
WASTE.
45. WHO (World Health Organization). 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of
Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture, S.I.T. 778. Geneva: WHO.
46. I. Lardinois and A. van de Klundert (eds.), 1993, op. cit.
47. Adam-Peters, Kim. 1996. Community-Based Waste Management for Environmental
Management and Income Generation in Low-Income Areas: A Case Study of
Nairobi, Kenya. Paper for master’s in environmental studies, York University,
Canada.
49. H.I. Shuval et al. 1986. Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries. World Bank
Technical Paper 51. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Chapter 5; and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Land Application of Municipal Sludge for
the Production of Fruits and Vegetables. Washington, D.C.: EPA. The second

document sets up policy and guidance on procedures to treatment of pathogens, lead,

and PCBs.
50. Beacon Mbiba. 1995. Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for Urban
Management and Poverty. The Making of Modern Africa Series. Aldershot,
England: Avebury Press.
51. WHO, 1989, op. cit.
52. IFAN and ENDA. Small Bore Waste Water Collection, Treatment and Use for Tree
Nursery. Dakar Senegal: Joint Project of ENDA, IFAN at Cheikh Anta Diop University,
and IDRC. Contacts: Dr Malik [ENDA] and Dr. S. Niang [IFAN].
53. Rose, G. D. 1999. Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse: Options for Urban Agriculture. Cities Feeding People Series
No. 27. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
54. Rose, 1999, op. cit.
55. Steve Esrey, UNDP, personal communication, 2000.
56. Rose, 1999, op. cit.
58. UNESCO, FAO et al. 2001. Biological Diversity and the Urban Environment. Issue
Paper No. 1. Ecosystem Conservation Group. Nairobi: UNEP.
59. Worldwatch Institute. 1991. Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment.
Worldwatch Paper 103. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
60. Pothukuchi, K. and J.L. Kaufman. 1999. Placing the Food System on the Urban
Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning. Dept. of
Urban and Regional Planning. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
61. Malongo R.S. Mlozi. 1997. Urban Agriculture: Ethnicity, Cattle Raising and Some
Environmental Implications in the City of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. African Studies
Review 40(3).
62. Mosha, A.C. [DATE], op. cit.
63. David Midmore. 1995. Social, Economic and Environmental Constraints and
Opportunities in Peri-Urban Vegetable Reproduction Systems and Related
Technological Interventions. In J. Richter, Wilfried H. Schnitzler, and Susanne Gura
(eds.), Vegetable Production in Peri-Urban Areas in the Tropics and Subtropics —
Food, Income and Quality of Life. Proceedings of an International Workshop.
Feldafing, Germany: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung, Zentralstelle
für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.
64. I. Rajeswary. 1991. Malaysia’s Pig Farmers Clean Up Their Act. Source 3:12-15,
Dec.
65. Preliminary results from a survey by the Jordan Department of Statistics, conducted
in 1998-99 under the leadership of Khamis Raddad.

66. Kari Kiepi. 1995. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), reported at a workshop
on urban agriculture co-sponsored by the IDB and the World Bank, Washington,
D.C., 26 June.
67. Slides are available from The Urban Agriculture Network’s extensive collection of
slides from 30 countries showing attractive as well as unsightly examples of urban
agriculture.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 9
Constraints to Urban Agriculture
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
9
Urban agriculture is an economically viable industry that is constrained by a variety of
obstacles and negative attitudes Some of these constraints are identified in this chapter:
Long-standing philosophies are narrowly focused on fighting famine and hunger
rather than building food security.
Benefits are not recognized.
Policies are inappropriate, if not outright hostile.
Agricultural research and development focuses on select commercial products and
large-scale standardized practices.
Potential organic inputs for urban farming are removed by modern sanitation and
garbage disposal systems.
If these constraints can be removed, urban farming will become more competitive and
efficient, and participation by new practitioners in additional locations becomes possible.
The constraints to urban farming can be classified in five broad types:
sociocultural biases and institutional constraints;
constrained access to resources, inputs, and services;
special risks of farming in the city;
post-production constraints, particularly in processing and marketing; and
organizational constraints.
Sociocultural Biases and Institutional Constraints

The sociocultural biases against urban agriculture are often strong. Some arise from
outdated, European views of what a city should be, while others are related to local
cultures. They involve attitudes and misconceptions about aesthetics, efficiency, hygiene,
and modernity in general.
The biases tend to be persistent, particularly when they become institutionalized
through policies, laws, regulations, and their enforcement mechanisms. Negative attitudes
from critical actors are particularly constricting. For example, when planners and
economists regard urban agriculture as a marginal activity of the informal sector, the bias
spreads to market and credit agents, legislators, and the general population. The result is
insufficient official support, public policies and legislation that are inimical to farming in
cities, and consequently restrained private financing.

‘Modern’ View of Cities

In the dominant „modern‟ milieu, rural areas have become inseparably linked to
agriculture and urban areas to commerce and industry. Agriculture is thus perceived in
many cultures as rural and not modern, with low economic returns. When practiced in
urban areas, it is seen as temporary at best, and unproductive. Many leaders consider
urban agriculture a step backward, and policies have emerged that have crippled its
development.
Urban agriculture has an uphill fight to overcome the view of planners and
economists that agriculture is an inappropriate, misplaced use of land in the urban
economy and landscape; the belief of sanitary engineers and doctors that it is „unclean‟
and a health threat to the population; and the attitude of the upper-income elite that it is
unsophisticated and contrary to the „city beautiful, clean, and efficient‟ ideal.
In countries with a colonial history, a major contributor to this bias is the 19th-
century European concept of the city as a planned, „civilized‟ space where the modern
industrial revolution took root. For instance, when Belmopan, the colonial capital of
Belize, was designed and built, the British government included regulations banning
agriculture within the city.1 This concept survives in the minds of many decisionmakers
despite decades of decolonization. This view holds that the city has space only for
recreational gardens, forests, and neat lawn patches — and none for growing food (except
perhaps for „recreational‟ kitchen gardens). The use of urban waste to enrich soil is
regarded as unsanitary, and the sanitation system is intended to remove waste from the
city — and get it out of sight.
When positive attitudes toward urban farming emerge within the economically and
politically influential sections of some cities, the impact can reach well beyond the
narrow confines of such districts, fostering city-wide acceptance. In Dar es Salaam, for
example, attitudes toward livestock changed considerably when the richer residents of
Oyster Bay started to raise cows in their backyards (see Case 5.8).
‘Traditional’ Sociocultural Biases

Social biases further limit the growth prospects of the industry. In many places, urban
farming is treated as an „outcast‟ industry, much as tanning leather is viewed in Hindu
societies and gambling in Muslim ones. This view lowers the social position of urban
farmers and increases the likelihood that they will move to other occupations when
feasible. In these situations, either immigrants or a long-established group tend to
dominate urban agriculture or certain farming systems within it, and the industry remains
marginal to the society and often to the economy as well. Traditional methods persist,
even though they may be inefficient, unresponsive to the changing market, or even
damaging to the environment.
Often, immigrants who arrive with a new agricultural technology and who may face
isolation or even social ostracism as new arrivals, either choose not to share their
methods or do not communicate with other urban farmers. The production of those
products then becomes socially assigned to that group.

Acceptance of urban farming as a legitimate activity is also hampered by a gender

bias that does not recognize household work done by women as an economic activity.
Although a large portion of farming for home and neighborhood consumption is done by
women, this activity is usually not incorporated in official food or economic statistics.
Nor is it always fully recognized by the household, especially the male head, as a
valuable economic activity — even though it feeds the family and frees income for other
expenditures.
The view that urban agriculture is „women‟s agriculture‟ prevents it from receiving
adequate research and extension services. A study in sub-Saharan Africa found that
although women make up 60-80 percent of the agricultural labor force, they receive only
4-6 percent of extension visits.2 This may not be the case in all African countries, but a
significant anti-female bias nonetheless does seem to exist in most.
Women engaged in urban farming also have unequal access to markets, inputs, land,
and credit. In many cultures, women are prohibited from owning land, sometimes even
from leasing it. Or women may be excluded from participation in farming for commercial
purposes.3 For example, in the urban farming activities at Mont Ngafulla, Zaire, primarily
women work in the home gardens for extended family consumption, while men work in
fisheries and orchards whose products are sold in the market.
Dietary restrictions on religious grounds can be found in a number of religions, most
notably the ban on eating pigs among both Muslims and Jews. Pigs have a particularly
important role in urban areas, most markedly for their ability to consume massive
quantities of organic solid waste. In the poorer parts of Middle Eastern and North African
cities, goats sometimes substitute for pigs in the performance of this function. Another
consequence of religion is the avoidance of wastewater reuse by some urban Muslim
residents.
Institutional Constraints
Planning, cultural attitudes, and colonial heritage have conspired to produce policy,
administrative, and legal hurdles for urban agriculture in most low-income countries.
Typically, urban agriculture is not included in the planning process. In a number of
countries, the official attitude toward urban agriculture is even less supportive — policies
deter it, and laws and regulations limit or prohibit it.4 In colonial times, farming and
animal husbandry in urban areas were prohibited in most sub-Saharan countries. These
laws and regulations continue unchanged in most countries even today, with many
farmers facing harassment from government authorities as well as landowners. In Nairobi
following World War II, the government passed a law ordering all crop to be cut down.
Livestock and horticulture remain illegal today, and although crop slashing is less
common, it remains a threat. In Kampala, more than one-fourth of farmers face
harassment and eviction or threat of eviction from the city council or landowners.5
Even where urban farming is allowed, policies to encourage development and greater
extraction of benefits are seldom coherent. Few countries take a planned, promotional
approach to urban agriculture, although Argentina, Peru, Romania, Denmark,
Mozambique, and Indonesia are making efforts to support farming in cities. Government
policy in Lusaka, Zambia has gone through an interesting evolution (Case 9.1).

Case 9.1 Influence of government policies on the development of urban agriculture in

Lusaka
For decades, authorities in Lusaka, Zambia adopted negative attitudes and policies toward urban
farming. Cultivation within the vast open spaces of the ‘garden city’ of Lusaka began with the
influx of migrants after independence in 1963. The city council considered crop production in the
city a health hazard and enforced laws that made farming on vacant land illegal. Legal
proceedings were rarely taken against farmers, but authorities regularly slashed crops on public
land.
With a worsening economy in the late 1970s, the urban poor felt an increased need to
produce their own food. Concerned about the need to improve economic conditions, the president
in a 1977 speech urged urban residents to grow their own food, in part so that rural crops could
be exported to neighboring countries to increase foreign earnings. The president’s endorsement
prompted the Lusaka city council to stop enforcing laws against farming. Subsidized seeds for
fruits and vegetables were made available through government-run stores.
Programs promoting urban farming in low-income communities were started through

cooperation among the city council, the national government, the American Friends Service
Committee, and later UNICEF. The programs provided technical assistance and low-cost inputs
to farmers in low-income townships. The assistance was for home gardens, rainy-season
gardens further from homes, and community gardens. One community planted fruit trees. In three
squatter areas, land tenure and access to water were provided, which both improved farming and
extended the season.
In 1977, 43 percent of Chawama, one of the largest slums in Lusaka, was farming home
gardens, and 53 percent of the families were farming rainy-season gardens. On average,
residents were eliminating 10-15 percent of their food expenditures by growing their own food. A
decade later, a survey of low-income areas found that 40 percent of the families had plot
gardens, 25 percent had rainy-season gardens, and 19 percent had both.
The continuing decline in income over recent years is expanding urban agriculture in Lusaka,
yet the official attitude to urban farming remains mixed in Zambia. At a 1997 UNDP Global
Conference of Mayors, the then mayor of Lusaka stated emphatically that urban agriculture was
more trouble than it was worth. Another government action has led to gardening becoming even
more important — subsidies on food were removed because parastatals were privatized. This
has generated renewed growth in cultivation around residential areas as well as in more remote
rainy-season sites.
Contacts: Axel Drescher, Harrington Jere, and Carole Rakodi (see Appendix F for full
addresses).
Only a handful of cities include urban farming in the land-use planning and design
process. In India, it is not part of the master plan of any city.6 Some countries (China,
Japan, and Indonesia) have historically included agriculture as an urban land use, and
others (Brazil and Mexico) have begun to do so more recently.
The lack of positive government recognition affects urban farming in many ways.
Because no data are collected and the activity has no identity or validation as a
productive sector of the economy, credit agencies, research and development agencies,

and market agents generally view urban agriculture as a high-risk activity. The lack of
government recognition also reduces the availability of land, water, and waste.
Because the agriculture, food, health, nutrition, and environmental policies of most
countries do not include urban agriculture, the sector‟s full benefits are not available to
urban populations seeking either income or food security. The lack of official recognition
also leads to economic insecurity among farmers and consequently limits their
commitment to and investment in farming.
Urban farmers would like government to take an active, positive role in promoting
their industry. They believe that government can help them expand and modernize their
farming activities by facilitating credit, easing access to tools and seeds, paying
agricultural extension agents, and improving access to land for agricultural use.7
Constrained Access to Resources, Inputs, and Services

Most cities have sufficient usable land and water (surface water and wastewater) to allow
farming, although both are scarce urban resources. Yet in most cities, farming is not
recognized as a legitimate use of land or as a legal consumer of water, creating an
administrative hurdle.
The main land and water issues affecting urban agriculture are the use of waste and
drainage water for fertilizer and irrigation and competition with other urban land uses.
Public authorities have crucial roles in both issues. They organize and control access to
appropriately sanitized wastewater and influence the allocation and use of the most
appropriate land for food and fuel production.
Irrigation
Although the water supply system in most cities does not recognize farming as a
customer, this in itself is not necessarily a serious issue because irrigating with potable
city water is a wasteful use of such a resource. Farming need not compete with household
usage or with drinking water. The irrigation water that urban farming needs can usually
be supplied from wastewater, groundwater, and surface water. Where these are available
for farming, urban agriculture flourishes.
The constraint that urban farming faces is access to groundwater, sewage water, and
surface water. Using wastewater to irrigate has the added advantage of providing
nutrients to crops (although its disadvantage is the greater threat to human health and the
environment when mishandled). However, wastewater is usually not readily available to
urban farmers because sewage systems are designed to remove sewage from the city, not
to reuse it locally. Nor do cities typically make provisions for reuse of surface water in
farming. The lack of access to alternative irrigation water compels urban farmers in many
countries to use a piped water supply, often illegally.
In Havana at the time of the food crisis in the early 1990s, urban farmers tapped the
city‟s potable water supply without objection. A few years later, partly due to the great
expansion in urban farming, water shortages became acute for both drinking and
irrigating, so negotiating a solution to the conflict has become necessary.8

Globally, urban agriculture tends to be more demanding of irrigation than rural

agriculture, much of which may employ a rain-fed regime. Urban farmers produce more
intensively and for more weeks during the year, so they cannot rely as much as their rural
counterparts on rainfall. In most countries, agricultural irrigation policy is conceived with
rural farming in mind.
Throughout the 20th century (and especially since the middle of the century),
irrigation investment was often targeted to global markets rather than local economies.
Development planners on both sides of the Cold War designed and funded large rural
irrigation projects. Many of these projects are reaching obsolescence well ahead of the
useful life for which they were designed. At the same time, many smaller and cheaper
„traditional‟ irrigation projects and management systems, including ancient networks
found in peri-urban zones that have long helped feed cities, were allowed to deteriorate. It
can be said, with hindsight, that the technology that is suitable for (and sustainable in)
urban farming was starved.
Irrigation in urban areas is thus constrained today by a lack of effort devoted to
appropriate technology by government policy, the agriculture industry, universities, and
funding organizations. This is true for fresh water irrigation (usually flowing from rural
areas), saltwater irrigation (in coastal regions), and wastewater irrigation. One reason
investment for urban farming has generally been hindered, particularly for its irrigation
systems, is because a great concern has long existed about the health effects of irrigation
for urban agriculture — the fear of contamination and creation of habitats for disease
vectors. Another significant constraint to the spread of appropriate urban irrigation has
been the pervading public opinion that urban agriculture is a temporary phenomenon.
The presence of arid and semi-arid conditions in disparate locations such as the West
African hinterland, northwest India, coastal Chile, the Middle East, and North Africa
endows urban agriculture in such regions with certain shared characteristics that make
water supply a more crucial issue than in most other regions. Consequently, water
availability, access, usage restrictions, and cost all tend to play a greater role in the
decisions of property owners and farmers — what should they grow or raise, if at all,
using what techniques.
Moreover, while water availability is a general characteristic of cities located in some
zones that suffer water shortages, a particular seasonality that is associated with cities
located in Mediterranean climates (the Mediterranean basin, as well as Southern
California and South Africa) further distinguishes the irrigation behavior of urban
farmers. The near-complete lack of rain in such zones for several summer months (the
primary growing season) contrasted with the presence of rain in the winter months means
that all urban farmers in Mediterranean climates must adapt to particular precipitation
patterns.
The presence of water distribution and wastewater collection systems in urban areas
can be an advantage that urban farmers have over rural farmers. Just as dams and
impoundments prolong the availability of water in rural areas, the urban water systems
and infrastructure can mitigate the seasonality of the Mediterranean climate for the urban
farmer.

Urban water availability is a consideration beyond arid and semi-arid regions. Recent
evaluation of long-term climate trends has observed that stable, well-fed populations are
living where the climate is getting wetter, whereas rapidly growing and urbanizing
populations are living with food scarcity in tropical and subtropical regions where rainfall
is decreasing by the decade.9 This will bear heavily on the rural and urban farmer alike in
the coming years.
Given its special significance for urban farming, wastewater reuse bears more
detailed attention. The presence of chemicals and pathogens in wastewater presents
serious problems for urban farmers (see Chapter 8). There are often no local treatment
facilities, standards, and monitoring systems to ensure the purity of wastewater before it
is applied to land crops or used as a growth medium for water crops and fish. A concern
for health is not, however, the only factor that determines whether wastewater can be
reused successfully. Other factors include:
cultural acceptability;
relative scarcity, reliability, and cost of water;
wastewater system in use;
environmental conditions; and
population health.
The scale of wastewater management systems is thus one technically and politically
significant factor. Economies of scale have formed the guiding principle of wastewater
systems since Roman times, and especially since the middle of the 19th century. Yet
smaller systems — such as biological treatment using duckweed (see Case 5.4) — may
be better suited to modern biological technology.
The most subtle and challenging hurdle in the use of urban wastewater for human
food consumption may be cultural. In a number of cultures, irrigation with „soiled water‟
is either taboo, faces religious opposition, or is considered unsafe. In Muslim countries,
for example, there is particular reticence to use wastewater for aquaculture or irrigating
crops. Given the severe water shortages in the Middle East, wastewater-based agriculture
is a particularly relevant area of agricultural research and consideration, already explored
and applied in countries as diverse as Kuwait, Uzbekistan, and Tunisia (Case 9.2).
Moreover, certain applications, such as irrigating agroforestry, are acceptable from a
religious standpoint.
Case 9.2 Using treated wastewater for irrigation in Tunisia
Using wastewater for irrigation has long been a traditional practice in Tunisia and is now an
official practice. In 1988, 26 treatment plants (activated sludge, trickling filters, stabilization ponds,
and oxidation ditches) were in operation. Today, irrigation with wastewater serves 1,750 hectares,
and future projects will extend this to 6,700 hectares using 95 percent of treated wastewater,
most of it in the Tunis region.
Treated wastewater is used for irrigation in the dry seasons, sometimes after mixing with
groundwater. Irrigated crops include fruit trees, forage, and cotton. The National Water Law
makes it illegal to irrigate vegetables (which are often eaten uncooked) with wastewater.

The government undertook experiments to study the short- and long-term safety of using
wastewater for irrigation. Overall, use of properly treated wastewater was found to be safe.
Wastewater-irrigated crops also produced higher yields than those irrigated with groundwater.
The government has created a strict and integrated system to monitor the use of wastewater
for irrigation. Distribution of irrigation water is supervised by a regional Department for Agriculture
Development. Use of treated wastewater requires separate clearances from the ministries dealing
with agriculture, public health, and the environment, and the frequency of biological analysis is
defined. Guidelines include quality standards, crops that may be irrigated, and health and safety
practices for workers and consumers. Crops irrigated with wastewater are tested by the Ministry
of Public Health.
Concern about the proper disposal (rather than reuse) of wastewater dates to the
„microbe hunters‟ of the past century. Over time, fear of contamination by unclean water
became institutionalized in law, and many governments and bureaucracies are still
reluctant to consider reusing wastewater to irrigate animal fodder and certain crops for
human consumption. Professional city managers and planners, concerned about public
health and the efficiency of their infrastructure, have until recently been little concerned
about the efficient reuse of waste to achieve ecologically sustainable towns and cities.
They have tended to act as enforcers of cultural values rather than as creative problem
solvers.
Sometimes real problems combine with perceived ones to halt practices that have
been successful for a long time. This was highlighted recently west of Paris, at the
massive fields used to absorb the treated wastewater of the capital and its suburbs before
it flows to the Seine River, a practice with roots in the 19th century (see Case 2.2).
Heavy-metal contamination of thyme grown there in 1998 stopped not just that
cultivation, but by the following year, all agricultural production aimed at human
consumption. While a decade earlier farmers still paid to obtain the sludge from the waste
treatment site, and the heavy-metal content of this sludge had been cut by 95 percent in
20 years due to increasing controls at industrial outflows, a ban was still imposed in
1999. Consumer groups raised fears to the extent that even large-scale cereal growers
would no longer use sludge.10 This example illustrates the challenges that wastewater
reuse for irrigation and soil improvement often faces.
Land and Water Surfaces

For land and water surfaces, just like irrigation water, the problem is not one of
availability but of adequate access. Both Kampala and Nairobi still have large expanses
of open land that colonial planners reserved a century ago, but are still not in productive
use today. Similarly, in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, a significant amount of
farmable land is not farmed, primarily because of existing land tenure patterns.11 And the
successful farming program in Barrio Matalahib in Manila ended because land tenure was
not secure (Case 4.11).

Today, in cities around the world, a vast amount of land is farmed that is neither
officially allocated for that purpose nor reported. Informal or illegal land transactions
include usufruct agreements between landowners and farmers. However, private
landowners often will not lease their land for farming because of the lack of adequate
laws governing tenancy and lease arrangements.12 Public landowners may also hesitate to
make land available for farming, even in USA „Rust Belt‟ cities where tens of thousands
of vacant lots may be idle.
Both landholders and farmers need secure access to and exploitation of a property.
Since agricultural use does not have to be permanent, landowners‟ fears can be assuaged
with the right contractual arrangements. The validity and enforceability of permits,
leases, and contracts determines whether such arrangements will be practicable.
Where no arrangements exist, the informality, illegality, and thus the precariousness
of the activity (eviction is always a possibility) are not conducive to efficient farming.
With low tenure security and questionable legality, the farmer is not motivated either to
follow efficient farming practices or to be concerned about the long-term condition of the
land, the need to regenerate the soil, or the impact of the farming activity on the
environment. Such farmers are also considered high-risk borrowers by credit agencies.
Even farmers who own their land may face problems from zoning laws that prevent
them from farming. In Kampala, middle- and low-income urban farmers identify access
to land, harassment, and eviction as important problems. Richer farmers do not (Case
9.3).
Case 9.3 Land access and land tenure in Kampala, Uganda
Agriculture has long been a major use of urban land in all parts of Kampala. Lack of access to
land appears to be one of the biggest obstacles to farming in the city. Despite this obstacle, much
of the urban land does get farmed, whether legally or not. One recent estimate puts agricultural
land use at close to 12,000 hectares, representing well over one-half the total land area of the city
(more than double the next largest category — residential land use). A full one-third of the
population was estimated to be engaged in some form of agriculture.
Kampala is a combination of two cities: Kampala proper, the colonial capital of Uganda, and
Mmengo, the capital of the ruler of Buganda. Land tenure practices in the latter prevailed under
the Mailo system, which allowed private ownership of land, and in which public land was held in
trust by the ruler or notables. In the former, land was held under other freehold forms or by the
state.
In an effort ostensibly to promote agricultural development, the Amin regime abolished (at
least on paper) the Mailo system in 1975 through the Land Reform Decree, making owners into
holders of long-term leases and other lease forms. A range of legal and illegal practices emerged
in reaction to this change, which only added to the chaotic land-holding situation. This includes
overlapping rights to many lands, particularly in the Mailo areas.
Given the confusing array of land tenure arrangements within the city, and in particular the
overlapping rights of various parties, urban planners have long been concerned about unplanned
subdivision and fragmentation of land holdings. Kampala’s planners, as well as urban managers,
have so far viewed urban agriculture as a problem. They are also challenged with how to make

sufficient land available for urban development purposes to cover commercial, industrial, and
housing requirements, while at the same time, protecting access of the urban poor to land for
food production.
The presumption underlying all tenure reform proposals since 1990 is that the ambiguity over
property rights in Uganda is a fetter on both urban development and agricultural productivity. The
issue for urban agriculture is whether increased formalization of tenure would enhance or hinder
access to land for agricultural purposes in the city. The case of Kampala has shown that a system
that permits some informal access to land has within it some protection for the urban underclass
to provide basic needs such as food. With land prices rising rapidly, the need for poor and
working people to rely on informal mechanisms may be increased.
The consequences for urban agriculture of any tenure formalization in Kampala will
undoubtedly entail a loss of land for cultivation. Urban cultivators have clearly taken advantage of
the complexities of multiple tenure systems, tax laws, and tenancy arrangements prevailing in the
city, and by the administrative turmoil both during and since the Amin era. Still, advocates of
urban agriculture considered it a victory that plot sizes in some newly planned areas will be
increased in order to permit cultivation by the owner on his/her own land. Ironically, low-income
customary tenant cultivators were evicted from the land in order to make room for the middle-
class occupants who would have non-farming income sources.
For individuals and households that have lost a paying job in the current retrenchment of
government employees, urban agriculture is one of the few options available in the short term.
Urban farming could be granted short-term legitimacy in its current form, while issues of land-use
planning, rezoning, compensation, and review of municipal bylaws could be undertaken some
time in the future.
Contact: Daniel Maxwell Kenya (see Appendix F for full address).
Larger private corporations and public authorities with excess space (for example, the
Port Trust in Bombay, the U.S. Navy in Los Angeles, and the Singapore Airport) may be
more likely to lease land to farmers to make a profit because they have greater tenure
security and resources than private landowners. However, government agencies that do
not pay rent are less motivated to seek a return on their excess space.
Problems of access to land and water surfaces for farming tend to be more acute for
lower income groups. Some farming systems have particular accessibility problems for
such poorer groups. Aquaculture, for instance, has in the majority of applications a high
cost per unit of area. Thus it is less accessible to low-income communities and low-
income countries where it is most needed. Adding to the challenge is that in many
contexts, surface water in and near cities has been assigned to recreational and aesthetic
purposes, making it difficult to introduce aquaculture, regardless of the multiple benefits.
Very careful design and an extensive public outreach campaign would be required —
neither of which may always be feasible.
Sometimes, a crisis acts as a catalyst to overcome constraints to land access. For
instance, in Jakarta in 1998, the economic crisis led to scattered invasions of unused lands
(particularly government properties) by urban residents, for both self-consumption and
market gardening. The lands included the city‟s race course and a cattle ranch owned by
ex-president Suharto. After initial resistance using security forces and police patrols, the
capital‟s governor relented and gave an official go-ahead to use idle government land for

farming — as a temporary measure. Thousands of hectares thus became available. These

are now planted with vegetables, banana trees, and fast-growing tubers.13
Accessing Inputs
Lack of access to farming inputs — such as seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, equipment,
chicks and heifers, feed, and medicine — is another major constraint facing urban
farmers. These inputs are not readily available in cities because the markets and sales
channels are either not developed and organized or are oriented toward rural farmers.
Moreover, the limited supplies are of uncertain quality. For example, the available seeds
may not produce high yields. For many poor farmers, the only source of seeds is spoiled
produce in the marketplace. In Kenya, some farmers receiving help from the Undugu
Society are trying to produce onion crops from bulbs discarded in the market.
Equipment and tools are usually designed for rural agriculture and are seldom well
suited to urban needs, smaller fields, and more intensive production. There is a vast
untapped global market for agricultural supplies and equipment appropriate to urban
farming. Italy and Japan produce special equipment for small-scale and urban farmers,
but they are the exception rather than the rule. Recognizing the need to serve urban
farming clients, a national cooperative that sells inputs in rural areas of Tanzania is
opening outlets in Dar es Salaam.14
Hydroponics, a farming technique that is particularly suited to urban areas, provides
an excellent example of the special inputs that are needed, ranging from sophisticated
supplies for large-scale industrial operations (see Case 4.4), to basic supplies used in the
„popular‟ version being promoted by UNDP in a number of Latin American countries. 15
Hydroponics requires containers, water supply mechanisms, nutrient solutions, seeds,
and extension support specific to the technique. Therefore, the businesses and distribution
channels that serve farmers practicing hydroponics must be adapted to specific needs.
Fertilizer also may not be readily available to urban farmers. However, because
chemical fertilizers pollute the water table and can easily affect the surrounding
population, it is vital that their application be both limited and properly practiced. The
best choice for urban farmers is composted organic solid waste, which may be more
readily available.
Unlike the case of wastewater, the foremost hurdles to wider use of solid waste in
urban agriculture are organizational rather than technical, sanitary, or cultural (Case 9.4).
First, the solid waste that originates in households and businesses is most often collected
as a large system and transported to major dumping locations within or outside the city.
This city-wide process is not conducive to maximizing the use of solid waste in diverse,
small-scale agricultural activities or to regenerating the natural resources of the city.
Second, most solid waste management systems do not separate organic and inorganic
wastes or toxic and non-toxic wastes. Solid wastes disposed of through wastewater
systems are usable for farming if the sewage is biologically treated and the sludge is
composted before being used to irrigate and fertilize crops.

Case 9.4 Challenges to suburban farmers who want to acquire solid waste as an
agricultural input in the Hubli-Dharwad urban area of Karnataka, India
A research project begun in 1998 and funded by the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) aims to improve the use of urban waste in the Hubli-Dharwad area. The
research project examines problems experienced by small-scale urban farmers who want access
to waste (including transport difficulties), and the poor quality of the mixed municipal waste from
dumpsites.
Urban waste has been used by farmers in Hubli-Dharwad for many years. The waste is
purchased from the Hubli dumpsite by tractor loads and from the Dharwad dumpsite via an
annual auction system managed by the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC), selling
waste by the pit load.
The sale and use of urban waste is declining. Non-compostable materials, particularly
plastics, are increasingly contaminating the waste. Several other factors have affected the ability
of the HDMC to sell the waste and farmers' willingness to buy it. These include:
labor shortages at the dumpsites make pit preparation difficult;
labor shortages make it difficult for farmers to employ laborers to dig up the waste pits, sort
the waste, and spread it on fields, primarily due to competing employment opportunities; and
farmers who do not own tractors are less willing to hire vehicles to purchase urban waste
when the quality is so low.
Still, there are many farmers who continue to purchase urban waste. These farmers are
relatively wealthy, have their own tractors, and are able to hire labor to transport and sometimes
sort the waste. Small-scale farmers do not presently have access to this potentially useful
resource that can be used to improve their soil.
In December 1997, the HDMC advertised for private-sector companies to tender for waste
disposal and treatment services. The preferred response intends to develop vermi-composting on
a commercial basis. This will potentially continue to limit access to urban waste by small-scale
farmers. HDMC, together with local NGOs, has also initiated trials of source separation and
composting within a number of suburban localities. DFID’s research project will seek to
complement and build on the experience of these trials.
Contact: Fiona Nunan (see Appendix F for full address).
In most urban situations, farmers collaborate with their neighbors to retain and reuse
solid waste. Support from the municipality and major institutions is less common because
of obsolete legal obstacles, especially in more developed countries. However, some
universities and botanical gardens have good support programs, particularly in India, the
Philippines, and the United States.
Accessing Services
Urban farmers may need more support services than rural farmers because urban
production has more precise requirements, such as getting products to market on time,
managing intensive production, coping with poor water and air quality, and producing

during the off-season. They also need different technologies, and not all rural farming
techniques can be easily transferred to the city. Yet the agricultural credit, research,
training, extension, and education agencies that serve rural farmers usually do not include
their urban counterparts. In the mid-1990s, Dar es Salaam and Baltimore presented a
somewhat surprising contrast in commitment to extension services. Dar es Salaam had 80
agriculture extension workers, but Baltimore had only one, despite having among the
highest poverty and childhood malnutrition rates in the USA at the time.
Moreover, relatively little investment is made in developing or promoting farming
techniques that work in urban areas or in adapting rural techniques to urban areas.
Singapore represents one of the outstanding exceptions (Case 9.5).
Case 9.5 Services offered by Singapore’s Primary Production Department
The land-use management practices of Singapore, known as among the most effective
anywhere, are reflected in the successful urban agriculture system that uses both ancient
technology and advanced modern techniques adapted to its multi-racial society. Singapore farms
between high-rise buildings in its suburbs, and farms the surrounding seas. The loss of
thousands of hectares of farmland to urbanization has been partly compensated by significantly
intensified production on the remaining land.
The Primary Production Department of the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for applied
research, extension, training, and supplies for nutritional self-reliance. Most of the farmers it
caters to run small operations and have been in business, on average, more than 10 years.
Singapore has both 3- and 10-year lease agreements with farmers, depending on the type of crop
and the abutting land uses. Rents are related to production, not land value. Among the other
innovations are fish-horticulture mixed farming, and even a crocodile farm.
Singapore’s citizens consume much meat (70 kilograms per capita per year), yet Singapore
is fully self-reliant in some meats. Singapore also produces 25 percent of the vegetables its
people consume. On about 7,000 hectares, Singapore licenses just under 10,000 farmers in fish,
livestock, and horticulture. Many householders are unlicensed small-scale producers as well.
The Primary Production Department has planned to recycle wastes into green areas to an
exceptional degree, concentrating on livestock and vegetable production and fish farming.
Organic wastes feed both land and sea crops, including seaweed and shrimp. Since 1974,
mushrooms have been grown on multi-story stacking shelves using compost from agricultural
wastes such as banana leaves and straw.
The Department is also enabling the expansion and development of intensive and innovative
agricultural activity by setting up six ‘Agrotechnology Parks’ in Singapore. Occupying a total of
1,500 hectares, these are divided into parcels of land ranging from 2-30 hectares, allocated on
20-year leases to farming companies. Products include everything from common vegetables,
eggs, milk, and fish to ornamental plants, freshwater ornamentals, and exotic animals and birds.
International agencies should consider increasing their support for urban agriculture
programs. Most international assistance to urban farming has focused on enhancing

family nutrition and introducing certain exotic crops and farming systems, many of which
are unsuited to low-income urban families. Some of the more successful urban
agriculture assistance programs have actually been funded as rural programs. Examples
include peri-urban market gardens (such as gardens for women in Senegal funded by the
International Fund for Agricultural Development and those of FAO in Côte d‟Ivoire) and
various forms of aquaculture (such as in Panama). Interviews and correspondence by the
authors in the late 1990s found that the African Development Bank was the global or
regional development bank that supported urban agriculture.
Too often, international assistance programs for urban agriculture are small-scale and
short-lived, lasting only a year or two. It may take considerably longer (perhaps 5-8
years) to introduce a new farming system, since fine-tuning and a prolonged diffusion
process may be required. A study of home and community gardens in the slums of Lima
found that projects promoted by local and international agencies fail for several reasons
— they are poorly implemented, use inappropriate technologies and crops, or stop too
soon.16
Credit
Credit requirements are similar for rural and urban farmers, and it is difficult for both to
obtain. Urban farmers, however, often have the added difficulty that potential creditors
do not recognize urban agriculture as a significant industry.
As mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, the lack of recognition, tenure insecurity,
dearth of data, and lack of organized markets make urban farming an uncertain activity
for both private and government lending agencies. Many countries that have special
(subsidized) credit facilities for rural farmers have no government programs to provide
credit for urban farmers. In Dar es Salaam, for example, bankers consider urban farming
a higher-risk investment than other urban activities, and therefore encourage farmers to
diversify their agricultural products.17
Further research is needed to determine the actual level of risk in lending to urban
farmers. Such lending may, in fact, have lower risk than lending to rural farming since it
takes place closer to markets and the technologies used may be less dependent on
climate. Moreover, farming may be less risky than other urban activities because the
products it produces — food and wood — have a stable and substantial demand.
Urban farmers producing in response to market demand cycles need working capital
to manage the production cycle. The absence of credit reduces farmer capacity to absorb
business shocks and survive bad times, resulting in high failure rates. The lack of credit
can also contribute to low crop yields because farmers do not have the working capital to
plan and purchase inputs. Without capital, poorer farmers cannot upgrade farming
technology or invest in higher-yield ventures such as poultry, fisheries, livestock, and
ornamental horticulture.
Credit can help farmers improve agricultural practices by financing tools and
equipment to stretch the season, as well as processing to prepare wastewater and solid
waste as inputs to enrich soil and water. Access to credit can also enable farmers to
acquire season-stretching plastic domes and tunnels.

In many cities, NGOs help increase access to credit for entrepreneurs in the informal
sector. For example, they may act as intermediaries between entrepreneurs and the
banking system and organize entrepreneurs to spread the risk and ensure collective
management and responsibility. However, even these credit supply systems often fail to
include low-income urban farmers, as was seen in Bangladesh (Case 9.6).
Case 9.6 Microfinance for urban nurseries in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Urban agriculture in Dhaka has been largely invisible, yet recent evidence is showing its
significance. In the peri-urban lower-income zones, cropping on larger parcels is common. In the
inner city, farming favors production activities that use little or no land, including: vines and
hanging cucurbits grown from roof gardens or hanging pots; various high-value horticultural
products (vegetables, flowers, herbs, and potted shrubs); economically useful tree varieties; and
small-scale livestock based on organic waste and/or forage.
Twenty years ago, there was virtually no commercial nursery industry in Dhaka. Today, that
industry is booming and evident on many street corners, banks of waterways, or what were once
broad footpaths. Nurseries are an important new industry in Dhaka, providing employment to a
growing army of poor people who manage to find their way into the nursery workforce, both
through self-employment and regular wage employment.
In 2000, 168 nurseries were surveyed in Dhaka. Most operate on areas of less than 100
square meters. While nearly half are occupied on a squatting basis, many are sited on low-lying
vacant land that is subject to flooding or land for which an informal agreement with the owner has
been made, often including crop sharing. Almost all the nurseries are less than 20-years old, with
half dating from the past six years.
Nursery owners overwhelmingly fund the establishment of their nurseries from personal
savings, including contributions from extended family. The two most significant constraints
mentioned in the survey were access to land and water. Still, while the nursery business is
lucrative, business expansion was generally limited because credit was limited. In particular,
funds are crucial to gain access to land and water.
While Bangladesh has earned a worldwide reputation for its micro-credit programs, these
have largely focused on rural areas. Where urban credit programs have been introduced, they
have not targeted groups that traditionally spawn entrepreneurial farmers. BRAC, for instance,
targets women slum dwellers who recently migrated from rural areas. These recent arrivals have
the least knowledge of where land might be available for planting or animal production, and
whose farming skills are not well-suited to commercial urban crops.
The funds of some micro-credit providers are in fact used for agricultural production. In the
case of ASA, several group members indicated that they had used their first loans to buy a cow or
some chickens. Others used the loans to buy small areas for vegetable production. One member
indicated she is able to feed her family well and easily repay her ‘working capital’ loan.
Despite these positive examples, given the invisibility of urban agriculture, little of the
available micro-credit makes its way to urban farming. Indeed, all the micro-finance providers
surveyed reported that fewer than 2 percent of their loans were used to support urban agriculture.

Urban farming is likely to remain underutilized so long as micro-finance institutions — as well as

agricultural research bodies and extension services — eschew proactive involvement.
Contact: Joe Remenyi (see Appendix F for full address).
In Kampala, access to capital was reported as a major problem by farmers in all

income groups.18 In India, urban farmers receive credit from the agricultural lending
quota of state-owned banks — usually the part of the quota not used by rural farmers.
However, this credit is not likely to reach low-income urban farmers.19 Urban banks in
the USA are reported to be biased in favor or ornamental horticulture over food
production in metropolitan areas.
Research
Research into techniques of particular relevance to urban farmers, as well as
dissemination of that research, could come from research, government, and international
agencies. Yet in most cities none of these groups is working explicitly to further urban
agriculture. The Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) and the
International Potato Center (CIP), the world‟s leading research facilities in their
respective fields, are now actively conducting research that focuses explicitly on urban
production. This was not the case only a few years ago. However, many of the other
centers within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
still have not explicitly recognized urban activities within their research agendas.
Although a few urban specialists can be found in the agricultural research institutions
in countries such as Cuba, Japan, China, the Netherlands, Tanzania, the Philippines, and
Canada, they are relatively scarce, especially in rapidly urbanizing developing countries
with decaying urban cores where they are needed most. When research that is relevant to
urban agriculture is undertaken, there may be inadequate information exchange and
communication among researchers or with technology transfer and extension agencies
(primarily non-governmental and development agencies).
Extension and Training

Few extension services address the problems of urban farmers, and even less training is
designed specifically for them. Drescher‟s statement concerning Zambia applies in most
other contexts: “Concepts for agricultural extension in the urban environment are missing
due to the fact that „real agriculture‟ was thought to take place in the rural sector only.”
He emphasized the need for different extension services to be offered and adapted to
intra-urban, peri-urban, and rural areas.20
The few training programs that do exist tend to be in specific, mostly upper-income
farming systems such as poultry and market gardening. They also tend to be technical
rather than comprehensive, not covering aspects important to the overall success of urban
farming enterprises such as marketing, investment management, or processing. Extension
services in Kampala, for example, are more available to richer farmers than to poorer
ones. Forty percent of high-income farmers received visits from government extension

workers in the early 1990s, compared with 5 percent of low-income farmers.21 In Kenya,
where low-income urban livestock farmers lose more cattle than they sell on the market,
veterinary services go to higher-income farmers for two reasons — they pay extension
agents a bonus, and their farms are more accessible than those of low-income urban
farmers.22
An outstanding case of an effort to decentralize extension can be found in Dar es
Salaam, where each of the city‟s 45 intra-urban and peri-urban wards has at least one
extension worker. Each one receives special year-long training through the Urban
Vegetable Promotion Project.23
Technology transfer and information dissemination in urban farming often occur
through non-governmental organizations and minority and immigrant farmers. Grassroots
NGOs are often in better touch with low-income urban residents than are government and
international agencies and private firms. However, only a few NGOs promote urban
farming. Successful examples include the Center for Education and Technology in Chile,
Undugu Society in Kenya, Commercial Farmers Bureau in Lusaka, Urban Food
Foundation in Manila, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG), and Peru
Mujer in Lima. Argentina is one of the few countries with an integrated national-level
agency that promotes urban agriculture (see Case 6.5).
Education
The lack of good education in urban agriculture is quite possibly a major constraint to
urban agriculture fulfilling its natural role in urban food systems, economics, and the
living environment.
Primary, secondary, and college agricultural education stresses rural production
methods. There are very few facilities that include the basic structures of an urban farm
— pond, greenhouse, raised bed, compost bin, etc. Teachers are generally not well
qualified in the advantages and problems of urban food and ornamental production.
Agricultural education at the higher levels tends to focus largely on the needs of
agribusiness and not the smaller urban/suburban producer. Food production in the city,
considering both intensive production and intensive human settlement, requires a
different emphasis than rural agriculture.
One positive trend is that agricultural education is returning to city schools. During
the past century there have been waves of renewed interest in having urban children learn
agriculture. In the more distant past these have been short lived and related to economic
crises/depressions or periods of civil unrest/war. Today it seems to be more related to
connecting the next generation back to nature. Europe‟s City Farms program mentioned
in Chapter 3 is but one example of this growing interest.
The allotment and leisure gardens of Europe have been the point of origin to educate
children in the urban agriculture family for over a century. The later community garden
in its post-1960s incarnation has included an educational element as one of its
cornerstones. The Community Food Security Coalition has been promoting farm to
school activities in North America, including the production of an excellent book.24

FAO and other international organizations have since the 1950s supported school
gardens in 100 countries. One of the best studies of their value was carried out by
AVRDC during the 1980s in six countries. Canada has a policy to develop school garden
nationwide, and does California in the USA. In Cuba each pre-school includes a
medicinal garden so that the kindergartner learns that healing comes from nature, not just
the pharmaceutical factory.
Dar es Salaam offers one possible solution to the integration of agricultural education
into schools. The goal is to place an agricultural teacher in each school, which is
promoted under the guidance of the Urban Vegetable Promotion Project along with
cooperation between local extension workers and the headmasters. The headmaster
decides whether to maintain the program after an initial trial round.25
Special Risks of Urban Farming

Unlike most other industries, urban agriculture occurs mostly in unguarded areas, a
circumstance that can pose security risks for the farmer. Urban farming is particularly
subject to theft because most people passing by can make use of the product, whether
food or fuel. Several surveys have reported that theft and lack of police protection are
among the most common problems of urban farmers. In the extreme, farmers are
sometimes attacked in isolated gardens.26
The problem of theft is most serious where farmers cultivate open land far from their
homes. Upper-income and corporate farmers are more likely to farm inside closed yards
and at secure sites on the fringes of the city. Poorer farmers, by contrast, generally plant
on unguarded public land or on private land to which access has been acquired illegally
or informally. Their theft risk is therefore particularly high, but they have little or no
recourse to police assistance.
Urban farmers address this problem in several ways, all of which have drawbacks.
Some grow low-value crops, particularly if they are farming along unguarded and highly
accessible roadsides, which reduces returns to labor. Others, particularly in larger peri-
urban sites, pool resources to hire guards, a costly measure. Still others harvest before the
crop reaches its peak, which reduces market value.
Lack of insurance makes farming ventures all the more risky in the face of disasters,
whether natural or manmade. Rural farmers suffering a widespread catastrophe may
receive compensation or assistance from the government, but not unrecognized urban
agriculturists. Farmers‟ organizations that provide shared risks and responsibilities may
be one solution to lack of insurance.
Post-Production Constraints
Urban farmers are also handicapped during the post-production phase by inadequate
processing, storage, packaging, distribution, and marketing facilities. This lack of
processing capacity stymies growth of the industry. Many products benefit from quick or
early processing and packaging, such as fish and easily damaged fruit. The need for
freezing plants, cold storage facilities, appropriate packaging, canneries, etc., is great
(Case 9.7).

Case 9.7 Cooperatives for livestock production, processing, and packaging — Urban
Food Foundation, Manila
The Urban Food Foundation, an NGO based in Manila with the objective of promoting food
security and reducing poverty, facilitates the formation of diverse farmer cooperatives in Metro-
Manila (see also Case 3.4). These include cooperatives that serve farmers growing small
livestock, either on small farms or by grazing on public land in the city.
The cooperatives help farmers increase their profits and management through forward
integration. They arrange direct marketing of livestock products, including contracts with
supermarkets, thus eliminating middlemen. To do this, one cooperative has established a
slaughterhouse and packaging plant with help from the foundation. Whereas producers
previously sold at a buyer’s price on the hoof, they now sell wrapped finished products to retailers
at a negotiated price. To accomplish this, the farmers pay for a full-time professional manager
and an assistant.
The project received support from various international agencies for start up in the mid-
1980s, and is now financially secure.
Contact: Roberto S. Guevara (see Appendix F for full address).
In most countries, processing, storage, and packaging capacities are oriented to rural
agriculture. Although these facilities may be located in towns and cities, they may not be
able to cater to smaller-scale urban farmers. They deal in big quantities and are controlled
by large-scale operators who transport from rural areas to wholesale markets that
distribute to retailers or supermarkets.
Similarly, many urban food markets were designed, often since colonial times, to
import food from rural areas. Input-producing agribusinesses are also geared to serving
rural agriculture. The market structure may be composed of wholesalers who purchase
directly from rural areas or from intermediate wholesale markets at the edge of the city,
and then supply retail outlets throughout the city. Smaller-scale urban farmers generally
do not fit well into this structure.
Some wholesale merchants may not be willing to do business with small-scale
producers. Larger-scale urban farmers, by contrast, usually have the resources to market
through such a market structure. They may also be large enough to be able to sell to
wholesalers. Small- and medium-scale farmers need either a community-based market
where they can sell produce directly or a middleman or agency to sell to retail outlets for
them.
In response to all these obstacles, some NGOs have specifically targeted post-
production constraints faced by urban growers. Human Settlements of Zambia, for
instance, promotes solar drying of vegetables, fruit preservation, soy processing, tomato
jams, and other post-production options among farmers in Lusaka and elsewhere.27
Ibadan‟s Food Basket Foundation offers another example (Case 9.8).

Case 9.8 Overcoming marketing challenges in Ibadan, Nigeria
Farmers in and around Ibadan, Nigeria are handicapped by lack of access to micro-credit. They
also lack the processing capacity for their agricultural products. Furthermore, their profit margins
tend to be low because they compete with products from other sources, particularly those offered
by rural farmers who also bring their produce to the same market.
The Food Basket Foundation International is an NGO based in Ibadan with the objective of
helping low-income families achieve food and nutrition security and poverty reduction on a
sustainable basis. It facilitates networking among various stakeholders involved in urban
agriculture in the Ibadan metropolis, and emphasizes marketing.
As a way of supporting small-scale urban farmers, links with street food vendors were
created to facilitate direct marketing of vegetables, fruits, and other products. Neighborhood
markets were also aided so that consumers could purchase these products at such stalls without
going to the formal markets.
Urban agriculture farmers found it difficult to offer their products for sale without disturbance
from members of the organized markets union. Even when the local government authorities
intervened, the farmers were required to pay fees to government coffers. The authorities
encouraged development of new markets under their control because they saw these as a means
to generate income for the state.
The market fees initially discouraged farmers until they were able to come up with an
innovation — a section of markets should be set aside by local governments for use by farmers.
Farmers are responsible for maintenance of their sections of the markets. Here, farm products,
especially vegetables, fruits (particularly citrus), plantains, bananas, and staples such as maize
are offered for sale. Prices tend to be lower than in other sections of the same market.
Moreover, other designated points around each of these markets are being used for bulk
sales. The expansion of these sites is usually hindered by landowners and government officials in
charge of land and housing matters. Continued dialogue with government officials and closer
networking among urban agriculture practitioners will enhance and create better outlets for their
products, which are always in demand, given their lower prices.
Contact: Isaac Akinyele (see Appendix F for full address).
Managua, Nicaragua offers another example. Produce had been marketed in the
overcrowded central market for generations. Over time, the market had become corrupt,
controlled by a few agents, and dominated by large-scale food traders. It also was
difficult for small-scale urban farmers to sell their produce. In 1990, the mayor‟s office
created an alternative Saturday market, located four miles from the central business
district, where stalls could be rented at a low, fixed price. The market is conveniently
located for both farmers and consumers and has proved popular with both groups, and
has been an impetus to urban farming. Because farmers market their produce directly,
there are few middlemen.

Organizational Constraints
A final constraint to the growth of urban agriculture is the lack of organization among
urban farmers themselves. The wide dispersion and lack of cohesion among small-scale
urban farmers hinders the development of markets for both their products and the inputs
they require.
Urban agriculture lacks organization in most parts of the world. This problem is
particularly acute for low-income farmers. Upper-income farmers may be organized
within high-value farming systems or products. Although a few low-income farming
systems, such as the fisheries in Calcutta (see Case 3.5), are organized through farmers‟
cooperatives at a regional level and cut across urban and rural lines, these cases are few.
The fact that farming may be illegal or informal further reduces the likelihood that
farmers will organize. Furthermore, low-income farmers frequently lack the means or
information to organize themselves without outside help. Because they get no recognition
by those outside their community and have no identity as a distinct industry, they
generally neither perceive themselves as an industry nor function as one. Nonetheless,
some farmers are aware that their lack of organization is a constraint, and see it as the
most important obstacle to further development. They dream of more collaboration and
organization.28
————————————
The potential of urban agriculture is constrained by limited access to the key

ingredients that could make it successful. In most cases, the problem of access is not
physical but instead administrative, sociocultural, or organizational.
Low-income farmers in the informal sector are particularly affected by these
constraints. High-return farming practiced by upper-income farmers, such as poultry and
floriculture, is typically more organized. These systems tend to have better access to
resources, more developed input and output markets, government recognition as
agribusiness industries, and more available credit. They are also more likely to be
included in agricultural research and extension efforts.
The key to unblocking the various constraints that now work against the industry is to
increase awareness of the importance of urban agriculture. The next chapter begins to
define a strategy and offers some suggestions about how this objective can be achieved.
Notes
1. However, these regulations were largely ignored by the local descendants of the Mayas
who substituted kitchen gardens for the planned lawns. Elizabeth Graham, personal
2. Winrock International. 1994. Annual Report. African Women‟s Leadership in
Agriculture and Environment Project. Arlington, VA: Winrock International.


4. Timothy Greenhow. 1994. Urban Agriculture: Can Planners Make a Difference? Cities
Feeding People Series No. 12. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
5. Donald B. Freeman. 1991. A City of Farmers: Informal Urban Agriculture in the Open
Spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. Montreal: McGill-Queen‟s University Press. Bishwapriya
Sanyal. 1985. Urban Agriculture: Who Cultivates and Why? A Case Study of Lusaka,
Zambia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7:15-24, Sept. Carole Rakodi. 1988. Urban
Agriculture: Research Questions and Zambian Evidence. Journal of Modern African
Studies 26(3):495-515. Freeman, 1991, op. cit. Daniel Maxwell and Samuel Zziwa.
1992. Urban Farming in Africa: The Case of Kampala, Uganda. Kenya: ACTS Press,
pp. 55-56.
6. Yue-man Yeung. 1985. Urban Agriculture in Asia. Food-Energy Nexus Programme.
Paris: United Nations University.
8. Angela Moskow. 1999. Havana‟s Self-Provision Gardens. Environment and
Urbanization 11(2):127, Oct.
9. A recent study by the National Geographic Society highlighted this phenomenon.
10. André Fleury, personal communication, 1999.
11. Daniel E. Vasey. 1985. Household Gardens and Their Niche in Port Moresby. Food
and Nutrition Bulletin 7:37-43, Sept.
12. Maxwell notes, however, that landowners often put their “land to short-term
(farming) use, which keeps squatters from being able to claim any access to the land.”
When the landowners reclaim their property, they don‟t have to compensate the
squatters. Thus, “in some instances, farming actually serves the interests of both the
landowner and the farmer.” Daniel Maxwell, personal communication, 1993.
13. Agence France Press. 1998. Jakarta Governor Says Poor Can Farm City Land. 6 Aug.
14. Luc Mougeot, personal communication, 1994.
15. See Peggy Bradley and Cesar Marulanda. 2000. Home Hydroponic Gardens.
Corvallis, Ore., USA: Global Hydroponic Network. Cesar Marulanda and Juan
Izquierdo. 1993. La Huerta Hidroponica Popular. Santiago, Chile: Regional Office
of FAO for Latin America and the Caribbean. Jorge Zapp. 1991. Cultivos Sin Tierra:
Hidroponia Popular. Bogotà: UNDP.
16. Vera Niñez. 1985. Home Garden Programmes in Lima Slums. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 7:6-14, Sept.
17. Mougeot, personal communication, 1993.
18. Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992, op. cit., p. 57.
19. R.S. Ganapathy, personal communication, 1993.

20. A.W. Drescher. 1993. Management Strategies in African Homegardens and the Need
for New Extension Approaches. Pages 231-246 in Food Security and Innovations —
Successes and Lessons Learned (F. Heidhues and A. Fadani, eds.). Frankfurt: Peter
Lang. Drescher emphasizes three areas with particular need for urban extension: pest
management, species composition and diversity, and soil fertility.
21. Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992, op. cit.
22. Diana Lee-Smith et al. 1987. Urban Food Production and the Cooking Fuel Situation
in Urban Kenya: National Report — Results of a 1985 National Survey. Nairobi:
24. Details are available on the Internet — www.foodsecurity.org
26. Harrington Jere, personal communication, 1999.
27. Harrington Jere, personal communication, 1999.
28. Streiffeler, 1993, op. cit., pp. 28-29.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 10
Trends in Urban Agriculture
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
10
Again and again, previous chapters have noted the nature of the resurgence of farming in
the city in most regions of the world. In this chapter, we will gingerly consider the
significance and possible causes of this resurgence, and examine the larger trends of
which it is a component. This resurgence bears reexamination before we begin a
discussion of possible strategic options for urban agriculture in the following chapter.
Trends in urban and peri-urban agriculture are distinctly different in different places.
In Hawaii, restaurants and markets are filling with locally-grown vegetables and fruits,
and thousands of small-scale farmers are rushing to fill the demand.1 In the Netherlands,
integrated livestock-vegetable production systems are being installed inside multistory
buildings. Singapore’s Agro-Technology Parks are reaping profits and attracting
commercial tourists. Farmers’ markets in the United Kingdom and the United States are
reaching out and helping farmers to produce for them. In West and East Africa, not-for-
profit civic organizations are providing direct support and lobbying for government
support for city farmers. Cuban and South African governments are providing diverse
support and profiting from growing highly productive and expanding urban agriculture
food systems.
At the beginning of a new century, the resurgence of urban agriculture is indeed
complex. In Asia, for example, urban farming continued its important role throughout the
last century. In rapidly urbanizing Asian countries, including Vietnam, urban agriculture
is increasing at least as fast as the urban population. In contrast, modern urbanization is
reducing its role in some Asian countries. In Hong Kong the share of locally-grown
produce is one-half of what it was in the 1980s.2 Some cities in China have banned
certain types of wastewater use for irrigation because of its increasing contamination
from heavy industry.3 In these countries, urban farming is being pulled both forward and
backward — in most it is booming, but in some countries it is waning.
Is forecasting possible with the available data and its consequent analysis? The
authors find that the needed data are not available. However, based on more than 40 years
of cumulative work in the field (extending back to the 1960s), and visits to more than 40
countries and 100 towns and cities on four continents, we are willing to make some
educated guesses. Some factors influencing urban agriculture are summarized in Table
10.1. Globally, we are persuaded that the field will continue to expand, and in some
countries it will decline. Decline may occur where there has been recent expansion in
response to a disastrous economic or social situation. Expansion will occur in response to
urbanization, information, policies, and other influences as discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 10 Third Revision — 1 Dec. 2001 Page 1

Table 10. 1 Selected factors influencing the

evolution of urban agriculture in the year 2000
Urbanization
Population
Infrastructure
Land consumption
Land use and tenure
Urban-rural links
Globalization
Lifestyle
Information
Marketing
Technology
Hydroponics
Biotechnology
Aquaculture
Energy
Environment
Water
Land and soil
Climate
Food security and health
Scale
Environment
Social
Economic
Special groups
Women
Refugees and displaced persons
Immigrants and migrants
Waste management and nutrient cycle
Heat
Water
Organic
Inorganic
Research and support
Agroterrorism

The expansion of urban agriculture over the past 20-30 years provides an opportunity
to capture the benefits defined in Chapter 7 and elsewhere in this book. Studies indicate
that in most cities and countries, the benefits from production of food, fuel, medicinals,
and ornamentals within the human settlement will outweigh the costs. The costs,
however, are significant and should not be considered as quick, easy, or cheap to
overcome.
Research from the 1980s and 1990s conducted by the (Canadian) International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), The Urban Agriculture Network (TUAN), United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations University (UNU), and
others concluded that:
in some cities, urban agriculture produced over 100 percent of the vegetables
consumed in the city;
in many smaller cities, over one-half of the resident households produced food;
in a wide range of cities, over one-half of the physical area was being farmed;
in larger cities, livestock appeared to be more common than horticulture;
in the majority of countries, the typical urban farmer is a woman; and
urban agriculture tends to be a more environmentally sustainable form of food
production than agriculture in rural areas.
Two reinforcing trends appear to be occurring in both North and South:
urban agriculture diffuses and grows as a result of the information revolution, and is
part of globalization, and
urban agriculture is a counter-trend as the world globalizes — it occurs as a
community or civic activity similar to agriculture in the traditional village or the
neighborhood pub or coffee shop.
Both these trends are fired by urbanization, and particularly by modern low-density
urbanization. Urban agriculture expands with the growth of a city in a low-income
economy as part of the informal and formal economy. And it also expands in a high-
income economy at the leading edge of consumer specificity — not just a melon, but a
yellow melon with sweet red meat.
There appear to be at least four trends that especially call for description, study, and
various levels of support:
locally grown and organic production in economically advanced urban areas;
higher levels of nutritional self-reliance in low-income towns and cities;
market production rather than commodity production in current and former socialist
nations; and
adaptation to crisis through urban food production (in a time when crises and
disasters seem to be a growth industry).
The trends in predominantly urban developed countries and industrializing nations are
distinct from those in low-income, food-short urbanizing countries. There are, however,
considerable overlaps or similarities, particularly among the lower-income areas in

diverse settings. We aim to distinguish the differences in this chapter, but this does not
mean that there are not common lessons to be learned and tasks to be done.
The elements mentioned in this chapter have largely been discussed in Chapters 2 to
9, and much supporting evidence can be found in those chapters. To minimize repetition,
both this chapter and the subsequent one are light on data (statistics and examples).
Rather in this chapter, the elements in the previous chapters are reassessed with
speculation about the trends they are undergoing in the early 21st century, and their
effects during the next 30 years.
Few of the trends identified in this chapter, both favorable and unfavorable to the
development of urban agriculture, are well defined. Much research is needed to quantify
and justify them. Many professionals and students are carrying out a wide range of
studies. Networks will ensure that research findings will be put to use as soon as possible.
Still, much of the knowledge produced by the research to date remains fragmented, and
hard data on the trends in urban agriculture, especially global trends, remains limited. As
a result, this chapter is necessarily impressionistic. It will be up to future researchers to
review the assertions and hypotheses made here and test them.
Urbanization
Population
The world population is now 50 percent urban. The least urban continents, Africa and
Asia, are rapidly urbanizing — in Africa, from one-fifth in 1970, the urban population
increased to one-third by 1995, and is expected to exceed one-half around 2020.4 The
available data indicate that urban agriculture is growing at least as fast as urban
population, and in many countries considerably more rapidly.
In some countries and states, urbanization is accompanied by the appearance of
ethnically diverse cities with their diverse food demands. California is a leader, with over
one-half of its urban population having recent Latin American, Asian, and European
connections.5 The rural agriculture system is less adept at responding to such diversified
product requirements than are the smaller urban production units closer to markets.
The increased negative impact of epidemic diseases on the population of many
countries is likely to be significant for many years to come. It is predictable that there
will be increasing millions of people in their prime years who will either die or become
unable to maintain or take up agricultural work, whether in urban or rural areas. Malaria
and AIDS are the most prominent of these demographic change agents. Increased
resistance to antibiotics is another significant factor. Russia and some African countries
have seen a century-long trend to longevity reversed. Beyond this, there are indications of
the beginning of a slowdown in demographic growth in several world regions.
Assuming a curb in demographic growth, will the size of the rural and urban food
markets be smaller? Will urban or rural agriculture bear the greatest impact of future
patterns of disease, health, and mortality? Will there be a reduction in the consumption of
natural resources as populations in some countries, especially in Africa, live a shorter
life? Will there be a slowdown in urbanization? These and other questions are yet to be
assessed for their impacts on urban farming, yet they provide background to the

following discussion. Planning and research for urban agriculture must consider these
questions.
Urban-Rural Links
At the beginning of the 20th century, the rural-urban links in the food systems of
industrialized countries were dominated by the railroad and animal-drawn carts. Milk was
delivered to the city by train and delivered door-to-door by horse.6 Most market
information flowed the same way. It was a time of rapid change in urban-rural
relationships — internal combustion engine, telephone, electricity, cold storage, and the
bicycle — changes that would soon revolutionize this system.
At the beginning of the 21st century, we face a similar unknown future in urban-rural
relationships, with special implications for farming in the city.7 Rural economies are
becoming dominated by commodity agriculture and industry, rather than mixed
agriculture. Urban economies are being taken over by the information economy. The
change in urban-rural links present a puzzle to today’s urban and regional food system
theorists and managers. On the one hand, the prevalence of rural poverty suggests
reinforcing the role of rural food production for the city as a source of income for the
rural population . On the other hand, however, food insecurity, poverty, health, and
environmental issues within urban areas suggest that urban agriculture, at least in the near
term, will become increasingly significant to the food system.
Chapters 1, 4, and 6 presented the changing nature of the rural-urban interface.
Today, the changes are markedly different for developing, industrializing, and developed
countries. In low-income countries 50-80 percent of the population is rural and the
majority is engaged in agriculture. Rural poverty is more prevalent than urban poverty.
Typical industrializing countries are experiencing a rapid change from small-scale to
large-scale (global) agriculture in rural areas, in many cases supported by government. In
representative developed countries the rural population is less than 25 percent, with less
than one-fourth of that percentage engaged in agriculture. Poverty is moving from
smaller towns and cities to larger cities.
A caveat is necessary — in this age of the information revolution, the Internet is
becoming more ubiquitous than the telephone or paved highway, thus the rural-urban
divide is shrinking everywhere. At the same time that the perception of city farming as a
contradiction in terms is waning, 21st century functions such as industrial production are
moving to the countryside.
Food system interventions, whether by local or national governments, may
appropriately give top priority to the requirements of the small-scale entrepreneur. Both
nutrition and price will be important considerations in such interventions. Especially in
low-income countries, the GDP effect of shifts from rural to urban agriculture may be a
significant indicator. In middle-income countries, the rate of decrease in the number of
farms as they become larger will have major social effects on rural families. This will
promote more rapid urbanization, typically in advance of adequate infrastructure.
Developed-country agriculture is notable for the decrease in rural farmer income and
a growing number of small-scale urban farm enterprises. Policies and programs may well

be focused on supporting the burgeoning urban agriculture sector and preserving as many
rural farms as possible without damaging the new urban farming industry.
As rural populations continue to move to ever-larger urban areas, the fewer remaining
rural farmers are likely to become more specialized and productive (notwithstanding the
aforementioned effects of diseases). As rural agriculture trends toward industry and
commodities, its nutritional role is likely to become less well fitted to the needs of urban
food security. This may be particularly true for the needs of the urban low-income family
and community. Rural agriculture may provide the carbohydrates, but not the equally
essential protein, vitamins, and minerals .
A primary aspect of the difference between the 1900 and 2000 urban-rural links is
that today information flow is much more efficient. It may be reasonable to forecast that
in the next generation urban and rural leadership will work more closely to rationalize the
ingredients that enter into each slice of the food system pie. For instance, waste heat and
carbon dioxide from office buildings and retail outlets will be used as an input to year-
round greenhouse vegetable production in town. On the rural side we may speculate that
beer and chip production will move closer to rural hops and potato fields, as has
happened in other industries. It is becoming clear that the urban and rural economies are
moving ever closer while each is developing emerging specialties.
Land Use, Tenure, and Patterns

During the decade of the1990s, cities grew in such a way that urbanized space expanded
dramatically, although there were fewer people on each hectare or acre of urban space.
The spread of highways and motorized vehicles between 1950 and today, and the more
rapid spread of low-cost telecommunications since 1975, has led to cities that are less
concentrated, with much more open space, land, and water available to agriculture.
The United States appears to be a leader in this trend, and it may be a harbinger. The
Census Bureau found in 1995 that urban expansion in the previous decade had ‘built out’
or converted rural space to urban at a density of one person per acre (2.5 per hectare),
whereas in 1940 the country’s urban density on average was 10 people per acre (25 per
hectare). In the nine-county Chicago metropolitan area, the 1980s saw a 4 percent
population growth and a 40 percent areal expansion.8
At the same time as towns and cities are spreading themselves more lightly over the
land, cities are changing functions and land uses. Regional airports are replacing seaports.
Computer memories are replacing warehouses. Furniture manufacture is moving from the
vicinity of the railroad yard to the edge of the forest. As a result, from Calcutta to
Chattanooga, land close to the center of cities is becoming available, on an interim basis,
for agriculture. Citing Chicago again, in 1998 it had 70,000 vacant lots.9
A pattern was established in Europe and its colonies during the late 19th and most of
the 20th centuries of keeping the town and city free of agriculture. This aesthetic and
philosophical concept was expressed in health codes, subdivision regulations, and zoning.
Zoning began as ‘restrictive covenants’ designed to keep separate residential, industrial,
and agricultural land uses. The principle of land-use segregation contributes to low
density and inefficient urbanization. Urban agriculture is an ameliorative activity of idle
or under-used space, as discussed in Chapter 4 and elsewhere.

Our expositions in Chapter 5 have made the point that urban agriculture is less
dependent on fertile soil than rural agriculture. Space for food production in the next 30
years, near the center and at the growing edge of cities, may be fertilized with urban
waste rather than being dependent on nature’s gift of fertile soil. A new principle for
urban land-use regulations that considers natural resource conservation, the urban food
system potential, and the need for healthy environments for everyone, urgently requires
research and development.
The relationship between using land for urban agriculture and management of urban
development varies widely from region to region and country to country. There is a trend
toward greater permissiveness for agriculture in urban places. During the economic crises
of the mid-1990s, Malaysia established a national policy and program favoring urban
agriculture.10 A few years earlier Romania established a similar program. The result was
a production jump in urban places from 16 to 26 percent of the country’s food in six
years.11 We have previously cited a similar dramatic change in Harare, Zimbabwe. The
Toronto Food Policy Council, a government agency, has set a goal of producing 25
percent of the city’s food needs within the metropolitan area.12
The location of agriculture in the city is influenced by land-use regulations, the real
estate market, and land tenure. In Europe and North America, perhaps the greatest
influence is legal — zoning, subdivision regulations, building codes, or health
regulations. In contrast, in many low-income countries, urban expansion — both building
and farming — takes place through extra-legal means, including squatting. Agricultural
landlords build fences and hire guards to protect their land from occupation. Often this
means farming the least appropriate or suitable sites. These twin patterns appear to be
continuing in parallel.
At the same time there appears to be a beginning trend — melding agriculture as an
urban land use with all other urban land uses. In countries as diverse as India and
Denmark, local government is actively making land available on a lease basis to urban
farmers.13 City farming as a land use will predictably be more and more dependent on a
partnership between public and civic organizations.
These few paragraphs profile only some of the dramatic changes in urbanization (both
in population and space) during the recent past, many of which seem to have favored
urban and peri-urban farming. Some of these factors may already have had their greatest
impact. Others seem likely to continue for many years.
Globalization and Localization

The concept of locally grown is replacing our parents’ concept of home grown. Food
buyers from the lowest to the highest income are increasingly asking and insisting on
knowing where food was produced and preferring locally-grown produce over other
products. Recent surveys in New York found that retailers and consumers were willing to
pay a premium (5-25 percent) for locally-grown vegetables.14 Similar results were also
found in Iowa. In France, national legislation has temporarily banned the building of
supermarkets, to the benefit of smaller retailers more readily connected to local (urban)
producers. In eastern Europe there is a return to locally-grown food production, following
the trend for most of a century of centrally-directed food systems.15

Agriculture, just like textiles and automobiles, is now a global commodity industry.
The globalization of the 20th century, following the railroad and steamship revolution, is
being trumped by globalization driven by the information revolution. Urban agriculture
has been accelerating globally at the same time as the information revolution was getting
underway. Some of the rapidity of urban agriculture’s growth is due to improved
communication.
Global trade clearly favors large-scale, rural-based agricultural systems. At the same
time, the information revolution that drives it in some ways, favors the small-scale urban
and rural agriculturist. These are parallel and linked trends. Improved information links
permit hourly communication between producer and seller, and between urban and rural
producer. Decisions about what and how much to produce when will not only improve,
but be more efficient among rural and urban growers, to the benefit of both. Improved
communications are democratizing decisionmaking and financing, and there is less need
for top-down decisions. As decisions move down the hierarchy they will become more
integral to the community, and community-based agriculture may reappear as it once was
in the village.
The information revolution favors the small farmer whether urban or rural. In an
urbanizing world, however, urban agriculture seems likely to be the favored beneficiary
from this revolution (world wide web, cellular phone, accessible databases, expert
systems), because the urban resident tends to be more connected than the rural resident.
This advantage may be temporary, however, as this revolution reaches the village. Case
studies abound of the ‘little guy’ using the Internet to gain knowledge of markets and
technology.
Lifestyle
Peering into the future of urban agriculture requires being aware of two parallel lifestyles,
at first seemingly contradictory but more likely simply two expressions of changes in
modern life. First, consumers, particularly in wealthier countries, are demanding to see
the farmer’s face on their food. This lifestyle demand favors production close to the
dinner plate and therefore production within or at the border of the urban settlement. The
emergence of community-supported agriculture was one reflection of such a desire. This
is one of several major evolutions in eating habits that are likely to bear on urban
agriculture worldwide.
Second, all over the world more and more people eat an increasing number of their
meals outside the home, and purchase more of their meals ready-made. Many homes in
Bangkok, Thailand in the 1980s were even built without kitchens because the residents
would rely on street food.16 Certain regional diets influence the eating of millions outside
their country of origin, ranging from the praises heaped on the Mediterranean diet, to the
popularity of Chinese food around the globe.
The lifestyle trend to ‘fast food’ is driving toward fewer — but larger — agricultural
food production units. Frito-Lay (chips) in 1996 had more potato producers in Turkey
than in the United States. The Turkish market was 3-4 percent of the American market,
but the transnational corporation had not yet organized its production lines to its
convenience.17

There are two trends — a greater role for healthy food, and a greater role for fast food
and junk food. The former favors smaller-scale local farmers, while the latter favors large
corporate operations. Urban farmers can also benefit as providers to the informal street
food trade. Still, not enough is known about what these two trends will mean for urban
agriculture. This is an important question that remains to be answered.
Marketing Trends
Beginning in the mid-1930s and continuing through the mid-1970s, there was a North
American-led trend toward vertically integrated agriculture/food corporations. In the
second half of the century, these mega-corporations encircled the globe.
During the final quarter of the century, however, a countertrend was gaining
momentum. Traditional cultures and countercultures alike began to reestablish food
systems better fitted to their lifestyles. Cases in point include the Prince of Wales
establishing an organic farm on his estate, and Swedish industrial corporations supporting
sustainable communities, including community food security. Sales of organic produce in
the UK increased 55 percent from 1999 to 2000.18 On the other side of the globe, we have
Auroville in India and several Ecovilles in Africa.
Community-supported agriculture began in Japan in the 1970s, jumped to
Switzerland in the 1980s, and is now spreading throughout Europe and North America.
Farmers’ markets increased 40 percent from 1994 to 1996 in the United States.19 They
are spreading equally fast in the UK.20 In California, the supermarket lobby has presented
legislation to the state assembly to make the operation of farmers’ markets more difficult
— surely a sign that they are being taken seriously as a competitor.21
Farmers’ markets — once a week, once every 10 days, twice a week — are a global
phenomenon now making a comeback in the wealthiest countries, as a logical
continuation of and stimulus for the reemergence of urban agriculture. Growing and
marketing locally-produced food is further advanced by sales to street food venders and
restaurants rather than to retail food outlets because these are in effect wholesale
transactions with lower overhead.22
Marketing locally-grown food varies tremendously as a share of total market from
region to region, related to the economy and the culture. The range is possibly from 5
percent in the United States to 50 percent in some sub-Saharan countries. This is a trend
well worth researching at the start of the new century.
In Dar es Salaam, a GTZ survey found that 90 percent of the green leafy vegetables
consumed in the city were grown in the city. Most went from market farmer to retailer to
consumer within sectors of the city.23 Case 5.3 in Bogota, Colombia presents another
trend in direct marketing, wherein the producer and retailer sit on the board of the
corporation and jointly decide what will be produced when. This trend and others are also
supported by new communications systems.
City farmers are adapting the principles of fast food delivery (think pizza) to capture
market niches waiting to be tapped. Small urban entrepreneurs such as Mary Corboy in
Philadelphia, USA,24 and the Silwoods in Auckland, New Zealand (see Case 3.3), offer
delivery of their lettuce and other vegetables within the hour to upscale restaurants, and

neither can produce enough to meet demand. They deal directly with chefs. Conversely,
restaurant owners and chefs such as Judy Wicks in Philadelphia and Jimmy Schmitt in
Detroit rely on carefully constructed grower networks in their regions to supply them
with the vegetable and animal products required for their innovative cuisine. These
products would otherwise be difficult to acquire.
Some trends in marketing, especially related to the emergence or spread of
technologies, may favor large-scale agriculture in rural areas, or at least cut back some of
the advantages urban agriculture now has. The trend to shipping from regional airports
over seaports provides a new entry to regional and global markets for some rural
producers. Irradiation of milk and other products eliminates the need for refrigeration and
permits longer supply lines. The possibility of cheap energy by harnessing newer
technologies, improved energy efficiency of equipment, and improved infrastructure
(particularly roads) will reduce the urban farmer’s advantage of proximity because the
cost of access from rural areas will decline.
Global food marketing favors large-scale rural production in a number of product lines.
Thus Bangladeshi shrimp are eaten worldwide, as are Arkansas chicken products. Food in a
box, such as breakfast cereal, requires large-scale farming and processing. The information
revolution enables large corporations to integrate their production, processing, and
distribution in a manner never before possible.
In some circumstances, it is the consolidation of supermarkets that enables an
oligopoly to develop, resulting in much higher prices to consumers (see recent case of
eggs in California).25 In some applications and product lines, urban agriculture is gaining
a competitive position with rural agriculture in some countries and regions. The urban
grower can capture as much as 50-75 percent of the retail price, depending on the
marketing system, whereas the rural farmer may receive more typically 15-40 percent.26
This can be accomplished by reducing or eliminating the role of the middleman by
controlling marketing channels between producers and consumers. We believe that
development of multiple marketing channels will in most cases favor urban agriculture.
Whatever point in the food marketing system may become a ‘choke point’, the
development of multiple marketing channels is inevitably favorable to urban agriculture.
Production Technologies and Systems

The technological revolution now underway can favor both rural and urban agriculture.
As just one example, while global positioning information systems that use satellites are
increasing the efficiency of rural production, in the future, this technology may be refined
to benefit urban producers.27
The development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (crops) has so far
principally benefited large-scale rural production, particularly soya and maize. The future
of GMOs and any direction they may take in the future will probably depend more on
public policy than on technical innovations. For example, the modification of soya to be
resistant to the weedkiller Roundup and the development of maize and soya that resist
insect pests have raised grassroots, academic, and political objections in Europe, India,
and elsewhere. The long-term impact of GMOs on small-scale urban farmers is difficult
to predict.

Renewable energy is very slowly gaining a share of the agriculture market from
petroleum. The use of wind, sun, and biogas energy, which in the mid-20th century was
largely rural, has recently moved to urban and peri-urban farms. Greater production
intensity per unit of space makes the use of self-produced heat and energy more feasible
for the urban farmer. The easier access to urban waste as a source of energy is an
advantage that is not likely to be lost.
Urban agriculture is closely identified with an increase in production intensity. On the
positive side, this increase allows a more efficient and effective use of resources and
fosters development of technological innovations. On the negative side, it increases the
possibility of polluting soil, water, and air. Most typically, intensification is favorable in
horticulture and unfavorable in livestock.
The on-going revolution in soilless production such as hydroponics in Latin America
and aeroponics in Singapore may benefit the producer who is closer to the market. Until
now, it has been primarily an urban means of production. Whether it remains so is an
open question.
The 3,000-year-old technology of irrigation is in rapid transformation. As we move
from trench to pipe, sprinkler, and drip irrigation, the amount of water needed per unit of
production continues to decrease, particularly in space-constrained urban areas. Another
advantage to the urban producer is the opportunity to use urban wastewater. In many
countries, the urban producer who has not invested in a less-efficient technology will
have an advantage.
There is a revolution in the agricultural use of man-made structures. The late 19th
century saw the widespread introduction of heated and unheated greenhouses (glass
houses, hot houses, cold frames) in peri-urban areas. These proved too costly to compete
with tropical production in the second half of the 20th century. Today more efficient
plastic houses are changing the urban landscape worldwide, as can be witnessed along the
Lebanese and Spanish coastlines. They are much cheaper to build, maintain, and heat,
and can easily be moved to another location.
Fish and many other aquatic crops are being produced in unprecedented amounts in
man-made tanks and ponds.28 This aquaculture technology has until now been
predominantly practiced in peri-urban locations, close to markets. On the positive side,
more fish in the diet is good for health, but some methods of fish farming are damaging
to the environment. There is a ‘win win’ solution — organic and wastewater fish
production at small and medium scale, as discussed in Chapter 5.
Urban and peri-urban locations would seem to offer advantages to smaller-scale
production in cages, sheds, and other enclosures. This includes all small livestock and
poultry as well as zero-grazing of some large livestock. Rabbits and quail are among the
leaders in rate of growth. Large-scale (sometimes called factory or feedlot) production of
veal, beef, poultry, and pork may in the future be determined on the basis of access to
both feed and markets. Some will be near the railroad, others near the maize field, and
still others near the market. Urban and peri-urban locations would seem to offer
advantages to smaller-scale cage production.

In many of the world’s largest cities and developing and recently industrialized
countries, livestock production is more common than horticulture within the central
area.29 Urban animal husbandry is tied to a number of other systems. Links include
manure from central areas to fringe horticulture, sewage to fringe areas to produce
fodder, and fodder trucked to the central city to feed livestock. In some situations, the
highest and best (safest) use of select urban waste is to fertilize a fodder crop.30
Global warming has increased the growing season by close to a week in much of
North America and Europe since 1970. The effects of this trend, which may accelerate,
remains to be seen, but it is likely to reduce the need for expensive investments in climate
modification to stretch the season, investments that are more commonly found in urban
areas.
New packaging technology promises to increase shelf-time of perishable products,
favoring the distant producer. Improved energy efficiency will benefit the large remote
producer and vertically integrated agribusiness. And last but not least, the use of
pesticides and other chemicals that reduce the need for labor, favor the less labor-
intensive rural monocropping, particularly as rural populations dwindle.
Environment and Natural Resources

The 1960s ushered in a period of increased awareness and concern about the relationship
between people and nature. The growth of urban agriculture and the increased study and
recognition of environmental limits to growth have been parallel.
The wide dissemination of the concept of sustainability in rich and poor countries
may be a supporting factor in the increasing acceptance of urban agriculture. Despite the
lack of research support, at this writing such an argument is compelling and can be of
great value as we look to the future.
In a village, town, or small city, people could establish a connection to the soil and
nature during their lifetime. But in a large city or megapolis, residents have lost or are
losing their connection to the reality of food production. Much of the latest human
generation (born in the 1980s) is unlikely to ever know where food comes from beyond
the retail and fast food outlets. Can this trend be reversed by the return of agriculture to
the city?
It makes sense during the 21st century to favor sustainable (waste-based) urban
agriculture over soil- and petroleum-based rural agriculture in order to retain a livable
environment. The rapidly growing sustainable agriculture movement may be the
harbinger of such policies and programs.
A continuing intensification of urban agricultural practices is one clear trend. Less
clear though, is the overall impact of such a trend on the urban environment. Some
intensification (such as the broad growth of waste reuse, both solid and liquid) is largely
favorable to urban ecology. Others, such as new wells drawing water from an aquifer for
irrigation, are not.
Urban food/fuel production is at the epicenter of the global debate about ecologically
sustainable development. Research for the 1992 Earth Summit found that 75 percent of
the natural resources that we harvest or mine from the earth are shipped to 2.5 percent of

the earth's surface where we live (cities). 31 About one-half or more of this resource
exploitation is for food. Rural agriculture is the largest single contributor to runoff
erosion and river degradation.32 It is clear to many that reduction in per capita resource
consumption is a key to the sustainability of our civilization.33 A proper estimate of the
possible benefits of urban agriculture as a means to reduce conversion of resources to
waste has yet to be undertaken (see discussion of the nutrient cycle in Chapter 1).
During all of the 20th century the countries furthest from the equator have been
getting wetter and those closest to the equator have been getting drier.34 At the same time,
the fastest population growth and urbanization rates have been closer to the equator. The
diminishing water resources per capita in the warmer areas will reduce the capacity of
rural areas as a whole to produce food. Recent river engineering works in these areas
have in many cases worsened the problem rather than ameliorating it.
As the tropics and semi-tropics urbanize and grow drier, and because urban
agriculture tends to use water more efficiently, we might conclude that urban agriculture
of necessity will advance, given appropriate research and education. It will continue to
gain in its current advantage because urban agriculture is more capable of reusing water
for the second, third, and tenth time. This will be a challenge that urban farmers have to
face. Will they meet that challenge?
Large-scale row monocropping contributes to erosion and soil depletion through wind
and rain. FAO and other organizations have noted soil depletion in the majority of
countries, particularly tropical countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. Urban
agriculture is better adapted than rural agriculture to producing crops using little or no
soil. It has also developed better means to enhance soil. It is predictable, all else
remaining equal, that urban agriculture will compensate in some markets for some of the
continuing losses in rural agriculture as soil is exported to the sea.
Food Security and Health

Food Security
The 20th century witnessed a widespread commitment by government and civic
organizations to end hunger. During the last 15 years of the century a new concept —
food security — began to replace ‘ending hunger’. This new concept reached global
consensus at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996. Rather than focusing solely on
maximizing production, it recognized that security in the food supply of urban residents
must at all time ensure physical, social, and economic access to food by all.35
As discussed in Chapter 7, food security must be measured at all levels, from the
individual to the national or regional level. We are accustomed to considering hunger at
the individual level and food security at the household level. In considering the possible
future benefits of urban agriculture to ensure food security, higher levels of social
organization and wider geographic areas must be considered.
There are various social theories to support the concept of household food security. A
properly functioning family or household is commonly perceived as being altruistic and
acting in accordance with a concept of common good. Our daily food is given a high
priority in any economy of scarcity.

According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), food production — rather

than other productive activities — is more likely to be taken up in the city by women,
youth, and the aged. Research that largely began in the 1980s continuously finds that
more urban households than ever previously reported are engaged in food production. In
Tanzanian cities, it is over two-thirds of all families and in the United States over 20
percent. We expect this trend to continue at diverse rates in most economies.
Community food security is a concept as old as human settlements. It applied to
villages at its origin, and thousands of years later, it applied to walled towns. Today,
community food security refers most commonly to a neighborhood, town, or city. Food
policy councils are concerned with the food security of a metropolitan region.
Community-based organizations enhance the food security of their families, friends, and
neighbors, and city councils are devising means to create a food-secure city. Community
food security holds that malnutrition and hunger are a symptom of a systemic failure and
that the best solution is to fix the system as close to the failure as possible, i.e.
community-based, civic, or urban agriculture.36
A program aimed at community food security focuses on those who have the greatest
food insecurity. Rather than being dependent on increased earning power and subsidies
for the poor, it empowers women, youth, and the aged to produce, process, and distribute
good food directly. It exploits the potential of idle hands in combination with idle land,
consumer waste, and wastewater.
In a 21st century urban world, the concept and strategy of food security will both
pressure and enable urban communities to move into food production and processing.
New indicators are being created and used by researchers in the fields of nutrition, health,
city planning, and agriculture to measure food security and define enabling and hindering
policies and programs.37
Global food security will predictably be largely the result of increasing agricultural
yields per unit of space. Food security for the less well-to-do will more likely depend
upon their own actions to increase annual family income, as well as plan and manage
their communities to produce, process, and distribute appropriate food within the
community.
The ultimate question is: Will the increasing contribution of urban agriculture to food
security be able to keep up with the ever-growing demand for food as the number of
urban poor and food-insecure people continues to mushroom? Our vision is that both
rural and urban human settlements will increasingly contribute to their respective food
security. More data are required for a solid prediction.
Health and Nutrition

Agroterrorism is not a trend, but the recent anthrax attacks require considering
agroterrorism in 21st century agriculture as a possibility on any scale — from global to
an urban setting. Food, animals, or biogenetically engineered organisms could all be
vectors. Disruption of food systems is another realistic possibility. In 2000, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited botulism, salmonella, E. coli, and cholera
as potential threats because they may be produced in ways that are relatively fast,
inexpensive, and easily concealed.38 The decades-long trend to a oligopolistic

transportation-linked agro-food system contributes to the potential for disastrous terrorist

assaults on urban food systems. A decentralized production system, with a redundant
communications networks, may provide some insurance against terrorist attacks on food
quantity and quality.
Many safe agricultural practices of our parents are less safe today. The increasing use
of chemicals in industrial processes, construction, and agriculture require more stringent
management practices. In some countries (China, France, USA), it is resulting in the
outright ban of some practices, including ancient ones. Higher spatial integration of
settlements and farms within intra-urban and particularly peri-urban areas create a living
environment that is more likely to spread contamination and related diseases.
During the 1970s and 1980s, progress was made in reducing malnutrition and
starvation in the world. During the 1990s, a decade of relative economic prosperity,
malnutrition and starvation increased, particularly in urban areas, in part because the poor
lacked regular access to the more-than-adequate global food supply.39
The nutritional contribution of urban agriculture is an important component in the
trend to a broader understanding of urban nutrition. As attention shifts to the contribution
of community-based agriculture, the future is likely to include thinking in terms of urban
food systems, with urban agriculture increasingly viewed as integral to such systems.
Since the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992, there is an increasing acceptance of
the need to soften and green the urban environment. Two trends in this direction include
recycling waste and building lower-density human settlements.
A third trend that takes advantage of the first two is urban agriculture — it embraces
the new lower-density city and recycles waste as an input. Many more surveys in diverse
settings are needed to measure the benefits of these three trends. Certainly cities that have
seen dramatic increases in urban agriculture, such as Havana and Baghdad, are healthier
places to live in 2000 than they were in 1990. The health benefits of food production
within the human settlement can be summarized:
Better access and availability to good food for all; access through barter, self-
production, and/or purchase.
More vitamins and other essential micronutrients available per unit of food.
Better access to protein at reduced cost to low-income families.
Cleaner and healthier living environment.
Special Groups
In Chapter 3, we identified a number of groups of urban farmers that call for special
discussion, including youth, migrants, crisis farmers, etc. This chapter highlights two
groups — women, and refugees and displaced persons.
Women
Urban agriculture in many countries is women’s agriculture. Maxwell and Zziwa
discovered in Kampala, Uganda (and others confirmed elsewhere) the core truth that the
children of urban women farmers are healthier than the children of their neighbors who

do not farm but have the same income.40 Food security and related health are enhanced
when women farm. And the chief farmer in the city is more likely to be a woman than the
farmer in the country. There is some evidence of a general trend toward women being the
farmer in charge not only in Africa and Latin America, but also in Europe and North
America.
The trend toward women farmers is consistent with the global advance of women
toward equality and the global trend toward urbanization and smaller farms. This trend
seems likely to continue for another generation, improving food security and health.
Refugees and Displaced Persons

The UN High commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red
Cross concur in forecasting ever greater millions of refugees (inside and outside national
borders) during the next 20 to 30 years. Fifty million is a common figure cited for 2000,
with about one-half being so-called environmental refugees. Such refugees include those
affected by natural disasters or environmental degradation due to development. Internally
displaced persons (IDPs) are currently estimated at over 20 million worldwide (see Case
7.4). In sub-Saharan Africa alone, an estimated 12 million refugees, returnees, and IDPs
needed assistance in 2000.41
A large percentage of refugees and IDPs spend time living in camps or other quasi-
urban settings. Such locales have proven in the past to be receptive and conducive to
urban agriculture practices. Food production by refugees and displaced persons is now
referred to — and is starting to be recognized — as food-based nutrition intervention and
as emergency agriculture by actors in the field.42
Crop failure in rural agriculture commonly creates refugees or displaced persons. As
the number of refugees in the world increases — from both civil strife and natural
disasters — much more rapidly than the population, emergency agriculture using urban
agriculture technology may become more prominent. Emergency agriculture will be
increasingly appropriate for the growing number of longer-term refugees because the
duration, not just the number, of refugees is trending upward worldwide. The acceleration
of agriculture among refugees and IDPs will depend on the role of relief organizations
that help community groups feed themselves, particularly women and youth.
Waste Management and Nutrient Cycling

Urbanization and economic growth both generate increased waste per person. As cities
grow and prosper, waste increases more rapidly than the population because wealthier
people generate more waste per capita. The reuse of waste as an input to urban food
production is a clear and growing advantage of urban agriculture over rural, particularly
as rural natural resources continue to be depleted.
The trend in the past few years has been for the well-developed organic urban waste-
to-food methodologies of China and other Asian nations to spread worldwide. The recent
transformation of Cuba’s agriculture, beginning with a Chinese biointensive model, is a
case in point.43 The French biointensive production methods, originally attributable to the
Marais district of Paris, has been adapted in California, Manila, and many other places.

These and other approaches based on intensive and controlled nutrient cycling (such as
permaculture) are likely to continue spreading indefinitely. We have described the waste-
to-food technology and future prospects in Chapters 5 and 7.
Composting organic waste has in the past three decades been made more efficient.
The technology of maintaining optimum temperature and moisture has cut the time of
processing, as has the use of efficient aerobic and anaerobic microbes. Technologies
today range from composting at the kitchen sink to multi-acre sites. Vermi-composting,
using the digestive tracts of worms, has made advances worldwide.44
At the same time, the ecological processing of wastewaster has made significant
advances. Again, this up-graded technology can be applied at small and large scales.
Clearly such waste technology benefits both rural and urban producers, but the urban
producer is closer to the waste source.
Some of the current advantages of urban agriculture over rural will diminish as the
recycling programs of many cities reduce the availability and access to some types of
waste, including paper, which today serve as inputs for urban farmers. In many places,
legally or procedurally placing the farmer above rather than below the dump or landfill
will improve the waste-to-food process and nutrient cycle.
The most worrisome trend may be the increasing presence of contaminants (toxins,
heavy metals, hospital waste) in the waste of countries with less advanced waste
management systems. At the same time, controls and enforcement on the content and
disposal of waste are increasing in more and more countries. These twin trends may mean
that recycling waste into urban agriculture may become increasingly challenging or
hazardous in developing countries, yet more feasible in developed countries. This trend
would reverse the longstanding situation of the past century.
Increasing hazards in some cases, and the growing perception of hazards in others,
may push policymakers toward becoming overcautious in the reuse of waste in some
countries. This makes certain practices (distribution of compost to farmers, use of sludge
in organic agriculture) increasingly difficult to realize.
During the entire 20th century, there has been a trend to larger and more remote solid
waste dumps and sewage treatment facilities. It is not uncommon in the 1990s for family
household waste to be shipped 200 miles (300 kilometers) or more. In 1998, a European
country seriously proposed shipping garbage to India. The United Nations University and
a dozen other organizations are rediscovering and reinventing community-based waste
treatment facilities.45 In developing countries, construction of roads radiating from main
cities is encouraging waste disposal at greater distances. In some cases, this benefits peri-
urban agriculture, but in many others, it removes some city waste and dumps it far away
rather than cycling the nutrients.46
Research and Support

The significance of urban agriculture as a development intervention finally became
widely recognized by the end of the 1990s. It was a slow process of publication in
somewhat obscure journals and newsletters, presentations at conferences and workshops
and development of websites.

The same period finds aid for urban agriculture increasing while overall development
aid is declining. The Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA), formed in 1996, has
grown from the original 14 to 26 members, including many of the major players in
international development. Projects are being funded by development banks (AfDB,
IBRD, IDB) the European Union, and many bilateral programs (Canada, UK,
Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan, Belgium).
The United Nations family is deeply engaged (UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, FAO, UNCHS,
UNU, WFP). Many civic sector organizations (Africare, CARE, SAVE, Oxfam, AFSC,
Helen Keller, Mennonites, World Vision, IRC, Heifer International) are also conducting
urban agriculture projects.
SGUA is operating a listserv, conducting electronic conferences, publishing a
magazine, and assembling a database. Through its training branch (AGRICOLA) it is
providing scholarships to practitioners and students worldwide. Its information website,
www.cityfarmer.org, is the premier Internet source for information in the field (10,000
hits each day). Membership is open to organizations by invitation.
The increase in international aid to urban agriculture is not only a financial increase,
but also a broadening of support. During the 1950s to 1980s, support was largely limited
to household gardens and school garden projects. In the 1990s such aid included refugee
food security and commercial production, hydroponics, forestry, aquaculture, waste
reuse, community kitchens, farmers’ markets, and much more.
In 1999 the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR)
adopted a well-funded initiative in urban agriculture, the Strategic Initiative in Urban and
Peri-Urban Agriculture (SIUPA). This begins to enroll 14 centers with about 100
locations in more than 40 countries into urban agriculture research. The Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center (AVRDC) in Taiwan has been researching urban
agriculture for decades. Most urban agriculture research in the past has been under such
titles as poultry, biointensive horticulture, zero grazing, community forestry, or other
farming method titles, without being distinguished specifically as urban agriculture. As
policy shifts occur to favor urban agriculture, such as in Russia, South Africa, and Cuba,
research is likely to follow.
National support for urban agriculture has both preceded and followed the
international programs described earlier in both text and cases in other chapters. Since
1996, in the USA there have been several grants from the USDA to NGOs committed to
food security. In Germany, a policy change in 2000 favored environmentally friendly
agricultural production methods. The government of South Africa has supported urban
food production from the day it assumed office. Cuba adopted a pro-urban agriculture
program in 1993. Argentina started the Pro Huerta (small-scale production) program in
1992 and has expanded it several times. Ghana’s Operation Feed Yourself in the 1970s
was a great success. Malaysia’s response to the 1990s economic downturn was to support
urban food production. Romania, perhaps following Cuba’s lead, adopted pro-urban
agriculture programs in 1994. Thus in a somewhat diverse set of support activities, rich,
poor, and in-between nations are supporting urban agriculture.
Many states, provinces, and municipalities support urban agriculture. Eighty thousand
Berliners farm on city-supported community gardens. There are over 1,000 community

gardens in New York City. Districts and municipalities in greater Paris support urban
farmers. Mexico City provides extension services and protects farmers right to farm. In
Amman, Jordan, idle land is open to cropping or grazing on a year-to-year basis. Calcutta
makes its central park and retired garbage dumps available to its farmers. Jakarta leases
its reservoirs to small-scale fishermen. Rio de Janeiro and Los Angeles lease land under
their electric lines to farmers at below market rates. Examples abound, and there is a need
to exchange best practices.
It is somewhat predictable that the increasing adoption of the food security concept,
combined with an acceptance of the inevitability of urbanization, will stimulate urban
agriculture research as a source of good food for the poor. At the same time, increasing
concern for a livable environment, resource conservation, and a sustainable way of life
will promote systems analysis that is bound to sooner or later discover the potential of
urban agriculture as a means to reduce pollution and green the environment. Water
shortages and increasing energy costs could stimulate urban agriculture and research at
the food-energy nexus and the food-water nexus.
University research has to a substantial degree been led by student demand,
particularly master’s degree candidates. Many of these students have been women from
developing countries who know and recognize the issues and possibilities. The
disciplines include geography, sociology, urban studies, public health, and environment
as well as agricultural specialties. We dare to optimistically predict that educators will
begin to set policies and programs to fit student demand.
Conclusion
All of the trends presented here will have either favorable or unfavorable effects on urban
agriculture — sometimes both simultaneously. The data to support this forecast are
legitimate, but are uneven and not comparable across city or national borders. More
reliable forecasts and predictions await the adoption of common indicators and much
more data collection. There is a large role for the application of best practices and
appropriate policies from one place to many others, indeed, to apply the positive trends
and counter the negative.
The strength of the overall trends in urban agriculture, the pace at which they move,
and even the directions they may take remain to be seen over the next years and decades.
Meanwhile, based on our best ability to understand trends and make forecasts,
appropriate policies and instruments need to be continually developed for many different
contexts. These will be the subject of the final chapter.
Notes
1. Reported in Travel & Leisure, October 2001, p. 206

2. Fred Gale and Kang Bai. 1999. Urban Agriculture in China. Washington, DC:
Economic Research Service, USDA and Beijing, China: Food and Agricultural
Statistics Center, National Bureau of Statistics. Sept.
3. Peter Edwards, AIT, Personal Communication, 1999.

4. Jonathan Lash et el. 1996. World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment, The
Urban Environment. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Census Bureau. 1996. Census of the USA. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau:
Washington, D.C.
6. New York Food Museum. 1999. How New York Ate 100 Years Ago.
www.nyfoodmusem.org
7. Jonas Rabinovitch (ed.). 2000. Rural-Urban Linkages: An Emerging Policy Priority.
UNDP, Urban Development Team, Management Development and Governance
Division, Bureau for Development Policy. Draft. March.
8. Census Bureau. 1990. Census of the USA. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau:
Washington, D.C.
9. North Eastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1997. Vacant Lots. Annual Report.
Chicago.
10. Urban Management Program. 1999. Asia 2000, newsletter. UNDP/IBRD (United
Nations Development Programme/International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development). Dec.
11. WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2001. Urban and Peri-Urban Food and Nutrition
Action Plan. Programme for Nutrition and Food Security, ETC and WHO Centre for
Urban Health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
12. Sean Cosgrove, personal communication, 1999
13. Ole Olsen. l999. Danagro consult, Copenhagen, personal communication. Danish
municipalities are making land available to small-scale farmers within (at the edge)
the town boundary. Liliana Marulanda. 2000. Ahmedabad Green Partnership Project.
New Delhi:USAID.
14. League of Women Voters. 1995. New York suburban survey.
15. WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2001. Op. cit.
16. Marshall Bear, personal communication; country director, CARE Thailand, 1992.
17. Agricultural Engineers Conference. 1994. Atlanta, Georgia, workshop presentation.
18. Rebecca Mead. 2001. Food Glorious Food! The British are becoming more picky
about what they eat. The New Yorker. Aug. 6, p. 44.
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997 survey of farmers markets registered with state
departments of agriculture.
20. Washington Post. 2000. June 13, p. 18
21. Los Angeles Times. 1999. Nov. 21, p. 6.
22. Irene Tinker. 1997. Street Foods: Urban Food and Employment in Developing
Countries. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23. Smit, Jac et al. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. 1st
edition. UNDP: New York. Case 5.5, page 119.
24. Mary Corboy. 2000. National Public Radio, Radio Times,WHYY, Mar. 25. On air
statement.
25. Los Angeles Times. June 2000
26. Skip Plank, Interview in Loudon County, Virginia, Sept. 1999
27. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), National Public Radio interview, 1999.
28. Peter Drucker. 1999. Globalization. Atlantic Magazine.
29. National Public Radio, The World Today, reported that four of five families in
Peruvian towns raise guinea pigs, June 6, 2000.
30. Chris Lewcock. 1994. Use of Urban Waste by Near-Urban Farmers of Kano,
Nigeria. No. A-0354. London: National Research Institute.
31. Herbert Girardet. 1993. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable
Urban Living. Anchor Books. New York: Doubleday.
32. Frank Hartvelt. World Water Research Center, 1999, personal communication.
33. Klaus Topfer. Our Planet. UN Environment Programme. Vol. 10, No 5.
34. National Geographic Magazine. 2000. Climate Change, May.
35. See www.fao.fivims.net/defn.htm.
36. For more information see:
www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/ags/agsm/sada/sada.htm
37. See Community Food Security newsletter, June 1999.
38. A Vulnerable Food Supply, A Call for More Safety. New York Times, 31 Oct. 2001,
dining section, p. 1 and 8.
39. United Nations Fund for Population Activities. 1999. Annual Report.
40. Daniel Maxwell and Samuel Zziwa. 1992. Urban Farming in Africa: The Case of
Kampala, Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.
41. United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination, Sub-Committee on
Nutrition. 2000. RNIS 30. For information see: www.unsystem.org/accscn
42. In 1999 an international NGO was founded, Agriculture in Relief and Transition
(ART)
43. Catherine Murphy. 1999. Cultivating Havana. Food First. www.foodfirst.org
44. S.A. Esrey. et al. 2000. Ecological Sanitation. New York: UNDP/SEED (United
Nations Development Programme/Sustainable Environment and Economic
Development).
45. S.A. Esrey. et al. 2000. Op. cit.

46. World Bank. 1996. Wasting Waste: Urban Waste and Agriculture. Workshop
Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Chapter 11
Promoting Urban Agriculture
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
11
Why Promote Urban Agriculture?

This question can be interpreted in two ways. First, we may ask why urban agriculture
should be considered as a valid activity? Most of this book (and particularly Chapter 7)
has sought to examine this question, indeed, many examples of successful urban
agriculture during the last generation are included. Second, why intervene in an activity if
it is already successful? It is essential to explain why active promotion of urban
agriculture through a range of policies and other interventions is necessary. This chapter
offers such an explanation.
The sub-title of this book is Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities, a phrase that neatly
encapsulates both the purpose and priority of this chapter. By producing food, urban
agriculture can enhance the food security of the urban poor and food quality consumed by
all urbanites. By creating jobs, urban agriculture can generate economic development and
sustainable livelihoods. And by contributing to sustainable cities, urban agriculture can
support the broad agenda of sustainable human settlements as a component of the global
ecology.
Capturing the many potential benefits of urban farming, solving problems that often
accompany it, and overcoming the obstacles to its further development will require
policies and programs that promote and regulate appropriate urban agriculture. This
chapter suggests how to accomplish this challenging task.
The policy requirements for urban agriculture are different for:
low-income, food-deficit countries;
industrializing countries; and
developed countries.
There are also special considerations for small island nations, isolated mountain
countries or regions, arid regions, countries with low soil fertility, and a range of
urbanization in countries.
A low-income, food-deficit country can choose for its urban areas to move toward
food self-reliance in relevant crops, choose to develop its agriculture industry for export
into the global market, or it can choose both. When a country is successful over the years
at one or both of these options, it may choose to change its agricultural policies.
Industrializing countries such as Brazil and Thailand face problems for which urban
agriculture can:
Chapter 11 Third Revision — 1 Dec 2001 Page 1

improve nutrition in expanding cities,

protect natural resources and environmental quality,
encourage the informal economy to integrate with the formal economy, and
exploit the opportunities that are offered by an urban and newly affordable diverse
cuisine.
Developed countries are experiencing two trends in agriculture — conversion to
larger production units that use high levels of external inputs, and the reemergence of
smaller-scale production that uses low levels of external inputs, within and adjacent to
urban areas. Urban agriculture policy issues in these countries are commonly
food insecurity for low-income households and neighborhoods,
environmental degradation caused by large-scale agriculture,
environmental pollution caused by urban wastes, and
deterioration in the quality of some foods.
Field visits and observations, a review of the literature, and workshop discussions
have revealed that most of the actions required to promote urban agriculture are already
being practiced today in cities and countries around the globe. Much can be learned from
the success stories as well as from cautionary tales.
Government policies and institutional programs affecting urban agriculture are
significantly different in the developing world than in the developed world. There are
also differences in Europe and its former colonies, as well as in nations that were never or
little influenced by European urban values and governmental systems. One size does not
fit all for policy approaches and programs. Towns and cities in better-off regions and
countries face a plethora of problems with obsolete and irrelevant laws, codes,
infrastructure, and administrative practices that hinder the maximum benefits of urban
agriculture.
This chapter has four main sections. The first suggests a framework to promote urban
agriculture. The second and third consider the types of interventions that can increase the
range and effectiveness of urban agriculture — broad interventions and those that focus
on specific benefits. The fourth section revisits these interventions, considering which are
most appropriate at each of four levels — community, city, national, and global.
Framework to Promote Urban Agriculture

Too many places around the globe face ever-greater water shortages, environmental
degradation, and urbanization rates ahead of rates of economic growth or food
production. We have only recently rediscovered that urban agriculture can reduce water
consumption and conserve environmental resources. The success stories are not always
from places that can benefit the most, whether the slums of Washington D.C. or the
favelas of Sao Paulo. There are certain locations and groups where the potential to
expand urban farming is particularly great. It is to these places and people that the
interventions in this chapter are particularly targeted.
Policy changes and other interventions may be most significant in two principal
arenas — agriculture and urban management. These might include providing the same

opportunities to urban farmers that are now provided to their rural counterparts, assigning
appropriate importance to agriculture as an urban activity and land use, and ensuring that
farming is both environmentally sound and safe for human health.
Parallel policy changes may be required in the agencies responsible for education and
health. Food safety regulations may benefit from revisions that reflect practices in both
urban food production and the corollary components of the urban food system, from
inputs to markets. In a polluting, urbanizing world, the role of nutrition and agricultural
education in primary schools may be due for a change in some countries. Berlin,
California, and Canada agree on the need for school gardens and primary agriculture
education for everyone.
It may have been a good idea in 1900 to separate land uses into sectors such as
residence, industry, and agriculture. The city planning policy of „Cartesian zoning‟ is no
longer as relevant in 2001, yet this is the spatial context within which urban agriculture
typically operates.1 Policies to overcome structural land use and zoning constraints can
help liberate the potential of urban farming.
Updated environmental policies should promote urban systems that close polluting
nutrient and energy loops. Green, healthy cities will not emerge based on 1950s
environmental policies. Around the globe, urban waste management and related
infrastructure design and maintenance are degrading the environment and reducing food
security.
In some towns and cities, there is a hopeful genesis of community-based biological
waste management. This beginning requires support to strengthen and expand the effort.
Realizing this potential will establish a health revolution in less-wealthy urban places and
provide a foundation for urban agriculture.
The technology of urban agriculture can provide environmental refugees (those
suffering from ecological disasters) and conflict refugees with a foundation for self-
generated nutritional and health security more reliable and of better quality than relief
supplies. Yet in crisis settings, interventions based on food production are only now
starting to be recognized and tested. Capturing this potential still has a long way to go.
Policy research will be needed in most settings before changes can be adopted.
Surveys should include (a) food system mapping; (b) current roles of urban/peri-urban
agriculture; (c) nutritional status by locus, income, and social status; (d) land use; (e) food
safety; (f) informal food distribution; (g) water use; and other relevant factors. In most
cases, household and land-use surveys should be first.
Last but not least, there is a global change taking place in trade relations. Policies
dealing with food security, enterprise development, and urban agriculture may follow a
different path than the rapid and rigid drive to global systems. Community-based
systems, including food delivery, are developing in parallel (and sometimes as
substitutes) to global systems. Various interventions can help enhance the capacity of
those systems, particularly in reaching those bypassed by global trade. The OECD
recently reported that 80 countries have lower family incomes in 2000 than in 1990.
A framework to promote urban agriculture must include the main elements mentioned
here, and must be considered at all levels — from community to global. The following

sections analyze the range of interventions. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present possible
frameworks to categorize interventions across and within sectors, examined at different
tiers of intervention.
Table 11.1 Interventions to promote urban agriculture at the community, city, national,
and global levels
Activity Community City Nation Global

Policies and programs
Adopt policies linking urban food
and nutrition with urban farming
Integrate urban agriculture into

urban planning (land use, waste,
wastewater)
Reorganization for urban

agriculture
Develop institutional capacity
Assist farmers with organization
Foster cooperation among
stakeholders
Research and information

Survey and document
(indicators)
Disseminate information
(network)
Conduct research
Create model codes and
standards
Access to resources and services

Improve access to inputs
Provide extension and technical
assistance
Improve and support access to
credit
Provide access to land, water,
and waste
Provide right to land tenure

Table 11.2 Areas of policy change that might achieve specific benefits through urban
agriculture
Area Community City Province Nation Global

Food security
Health and nutrition
Safe food
Jobs
Enterprise
Marketing
Natural resources
Greening
Pollution
Water reuse
Disaster mitigation
Interventions that Encompass Multiple Aspects of Urban

Agriculture
For the past century, urban agriculture has often been either invisible (China) or an
outcast (USA). Many policies and action programs are appropriate for the entire industry.
For example, policies to encourage approval of urban agriculture by mayors and other
leaders have been enormously effective. Simple data collection, inclusion in media
programs, and integration into primary education establish a foundation for city farmers
to build on. Everything mentioned here is happening somewhere in the world.
Increasing Public Knowledge and Support

Broad appreciation of the benefits of urban agriculture is needed to overcome both
traditional and modern biases. Public information aimed at current and potential service
organizations is perhaps the most effective tool to transform the industry from its cottage
status into a major instrument moving toward food security, sustainable livelihood, and
environmentally-sound development. Information intended for the poor should receive
priority because urban agriculture can most benefit those suffering from food insecurity
and poverty. Information via radio, primary schools, primary health care centers, and
community development programs may occur simultaneously with programs targeted to
the general public.
Delivery of public information is likely to differ according to the level of
development in a country. In low-income, food-deficit countries, radio is still of highest
importance.2 In the industrializing countries, the Internet is spreading rapidly and

television is well established. In the developed countries, newsletters, listservs and

distance learning may be most effective.
The means of communication will vary with the organization. Local support
organizations (NGOs, community-based organizations, and farmer organizations) can be
reached most effectively through articles in newspapers and newsletters, radio and TV,
workshops, and national and regional networks of similar organizations. Development
agencies, government agencies, and researchers can be reached through journals,
newsletters, listservs, conferences, and workshops.
Information about the benefits of urban agriculture is beginning to appear regularly in
the mainstream media. But, as with most news reporting, the media pays more attention
to bad news than it does to success stories. A continuous stream of success stories may
help generate more balanced and analytical reporting.
Educating the next generation is critical to making urban agriculture a broadly
understood and accepted industry. Primary agriculture education in schools, including
outdoor environmental/agricultural classrooms and greenhouses, is an essential
component of any action plan for public awareness. Vocational training in urban
agriculture practices is being incorporated into the secondary school curricula in an
increasing number of countries.
Urban agriculture tends to be visually attractive relative to many other industries — green
gardens, blooming trees, cute small animals, or healthy children cultivating the land.
Television and Internet graphics will be an important (if not cheap) tool in public
understanding.
Building Institutional Capacity

Initiating or significantly increasing the scope of urban agriculture will require changes in
the functions and priorities of some agencies and institutions. The capacity for urban
agriculture is in short supply in many agencies, including health, education, urban
development, environment, sanitation, housing, and trade. In most places, urban
agriculture does not come under the exclusive agenda of any ministry or government
department. It has usually fallen through the cracks.
The appropriate department to oversee urban agriculture will vary from country to
country. Possible candidates include the ministries of housing and urban development,
agriculture, and environment. Where urban agriculture is part of a national government‟s
agenda, it is most commonly part of the agriculture ministry. In cities, it is more
commonly found under the responsibility of the parks and recreation department. None of
the studies reviewed during our background research compared the administrative
organizations and regulatory frameworks of cities that support urban agriculture and
those that do not. The differences in health codes and enforcement, food regulations,
environmental regulations, police accountability, waste management administration, and
other factors should be examined.
Comparative studies will provide important input for designing alternative
institutional structures needed to manage urban agriculture. This area of study is an
important aspect of policy research. Exchanges among countries and cities with similar
climate and history will accelerate needed changes

Training is needed to build the institutional capacity to provide effective oversight of

sector activities. Training for government personnel who will monitor the riskier
techniques used in urban agriculture is particularly critical, especially if solid and liquid
wastes are involved.
Insect and disease control and fertilization require a different set of indicators for
urban agriculture than for rural agriculture, and specialists will need to be trained. United
Nations agencies can be important resources to support institution-building for urban
farming, each within their respective mandates.3
Building Political Will

Even in countries such as Chile and the United States where there are more urban than
rural farmers, the former remain invisible to both legislators and government
administrators. Without political will, the legislative and policy changes needed for urban
agriculture to achieve its potential will not be emerge — even if the public understands
the benefits.
Policy priorities will differ from low-income, food-deficit countries to industrializing
countries to developed countries. The first are likely to put food security and import
substitution first, while industrializing countries may be more concerned with poverty
amelioration and environmental degradation. The developed countries are emphasizing
„good food‟ and a healthy environment for living.
Political will can be informed and created through „policy training‟. For example,
one- or two-day leadership forums could be held to educate politicians about the
contributions of urban agriculture and the challenges it faces from community and city
leaders. Such forums could be facilitated by experts in urban agriculture, environment,
health, and related topics to ensure full consideration of all critical areas. Field trips to
production sites, cities, or countries where urban agriculture is well managed will help
convince political leaders and government administrators of the benefits of urban
farming.
Some of the most effective capacity-building programs have started from the top.
Even one or two people attached to a the office of a mayor or governor can initiate a
program that is later disseminated. Current and past mayors known as friends to city
farming include Jaime Lerner in Curitiba, Brazil and Richard Daley in Chicago, USA.4
Endorsements by high-level public leaders, such as those by Zambian President
Kaunda in 1977, Tanzanian Prime Minister Sokoine in 1980, Soviet Union President
Gorbachev in 1982, Chinese Chairman Mao in 1968, and Cuban Chairman Castro in
1992 can have a powerful, positive effect on how public officials view urban farming.
With the support of international agencies, many cities have adopted policies and
programs to become a „green city‟, an ecologically „sustainable city‟, a „healthy‟ city, or
a „people-feeding‟ city.5 Such programs also contribute to building political will, at least
by providing legitimacy to what is often a little-known or nearly invisible activity. Local
variants to such programs could help build political will for urban agriculture.
Regional and global forums can also produce significant results. During 1994, civic
leaders discussed urban agriculture at a global forum in Manchester, England.6 At an

international colloquium of mayors in New York City in 1997, the 100 assembled mayors
agreed that urban agriculture (along with job generation and microenterprise
development) would be their first action to fight poverty.7
Certain groups are likely candidates to spearhead political awareness of urban
agriculture — women, farmers‟ associations, anti-hunger and environmental advocacy
NGOs, waste management organizations, or similar groups.
In many countries, relevant data can contribute to building political will. In places
where politicians respond to appeals to support the farmer (rather than simply the
agricultural product), data on the number of urban farmers and their contribution to urban
and national well-being will be invaluable. Urban farmers in Italy, Japan, and Germany
already have a political voice. In many countries, environmentally active political parties
can lead the drive to strengthen the political will to support urban farming or place it
higher on the agenda.
Efforts to build political will are needed in all sectors in which urban agriculture is
effective — food, energy, urbanization, environment, agriculture, and health. However,
as long as urban agriculture continues to be as unorganized as it is in most countries, the
political will to support it is unlikely to emerge. Organizing farmers will continue to be a
front-line intervention.
Organizing More Effectively for Urban Agriculture

As communication contributes to an ever-shrinking world, it is increasingly common to
borrow forms of organization across national and continental boundaries. Models of ideal
organizations and work plans for this „new‟ urban industry are urgently needed.
There are diverse organizational models for urban agriculture. China has had a well-
established national model since the late 1960s. Countries in Central Europe have been
evolving new systems during the past decade. South Africa and Cuba8 have set dramatic
new directions and had major achievements since 1992. Each of Canada‟s larger
provinces are following a different path. Although the Singapore model is efficient, it
may not be applicable in the Philippines or Mongolia.9
City farmers are generally not organized, especially low-income farmers. For this
reason, efforts to educate the public about urban agriculture and its benefits should
include the farmers.
Small-scale farmers (most often women) will often require help to organize into
cooperatives and associations and facilitate development of existing organizations.
Assistance is also called for to enable existing CBOs and NGOs to adopt urban
agriculture, or for new ones that focus on it to be established. Improved organization of
farmers would benefit production as well as improved access to pre-production and post-
production facilities. All these actions would ultimately create economies of scale,
strengthening the competitiveness and profitability of urban farming.

Improving Communications
A network can facilitate communication among farmers as well as disseminate
information. The Urban Agriculture Network is one such network, facilitating regular
exchanges of information among urban agriculture groups around the globe and
connecting them with corresponding experts. The SGUA (Support Group for Urban
Agriculture) has recently created RUAF (Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and
Forestry).10 RUAF produces a magazine three times each year, manages electronic
conferences, and is organizing a database. In 2000, the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) founded Urban Harvest, an urban
agriculture initiative that will coordinate the urban research of its 16 member institutions.
Urban Harvest is based at the International Potato Center in Peru.11
The Cities Feeding People program at IDRC in Canada plays a leading role in
establishing regional networks for urban agriculture research. Through AGUILA (Urban
Agriculture Research Network in Latin America and the Caribbean), information
exchanges take place rapidly.12 In Europe, several countries have national affiliations of
allotment gardeners or city farmers, and there is a coordinating office in Brussels. In
North America, the ACGA (American Community Gardeners Association) and CFSC
(Community Food Security Coalition) are both increasingly supportive of urban
agriculture efforts.13
There are now urban agriculture networks, present or in their formative stages,
girdling the globe. New networks are forming in South Asia, West Africa, and the Middle
East.14 Such networks can reach urban farmers and their associations, and they can help
coordinate actions with the respective agencies.
RUAF instituted urban agriculture communications centers in three cities in 2000 —
Quito, Dakar, and Harare.15 Each of these centers will provide information to several
surrounding countries.
Networks in related areas such as sustainable agriculture, nutrition, food security, and
microenterprise development are being linked to the urban agriculture networks, as are
specialized networks, including poultry farming and ecological sanitation. With the
widespread emergence of the Internet in the 1990s, the two most significant linking
devices are currently the sites of CityFarmer and Cities Feeding People.16
Developing Appropriate Technology

Appropriate technology for urban agriculture must fit the priorities we set at the
beginning of this chapter —be useful to the small-scale, low-income farmer; promote
jobs and economic development within human settlements; and contribute to ecologically
and socially sustainable towns and cities. The next agricultural revolution will be very
different from the successful technologies of the Green Revolution. More food was
generated by the Green Revolution, but also greater ecological degradation. In some
countries, people who were already better off received relatively more benefits.
Urban agriculture offers an opportunity to have more farmers producing a wider
range of crops, livestock, fish, and medicines. Biotechnology research at the urban level

can focus on the local climate, ecology, and culture. It can also focus on region- or
country-specific problems such as saline soils, insect pests, vitamin deficiencies, or frost.
The technologies that have recently increased the effectiveness of urban agriculture
include small-scale hydroponics, plastic greenhouses, drip irrigation, small-scale poultry,
vermi-composting, and aquaculture (including wastewater fisheries).
Technologies that respond to the problems that underlie urban food poverty will
require continual policy development. It has been suggested that the process of setting
policies include:
consulting with the poor,
improving dissemination mechanisms for biotechnology, and
determining what investments need to be made in human and financial resources to
ensure that solutions to the problem of food security reach the poor.17
Expanding Research
The most pressing research need is to develop tools to eliminate the constraints that
hinder development of urban agriculture and solve problems associated with current
practices. Studies and data are needed to help urban farmers gain credit ratings from
banks, improve small-scale producers‟ access to wastewater, help agribusinesses to serve
urban farmers, provide the same urban agriculture opportunities to low-income mothers
as are now available to well-financed businessmen, and ensure that food produced within
cities is consistently safe. Research to increase productivity and improve the
environmental, health, and urban management record of urban agriculture is also needed.
Urban agriculture is an emerging research field, and its parameters and methods must
be defined. Urban agriculture was „discovered‟ separately by social scientists, urban
planners, and agronomists. Each discipline brought its own past practices to the „new‟
field. Research methods used in urban agriculture today are an eclectic mix. A focused
effort is needed to agree on definitions, concepts, and research methods among the small
number of urban agriculture researchers so that greater comparability across data sets
becomes possible.
Surveys are needed to generate data on the current state of urban agriculture as well
as projections for its potential. These baseline data are needed to convince investors,
supporters, and promoters of the its benefits and to provide inputs to the process of
formulating policies and interventions. By including urban agriculture in census and other
data collection, governments can send an important signal about the key role the industry
plays in the national economy. Many of these surveys can be carried out by
professionally supervised secondary and college students.
The impact of future interventions can be measured against such baseline data.
Specifically, data are needed on:
the geographical extent and structure of urban agriculture,
food system demand and supply,
input and output markets and links,

socioeconomic effects of increased income and more employment opportunities,

technologies and farming system mix and efficiency,
nutritional and health impacts of farming,
environmental impacts and their enhancement and/or remediation,
waste management integration, and
contributions to conservation of water and other resources.
Farming system surveys study a particular farming system or subsystem in depth (for
example, horticulture and fisheries or, more specifically, hydroponics or wastewater-
based aquaculture lagoons). Farming system surveys identify the production process,
producers, technologies, inputs, markets, linked sectors (input and output industries,
credit agencies, extension and research agencies), beneficiaries, and ecological,
economic, and social impacts. Such surveys are needed to define existing and potential
benefits, as well as the needs of each farming system. They should also provide
information on the links among farming systems. Information on any synergy among
specific crops, and more broadly, among systems is crucial to the design of successful
urban agricultural systems.18
Both baseline surveys and farming system surveys will reveal the current status and
extent of farming in a particular city. A baseline survey could include a land survey to
establish which parts of the city are currently farmed and which could be farmed. It could
also include market and household surveys to establish the percentage and type of
residents who are farming as well as details about the farming activity. A number of
broad-based surveys have been undertaken in the past few years. It may be feasible to
review the best of these surveys in order to devise an efficient instrument that could be
adapted to different situations.19
Comprehensive studies also need to start with the dinner plate and move backward
through the entire food system of various cities. The potential for urban agriculture
requires knowledge from both the consumer and producer about:
consumption, need, demand, and satisfaction; and
supply, technology, capacity, and therefore, opportunity.
The so-called „microbe hunters‟ of the late 19th century were searching for microbes
that caused diseases, and urged us to keep our distance from them. Today we are enlisting
microbes as sanitation workers to consume and transform unsanitary waste into beneficial
inputs for urban food production and other greening activities. Research is needed to
transform these emerging systems into safe tools for use by small-scale urban farmers.
We advocate comparative studies to define best practices in the world today and
studies of previous urban civilizations to rediscover „what worked‟ and what did not. For
example, the low-density settlements of the Yucatan Mayas and Gangetic delta Bengalis
may be compared to the high-density settlements of the Andean Incas and the Harrapan
civilization of the Indus delta.
Climate and cultural regions need to be examined and compared across continents. As
presented in Chapter 6, urban agriculture interacts closely with other urban systems. In
order to plan, studies are needed that compare situations that have similar circumstances.

There are many special sets of circumstances such as small islands, mountain towns, or
oases. Some are more nutritionally self-reliant through urban agriculture than others, and
until today the cause is mostly a mystery. Comparative research studies could potentially
present all similar settlements with an optimum choice. All of this research can benefit
from „food mapping‟ which, as we have noted, can begin with work by secondary school
students.
Looking back to renaissance cities and the industrial cities of our fathers, today cities
are more than ever being conceived, planned, built, and managed by the urban poor. This
is commonly called squatting — informal or uncontrolled urbanization. This new kind of
city often includes urban agriculture, and we need to study its systems.
Policy research is needed from the global to the local scale. Globally we need to
analyze why policy shifts by Gorbachev in Russia, Sokoine in Tanzania, and others had
such a massive impact. At the local level policy research begins from the viewpoint of the
dinner plate. Who benefits in what way? Which opportunity is being overlooked? Who
support urban agriculture and who opposes it.
Strengthening Training and Technical Assistance

Four types of training are urgently needed for this burgeoning industry:
policy training for executives and politicians,
management training for NGO directors and heads of government agencies,
extension training for government and NGO extension agents, and
production and business training for farmers.
Training in urban agriculture, as distinguished from public education, may first be
driven by the needs found at the „dinner plate‟. Where does food insecurity lie? How can
this systemic shortfall be resolved? Second, training may be oriented to degradation in
the environment. Is this a good environment in which to raise your children? How can
you contribute to making this a healthy city? Third, training may be driven by market
analysis. Few farmers can respond positively to these questions if their return to labor is
too low.
In designing training activities, pilot projects can show what the benefits of urban
agriculture may be and provide investment models for policymakers, bankers, support
agencies, farmers‟ organizations, and government departments. Case 5.1 reports on the
success of this approach in Viet Nam.
In this rapidly evolving field, technology transfer within and across national, cultural,
linguistic, and continental borders is critical. A few „hot‟ technologies have been
spreading rapidly, but they have tended to be high-profit rather than high public-good
technologies (lagoon shrimp and hothouse flowers produce dollars faster than mushrooms
and drip irrigation vegetables).
Projects to support technology transfer have many successful examples in some urban
agriculture farming systems. Support for these programs is needed to increase not only
yields, but also the number of crops, as well as to advance „safe food‟ methods.

Technology transfers are generally easier to accomplish within a country or region rather
than across regions.
Technical assistance most often takes on the shape of an extension worker. Outside of
a few countries (particularly in Asia), urban agriculture extension has usually been
provided by rural extension workers employed by a government. The few trainers with
special competence in urban farming are often based at a few NGOs.
Too often the extension worker in the city has been the promoter of (a) commodity
agriculture, (b) the social benefits of gardening, (c) the nutritional benefits of a particular
diet, or (d) a certain set of inputs (seeds, tools, fertilizers, etc). Urban agriculture now
needs extension workers who are experienced in the local market, calculating returns to
labor, and promoting a healthy environment. Training these trainers has been addressed
in a previous section, Building Institutional Capacity.
The most appropriate urban agriculture technologies in any location can often be
found by seeking the local best practices, that is, the farmers who produce the greatest
output per unit of land or labor. The goal of training would then be to advance the
production level of all farmers to that of the best local practices. It may be useful for
trainers to document best practices, arrange farmer-to-farmer visits, and encourage the
best-practices farmer to become a teacher and coach.
Training in urban agriculture may best be accomplished by farmer-to-farmer contacts.
In this way, a farmer who is proficient in a best practice conveys his or her skill and
knowledge directly to another farmer. Similarly, the leaders of the most effective NGOs
should train other NGO leaders within a country.
Improving Access to Resources, Inputs, and Services

One of the greatest obstacles for urban farmers is lack of access to credit. Possible
approaches to increase the amount of credit available to urban farmers include:
providing a special line of credit for urban farming entrepreneurs,
reserving part of an existing agricultural credit quota for urban farmers,
including urban farming among the industries eligible for special small-enterprise
support, and
earmarking loans for woman and single-parent farmers.
Urban farmers often do not achieve maximum yield on a new site for 2-4 years.
Support programs or soft loans with a possible repayment delay may be desirable in the
first years of a farmer‟s involvement.
To improve the access of small- and medium-scale urban farmers to markets and
market information, government departments could:
create market places for small-scale farmers (see Case 9.8 on Ibadan),
provide incentives for operators in the market to cater to small- and medium-scale
urban farmers, and
help farmers to form marketing cooperatives.

Urban agriculture requires strong links with other industries to achieve its potential.
Interventions by NGOs, community-based organizations, or municipalities may be
needed to ensure timely establishment of these links, especially for small-scale producers
and processors.
Urban farming can benefit from some of the latest science and use some of the most
modern agribusiness inputs. However, great caution is needed in defining the how and
when of these adoptions. Agribusiness can provide markets for some urban agriculture
products, however, with the advent of the Internet, urban farmers can increasingly sell on
the global market without agribusiness assistance (or charges). Urban farming and
agribusiness can benefit each other, but a neutral meeting place may need to be arranged
by government or other institutions.
Interventions that Focus on Specific Benefits of Urban

Agriculture
Urban agriculture is a major industry in some cities, yet a minor one in others. Variations
include not only its level of development, but also the emphasis given to different
aspects, as well as its raison d’être. In city „A‟, food security will be most important; in
„B‟ it will be concern for the environment; and in „C‟ the prime reason for urban farming
is community economic development. Each of the diverse subsectors required special
policies and programs in the majority of places we visited or heard about.
Promoting Food Security, Health, and Nutrition

Safe food is a prime concern of many public authorities, as well as families. Dependable
year-round access to a well-balanced diet is the prime concern of at least 50 percent of
urban residents in Asia, Africa, and Latin America who live at or below the poverty line,
as well as up to 15 percent in the United States and some other wealthy countries. Urban
agriculture can help improve food security, food safety, and the nutrition.
Food Security
Common strategies to achieve more equitable distribution and access to good food — as
well as improve food security for the poor — include food aid (such as „food for work‟),
food subsidies, rationing, food stamps, and differential pricing. However, subsidies and
price controls are costly measures that are difficult to target to needy populations and,
like rationing and food stamps, they create dependence on food assistance. Urban
agriculture, by contrast, empowers the target population and makes it somewhat
nutritionally self-reliant.
Community food security, and more specifically household food security, require a
different set of capacities and skills than food distribution programs. This implies
thinking like a mother rather than a delivery driver, and begins with studying how
vulnerable people in a particular geographic area ensure that they are food secure. When
this population is food insecure, how can the group be helped to change its behavior to
enhance food security and/or how can the group be empowered politically to change the
situation. Food from outside the community, city, or metropolitan area may thus be

considered as a complementary source rather than as the sole standard source.20 Food
security interventions need to be chosen based on such a mental framework.
Urban agriculture is a self-sustaining strategy for food security and nutritional self-
reliance that reduces the burden on public resources. The transfer from government
handouts to household and community production is not simple, quick, or cost-free. It
requires policies, planning, and action programs to implement the transition.
Nutrition and Health

In her analysis of urban nutrition policies, Atkinson identifies the advantages of farming
for self-consumption relative to other measures: it . . . “generates independence, makes
use of idle resources, improves the quality of the environment, increases the amount of
available resources and establishes new bonds between the urban and natural
environments which seem increasingly important for the city as a whole.”21
For low-income residents, urban agriculture-related nutritional support might include
extension services and access to land on a permit basis. Programs directed toward the
poorest of the poor can additionally include provision of subsidized inputs and water, or
low-interest credit without collateral requirements. Such interventions to promote
community food production not only cost less than direct food aid, they have the
additional advantage of being temporary. In the case of middle-income residents,
interventions could be designed to provide nutrition education, extension support, and
improved access to needed inputs, resources, and markets.
Where malnutrition is endemic, the healthcare system could promote farming as a
strategy to ensure family and community food security, as well as greater family control
over the nutritional content of meals. In Lusaka, for example, agencies encourage the
poor to produce vegetables that increase their vitamin and micronutrient intake.22 School,
health clinic, and community garden programs can also promote community and home
farming as a nutritional solution, as illustrated by the case of the „comedores populares‟
in Peru (see Case 7.2).
Development agencies with programs that help the rural poor improve micronutrient
intake through farming vegetables, fruits, and livestock in home and community farms
include Africare, Save the Children Federation, Plan International, CARE, and UNICEF.
These international agencies could expand such programs to include the urban poor.
Policies and programs may be desirable to educate both health and agriculture workers
to the benefits of „biopharming‟. In many locations, health professionals have come to rely
too heavily on pharmacy solutions to health problems rather than the lower cost „garden
first‟ approach. School gardens could contribute to public health by including medicinal
crops.
Food Safety
In urban and rural areas alike, chemical and organic pollutants are of concern. In urban
areas, controls need to be more stringent because farming is in close proximity to dense
human activities.23 However, enforcement may be easier because activities are not
dispersed in remote areas and are more accessible to hygiene specialists.

Food safety standards have been published by several international agencies. These
are global and must be adapted to match each city‟s conditions and farming systems.
Regulations are needed to control what crops are grown where and which farming
methods are used (for example, peas can sometimes be grown where lettuce is
inappropriate). Solutions to health concerns were discussed extensively in Chapter 8.
Is it reasonable to expect weak local governments to regulate agriculture within and at
the edge of their cities? In general, completely prohibiting urban agriculture has not been
feasible, in part because of its widespread presence and farmers‟ economic needs. Most
countries today have food safety regulations, but there are enforcement gaps. Helping
municipal and national governments to devise ways to effectively control urban farming
practices may be one of the most important technical interventions.
A case in point is the situation in Asmara, Eritrea. More than one-third of the
vegetables consumed in the city in 1994 were produced with sewage irrigation. There
was no short-term alternative source of vegetables within the country, and importing
vegetables was not financially or physically feasible. A program of progressively
enforcing regulations that ensure adequate wastewater treatment may be appropriate to
prevent outbreaks of contagious diseases.
Regulations can be introduced on a step-by-step basis. First, the most dangerous
problems and urgent needs are targeted, for example, prohibiting use of industrial and
hospital waste as agriculture inputs, disallowing certain crops on highway verges, and
seasonally checking the quality of irrigation water at a few points. The use of secondary
indicators, such as levels of diarrhea, may provide a guide to trouble spots or dangerous
processes. After dealing with such significant problems, less urgent issues can be
gradually addressed.
Where there is a good information system, the market will assist the regulatory
function to some degree. In La Paz, Bolivia, vegetables grown above the city sell at a
higher price than those grown below it because the market recognizes that polluted
irrigation water flows downhill.24
Policies and regulations favoring urban agriculture should recognize the important
environmental health benefits of maintaining otherwise derelict land and water,
improving physical access to food (in portions of the city poorly served by food outlets),
and enhancing the quality and safety of the food that urban agriculture produces.
Generating Economic Activity

Fruit orchards and fish tanks at the suburban edge, lettuce on the rooftops of food stores
or markets, flowers at the roadside — diverse agriculture all over the city contributes to
quality of life and economic activity. There are at least four bases for policy and
programs focused on generation of urban wealth through urban farming:
a core production industry supporting and supported by others (processing,
packaging, sales, building materials, medicines, and fuel);
an ancillary industry enhancing others (e.g., reuse of brewery waste);

an activity that cuts the economic costs of urban management (waste as an input,
savings in infrastructure and transport); and
an economic activity that is internal to the city is far more valuable to the city than an
equivalent activity that is external to it.
Poverty reduction and economic development programs can go a long way toward
achieving their objectives by including urban agriculture among their strategies. In some
urban communities, (for example, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam), families spend more than
three-quarters of their income on food and fuel. Food security frees money for
expenditures on other items, thereby promoting economic growth. It also drives
entrepreneurship. Any intervention to promote urban agriculture therefore stimulates
economic development.
In many cities, more than half of microenterprises are already engaged in food
production and food processing. The Trickle-Up Program found in 1994 that 60 percent
of its 8,000 very small enterprise projects in over 60 countries were food related.25 Towns
and cities with economic development goals can do well with urban agriculture projects
in both poor and middle-class communities.
The support policies and programs to promote and protect urban agriculture as an
economic activity are well known in many countries, and are already in place for other
industries. The requirements for urban agriculture to develop an entrepreneurial capacity
are similar to those of rural agriculture:
access to credit and insurance;
access to training and technical assistance;
access to appropriate data, including daily market information;
access to land and infrastructure; and
equitable taxation.
Because the nature and relative significance of the industry varies so much from low-
income food-deficit countries to wealthy and highly-developed countries, there is no
standard package of policies and action programs. Instead, we must rely on best practices
and success stories cited elsewhere in this book.
Employing urban agriculture for economic development requires an analysis of the
food needs of a city or region. This analysis is far more complex than most business
plans. It might well begin with an economic appraisal of the ecological region, frequently
a watershed, and the potential symbiosis between rural and urban agriculture.
Achieving Sound Land-Use Management

In many locations, specific crops will clearly be advantageous to raise in the city. Other
crops will be advantageous to raise in specific locations, such as below a sewage
treatment plant, on a flood plain, or in a wetland.
In most countries, farming is not included in urban land-use policy. Cities would do
well to include urban agriculture as a land use that works toward a more balanced and
ecologically sustainable urban development pattern that also conserves natural resources.
Zoning and building regulations could be used to shift urban development planning

toward creating an „edible landscape‟, thus opening up opportunities for urban

agriculture. Transforming polluted land to productive land is a key concept.
Most cities have significant amounts of vacant public land where farming is practical
and desirable. To adopt a policy of urban agriculture as a productive land use, urban
planning departments may choose to identify public spaces that should be farmed.
Another task will be to map public and private areas that are not suitable for built-up uses
(steep slopes, flood plains) (see Fig 4.2), as well as places that have a particular natural
resource value (for example, aquifers, construction materials, rare plants). When city
planners start to include agriculture among urban land uses, city-wide land rent increases
and natural resources are conserved.26
The specific policies needed to make land available for farming depend on land
ownership patterns. It may be easier for the government (whether municipal, provincial
or national) to institute policies that result in the provision of substantial spaces for
farming in cities where it owns a substantial share of the land than in ones dominated by
fragmented private property.r27
Sanyal has suggested five policy measures to provide urban land for farming:
give farmers access to public vacant land;
induce owners of private land to allow temporary access for farming;
allow land around public facilities such as schools, ports, and hospitals to be farmed;
improve land for agriculture and aquaculture by dredging, filling, leveling, terracing,
etc.; and
design sites and service areas for squatters and other low-income residents so that
they have room to farm.28
In reclaiming derelict land, the government can follow a policy of allotting land to
volunteer low-income farmers in return for reclamation work. Including space for
farming in government housing schemes for low-income residents would benefit the
government by increasing residents‟ income and thus their ability to make monthly
payments. To maintain control over land that may be needed for another use in the future,
lease agreements specifying the duration of farming may be appropriate, whether the
landowner is public or private. The Calcutta Port Authority leases land to fishermen‟s
cooperatives, and the U.S. Navy in Los Angeles leases land to market gardeners. Other
appropriate interventions in land-use management and planning include:
cost-benefit analyses of the uses of various lands and water bodies for farming (as an
input into the planning process);
legal structures for tenancy agreements and land use for farming; and
controls that regulate the type of farming on fragile lands, lands in need of
conservation, floodplains, steep slopes, and land over aquifers.
Most of the arguments made here about access to land apply equally to surface water
in ponds, lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Access to water bodies by government permit,
however, is usually obtained more easily than access to land that forms part of the public
domain.

Urban agriculture can be a beneficial component in many urban projects. In a housing

project, for example, the developer may wish to allow urban agriculture so that
unbuildable portions of the site are put to productive use, thereby improving the rate of
return. In larger projects phased in over many years (whether residential, industrial, or
commercial), the developer may find that leasing land for farming provides income
during the build-out period of the project.
Managers of infrastructure projects and other projects that contain large open spaces
(such as airports) can also benefit from cost-free maintenance by putting buffers or
rights-of-way to productive use with formal or informal agreements with urban farmers.
Urban managers can also find agriculture to be a good interim use of land in very varied
contexts, from urban renewal sites at city centers to parkland acquired for future use.
Enhancing the Environment

Green spaces improve the living environment, aesthetics, and climate. Policies to
promote such greening efforts should be based on productive landscape principles —
gardens can be a mix of farming and recreational space, and trees can bear fruit or nuts,
as well as offer shade and nesting space. Farming reduces and privatizes the maintenance
cost of such green spaces because farmers maintain the land while they farm it. Cities as
different as Chicago and Addis Ababa have agroforestry programs to improve the
environment and climate, and (in Addis Ababa) improve the supply of fuelwood.
Frameworks for environmental policies that incorporate urban agriculture are being
shaped in several corners of the world. We have previously mentioned a number of
highly varied approaches:
Green architecture integrates urban food production and waste reuse, with numerous
examples in Germany and elsewhere.
Ecologically conceived settlements such as the Ecovilles are now found in several
countries.
Some cities have integrated development models, such as The Natural Step in
Sweden.
Some urban regions such as Paris have advanced models for green planning.
Green nutritionally self-reliant cities, such as in China in the 1960s, were based on
countrywide policies and programs.
A basic approach to environmental enhancement through agriculture is to use an
ecological zone as the planning area. By setting aside 19th century concepts of town
versus country, we can plan for our children‟s children within a sustainable region. In
most cases, this region will include large and small human settlements and a diverse array
of agriculture that responds first to the civic needs of that region, and second to economic
and trade potential.29
Managing Waste
As described in Chapter 1, the goal of replacing open-loop systems with closed-loop
systems should lie at the core of environmental policies. Urban agriculture can be an

integral part of policies that advocate closed-loop development. A basic change that
should be a priority in local government policies, and which is being recognized on every
continent, is the need to use waste as an farming input, thus helping to conserve natural
resources. Urban agriculture can thus play an especially vital role in waste management
— both waste that is usable in farming and waste created by farming. Transformation of
waste into food and fuel is essential if a city is to attain the full benefit of urban
agriculture.
For centuries, provision of water has been recognized as an appropriate function of
local government. Once agriculture is again recognized as an appropriate urban industry,
policies to provide it with controlled access to wastewater (as well as to surface and
groundwater) will also become appropriate.
Water is quite a different issue in low-income, food-deficit countries, where less than
one-half of urban residents are provided with piped water. In wealthy and highly-
developed countries, per capita potable water consumption is more than 150 liters per
day. In the latter, reuse of water may be the key issue, whereas in the former separate
systems for potable water and irrigation water may be desirable.
City waste management systems are usually centrally managed, making it virtually
impossible for farmers to have legal access to wastewater and solid waste. A new
approach is needed in which collection, sorting, treatment, and recycling take place at the
community level in cooperation with local organizations.30
Local waste management systems can be introduced on an incremental basis,
beginning in areas with the greatest potential to use waste in farming. Government
requests for proposals could produce a range of alternative approaches to biological waste
management using both traditional and new technologies.
Policy changes are needed to move toward a wastewater management system based
on purification through aquatic plants and animals as well as reuse of the purified water
to irrigate urban and peri-urban fields. Well-tested and well-established examples of both
processes exist and can be gradually implemented. Biological processing of wastewater
and solid waste makes urban agriculture both more affordable and more sustainable.
To prevent food contamination, new standards and procedures need to be instituted to
process and treat wastewater and solid waste, as well as to apply them to farming.
Standards developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health
Organization, and some industrial countries can provide a start.
Mitigating the Impact of Disasters

Urban agriculture can be included as a strategy in city disaster management policies.
Traditionally, flood management strategies have included damming rivers and leaving
floodplains and steep slopes vacant. Urban agriculture is a more sustainable and
preventive strategy. By planting crops and trees upstream and on steep slopes, soil
erosion and excess runoff can be prevented. Planting crops and trees across a flood path
reduces the force of the water.

A partial answer to a drought crisis is to promote urban farming methods that use
little water. Economic and political disasters are often mitigated by urban agriculture.
Sarajevo is the best known recent example; Baghdad is another.
All indicators point to a continued increase in the world population of refugees,
displaced persons, and disaster victims. Organizing urban agriculture for this special
population has little resemblance to the organization discussed in other portions of this
chapter. This special sector has little written history, expertise, and corporate capacity.
The normal pattern is to provide some seeds and tools and expect those victims who
know how to farm to do it again, sometimes with technical advice.
A more complex approach is in the process of being formalized through a new
working group on the subject, Agriculture in Relief and Transition (ART). Table 11.3
offers a framework to design a disaster management program.
There is a good deal of information on successful interventions using some elements
in Table 11.3. Sadly, these are not published and will need to be extracted from the
databases of relief agencies. Africare and UNICEF have data on several projects in
Africa, including the Liberian and Ugandan civil wars. Half a world away, USAID may
have data on the Honduran camps for Nicaraguan refugees during their civil war. Recent
projects in Central America helped people recover from Hurricane Mitch.31
Urban agriculture for disaster populations will require partnerships with international
organizations (UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR), national host governments and
donor country aid agencies, NGOs, and the victims.
Local to Global Urban Agriculture Policies and Actions

There are four levels at which action is needed — community, city, national, and
international — with varying interventions for each one. Many of the interventions can
occur at more than one level. Because most of these interventions have been discussed in
the previous section, they are not detailed here.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 earlier in this chapter provide an informal matrix to find which
urban agriculture concerns can be best addressed at what organizational level. This
analytical tool suggests that the most intensive interventions are likely to be at the
community and city levels. Conversely, the least number of interventions will be furthest
from the dinner plate — global organizations. This does not, however, reduce the
importance of interventions at all levels of organization. Moreover, most of the national
and international interventions serve to facilitate interventions at local levels.
Latin America has led the way among developing regions in inventing and applying new
policies and programs. These policies are being documented by a program funded jointly by
UNDP and IDRC, and implemented by the Urban Management Programme. From small
Haiti to large Brazil, from megacities to small towns, urban farming is growing, sometimes
with support from a state or national government, and with technical assistance and funds
from diverse bilateral and global development organizations. Table 11.4 illustrates the range
and types of policies that may be instituted, and the multiple levels at which these may
operate.

Table 11.3 Framework for a disaster mitigation

program
Characteristics
Additional activity within a relief project
Requires additional staff and expertise
Achieved mostly by the disaster victims
Reduces the need for food aid and other support
Elements
Standard plan of operation
Appraisal mission
Case-specific plan
Packaging and shipping inputs
Site plan, operation plan
Evaluation program
Human Resources
Staff skills
Participant training
Socioeconomics
Economic development plan (relief & transition)
Culture, cuisine
Jobs, businesses
Production, processing, storage
Marketing, distribution
Environment
Waste management
Greening
Source: Based on framework developed by ART
(Agriculture in Relief and Transition), 2000.
Community-Level Actions
Community-level interventions can be carried out by CBOs, local NGOs, farmers‟
associations, and ad hoc committees:
Integrate urban agriculture into ongoing projects and activities in education,
environment, food, health, housing, community development, or waste management.
Urban agriculture flourishes in partnership, but in isolation, it has potential to be
negative.
Conduct surveys to document the status of urban agriculture, and inform local
government, institutions, and the public of the survey results. Typically, the extent and
character of urban agriculture in a city are poorly understood. Community leaders may
choose to conduct a survey (possibly assisted by secondary school students) and make a
visual record to share with interested groups and individuals.

Table 11.4 Latin American public policies that support urban agriculture
National Federal District of Brasilia

Argentina Credit system
Several government and national agencies Technical assistance
and organizations manage a national Support for processing and marketing
small-scale farming program, Pro-Huerta, Established the brand name 'prove'
with international assistance. Local government
Peru Rosario, Argentina
Support to community gardens Organic waste recycling
Promotion of micro-livestock Established community farms
Technical training of NGOs Bogota, Colombia
Chile Supports cooperatives
Demonstration of biointensive city gardens Provides technical assistance
Research, training and extension, for Community planning
NGOs Cuenca, Ecuador
Costa Rica Financial and technical assistance to:
Learning/training farms fruit & vegetable production and
Cuba school farms on idle public and
Grants of land in usufruct private land
Tools and seeds Fortaleza, Brazil
Training and extension "Live Pharmacies" project
Public markets Research & training
Radio & television programs Support to urban forestry [greening]
State and district Land use in city plan
Federal District of Mexico City Teresina, Brazil
Research & training Financial & technical aid to
Financial assistance (dairy, floriculture, community gardens
poultry, cactus, vegetables, micro- Access to public land in usufruct
livestock) Support for infrastructure, tools,
Wastewater irrigation support seeds to family farmers
Restoring the 'Chinampas' (aqua-terra
Rio Branco, Brazil
system)
Research, extension
Municipal markets
Support for farming cooperatives
State of Para, Brazil Tools, seeds and equipment
Supports peri-urban poultry Truck transportation to municipal
markets
Source: Isabel Maria Madaleno. 2001. Urban Agriculture Supportive Policies in Latin America.
Lisbon, Portugal: Tropical Institute (posted at www.cityfarmer.org)
Improve access to land, water, credit, extension services, inputs, and security. Action
in this area may require interaction with municipal, state, banking, business, and other
organizations. Survey data and other evidence will help make the case for action.
Train in good practices. Skills will exist in the community, but these skills may need
to be upgraded in light of nutrition, health, environment, and enterprise concerns and
opportunities. Best practices will be found within the community or in nearby
communities. Farmers skilled in each best practice should serve as teachers and coaches.

Help organize urban farmers. In some cases, farmers will require assistance from
community groups to establish an effective affinity or solidarity organization.
Establish partnerships with farmer groups. Such associations may be with NGOs,
municipalities, universities, the media, food and health authorities, or rural farmers.
Community organizations have a role to play in facilitating access to technology, market
information, technical advice, and crop security.
Establish better and more direct links among urban farmers and the communities they
serve. This may include direct purchasing by local school systems from local farmers;
organizing links between farmers, restaurants, and supermarkets; and fostering the
growth of community-supported agriculture.32
City-Level Actions
City governments and other city-wide organizations can undertake the following set of
actions:
Initiate a city-wide study and discussion program as background to formulating and
adopting a policy to regulate and/or promote urban agriculture.33 This action can be
taken in concert with community groups, affinity groups, other cities, and national
organizations. It can also have input from international organizations.
Adopt enabling legislation. Modifying health and land-use regulations is the most
common way to encourage urban agriculture. National government support may be
required.
Recognize agriculture as an urban industry. The distinction may vary to include food
and fuel production, waste management, environmental and land management, and
community development. Recognition of urban agriculture should be reflected by
inclusion in the appropriate municipal data collection system.
Plan an institutional structure to promote and regulate urban agriculture. One
possibility is for a municipality to establish a department that provides extension and
information.34 Urban agriculture requires up-to-date information on markets, diseases,
inputs, and security. The municipality can provide such a service independently or in
cooperation with other groups. In concert with banks and technical institutions, the city
can offer credit and assign citizens the right to farm idle land.
Create a city-level food system plan, including both rural and urban supply sources.35
A food and energy partnership between a city and its hinterland can be beneficial to both
by sharing information as well as resources. A land-use plan and regulation system can
be prepared to provide access to land, water, and markets for urban farmers.
Integrate the waste management system with the food system. An integrated system
includes collection of waste, treatment, supply to urban agriculture, and monitoring of the
entire process.
Encourage urban farming in areas that are vulnerable to disasters or that increase
the vulnerability of nearby places.

Establish a program and plan to achieve environmental sustainability through urban

agriculture. For most larger cities, urban environmental sustainability should include
municipal or metropolitan programs for food and fuel production. These would include
forestry and disaster mitigation.
Establish and implement a public and worker safety program. If poorly practiced,
urban agriculture is dangerous to its workers and the public. Regulations that are
developed in conjunction with farmers and communities are needed.
Support groups of disadvantaged citizen. Urban agriculture is particularly effective as
a poverty-fighting tool and especially appropriate for women‟s initiatives. Municipal
programs to eliminate poverty and empower women can include urban agriculture.
Create market places for urban farmers. Farmer‟s markets, street food, and school
lunches can be structured to allow equal access to small-scale, locally-produced
agricultural products.
Train in urban farming methods. Secondary schools and groups such as women and
the unemployed can be suitably targeted.
National-Level Actions
National governments and civic organizations can draft model ordinances and provide
training to local governments and civic organizations. National governments can also
enforce quality control. The choice of policy tools available to national governments
includes legislation, public education, structured incentives, and retrofitting agencies to
regulate and support urban agriculture. Institutions that act at the national level include
the national government and its various ministries, NGOs, universities, and research
centers. Numerous options are available at the national level:
Establish an urban agriculture policy. National policy may be more flexible than
city-level policy and can have a great effect. Concern for the impact on rural food and
fuel producers may be greater at the national level. Environmental policies can include
guidelines to conserve environmentally vulnerable and resource-critical land and water,
which may include agriculture.
Create a national food policy that establishes synergy between rural and urban
production systems and guides a urban-rural integration program for agriculture. This
synergy would complement food system planning undertaken by individual urban
regions, particularly in small cities where planning capabilities tend to be limited.
National intervention will be needed where past national agriculture programs have been
exclusively rural and there is a need to extend research and extension to include urban
farming.
Provide research and extension services. Municipal governments generally have little
capacity for research. Most national governments have agricultural research and
extension facilities that can be expanded to include urban agriculture. National
organizations can facilitate information sharing among cities both within and outside the
country.

Alleviate taxes or subsidize inputs for particular groups of urban farmers. It may be
appropriate to devise a system of national incentives, at least for an interim period, to
realize the full range of benefits.
Prepare model health and land-use codes. Development of model codes in areas such
as public health, land use, waste management, and water conservation could significantly
aid small- and medium-size towns and cities in developing their own policies and
programs.
Conduct surveys and collect and disseminate data. Beginning with census and
employment data, there are many national or sample surveys that can include urban
agriculture. National-level efforts to develop data on nutrition, land use, pollution,
disaster proneness, food systems, and energy could make a significant difference.
Facilitate access to public land and waterways. Airports, highways, hospitals,
military bases, universities, forest parks, and many other publicly-owned lands can be
made available for urban agriculture as an interim or permanent land use. While local and
regional authorities are also important owners of some of these properties, national
governments tend to be particularly significant landholders in most countries. Rivers,
estuaries, and bays suitable for aquaculture are also typically controlled by the national
government.
Facilitate cooperation among farmer groups and both public authorities and large
private corporations. Electricity, telecommunications, ports, railroads, and parks
authorities are often established as extensions of national governments. Their partnership
with urban farmers associations may be critical in some cities.
Establish a credit system. Existing national schemes for credit to agriculture and
small businesses can be extended to include urban farming.
Establish a system to facilitate cooperation between local farmers’ organizations and
regional and global agencies that support urban agriculture. Global organizations and
their regional branches are beginning to offer assistance in urban agriculture. This
assistance can be facilitated by a national ministry that communicates with individual
cities or national NGOs.
Train trainers, leaders, and monitors. The training of trainers and leaders can be
carried out on either a national or regional basis. These leaders/trainers can then organize
and oversee farmer-to-farmer exchanges and local training.
International-Level Actions
The international policy role is crucial at the present time because farming in cities is
sweeping the world. Policies should always be built on best practices, which can flow
through international organizations from one country to another.36
Urban agriculture may not require long-term support, but international support will be
needed on an interim basis. During the next decade, start-up efforts will require
assistance. During that time, technical support will be needed for technical cooperation
among developing countries, special farming systems, and troubleshooting issues such as
diseases and pollution.

Global data sharing, information exchange, and networking will continue indefinitely
and should be self-supporting. Regional urban agriculture networks are beginning to
form.
The actors involved at the international level include the United Nations and its
specialized and associated agencies, research centers, development banks, bilateral and
multilateral assistance agencies, and international NGOs. The tasks they can perform to
promote urban agriculture include:
Develop agreements on research priorities and common research methods. A
conference of leading researchers is needed to develop research guidelines.
Develop model codes that can serve as a basis for national and city regulatory
programs. Codes are particularly needed for the use of public and private land,
wastewater, and ecologically sensitive land and water areas.
Conduct surveys across national boundaries to compare industry performance by
climate zones and similar economies. Comparative studies of farming systems, subsector
economics, environmental impacts, the role of women, and nutritional impacts in
different cultures, for example, can contribute valuable information.
Retrofit existing and new projects to include urban agriculture. Potential areas
include food systems, the environment, energy, agriculture (research, marketing,
extension), forestry, utility infrastructure, urban management, and waste recycling, as
well as such initiatives such as national environmental action plans.
Identify organizational models for urban agriculture. There are several effective local
and national governmental agencies across the globe that could be described and profiled
as models for other cities and countries. Public-private partnerships that have been
successful at promoting the industry could as prototypes or models.
Develop regional and global networks. This has been discussed extensively in the
preface and earlier in this chapter.
—————————
As the global trend toward greater urbanization continues, urban food insecurity is
increasing in both rich and poor nations. As cities are growing, urban environments are
deteriorating. Urban agriculture has the potential to address hunger, poverty, and urban
environmental degradation in a sustainable way. Efforts at all levels and by both public
and private interests are needed to establish regulatory and support systems that can help
the urban agriculture industry to flourish. These systems must be designed to solve the
problems associated with the poor practices of urban agriculture, reduce the constraints
hindering its development, and capture its many potential benefits.
Notes
1. Daniel Lazare. 2001. America‟s Undeclared War: What‟s Killing Our Cities and How
We Can Stop It. New York: Harcourt. Lazare‟s core point is that exclusionary zoning

is not a good idea gone bad, but it was a bad idea from the beginning, after World
War I.
2. Urban agriculture radio tapes are available from DCFRN (Developing Countries Farm
Radio Network) in Canada.
3. These include FAO for agriculture, UNCHS for urban management, UNEP for
environmental dimension, WHO for health and sanitation, and UNDP for overall
guidance in institution-building.
4. See www.ruaf.org/ump/quito/2000.
5. Some multilateral agencies have specific programs: the Inter-American Development
Bank (urban greening activities); UNCHS (Sustainable Cities program); WHO
(Healthy City program, particularly active in Europe); and IDRC (Cities Feeding
People program).
6. Global Forum 94 was held on 24-28 June 1994 as a follow-up to the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro (the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development).
7. International Colloquium of Mayors on Social Development, Mayors‟ Declaration on
Social Development and Sustainable Human Settlements, United Nations
Development Program, New York City, 19 Aug 1994. The Colloquium was a
preparatory conference to the Social Summit held in Cairo in 1995. Another meeting
of mayors on urban agriculture also took place in New York, under the auspices of
the United Nations. See B.L. Wilson. 1997. Urban Agriculture for Food Security,
Jobs and Waste Recovery, roundtable of top local government officials (unpublished
IDRC meeting notes, 29 July).
8. See Chris Rogerson for South Africa and Catherine Murphy for Cuba in Appendix „G‟.
9.See Case 9.5 for Singapore technology
10. See www.idrc.ca/cfp/sguaf_e.html and www.ruaf.org.
11. Contact person is Gordon Prain at g.prain@cgiar.org. Urban Harvest is also known by
the acronym SIUPA.
12. See www.idrc.ca/cfp/aguila.html
13. See www.communitygarden.org and www.foodsecurity.org
14. Information on the emerging networks can be found by contacting ruaf@etcnl.nl.
15. See www.ruaf.org
16. Their addresses are www.cityfarmer.org and www.idrc.ca/cfp.
17. Gabrielle Persley. 2000. Focus 2: Biotechnology for Developing-Country Agriculture,
IFPRI Briefs. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research
Institute).

18. J. Sumberg, U. Kleih, and R. Grand-Pierre. 1994. Production and Marketing of

Vegetables in the Port-au-Prince Peri-Urban Area: A Sub-Sector Study, Report for
CARE International-Haiti.
19. Excellent surveys have been carried out by the Urban Vegetable Promotion Project, a
GTZ-funded project in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in cooperation with UNCHS and
others. This project can be contacted at uvpp@uvpp.africaonline.co.tz
20. R. Gottlieb and A. Fisher. 2000. Race, Poverty and the Environment. Community
Food Security News 7(2):18 (winter).
21. Sarah Atkinson. 1992. Food for the Cities: Urban Nutrition Policy in Developing
Countries. Public Health and Policy Departmental Publication 5. London: London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
22. Robert Ledogar. 1978. Food and Nutrition in Squatter Areas: A Case Study of John
Howard in Lusaka. Report prepared for the American Friends Service Committee,
Lusaka, Zambia.
23. Jack Hale. 2000. Phytoremediation Gets the Lead Out. ACGA Multilogue 17(1):11.
24. Juan Arbona, SEMTA, La Paz, Bolivia, personal communication, 1994.
25. Trickle-Up Program. 1993. Annual Report. New York: Trickle-Up Program.
26. Portland, Oregon found that after it established an urban expansion boundary in the
1980s, land values rose sharply inside the boundary and agricultural production per
acre rose sharply in the surrounding countryside.
27. Bishwapriya Sanyal. Urban Cultivation in East Africa: People’s Response to Urban
Poverty. Food-Energy Nexus Program. Paris: United Nations University, pp. 48 and
53.
28. Sanyal, op. cit, pp. 56-63.
29. Ian McHarg. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press.
30. Inge Lardinois and Christine Furedy. 1999. Source Separation of Household Waste
Materials — Analysis of Case Studies from Pakistan, the Philippines, India, Brazil,
Argentina and the Netherlands. Urban Waste Series 7. Gouda, The Netherlands:
WASTE.
31. Personal communication, James Nienhuis, AVRDC, Costa Rica, 1999.
32. In the Washington, D.C. area, the largest supermarket chain (Giant Food) and one of
the most prominent restaurant chains (Clyde‟s) both have in-house buyers who
specialize in purchasing from local producers.
33. P. Jacobi, J. Amend, and A. Drescher. 2000. Justification, Assessment and Planning
guidelines for Urban Agriculture in Sustainable City Development. Dar es Salaam:
Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
34. This is what the city of Jakarta, Indonesia has done, forming an agriculture
department with specialized divisions staffed by professionals (see Case 2.3).

35. The city of Toronto and others have food policy councils that coordinate urban and
rural food production, with the aim of metropolitan food self-reliance.
36. Nico Bakker et al. 1999. Growing Cities, Growing Food. Conference, Havana, Cuba.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Appendix A
Acknowledgements
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
Acknowledgements
A
Acknowledgements
The first edition of this book listed numerous individuals and institutions who provided
useful information and other support — particularly during our various field trips when
we gathered the material upon which that book was based. The book would not have been
possible without their support. While it is not possible to reprint that entire list, we do
want to call attention to those who were instrumental in helping us produce this second
edition.
Dozens of people have contributed to this new edition in diverse ways, including case
studies, data, news items, book and article references, conference presentations,
correspondence, photos, and collaboration in related activities.
The authors wish first and foremost to thank five people who have contributed at
many levels — conceptually, substantively, and emotionally:
Anthony Brunetti, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada
Margaret Hoven, Mount Pleasant, Washington, D.C., USA
Peter Matlon, Rockefeller Foundation (formerly with UNDP/SEED), New York, New
York, USA
Jonas Rabinovitch, UNDP/MDGD, New York, New York, USA
Seth Beckerman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Several professionals have been exceptionally constructive in their contributions to
this document through their reviews and comments:
Isaac Akinyele, Food Basket Foundation, Ibadan, Nigeria
François Coutu, formerly at UNDP, New York, USA
Andres Dasso, REDE, Lima, Peru
Steven A. Esrey, UNICEF, New York, USA
Chris Furedy, York University, York, Ontario, Canada
Herbert Girardet, Schumacher Society, UK
Liz Graham, Institute of Archaeology, London, UK
Petra Jacobi, UVPP/GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Shubh Kumar-Range, Consultant, Washington, D.C., USA
Mike Levenston, CityFarmer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Daniel Maxwell, CARE International, Nairobi, Kenya
Appendix A Second Edit— 10 Dec 2001 Page 1

Acknowledgements
Rachel Nugent, formerly at FAO, Rome, Italy

Carl Taylor, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Geoff Wilson, TUAN-Western Pacific, Brisbane, Australia
Jorge Zapp, UNDP/LAC, Bogota, Colombia
The following organizations have been friends and supporters of our efforts:
Agriculture in Relief and Transition, USA
CERMOC, Lebanon
Community Food Security Coalition, USA
ETC Foundation, Netherlands
International Development Research Centre, Canada
International Potato Center, Peru
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Sweden
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Italy
Urban Vegetable Promotion Project (UVPP), Tanzania
World Bank, USA
World Health Organization — Europe, Denmark
Some individuals provided specific cases, photographs, tables, etc. These are
acknowledged in each instance as the source for the specific item.
Appendix A Second Edit— 10 Dec 2001 Page 2

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Appendix B
Glossary
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
Glossary
B
Glossary
Note — A few of the definitions below are based on the glossary in the book by Birley and
Lock, listed in Appendix G.
Aeroponics — A method of growing plants, modified from hydroponics, where the
plants are anchored in panels from polystyrene foam or other materials, and the roots
are suspended in mid-air inside a sealed box and supplied with nutrients through a
solution-laden fine mist.
Agroforestry — See Urban Forestry
Allotment gardens — An urban farming system that originated in the late 18th century
in which small plots are allotted to members of an organized group on a permit basis,
often based on an annual renewable permit. It may be differentiated from tenant
farming by scale and community gardens by a greater focus on health and food
security. In some instances, sale for profit is not permitted. Allotment gardens have
sometimes morphed into leisure gardens.
Apiculture —Raising bees to promote pollination and produce honey. In urban
agriculture, the beehives are typically mobile.
Aquaculture — Agriculture within various bodies of water. It includes seaweed, duckweed,
rushes, water spinaches, lilies, shrimp, fish, and other seafood crops. In urban areas,
aquaculture is often wastewater-based and frequently shares water space with
recreational uses.
Aqua-terra farming — A system of agriculture in which water crops and land crops
support each other. Land crops may include trees, vegetables, livestock, and flowers,
while in the water, poultry, fish, vegetables, and crayfish may be produced.
Biointensive agriculture/horticulture — Usually refers to the French Biointensive Method
developed in response to rapid urbanization during the 18th and 19th centuries, which
spread to Africa and elsewhere. In the second half of the 20th century, this was modified
in California. Chinese biointensive methods have spread over much of the world. A
significant update was made in the 1990s in Cuba. The method is usually recognizable
by raised beds with high organic content and little or no use of chemical inputs.
Community food security — Defined in the section on Community Food Security in
Chapter 1.
Community garden — An agricultural system related to the allotment garden and the
community kitchen, first recorded in the United States during the economic crash of
1892. A community garden is run by a member group and permits farming of a small
plot under strict conditions.
Appendix B Second edit — 10 Dec 2001 Page 1

Glossary
Community kitchen — A community-based organization that includes communal food

purchase and preparation. Some community kitchens have small farms.
Companion cropping — Growing compatible crops, with one protecting the other from
attacks by insects or diseases (for example, marigolds with cabbage).
Faecal coliforms — A group of bacteria that are normally found in human and other animal
feces.
Farming system — The various crop production methods used on a single farm or a system
of agriculture — such as greenhouse floriculture or roadside vegetable horticulture —
that has a distinct set of farming practices. Aqua-terra farming (defined above) is an
example of a complex farming system.
Food security — Defined in the section on Food Security in Chapter 1.
Food-shed — A basic concept to define urban agriculture that derives from the concept of a
watershed. Maps show the flow of a particular food from production to consumer (see
Chapter 1).
Food system/agriculture-food system — A concept that portrays the geography and
process of an individual, family, community, city, state, or region’s food acquisition,
distribution, and consumption. Analyzing and mapping food systems are critical for
urban agriculture stakeholders to define their most constructive and productive role.
Fungible income — In urban agriculture, production of food as a substitute for buying it, a
practice that frees part of the household income to pay for services and other goods (see
Chapter 1).
Helminth — A common parasitic worm.
Horticulture — All crops cultivated on land, including vegetables, berries, and trees.
Ornamental horticulture and forestry are special types. A more narrow definition is
limited to vegetable production.
Hydroponic agriculture — A method of growing plants in a nutrient solution with or
without an inert medium such as volcanic ash. Hydroponic agriculture may use either
organic or chemical fertilization through the irrigation system, and may occur on a small
scale on a range of surfaces, including rooftops. These crops are known for nutritional
safety and uniformity.
Intercropping — Growing two crops together at the same time, such as a short-season
tomato and a long-season sugarcane.
Layering — Growing complementary crops in the same space but at different levels, such
as trees over bushes over ground-level vegetables.
Leaching —Removing readily soluble components from soil by percolating water. The
product is called leachate.
Market gardening, truck farming —Production of horticultural crops in urban and peri-
urban areas for a nearby urban market. Includes small-, medium-, and large-scale
operations. Compared to rural agriculture, market gardening is typically both capital and
labor intensive.

Glossary
Microlivestock — Small livestock, including guinea pigs, guinea fowl, rabbits, pigeons,
chickens, ducks, pigs, and goats. In this book, the term is used primarily in a narrower
sense to mean small domesticated animals, as distinguished from poultry.
Microlivestock are generally the type of livestock most suitable for small farmers in
urban agriculture.
Micronutrients — Nutrients such as vitamins and minerals that are necessary in small
amounts for normal health.
Multicropping —Broadly refers to growing a number of crops at one site, whether mixed
together or not. Home gardens typically employ multicropping.
Mycoculture —Systematic production of mushrooms.
Nightsoil — A euphemism for human excreta stored in containers that are not connected to
sewers. Commonly used as fertilizer or as an input to fertilizer.
Outgrower — A contract producer. Typically, a firm contracts with an outgrower for
specified production by a specified date.
Pathogen — An organism — usually microscopic — that causes disease.
Parasite — An organism that lives on or in another organism, called the host, and draws
nourishment from it.
Permaculture — A popular form of sustainable agriculture, particularly adapted to urban
areas, which promotes closed-loop ecological systems. Developed in Australia, based on
American, Japanese and French antecedents, and widely disseminated worldwide.
Peri-urban area — An area at the fringe of the city that is in the process of converting from
rural to urban land uses. The size of the peri-urban area is defined more by
transportation infrastructure and uses of the land than by either population of the city or
distance from its center. Accessibility is a key factor determining the extent of the peri-
urban area. These zones are a common locus of urban agriculture.
Pisciculture — Fish production, a type of aquaculture.
Productive landscape — A concept in which open spaces are perceived as potentially
productive rather than simply recreational or aesthetic (see Chapter 1).
Shallow bed/lazy bed — First identified in Germany in the middle 19th century, this
farming system produces horticultural products on solid waste or unprocessed
vegetation such as tree leaves or seaweed, with or without soil mixed in. Can be applied
on rooftops and abandoned building sites.
Throughput — The balance between inputs and outputs that flow through a community.
Urban agriculture reduces a city’s throughput by reusing its waste to produce food and
fuel (see Chapter 1).
Urban forestry, urban agroforestry — A broad group of farming systems, such as
mushroom production on logs, medicinal shrubs, bamboo for construction, neem trees
for insecticide and basket weaving, vineyards, fruit and nut production, and fuel. Urban
forestry is closely linked to environmental enhancement through cleansing air and water.

Glossary
Usufruct — The legal right to use and enjoy (the Latin root of the word) something that
belongs to another. In urban agriculture, a usufruct permits a farmer to exploit land or
water owned by another (see Chapter 1).
Vector — A living organism (often an insect) that transmits an infectious agent from an
infected animal to another animal (or human). Mosquitoes are the vector for the malaria
parasite.
Zero-grazing — Maintaining and feeding livestock and poultry within an enclosed area (for
example, a stable or pigsty or cages). Covers a broad range from mice for medical
research, to pork factory farms raising thousands of animals, to ornamental birds and
back porch guinea pigs for protein.
Zoonosis — An infectious disease transmissible to humans from other animals under
natural conditions.

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Appendix C
Sources for Cases
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
Sources for Cases
C
Sources for Cases
For those contacts whose full addresses are not listed below, their addresses may be
found in Appendix F, Selected Resource People.
Case 2.1
Chase, Arlen F. 1998. Planeacion Civica e Integracion de Sitio en Caracol, Belize. Los
Investigadores De La Cultura Maya 6(1):27-44.
Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. 1998. Scale and Intensity in Classic Period Maya
Agriculture: Terracing and Settlement at the ‘Garden City’ of Caracol, Belize.
Culture And Agriculture 29:60-77
Pendergast, David M. 1981. Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-
1980. Journal Of Field Archaeology 8:29-53.
Contacts
Elizabeth Graham, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, UK
Case 2.2
Stanhill, G. 1977. An Urban Agro-Ecosystem: The Example of Nineteenth-Century Paris.
Agro-Ecosystems 3:269-284.
Contact
Professor André Fleury, Ecole Nationale Supérieure du Paysage, Versailles, France
Case 2.3
Agence France Press. 1998. Jakarta Governor Says Poor Can Farm City Land. 6 Aug.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1988. Street Foods. Food and Nutrition Paper
46. Jogjakarta, Indonesia: FAO.
Jakarta Municipal Department of Agriculture. 1988. Horticulture Division Annual
Report. Jakarta: Municipal Department of Agriculture.
Contacts
Dr. Ny Ning Purnamohadi, PRSI, Kantor Menteri Negara Jalan, Mendeka Barat 15,
Jakarta, Indonesia
Erwina Darmajanti, Pan-Indonesia, Jalan. Perasch Raya No. 1, Palbatu Memeng
Dalam, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Case 2.4
Appendix C Second Edit — 10 Dec 2001 Page 1

Sources for Cases
Abdelwahed, Said I. (ed. and translator). 1999. Future of Urban Agriculture in Gaza.
Proceedings of workshop, Gaza, 13-15 Sept 1998. Gaza: Palestinian Agricultural
Relief Committees and Gaza Urban Agriculture Committee.
Statement on the Gaza Urban Agriculture Committee.
www.cityfarmer.org/GazaUrbA.html.
Contacts
Ahmed Sourani, Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, P.O. Box 225, Gaza,
Palestine
Bashar Ashour, Palestinian Hydrology Group, P.O. Box 449, Gaza, Palestine.
Case 2.5
Mvena, Z.S.K., I.J. Lupanga, and M.R.S. Mlozi. 1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: A
Study of Six Towns. Draft paper, Department of Agriculture, Education and
Extension. Morogoro, Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture.
UN Centre for Human Settlements. 1993. Sustainable Cities Programme, 1988 census,
Dar es Salaam Environmental Profile. Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements.
Contacts
Dr. Camillus J. Sawio, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam
Petra Jacobi, Urban Vegetable Promotion Project, Dar es Salaam
Dr. Malongo Mlozi, Sokoine University, Morogoro, Tanzania
Dr. Zebedato Mvena, Sokoine University, Morogoro, Tanzania
Case 2.6
Urban Agriculture Network case file.
Contact
Jorge Zapp, consultant to UNDP, Bogotá, Colombia
Case 2.7
Faludi, Andreas and Arnold van der Valk. 1996. Rule and Order: Dutch Planning
Doctrine in the Twentieth Century. GeoJournal Library Series 28. Hingham,
Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic.
Contact
ETC Foundation, P.O. Box 64, Leusden 3830 AB, Netherlands.
Case 2.8
Frojmovic, Michel. 1996. Urban Agriculture in Canada: A Survey of Municipal
Initiatives in Canada and Abroad. Cities Feeding People Report No. 16. (Ottawa,
Ontario: International Development and Research Centre.

Sources for Cases
www.cityfarmer.org.
Contact
Michael Levenston, CityFarmer
BrendaLee Wilson, IDRC. BLWilson@IDRC.ca
Case 2.9
Urban Agriculture Network case file
HUFACAM. 1992. Proyecto Especial HUFACAM. Lima: HUFACAM. Note:
HUFACAM has been closed down. Please contact the Ministry of Agriculture, Lima,
Peru.
Case 3.1
Contact
Harrington Jere, Human Settlements of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
Case 3.2
Contacts
Camila Montecino and Rita Moya, Centre for Education and Technology (CET),
Colina, Chile
Case 3.3
Geoff Wilson. 1998. Urban Farming. Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses
May/June.
Contact
Geoff Wilson, Brisbane, Australia
Case 3.4
Contact
Roberto S. Guevara, Urban Food Foundation, BPI Nursery Compound, Elliptical
Road at Visayas and Dilliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Case 3.5
Edwards, P. and R.S.V. Pullin (eds.). 1990. Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture. Proceedings of
the International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Aquaculture,
Calcutta, India, Dec 1988. Bangkok: Environmental Sanitation Information Centre,
Asian Institute of Technology.

Sources for Cases
Department of Fisheries. 1988. Fisheries Development in West Bengal at a Glance.

Calcutta: Government of West Bengal, Department of Fisheries.
Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 47. Rome: FAO, pp. 117-118
Giri, Pabitra. 1995. Urban Agriculture: Waste Recycling and Aquaculture in East
Calcutta. Paper paper presented at the International Workshop on Urban Agriculture
and Sustainable Environment, organized by the Centre for the Built Environment and
TUAN, Calcutta, Dec.
Ghosh, Dhrubajyoti. 1996. Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Recycling in City-Wide
Wetlands: Lessons from Calcutta. Paper presented at the UNDP roundtable Cities for
People in a Globalizing World, Marmaris, Turkey, Apr.
Contacts
Dr. Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Calcutta Metropolitan Water and Sewer Authority, Calcutta,
India
Professor Christine Furedy, York University, Toronto, Canada
Mr. Pabitra Giri, Centre for Urban Economic Studies, Calcutta University, Calcutta,
West Bengal, 700 047, India
Case 3.6
Bellows, Anne C. 1998. Gender, Utilitarianism and Poland: 100 Years of Women and
Urban Agriculture. Women and Environments International 44/45:36-39
Contact
Anne Bellows, New Jersey, USA
Case 3.7
Garnett, Tara. 1996. Growing Food in Cities: A report to Highlight and Promote the
Benefits of Urban Agriculture in the UK. London: National Food Alliance and SAFE
Alliance.
Koon, Kathy. 1998. Food From the Hood, a Case Study. Unpublished paper.
Contact
The Food from the Hood, 5010 11th Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90043, USA.
Case 3.8
Kaldjian, Paul. Forthcoming. Urban Agriculture and the Rural Hinterland: Food Security
Alternatives in Istanbul. In Research in Middle East Economics (Hans Löfgren, editor
of special issue) .
Kaldjian, Paul. 1997. Istanbul: Opportunities in Urban Agriculture Arid Lands Newsletter
42.

Sources for Cases
Contact
Paul Kaldjian, Missouri Southern State College, Joplin, MO, USA
Case 3.9
Contact
R. Montanez, Africare, Central & West Africa Division, 440 R Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20006, USA.
Case 4.1
Contact
Mildred Regis, CARE-Haiti, Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Miradieu and Dieula Estinvil, ODEJHA-Depot, Delmas 31, Rue Maguana 40-C, B.P.
13202 Delmas, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Case 4.2
Crouch, David and Colin Ward. 1988. The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture. London
and Boston: Faber & Faber.
Garrett, Steven V. 1999. Report to the Comfood-l listserv. Tacoma, Washington. 7 Apr.
Contact
James Petts, SUSTAIN, London, UK
Case 4.3
The Mega-Cities Project Inc. 1999. Environmental Innovations for Sustainable Mega-
Cities: Sharing Approaches that Work. New York: The Mega-Cities Project.
Contact
Janice Perlman, The Mega-Cities Project, 300 Summit Street, Hartford, Connecticut
06106. megacities@trincoll.edu
Case 4.4
Memo from Samina Raja to Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey, reporting on visit to
Village Farms, Buffalo, 1999.
Contact
Stuart Levy, consultant for the Buffalo Economic Development Renaissance
Corporation, Arcade Complex, 617 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14203, USA.
slevy@berc.org
Case 4.5

Sources for Cases
Contacts
Dr. Camillus Sawio, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
L. Keith Lilley, UVPP, PO Box 31311, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
uvpp@uvpp.africaonline.co.tz
Case 4.6
Konaté, Yacouba. 1987. Land Issues in the Peri-Urban Zone of Bamako, Mali: A Case
Study of Kalabancoro. Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations
University.
Diallo, S. and Y. Coulibaly. 1987. Les déchets urbains en milieu démuni à Bamako.
Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Case 4.7
Zhang, Z.S. 1990. Wastewater-Fed Fish Culture in China. In Wastewater-Fed
Aquaculture (P. Edwards and R.S.V. Pullin, eds.). Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology.
Edwards, Peter. 1998. Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture: State of the Art. Keynote address to
the International Conference on Ecological Engineering, Calcutta, Nov.
Contact
Peter Edwards, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
Case 4.8
Carter, E. Jane. 1993. The Potential of Urban Forestry in Developing Countries: A
Concept Paper. Prepared on behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,
June.
Contacts
Jane Carter, Research Associate, Rural Development Forestry Network, Oversees
Development Institute, London, UK
Howard Dalziel, CONCERN, Dublin, Ireland.
Case 4.9
Jimenez-Osornio, Juan J. et al. 1990. Past, Present and Future of the Chinampas. Maya
Sustainability Report No. 1. Riverside, California: University of California.
DePalma, Anthony. 1993. Mexico City Restoring Area Tilled by Aztecs. New York
Times, 14 Sept., p. C4
Torres-Lima, Pablo, Beatriz Canabal-Cristiani, and Gilberto Burela-Rueda. 1994. Urban
Sustainable Agriculture: The Paradox of the Chinampa System in Mexico City.
Agriculture and Human Values 11(1):37-46.
Contacts

Sources for Cases
Alfonso González Martinez, Allende 7 Sta., Ursala Coapa, Mexico City D.F., Mexico
04650
Pablo Torres Lima, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Mexico City,
Mexico
Case 4.10
Contacts
Joe Nasr, TUAN, Washington, DC, USA
Habib Debs, Atelier URBI, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon. urbi@inco.com.lb
Case 4.11
Urban Resources Systems. 1984. Urban Agriculture: Meeting Basic Needs for the Urban
Poor. Prepared for UNICEF, Urban Examples for Basic Services Development in
Cities (UE-9). New York: UNICEF.
Contacts
Dr. Isabel Wade, Urban Resources Systems, San Francisco, California, USA
Professor José Deanon, University of the Philippines, Los Baños
Mario Chanco, Earthmen Communications Foundation, PO Box 3427, Manila,
Philippines. Fax 632-711-9053
Case 5.1
Malaysian Strait Times. 1993. The Good Gardener. 18 Aug.
Contact
Dr. Vu Quyet Thang, CRES, National University, 19 LeThanh Tong, Hanoi, Viet
Nam.
Case 5.2
Price, Martin L. 1990. A Special Expanded Issue on Rooftop Gardening. ECHO
Development Notes 30.
Center for Citizens Initiatives. 1994. The Agricultural Initiative. San Francisco: Center
for Citizens Initiatives.
Contacts
Martin Price, Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization, North Fort Myers,
Florida USA
Will Easton, CCI Ag, Initiative Director, 3268 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, CA
94115, USA.
Case 5.3

Sources for Cases
Böhrt, Julio Prudencio. 1994. People’s Hydroponics in Latin America. ILEIA Newsletter
10(4):13.
Contacts
Dr. Jorge Zapp, consultant to UNDP, Bogotá, Colombia
Cesar Marulanda, consultant to UNDP, Managua, Nicaragua
Case 5.4
Robson, Emma. 1991. Duckweed: A Lowly Plant Finds a Richer Role Cleansing Waste
and Creating Protein. Source, Dec.
Skillicorn, Paul, William Spira, and William Journey. 1993. Duckweed Aquaculture: A
New Aquatic Farming System for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Edwards, Peter. 1998. Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture: State of the Art. Keynote address to
the International Conference on Ecological Engineering, Calcutta, Nov.
Contacts
William Journey, Aquasan, Fairfax, USA
Peter Edwards, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
Case 5.5
Moscoso, Julio and Hugo L. Nava. 1990. Reuse of Treated Pond Effluents for Fish
Culture in Lima, Peru. In Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture, Proceedings of the
International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Aquaculture,
Calcutta, India, Dec. 1988. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.
Bartone, Carl L. et al. 1985. Monitoring and Maintenance of Treated Water Quality in the
San Juan Lagoons Supporting Aquaculture. Final Report of Phases I-II of the
UNDP/World Bank/ GTZ Integrated Resource Recovery Project. Lima: Pan
American Center for Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences.
Moscoso, Julio. 1999. Agricultural Use of Wastewater Treated in San Juan Stabilization
Ponds, Lima, Peru. Lima: CEPIS.
Contacts
Carl Bartone, World Bank, Washington, DC
Dr. Julio Moscoso Z., Aquacultura Servicios S.A
Case 5.6
Contact
Dr. Zebadato S.K. Mvena, Sokoine University, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Case 5.7

Sources for Cases
Ngoupayou, J.D. Ngou et al. 1995. Possibilités de développement de l’élevage du cobaye

en Afrique subsaharienne: le cas du Cameroun. World Animal Review 83(2):20-28.
Case 5.8
Mvena, Z.S.K. et al. 1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: A Study of Six Towns. Draft,
Department of Agricultural Education and Extension. Morogoro, Tanzania: Sokoine
University, Oct.
Contacts
Dr. Zebedato S.K. Mvena, Sokoine University, Morogoro
Dr. Camillo Sawio, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Case 5.9
Contact
Jonathan Brown, Executive Director, CitySeeds, 70 Woodfin Place, Asheville, NC
28801.
Case 5.10
Addey, Patrick. 1993. Growing the Food of the Gods: Ghana’s Success in Mushroom
Cultivation. Choices, Summer.
Case 5.11
Annabel Biles. 1999. Trading Places: A Unique Trading Community Thrives on the
Outskirts of Durban. Urban Age, Fall, p. 19.
Case 5.12
Contact
Lyson Phiri, Africare, Lusaka, Zambia
Case 6.1
Boissière, Thierry. 1999. Jardiniers et société citadine dans la vallée de l'Oronte en Syrie
centrale. Ph.D. thesis in ethnology. Lyon , France: Université Lumière.
Contact
Thierry Boissière, Université Lumière
Case 6.2
Gröning, Gert. 1996. Politics of Community Gardening in Germany. Paper presented at
the 1996 Annual Conference of The American Community Gardening Association,
26-29 Sept, Montreal, Canada

Sources for Cases
Kinzer, Stephen. 1994. Dread of Builders in a City Woven with Gardens. New York
Times, 18 Feb.
Cooper, Christopher. 2000. Berliners’ Melody: They Paved Paradise, Tore up a Garden
Plot. Wall Street Journal, 30 Aug, p. A1.
Contact
Gert Gröning, FG Gartenkultur, FB 2, Hochschule der Künste, Berlin, Germany.
Case 6.3
Undugu Society. 1993. Annual Report. Nairobi: Undugu Society.
Mwangi, Alice Mboganie. 1995. The Role of Urban Agriculture for Food Security in
Low Income Areas in Nairobi. Food and Nutrition Studies Program. Report No. 54.
Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
Contact
Paterson Kuria-Gathuru, Undugu Society, PO Box 40417, Landries/Jojou
Road,Nairobi, Kenya. Fax 2541-545-888
Case 6.4
Hawkins, J.N. 1981. Shanghai’s Food System. Unpublished.
Honghai, Deng. 1992. Urban Agriculture as Urban Food Supply and Environmental
Protection Subsystems in China. Paper presented at the International Workshop on
Planning for Sustainable Urban Development, Cardiff, UK, July.
Young, Denise and Honghai Deng. 1998. Urbanisation, Agriculture and Industrialisation
in China, 1952-91. Urban Studies 35(9):1439-1455.
Case 6.5
Pro Huerta brochure, 1994
Contacts
Daniel Norberto Diaz and Francisco D. Garra, INTA, Proyecto Pro Huerta/INTA,
Alsina 1407, 2 Piso Of. 621, 1088 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Case 6.6
AVRDC progress report summaries.
Contact
Lowell Black, AVRDC, Taiwan (province of China)
Case 6.7

Sources for Cases

Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. 1995. ZOPP-5 planning workshop sponsored by the
GTZ, Arusha, Tanzania, 28 Mar-1 Apr.
Contacts
Petra Jacobi, Urban Vegetable Promotion Project, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Rudy Schippers, NRI, Kent, United Kingdom.
Case 6.8
Fisher, Andy. 1998. Past, Present, and Future of the CFSC. Unpublished paper, Oct.
Articles in Community Food Security News, newsletter of the Community Food Security
Coalition.
Contact
Andy Fisher, CFS Coalition, P.O. Box 209, Venice, CA 90294, USA.
Case 7.1
Wheeler, Elizabeth Bone, Kaleitha Nathele Wiley, and Mark G. Winne. 1992. A Tale of
Two Food Systems. In Context: A Journal of Hope, Sustainability, and Change
42:25-27
Nugent, Rachel. 1996. The Sustainability of Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of
Hartford, Connecticut. Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows Program
1996 Reports, p. 59-64.
Contact
Mark G. Winne, Executive Director, Hartford Food System
Case 7.2
Contact
Manuel Orozco Ramos, P.E., HUFACAM, Ministry of Agriculture, Lima, Peru
Lucila Alegre de la Cruz, Microenterprise Director, CARE International, Psje.
Estados Unidos 131-A, 3er. Piso, Comas, Peru.
Case 7.3
Florin, Bénédicte. 1997. Faire son jardin au Caire: Des espaces verts dans deux cités de
logement social. Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine 74: 89-90.
Contact
Bénédicte Florin, Atelier Villes Marocaines, CESHS, 1, rue Annaba, Rabat, Morocco.
Case 7.4

Sources for Cases
Contact
Michael Bassey, Rodale International, B.P. A237, Thies, Senegal.
Case 7.5
Contact
Bob Sadino, Kem Chicks Homeshopping Centre, Kebayoran-Jakarta Selatan, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Case 7.6
Rosset, Peter and Benjamin Medea. 1994. Two Steps Back, One Step Forward: Cuba's
National Policy for Alternative Agriculture. Gatekeeper Series No. 46. London:
Sustainable Agriculture Program of the International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Chaplowe, Scott G. 1997. Havana’s Popular Gardens: Sustainable Prospects for Urban
Agriculture. Oakland, California: Food First.
Contact
Catherine Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), 398 60th
St., Oakland, CA 94618-1212, USA
Maria Caridad Cruz Hernandez, Alcaldia de Cuenca, Sucre y Benigno Malo, Cuenca,
Ecuador. Please use address in Appendix F.
Case 7.7
Furedy, Christine and Dhrubajyoti Ghosh. 1993. Ecological Traditions and the Creative
Use of Urban Wastes: Lessons from Calcutta. Paper presented at Ecological Aspects
of Solid Waste Disposal, Hong Kong, Dec.
Giri, Pabitra. 1995. Urban Agriculture: Waste Recycling and Aquaculture in East
Calcutta. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Urban Agriculture and
Sustainable Environment, organized by the Centre for the Built Environment and
TUAN, Calcutta, Dec.
Contact
Christine Furedy, Urban Studies Programme, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Case 7.8
Cran, Steve. 1993. Food for the Factory. Permaculture International Journal 48:28-29.
Case 7.9
Haile Ferkete. 1991. Fuelwood from the Peri-Urban Plantations of Addis Ababa. In Haile
Ferkete. 1991. Women Fuelwood Carriers in Addis Ababa and the Peri-Urban
Forest. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Sources for Cases
Case 7.10
Schteingart, Marta. 1986. Social Conflicts and Environmental Deterioration.
Development: Seeds of Change 4:56-60.
Kiepi, Kari. 1995. Report at a workshop on urban agriculture sponsored by the Inter-
American Development Bank and the World Bank, Washington, D.C., 26 June.
Pezzoli, Keith. 1998. Human Settlements and Planning for Ecological Sustainability: The
Case of Mexico City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Case 7.11
Contact
J.J. Ndebele, Town Clerk’s Department, P.O. Box 591, Municipal Buildings,
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
Case 7.12
van der Bliek, Julie A. 1992. Urban Agriculture: Possibilities for Ecological Agriculture
in Urban Environments as a Strategy for Sustainable Cities. Leusden, Netherlands:
ETC Foundation.
Robson, Emma. 1991. China’s Centuries Old Recycling: Tradition Gears for the Future.
Source Dec, pp. 6-11.
Christine Furedy, personal communication, 1993.
Case 7.13
National Research Council. 1993. Vetiver: A Thin Green Line Against Erosion.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
World Bank. 1990. Vetiver Grass: The Hedge Against Erosion. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Case 7.14
Contact
Joe Nasr, TUAN.
Case 8.1
Trape, J. and A. Zoulani. 1987. Malaria and Urbanization in Central Africa: The Example
of Brazzaville. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
81, Supplement 2:1-33, quoted in Martin Birley and Karen Lock. 1999. The Health
Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural Resource Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School
of Medicine.

Sources for Cases
Case 8.2
Drescher, Axel. 1994. Gardening on Garbage: Opportunity or Threat? ILEIA Newsletter
Dec, pp. 20-21.
Contact
Axel Drescher, University of Freiburg, Germany
Case 8.3
Bartone, Carl. 1994. Chile: Managing Environmental Problems. Economic Analysis of
Selected Issues. Report 13061-CH, Environment and Urban Development Division.
Contacts
Carl Bartone and Klas Ringskog, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Case 8.4
Goodman, Peter S. 1999. Series of articles. The Washington Post, 25 Feb-19 Mar.
Case 9.1
Sanyal, B. 1985. Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Lusaka. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 7(3):15-24.
Contacts
Axel Drescher, University of Freiburg, Germany
Harrington Jere, Human Settlements of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
Carole Rakodi, University of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Case 9.2
Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 47. Rome: FAO.
Case 9.3
Maxwell, Daniel G. 1996. Highest and Best Use: Access to Urban Land for Semi-
Subsistence Food Production. Land Use Policy 13(3):181-195.
Contact
Daniel Maxwell, Nairobi, Kenya
Case 9.4

Sources for Cases
Contact
Fiona Nunan, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Case 9.5
Agrotechnology Parks Singapore. 2000. Pamphlet, Ministry of National Development.
Singapore: Primary Production Department.
Agerbak, Linda. 1985. Agricultural Innovation in the City-State. Asia 2000, pp. 28-29.
Chow, Leong Poo. 1985. Annual Report. Primary Production Division. Singapore:
Agriculture Ministry.
Case 9.6
Remenyi, Joe. 2000. Poverty Reduction and Urban Renewal through Urban Agriculture
and Microfinance: A Case Study of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Urban Agriculture and Horticulture: The Linkage with
Urban Planning, Berlin, Germany, July.
Contact
Joe Remenyi, School for Australian and International Studies, Deakin University,
Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia.
Case 9.7
Contact
Roberto S. Guevara, Urban Food Foundation, Quezon City, Philippines.
Case 9.8
Contact
Isaac Akinyele, Food Basket Foundation, Ibadan, Nigeria

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Appendix E
Locations visited by The Urban Agriculture Network,
1991-2000
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
Locations Visited
E
Locations visited by The Urban
Agriculture Network, 1991-2000
The Urban Agriculture Network visited 18 developing countries between Fall 1991 and
Spring 1992 during four study trips funded by UNDP. Since then, the authors have
visited many other cities in 22 additional countries for conferences, interviews or field
work, each denoted with an asterisk (*). The towns and cities visited included a wide
range of population size, cultures, economies, and climates.
Turkey
East and South Asia Middle East and
North Africa 32. Istanbul*
India 33. Marmaris*
1. Bhatpara Egypt
2. Burdwan 17. Cairo* Europe
3. Calcutta
Israel France
4. New Delhi
18. Haifa* 34. Amiens*
Indonesia 19. Jerusalem* 35. Deauville*
5. Bandung 36. Evreux*
Jordan
6. Bogor 37. Paris*
7. Jakarta 20. Amman* 38. Tours*
21. Irbid*
Philippines Germany
Lebanon
8. Cavite 39. Berlin*
9. Los Baños 22. Beirut* 40. Frankfurt am Main
10. Manila 23. Saida* 41. Freiburg im
24. Tripoli* Breisgau*
Taiwan 25. Zahle* 42. Leipzig*
11. Kaohsiung 43. Zschortau*
Morocco
12. Taichung
13. Tainan 26. Agadir* Greece
14. Taipei 27. Casablanca* 44. Athens*
28. Fes* 45. Thessaloniki*
Thailand 29. Rabat-Salé*
15. Bangkok Ireland
Palestine
16. Samut Sakhon 46. Dublin*
30. Gaza*
Italy
Syria
47. Florence*
31. Damascus* 48. Rome*
Appendix E Second Edit — 10 Dec 2001 Page 1

Locations Visited
49. Siena* 82. Mehru* Haiti

83. Morogoro 107. Port-au-Prince*
Netherlands
50. Amersfoort* Uganda Nicaragua
51. Amsterdam* 84. Entebbe* 108. Managua
85. Kampala* 109. Nagarotte
United Kingdom
52. Bath* Zambia Panama
53. Birmingham* 86. Lusaka 110. Colòn
54. Chatham 111. La Chorrera
55. Evesham* South America 112. Panama City
56. Liverpool*
57. London* Argentina North America
58. Loughborough* 87. Buenos Aires
59. Manchester* 88. Lomas de Zamora Canada
60. Tenby* 89. San Isidro 113. Montreal*
Bolivia 114. Ottawa*
Sub-Saharan Africa 115. Toronto*
90. El Alto*
Côte d'Ivoire 91. La Paz* Mexico
61. Abidjan Brazil 116. Coyoacan
62. Agboville 117. Cuernavaca*
92. Curitiba
63. Bingerville* 118. Culhuacan
93. Porta Grosso*
64. Dabou 119. Merida*
94. Rio Branco do Sul
65. Danane* 120. Mexico City
95. Rio de Janeiro
66. Yamoussoukrou* United States
Chile
Eritrea 121. Atlanta*
96. Maipù
67. Asmara* 122. Baltimore*
97. Santiago
68. Dubarwa* 123. Boston*
69. Keren* Colombia 124. Burlington, VT.*
98. Bogotà 125. Chicago*
Kenya 126. Denver*
99. Cali*
70. Nairobi 100. Medellìn* 127. Detroit*
71. Naivasha 101. Villa de Leyva* 128. Hartford*
72. Ngong 102. Zipaquirà 129. Los Angeles*
Senegal 130. Minneapolis*
Peru
131. New York*
73. Dakar 103. Chosica 132. Philadelphia*
74. Louga 104. Lima 133. Pittsburgh*
75. Saint-Louis 105. Villa El Salvador 134. Providence*
76. Thiès
135. San Francisco*
Tanzania Central America and 136. Santa Fe*
the Caribbean 137. Salt Lake City
77. Arusha*
78. Bagamoyo 138. Seattle*
Cuba
79. Dar es Salaam
80. Dodoma* 106. Havana*
81. Lushoto*
Appendix E Second Edit — 10 Dec 2001 Page 2

Urban Agriculture
2001 Edition
Appendix G
Selected Readings
By:
Jac Smit
Joe Nasr
Annu Ratta
Published by:

Notice:
Selected Readings
G
Selected Readings
Almost all items in this list are held in the TUAN library, which is the world’s largest
collection of materials on urban agriculture. Over 3,000 accessions of this material have
recently been entered into a database, accessible through TUAN. Please note that where
an entire edited book or the special issue of a periodical is related to the subject of urban
agriculture, individual articles within those publications are not listed separately. Note
also that publications in languages other than English are not equally represented in this
list.
This list is not meant to be fully comprehensive of the growing literature on urban
agriculture. Additional titles can be located, among others, on the Internet at
www.idrc.ca/cfp, www.ruaf.org, and www.cityfarmer.org. Numerous reports are
increasingly published electronically. Here, we have purposely de-emphasized such
material, focusing instead on the most important as well as the more obscure printed
publications.
Collections of papers (particularly special issues and sections of journals) are
included at the end of this list.
Abdelwahed, Said I. (ed,). 1998. Future of Urban Agriculture in Gaza: Regional
Workshop Programme, Papers, Minutes and Outputs. Al Azhar University of Gaza,
Sept.
Aipira, Hoffman. n.d. Urban Farming: Multi-Purpose Farming and the Politics of Urban
Paradise in Southern Africa. Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies.King’s
Manor, York: University of York.
Akinyele, Isaac Olaolu. 1987. Study on Street Foods in Ibadan Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria:
FAO and the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Ibadan.
Allison, Malcolm and Phil Harris. 1996. A Review of the Use of Urban Waste in Peri-
Urban Interface Production Systems. Natural Resources Programme, Overseas
Development Administration, United Kingdom. In collaboration with Henry
Doubleday Research Association, African Studies Centre, Coventry University and
the Department of Water Management, Silsoe College, Cranford University, United
Kingdom.
Amend, Jörg and Esther Mwaisango. 1998. Status of Soil Contamination and Soil
Fertility: A Case of Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Urban Vegetable Promotion
Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Amend, Jörg et al. 1997. Integrated Pest Management in Urban Vegetable Production in
Dar es Salaam. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Appendix G Second Edit — 10 Dec 2001 Page 1

Selected Readings
American Community Gardening Association. 1998. National Community Gardening

Survey. Philadelphia, PA: American Community Gardening Association.
Amis, Philip. 1992. Sustainable Urban Development and Agriculture in Uganda. Paper
No. 15. Birmingham: International Workshop on Planning for Sustainable Urban
Development.
Applehof, Mary. 1982. Worms Eat My Garbage. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Flower Press.
Ashman, Linda et al. 1993. Seeds Of Change: Strategies for Food Security for the Inner
City. Los Angeles: Southern California Interfaith Hunger Coalition.
AVRDC (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center). 1998. Vegetables for
Poverty Alleviation and Healthy Diets. A Plan for 1998-2002. Shanhua, Taiwan:
AVRDC.
Atkinson, Sarah J. 1992. Food for the Cities: Urban Nutrition Policy in Developing
Countries (Busi Moloele, series ed.). Department of Public Health and Policy.
London: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Ba, B. 1987. Alimentation-Energie en Milieu Urbain Démuni à Dakar. The Food-Energy
Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Bakker, Nico et al. (eds.) 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on
the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture. Feldafing, Germany.: German
Foundation for International Development (DSE), Food and Agriculture
Development Centre.
Bartone, Carl, Maria Luisa Esparaza, and Carmen Mayo. 1985. Monitoring and
Maintenance of Treated Water Quality in the San Juan Lagoons Supporting
Aquaculture. Lima, Peru: CEPIS/PAHO.
Bennett, Christopher P. A. et al. 1992. Enterprises for the Recycling and Composting of
Municipal Solid Waste in Jakarta Indonesia. A Discussion Paper. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Center for Policy and Implementation Studies.
Bergerie Nationale de Rambouillet, Agriculture, Forêt et Périurbanisation. 1997. Actes du
Séminaire. Rambouillet, France: Bergerie Nationale, Département Périurban.
Biehler, Dawn and Melissa Sepos. 1999. A Guide to Developing Community Food
Programs. Replication Manual. Hartford, Connecticut: The Hartford Food System.
Biehler, Dawn et al. 1999. Getting Food on the Table: An Action Guide to Local Food
Policy. Venice, California: Community Food Security Coalition.
Birley, M.H. and K. Lock. 1999. The Health Impacts of Peri-Urban Natural Resource
Development. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Medicine.
Blanc, Cyril. 1998. Les Espaces Agricoles et Naturels dans les Schémas Directeurs: Gros
Plan sur 14 Agglomérations. Looseleaf collection of 16 booklets. Rambouillet,
France: Bergerie Nationale, Département Périurbain.
Boakeye, E.A. 1982. Agriculture Development on Urban Fringes. Ghana: Unpublished.
Bricas, Nicolas et al. (eds.). Nourrir Les Villes en Afriques Sub-Saharienne. Collection
Villes et Entreprises. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.

Selected Readings
Britz, Richard et al. 1981. The Edible City Resource Manual. Los Altos, California:
William Kaufman, Inc.
Brownrigg, Leslie. 1985. Home Gardening in International Development. What the
Literature Shows. Washington, D.C.: League for International Food Education.
Bryant, C.R., L.H. Russwurm, and A.G. McLellan. 1982. The City’s Countryside: Land
and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. London: Longmans.
Cadilhon, Jean-Joseph. 1999. L’agriculture Urbaine en Afrique de l'Ouest: Propositions
pour une Meilleure Efficacité des Projets. Paris, France: Ministére des Affaires
Étrangéres.
Carter, Jane. 1994. The Potential of Urban Forestry in Developing Countries. A Concept
Paper. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Chimbowu, A. and Davidson Gumbo. 1993. ENDA-Zimbabwe. Urban Agriculture
Research in East and Southern Africa II: Record. Capacities and Opportunities.
Cities Feeding People Series No. 4. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development
Research Center.
Cleveland, David and Daniella Soleri. 1991. Food from Dryland Gardens: An
Ecological, Nutritional, and Social Approach to Small-Scale Household Food
Production. Tucson, Arizona: Center for People, Food and the Environment.
Cohen, Monique. 1991. Use of Microenterprises in the Delivery of Food Programs to
School Children. Paper prepared for Population and Human Resources Dept. of The
World Bank.
Cohen, Monique. 1987. Street Food Trade. Urban Examples 14. New York: UNICEF.
Cointreau, Sandra Johnson et al. 1984. Recycling from Municipal Refuse. A State of the
Art Review and Annnotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Concern, Inc. 1992. Pesticides in our Communities: Choices for Change. Washington,
D.C.: Concern, Inc.
Coon, Katharine. 1999. Organizations at the Profit/Non-Profit Interface: Reviving
Commercial Culture and Participatory, Worker Owned Businesses in America’s Inner
Cities. Unpublished paper.
Coughlin, R.E. et al. 1977. Saving the Garden: The Preservation of Farmland and Other
Environmentally Valuable Land. Philadelphia, Pennyslvania: Regional Science
Research Institute.
Crouch, David and Colin Ward. 1988. The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture. London
and Boston: Faber and Faber.
Daniels, Tom. 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the
Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Daniels, Tom and Deborah Bowers. 1997. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s
Farms and Farmland. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Selected Readings
Darmajanti, Erwina. 1994. Integrating Informal City Farming Practices into Green Space
Management. Master’s thesis. Faculty of Environmental Studies. York University,
York, Ontario, Canada.
Dascal, Guillermo. n. d. Urban Growth and Public Policies in Peripheral Agricultural
Areas in Buenos Aires, Ph.D. thesis, Universite de Paris III.
Dasso, Jose Andres. 1996. Promocion de la Agricultura Urbana en el Peru. Cajamarca,
Peru: Asociacion Recursos Para el Desarrollo-Rede.
Dennery, Pascale. 1995. Inside Urban Agriculture: An Exploration of Food Producer
Decision-Making in a Nairobi Slum. Masters thesis. Wageningen Univ. Dept. of
Ecological Agriculture, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Departamento del Distrito Federal. 1992. Rescate Ecologico de Xochimilco. Mexico: City
of Mexico, DDF.
Departamento de Distrito Federal. n.d. Comision Coordinadora Para el Desarrollo
Agropecuario del Distrito Federal. Mexico City, Mexico: DDF.
Department of Planning and Development. 1994. Agriculture in the Non-Urban Areas of
Melbourne Metropolitan Region. Draft paper. Government of Victoria, Australia.
Department of Environment Affairs and Technikon Pretoria. 1994. Urban Open Spaces:
Potential for Productive Utilisation. Conference, Technikon, Pretoria, South Africa.
Diallo, S. 1993. Urban Agriculture in West Africa: Research Review and Perspectives.
Report to the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
Diallo, Souleymane and Y. Coulibaly. 1987. Les Déchets Urbains en Milieu Démuni à
Bamako. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Donadieu, Pierre. 1998. Campagnes Urbaines. École Nationale Supérieure Du Paysage.
Arles: France, Actes Sud.
Doshi, R.T. n.d. City Farming: An Innovative Technology. Privately printed. Jamunotri,
Bombay.
Drakakis-Smith, David. 1992. And the Cupboard Was Bare: Food Security and Food
Policy for the Urban Poor. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe 23:38-58.
Drakakis-Smith, David and Dan Tevera. 1993. Informal Food Retailing in Harare.
Goteborg, Sweden: Department of Human and Economic Geography, School of
Economics and Commercial Law, Goteborg University.
Drangert, Jan-Olof, Jennifer Bew, and Uno Winblad. 1997. Ecological Alternatives in
Sanitation. Proceedings from Swedish International Development Agency, Sanitation
Workshop, Balingsholm, Sweden.
Drescher, A.W. 1994. Urban Agriculture in the Seasonal Tropics of Central Southern
Africa — A Case Study of Lusaka, Zambia. Freiburg, Germany: Institut für Physische
Geographie.
Duhon, David 1985. One Circle: How to Grow a Complete Diet in Less than 1,000
Square Feet. Willits, California: Ecology Action.

Selected Readings
Dyer, Ann L. 1981. Small Scale Food Production: The Human Element. Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Small Scale and Intensive Food Production,
sponsored by Volunteers in International Service and Awareness (VISA), Santa
Barbara, California. Washington, D.C.: L.I.F.E.
Eberhard, R. 1989. Urban Agriculture: The Potential in Cape Town. Summary Report,
Working Paper 89/E1. Cape Town, South Africa: City Planner’s Department, Town
Planning Branch.
ECOSOL. 1992. Hidroponia: Una Alternativa para Todos. Chile : Empresa
Comercializadora Solidaria S.A.
EPA (Environment Protection Agency,). 1981. Land Application of Municipal Sludge for
the Production of Fruits and Vegetables. A Statement of Federal Policy and
Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
Edwards, Peter. 1992. Reuse of Human Wastes in Aquaculture. A Technical Review.
Edwards, Peter. 1985. Aquaculture: A Component of Low Cost Sanitation Technology.
World Bank Technical Paper No. 36. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Edwards, Peter. and R.S.V. Pullin (eds.). 1990. Wastewater-Fed Aquaculture.
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for
Aquaculture, Calcutta, India, Dec 6-9, 1988. Bangkok, Thailand: Asian Institute of
Technology.
Edwards, Peter. C. Polprasert, and K.L. Wee. 1987. Resource Recovery and Health
Aspects of Sanitation. Asian Institute of Technology Research Report No. 205.
Bangkok: AIT.
Eitrem, Gunilla and Annika Tornqvist. 1998. Recycling Urban Waste For Agriculture. A
Study Prepared for the Rural Development Department. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Esrey, Steven A. et al 1998.. Ecological Sanitation. Stockholm: Swedish International
Development Agency.
FAO. 1995. Urban and Peri-Urban Multipurpose Forestry. An Annotated Bibliography.
Rome: FAO
Farallones Institute. 1973. Grey Water Use in the Home Garden. Answers to the Most
Commonly asked Questions Concerning the Use of Household Waste Water for
Garden Irrigation & Illustrated Description of Residential Water Recycling
Installations. Berkeley, California: Farallones Institute.
Feenstra, Gail et al. 1999. Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills,
Jobs and Communities. Publication 21587. Davis, California: University of
California, Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Figueroa, Vilda. 1997. Manual para la Conservación de Alimentos y Condimentos en el
Hogar. Havana, Cuba: Proyecto Comunitario, Conservación de Alimentos.

Selected Readings
Finquelievich, Susana. 1986. Food and Energy in Latin America: Provisioning the Urban
Poor. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Fleury, André, Michel Gonthier, and Jean-Maurice Hamel. 1998. De La Rencontre
Franco-Québécoise: Points de vue sur l'agriculture périurbaine contemporaine.
Quebec: Consulat général de France au Québec.
Flood, Carlos Alberto. 1990. Small Scale Sub-Urban and Peri-Urban Biological
Agriculture: A Social-Oriented Program of Local Food Production. Paper. Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Unpublished.
Flynn, Kathleen. 1999. An Overview of Public Health and Urban Agriculture: Water,
Soil and Crop Contamination & Emerging Urban Zoonoses. Cities Feeding People
Program, Report No. 30. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1988. Street Foods. Food and Nutrition Paper
No. 46. Jogjakarta, Indonesia: FAO.
Fox, Tom et al. 1985. Struggle for Space: The Greening of New York City 1970-1984.
New York: Neighborhood Open Space Coalition.
Freeman, Donald B. 1991. A City of Farmers: Informal Urban Agriculture in the Open
Spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Furedy, Christine and Dhrubajyoti Ghosh. 1983. Ecological Traditions and the Creative
Use of Urban Wastes: Lessons from Calcutta. International Conference on the
Ecological Aspects of Solid Waste Disposal, Hong Kong, Dec. 18-22.
Furuseth, Owen J. and Mark B. Lapping (eds.). Contested Countryside: The Rural Urban
Fringe in North America. Aldershot, England and Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd.
Ganapathy, R.S. 1983. Development of Urban Agriculture in India. Public Policy
Options. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.
Gardner, G. 1997. Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture: From Urban Pollution to
Farm Resources. Washington, D.C.: World Watch Institute.
Gerber, John 1985.. Vegetable Production Handbook for Fresh Market Growers. Circular
1241. University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, College of Agriculture.
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois: Cooperative Extension Service.
GFA-Infrastruktur und Umweltschutz GmbH. 1999. Utilisation of Organic Waste in
Peri- Urban Centres. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ.
Goldshore, Lewis and Marsha Wolf. 1986. Final Report of an Analysis of the Effects of
Local Government Regulation and Private Litigation on the Agricultural Industry in
New Jersey. Report R-26102-2-86. Cook College, New Brunswick: New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station Research
Gomez-Pompa, Arturo. 1991. Chinampas y Camellones: un Debate que Aun No
Termina. Lecturas Seleccionadas. Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico: Simposium -
Taller Internacional Camellones Tropicales.

Selected Readings
Gonsalves, Julian. n.d. The Family Food Production Program in Negros Occidental:
1986-1990. Manila: UNICEF, Family Food Production Program.
Gordon, David (ed.). 1990. Green Cities: Ecologically Sound Approaches to Urban
Space. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Grand-Pierre, Reginald. 1993. Preliminary Investigations: Peri-Urban Agriculture in
Port-Au-Prince. Privately printed.
Groh, Trauger and Steven S.H. McFadden. 1990. Farms of Tomorrow: Community
Supported Farms; Farm Supported Communities. Kimberton, Pennsylvania: Bio-
Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association.
Gröning, Von Gert and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn. 1995. Von Ackermann bis
Ziegelhütte: Ein Jahrhundert Kleingartenkultur in Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt,
Germany: Verlag Waldmar Kramer.
Gutman, Pablo, Gabriela Gutman, and Guillermo Dascal. 1987. El Campo en la Ciudad:
La produccion agricola en el Gran Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios
Urbanos y Regionales.
Hart, D. and J. Pluimes. 1996. Wasted Agriculture: The Use of Compost in Urban
Agriculture. Gouda, Netherlands: Waste Inc.
Hartford Food System . 1997. Farm Fresh Start: Guide to Increasing the Consumption of
Local Produce in the School Lunch Program. Draft. Hartford, Connecticut: The
Hartford Food System.
Harvard Institute for International Development. 1992. Enterprises for the Recycling and
Composting of Municipal Solid Waste in Jakarta, Indonesia. Jakarta: Center for
Policy and Implementation Studies.
Hawkins, John N. 1981. Shanghai’s Food System. Privately published.
Heimlich, Ralph E. et al. 1991. Urbanizing Farmland: Dynamics of Land Use Change in
Fast-Growth Counties. Agriculture Information Bulletin No.629. Washington, D.C.:
US Department of Agriculture.
Heimlich, Ralph E. (ed.). 1989. Land Use Transition in Urbanizing Areas: Research and
Information Needs. Washington, D.C.: The Farm Foundation in cooperation with the
USDA Economic Research Service.
Helmore, Kristin and Annu Ratta. 1995. The Surprising Yields of Urban Agriculture.
Choices 4(1): 22-27.
Henderson, Peter. 1991. Gardening For Profit: A Guide to the Successful Cultivation of
the Market and Family Garden. Chillicothe, Illinois: The American Botanist,
Booksellers. First published 1867-1890.
Herbach, Geoff. Harvesting the City: Community Gardening in Greater Madison,
Wisconsin. 1998. Madison Food System Project Working Paper Series MFSP-1998-
01. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Food System Partnership.
Hodge, S.J. 1995. Creating and Managing Woodlands Around Towns. Forestry
Commission Handbook 11. London: HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).

Selected Readings
Honghai, Deng. 1991. Urban Agriculture as Urban Food Supply and Environmental
Protection Subsystems in China. Unpublished paper.
Hovorka, Alice J. 1998. Gender Resources for Urban Agriculture Research:
Methodology, Directory and Annotated Bibliography. Cities Feeding People Series
No. 26. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Howorth, Chris, Momo Masoka, and Joanne Harnmeijer. 1996. A Local Stakeholders’
Workshop on Urban Agriculture: Harare. Report on Workshop Urban Agriculture in
Zimbabwe, Realities and Prospects. Organized by ENDA Zimbabwe and ETC
International, 1996.
Hoyles, Martin. 1991. The Story of Gardening. London: Journeyman Press.
Hunter, J.M. and L. Holt. 1981, Municipal Zoning: Restraining Agriculture. SR 60. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: New Jersey Agriculture Extension Station.
Hyatt, Susan Allison. 1985. Haitian Street Foods and Their Nutritional Contribution to
Dietary Intake. Master’s thesis. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University.
IDRC (International Development Research Centre). 1994. Cities Feeding People: An
Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: International Development
Research Centre (IDRC).
IDRC (International Development Research Centre). 1994. Cities Feeding People: Urban
Agriculture and City Planning in North and South. Papers presented at a panel at
Habitat 94, World Congress Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Institut d'Aménagement et d'Urbanisme de la Région d'Ile-de-France (IAURIF). 1998.
Agriculture Périurbaine et Paysage. Paris, France: IAURIF.
Institut d'Aménagement et d'Urbanisme de la Région d'Ile-de-France (IAURIF). 1992.
Des zones d’activites agricoles peri-urbaines en Ile-de France. Paris, France:
IAURIF.
Instituto Nacional De Tecnologia Agropecuaria, (INTA). n.d. Promocion de la
Autoproduccion de Alimentos: Proyecto Integrado. Subsecretaria de Agricultura,
Ganaderia y Pesca, Argentina.
International Reference Center for Waste Disposal. 1988. Human Wastes: Health Aspects
of Their Use in Agriculture and Aquaculture. IRCWD News No. 24/25, May.
Ishida, Yorifusa (Kogakuin University). 1996. Contemporary Urban Fringe Issues and a
Framework and Measures for the Planning of Urban Fringe Areas in Japan. Paper
from the International Workshop of the Association of Rural Planning Land Use
Systems in Urban Fringe Areas in Asia: Today and Tomorrow, Tokyo.
Jaeger, Dirk. n.d. Lusaka, Garden City: The Agricultural Activities of City Residents.
Draft article. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
Jansen, Hans G.P. et al. n.d. Sustainable Peri-Urban Vegetable Production and Natural
Resources Management in Nepal. Results of a Diagnostic Survey. Kaohsiung,
Taiwan: AVRDC (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center).

Selected Readings
Jeavons, John. 1974. How to Grow More Vegetables Than You Ever Thought Possible on
Less Land Than You Can Imagine. Palo Alto, California: Ecology Action of the
Peninsula.
Jiménez-Osornio, Juan J. et al. 1990. Past, Present and Future of the Chinampas. Maya
Sustainability Report No. 1. Riverside, California: University of California at
Riverside.
Jobb, Jamie. 1979. The Complete Book of Community Gardening, New York: Morrow.
Johnson, Douglas. 1998. Distributing Seeds and Tools in Emergencies. Oxford, UK and
Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Oxfam and Humanities Press International.
Journey, Tim and Scott Mc Niven. 1996. Anaerobic Enhanced Treatment of Wastewater
and Options for Further Treatment. Washington, D.C.: ACDI/VOCA.
Kashmanian, Richard M. 1993. Markets for Compost. Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kasperson, Roger E. and Jeanne X. Kasperson (eds.). 1977. Water Re-Use and the Cities.
Hanover, New Hampshire: The University Press of New England for Clark
University Press.
Khouri-Dagher, Nadia. 1986. Food and Energy in Cairo: Provisioning the Poor. The
Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Khoury, Nadim et al. 1994. Reuse of Wastewater in Agriculture. A Guide for Planners.
Water and Sanitation Report. No. 6. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation
Program. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Kleer, Jerzy and Agustyn Wos. 1988. Small Scale Food Production in Polish Urban
Agglomerations. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations
University.
Koc, Mustafa et al. (eds.). For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems.
Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Kogi-Makau, Wambui. 1998. Production and Utilization of Vegetable and Fruits in Two
Urban Sites in Dar es Salaam: A case Study in Mbuyuni and Manzese, Dar es
Salaam. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Kroll, M. 1998. Market Gardening. United Kingdom: The Tropical Agriculturalist.
Kolstrup, Hendrik. 1985. Urban Agriculture: Food Production and Land-Use Planning in
Maputo: A Project Proposal. Master’s thesis, School of Architecture, Aarhus,
Denmark.
Konijnedijk, C. n.d. Urban Forestry, Overview and Analysis of Urban Forest Policies.
Part 1: Conceptual Framework and European Urban Forest History. Working paper
12. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.
Krishnamurthy, L. and José Rente Nascimento (eds.). Areas Verdes Urbanas en
Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Chapingo, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.

Selected Readings
Kuchelmeister, Guido. 1991. Urban and Peri-Urban Multipurpose Forestry in

Development Cooperation. Illertissen, Germany: Commission of the European
Communities.
La Rovere, Emilio Lebre. 1985. Food & Energy in Rio de Janeiro: Provisioning the
Poor. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Lahr, Patrick F. and Connie C. Lehnen Lahr. 1989. Techniques and Resources for Fast-
Growing Hot Weather Vegetable Gardening in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Unpublished
book.
Lamba, Davinder. 1993. Urban Agriculture Research in Eastern Africa. A background
paper prepared for the Workshop on Urban Environmental Management: Developing
a Global Research Agenda. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre
(IDRC).
Landauer, Kathleen and Mark Brazil (eds.). 1990. Tropical Home Gardens. Tokyo,
Japan: United Nations University Press.
Landman, Ruth H. 1993. Creating Community in the City. Cooperatives and Community
Gardens in Washington, D.C. Contemporary Urban Studies Series. Westport,
Connecticut and London: Bergin & Garvey.
Lardinois, I. and A. van de Klundert (eds.). 1993. Organic Waste: Options for Small-
Scale Resource Recovery. Urban Solid Waste Series 1. Amsterdam: WASTE
Consultants and Technology Transfer for Development.
Lee-Smith, Diana et al. 1987. Urban Food Production and the Cooking Fuel Situation in
Urban Kenya. National Report: Results of a 1985 National Survey. Nairobi:
Lewcock, C.P. 1994. Case Study of the Use of Urban Waste by Near-Urban Farmers of
Kano, Nigeria. Visit Report. Project No. AO354. Chatham, Maritime, Kent, UK:
Natural Resources Institute, Overseas Development Administration.
Lidoff, Lorraine. 1983. Promoting Self-Help Ventures in Food Production and
Distribution. Washington, D.C.: National Council on the Aging.
Llemit, Norma V. and Pura J. Lastimosa (eds.) 1988. Gardening Nutritious Vegetables.
Proceedings of the Vegetable Improvement Gardening Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand
and Shanhua, Taiwan, 22-26 Apr 1985. Shanhua, Tainan: AVRDC (Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center).
Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
Lok, Rossana (ed.).1998. Huertos Caseros Tradicionales de América Central. Turrialba,
Costa Rica: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza.
Losada, H. et al. 1999. Assessing the Sustainability of a Peri-Urban Agroecosystem: The
Terraced Production of Nopal-Vegetable (Opuntia ficus indica) in Milpa Alta,
Mexico City. Unpublished paper. Mexico City.

Selected Readings
Lourenco-Lindell, Ilda. 1994. Informal Food Production, Distribution and Consumption

in a Peripheral District of Bissau: A Summary of a Master’s Thesis. Stockholm:
University of Stockholm, Department of Human Geography.
Lueke, Markus. 1996. Urbane Landwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen. Thesis,
Institute for Agrarian Economy, The Universisty of Göttingen.
Lupanga, I., P.M. Msolla, Z.S. Mvena, and M.K. Shoo. 1990. Livestock and the Urban
Environment in Tanzania. Some Burning Issues for Policy Makers. Arusha: Tanzania
Veterinary Association.
Mades, Georg G. (ed.). 1992. Primary School Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Workshop Report and Resource Material. African Workshop on Primary School
Agriculture in Kadoma, Zimbabwe, 1990. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Manshard, Walther. 1992. Market Gardens in West African Urban Communities.
Unpublished draft paper. Freiburg, Germany: University of Freiburg.
Marshall, Judith and Otto Roesch. 1993. The ‘Green Zone’ Agricultural Cooperatives of
Nampula City: A New Phase in the Mozambican Cooperative Movement? Journal of
Southern African Studies 19(2): 240-272.
Martinez, Alfonso González et al. (eds.). 1990. Plan Para la Regeneracion Ecologica y el
Desarrollo Regional de la Cuenca Hidrologica de Xochimilco. Mexico City, Mexico:
Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, A.C.
Marulanda, Cesar and Juan Izquierdo. 1993. La Huerta Hidroponica Popular. Santiago,
Chile: Regional Office of FAO for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Maxwell, Daniel G. 1993. Land Access and Household Logic. Urban Farming in
Kampala. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere Institute of Social Research.
Maxwell, Daniel G. 1998. Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan
Africa. FCND Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI (International Food
Policy Research Institute).
Maxwell, Daniel G. and Gertrude Atukunda. 1993. Farming in the City: Issues and
Impacts of Urban Agriculture in Kampala. Report presented to Makerere Institute of
Social Research. Kampala.
Maxwell, Daniel and Samuel Zziwa. Urban Farming in Africa: The Case of Kampala,
Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.
Maxwell, D. G. et al. 1998. Urban Livelihoods and Food Insecurity in Greater Accra,
Ghana. IFPRI Research Report 112. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI (International Food
Policy Research Institute).
May, Julian and Christian M. Rogerson. 1995. Poverty and Sustainable Cities in South
Africa: The Role of Urban Cultivation. Habitat International 19(2):165-181.
Mbiba, Beacon (ed.). 1995. Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for Urban
Management and Poverty. The Making of Modern Africa Series. Aldershot, England:
Avebury.

Selected Readings
Mbiba, Beacon. 1993. Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Implications for Urban

Management, Urban Economy, Urban Poverty, the Environment and Gender.
Proceedings of a one-day seminar, Department of Rural & Urban Planning,
University of Zimbabwe, Harare.
McPherson, E., David J. Nowak, and Rowan A. Rowntree (eds.). 1994. Chicago’s Urban
Forest Ecosystem. Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Radnor,
Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
Meier, Richard. n.d. Ecological Planning and Design: Paths to Sustainable
Communities." Draft. Berkeley, California: University of California at Berkeley.
Midmore, David, Vera Ninez, and Ramesh Venkataraman. 1991. Household Gardening
Projects in Asia: Past Experience and Future Directions. Taipei, Taiwan: AVRDC
(Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center).
Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Management of Greenspace. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ministry of Planning. 1991. South Africa: Investigation into the Potential Role of Urban
Agriculture. Towards the Preparation of Policy Guidelines. Pretoria, South Africa:
Ministry of Planning.
Mlozi, Malongo R.S. 1998. Urban Vegetable Production in Low-Density Areas of Dar es
Salaam. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Mlozi, Malongo R.S. 1994. Information and the Problems of Urban Agriculture in
Tanzania: Intentions and Realizations. PhD dissertation, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Moll, Gary and Stanley Young. 1992. Growing Greener Cities: A Tree-Planting
Handbook. Los Angeles, California: Living Planet Press.
Monédiaire, Gérard (ed.). 1999. Agricultures urbaines et ville durable européenne:
Droits et politiques du jardinage familial urbain en Europe. Limoges, France:
PULIM.
Morgan, Peter. 1999. Ecological Sanitation in Zimbabwe: A Compilation of Manuals and
Experiences. Harare: Privately printed.
Mosha, A.C. 1991. Urban Farming Practices in Tanzania. Review of Rural & Urban
Planning in South & East Africa 1:83-92.
Moskow, Angela Lynne. 1996. The Contributions of Urban Agriculture in Havana, Cuba
to Individual Control and Community Enhancement. Master’s thesis. Davis,
California: University of California at Davis.
Moustier, Paule et al. (eds.). 1999. Agriculture Périurbaine en Afrique Subsaharienne.
Actes de l'atelier International en Montpellier, France 1998. Montpellier, France:
Cirad and Coraf.
Murphy, Catherine. 1999. Cultivating Havana: Urban Agriculture and Food Security in
the Years of Crisis. Development Report No. 12. Oakland, California: Food First,
Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Selected Readings
Muster, Gisa. 1997. Environmental Problems of Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania. Master’s thesis, University of London, School of Oriental and
African Studies. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Mvena, Z.S.K., I.J. Lupanga, and M.R.S. Mlozi. 1991. Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: A
Study of Six Towns. Draft. Morogoro, Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture, Education & Extension.
Mwangi, Alice Mboganie. 1995. The Role of Urban Agriculture for Food Security in Low
Income Areas in Nairobi. Food and Nutrition Studies Program, Report No. 54.
Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi.
Natural Resources Institute. 1995. Peri-Urban Interface Research: Proceedings of a
workshop, Aug, Kumasi, Ghana. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.
Nelson, Toni. 1996. Closing the Nutrient Loop. World Watch 9(6):10-17.
Newcomb, Duane. 1977. A Postage Stamp Garden. New York: Bantam Books.
Nicholson-Lord, D. 1987. The Greening of the Cities. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nugent R. 1997. The Sustainability of Urban Agriculture: A Case Study in Hartford,
Connecticut. Draft report, Department of Economics. Tacoma, Washington: Pacific
Lutheran University.
Nyhuis, Jane. 1982. Desert Harvest: A Guide to Vegetable Gardening in Arid Lands.
Tucson, Arizona: Meals for Millions/Freedom From Hunger Foundation.
Obeng, Letitia and Frederick W. Wright. 1987. The Co-composting of Domestic Solid
and Human Wastes. World Bank Technical Paper No. 57. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
O'Brien-Place, Patricia M. 1987. Evaluating Home Garden Projects. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology, with U.S.
Agency for International Development.
OECD. 1970. Agriculture in the Planning and Management of Peri-Urban Areas, Vol. 1:
Synthesis. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Oliva, Rubén and Marina Gambardella. 1990. Manual de Auto-Instrución: Una Huerta
Para Todos. Santiago, Chile: FAO and Red de Cooperación Técnica en Producción
de Cultivos Alimenticios.
Olkowski, Helga et al. 1979. The Integral Urban House: Self-Reliant Living in the City.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Olson, Michael. 1994. Metro Farm: The Guide to Growing for Big Profit on a Small
Parcel of Land. Santa Cruz, California: TS Books.
Organic Gardening Magazine. 1981. Fresh Food, Dirt Cheap (All Year Long!). Emmaus,
Pennsylvania: Rodale Press, Inc.
National Center for Appropriate Technology. 1979. Organizing Community Gardens.
Butte, Montana: National Center for Appropriate Technology.

Selected Readings
Panigrahi, S. n.d. Parallels in Dairy and Poultry Development Strategies and Issues
Relating to Urbanisation in the Eastern India Region. Livestock Section, unpublished
paper. Chatham Maritime, Kent: Natural Resources Institute.
Peduzzi, Carolyn S. 1990. Home and Community Gardens Assessment, Program
Implementation Experience: The Tip of the Iceberg. Report No. TA-2. Prepared for
The Office of Nutrition of the U.S. Agency for International Development by the
Vitamin A Field Support Project (VITAL). Arlington, Virginia: VITAL.
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. 2000. Managing Vacant Land in Philadelphia: A Key
Step Toward Neighborhood Revitalization. Final Report of the Vacant Land
Management Study. Prepared for The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society by
Fairmount Ventures, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fairmount Ventures, Inc.
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. 2000. The Feasibility of Urban Agriculture: With
Recommendations for Philadelphia. Summary Report. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society.
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. 1995. The Urban Vacant Land: Issues and
Recommendations. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Horticultural
Society.
Perdigon, Grace P. 1989. Assessment of the Economic Impact of Street Foods in Penang,
Malaysia. Final Report. Rome: FAO.
Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture. Report 47. Rome:
FAO.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari and Jerome L. Kaufman. 2000. The Food System: A Stranger to
the Planning Field. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2):113-124.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari and Jerome L. Kaufman. 1999. Placing Food Issues on the
Community Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning.
Agriculture and Human Values 16:213-224
Price, Martin. 1986. Rooftop or Shallow-Bed Gardening. North Ft. Myers, Florida:
Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO).
Prudencio, Julio et al. 1993. Aspectos Sobre la Inseguridad Alimentaria en Bolivia. La
Paz, Bolivia: UNITAS.
Quon, Soonya. 1999. Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies
for Urban Planners. Cities Feeding People Series No. 28. Ottawa: International
Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Rakodi, Carole. 1988. Urban Agriculture: Research Questions and Zambian Evidence.
Journal of Modern African Studies 26(3):495-515.
Rakodi, Carole. 1985. Self-reliance or Survival? Food Production in African Cities, with
Particular Reference to Zambia. African Urban Studies 21: 53-63.
Ratta, Annu and Jac Smit. 1993. Urban Agriculture: It’s About Much More than Food.
World Hunger Year Magazine (Summer):26-29.

Selected Readings
Relf, Diane (ed.). 1992. The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social
Development: A National Symposium. Apr 1990. Arlington, Virginia and Portland,
Oregon: Timber Press.
Richter, J., W.H. Schnitzler, and S. Gura. (eds.). 1995. Vegetable Production in Peri-
Urban Areas — Food, Income and Quality of Life. Proceedings of an International
Workshop, Nov 1994, Zschortau, Germany. Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ZEL.
Rogers, Nedjo (ed.). 1996. Urban Agriculture Handbook: Practical Actions for
Cultivating Communities. Youth and Sustainable Cities Series No. 3. Victoria, British
Columbia: LifeCycles and The West Coast Ecological Youth Alliance.
Rose, G. D. 1999. Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse: Options for Urban Agriculture. Cities Feeding People Series No. 27.
Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Rosset, Peter and Medea Benjamin (eds.). The Greening of the Revolution: Cuba’s
Experiment with Organic Agriculture. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Ocean Press.
Ruel, Marie T. et al. 1998. Urban Challenges to Food and Nutrition Security: A Review
of Food Security, Health, and Caregiving in the Cities. Paper No. 51. Washington,
D.C.: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).
Sachs, Ignacy and Dana Silk. 1990. Food and Energy: Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Salazar, Gustavo. 1992. Guia Practica de Cultivos: Hidroponicos Populares. Santo
Domingo, República Dominicana: UNDP and CEPAE.
Sanyal, Bishwapriya. 1986. Urban Cultivation in East Africa. People’s Response to
Urban Poverty. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations
University.
Sawio, Camillus J. 1994. Urban Agriculture and The Sustainable Dar Es Salaam Project,
Tanzania. Habitat 94. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Sawio, Camillus J. 1993. Feeding the Urban Masses. Towards an Understanding of the
Dynamics of Urban Agriculture and Land-Use Change in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
PhD dissertation. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University.
Scarfo, Robert A. 1990. Cultivating Agriculture: A Report of Current Trends and Future
Viability of Farming in Maryland’s Metropolitan Fringe. Prepared for the Maryland
Office of Planning. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland.
Schilter, Christine. 1991. L'agriculture urbaine à Lomé. Geneva: IUED and Paris:
Karthala Press.
Schoeman, Geraldine. 1991. Executive Summary: An Investigation into the Viability of
Community Vegetable Gardens as a Nutritional Source. Innesdale, South Africa:
Afrosearch.
Sheaffer, J. 1990. Recycling & Reusing Waste Water Profitably.
www.sheafferinternational.com.

Selected Readings
Shuval, Hillel et al. 1986. Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries. World Bank
Technical Paper No. 51. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Skillicorn, Paul, William Spira, and William Journey. 1993. Duckweed Aquaculture: A
New Aquatic Farming System for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Skinner, G. William. 1981. Vegetable Supply and Marketing in Chinese Cities. In
Vegetable Farming Systems in China (D.L. Plucknett and H.L. Beemer, Jr., eds.).
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Smit, Jac. 1980. Urban and Metropolitan Agricultural Prospects. Habitat International
5(3/4).
Smit, Jac and Joe Nasr. 1992. Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities: Using Wastes
and Idle Land and Water Bodies as Resources. Environment and Urbanization
4(2):141-151. Reprinted in David Satterthwaite (ed.). 1999. The Earthscan Reader in
Sustainable Cities. London: Earthscan.
Smit, Jac, Annu Ratta, and Janis Bernstein. 1996. Urban Agriculture as a Strategy. Series:
Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A World
Bank Perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Smith, Frank. 1977. Food in the City. A Conference Report. Washington, D.C.: Public
Resource Center.
Smith, Olanrewaju B (ed.). 1999. Urban Agriculture in West Africa: Contributing to
Food Security and Urban Sanitation. Ottawa: International Development Research
Centre (IDRC) and Wageningen, Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and
Rural Cooperation.
Soleri, Daniela, David Cleveland, and Timothy Frankenberger. 1991. Gardens and
Vitamin A, A Review of Recent Literature. Report No. IN-2. Prepared for The Office
of Nutrition of the U.S. Agency for International Development by the University of
Arizona. Arlington, Virginia: Vitamin A Field Support Project (VITAL.
Sommers, Larry. 1984. The Community Garden Book. Burlington, Vermont: Gardens for
All/ National Association for Gardening.
Sommers, Paul. 1984. Nutrition Improvement through Mixed Gardening in the Humid
Tropics. A Trainer’s Manual. Washington, D.C.: USAID and Peace Corps.
Sorensen, Mark. 1997. Good Practices for Urban Greening. Social Programs and
Sustainable Development Department, Environment Division. Washington, D.C.:
Inter-American Development Bank.
Staines, Ric. 1991. Market Gardening: Growing & Selling Produce. Golden, Colorado:
Fulcrum Publishing.
Stentiford, E.I., J.T Pereira Neto, and D.D. Mara. 1996. Low Cost Composting. Research
Monograph No. 4. Leeds, England: University of Leeds.

Selected Readings
Stevenson, Christopher. 1996. Market Production of Fruits and Vegetables in the Peri-
Urban Area of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania: GTZ.
Streiffeler, A.W. n.d. Urban Agriculture in the Seasonal Tropics of Central Southern
Africa. A Case Study of Lusaka, Zambia. Freiburg, Germany: Insitut f. Physische
Geographie.
Streiffeler, Friedhelm. 1993. General Principles and Approaches for Sustainable Urban
Greenbelts with Special Reference to Africa. Draft. Berlin.
Streiffeler, Friedhelm. 1991. The Knowledge System and the Motives in Urban
Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extension. Hohenheim, Germany:
Institut für Agrarsoziologie, Landwirtschaftliche Beratung und Angewandte
Psychologie.
Streiffeler, Friedhelm. n.d. Improving Urban Agriculture in Africa. A Social Perspective.
Berlin: Institut fur Ethnologie der Freie Universitat.
Sumberg, J., U. Kleih, and R. Grand'Pierre, 1994. Production and Marketing of
Vegetables in the Port-au-Prince Peri-Urban Area: A Sub-sector Study. Report for
CARE International.
Thaman, Randolph. 1978. Urban Agriculture and Home Gardening in Fiji: A Direct Road
to Development and Independence. Unpublished. Suva, Fiji.
Tine, Thierno. n.d. Manuel Pratique du Maraichage. Dakar, Senegal: UNICEF and
Ministere de Developpement Social.
Tinker, Irene. 1997. Street Foods: Urban Food and Employment in Developing
Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tinker, Irene. 1987. Street Foods: Testing Assumptions about Informal Sector Activity
by Women and Men. Entire volume. Current Sociology. 35(3).
Torres-Lima, Pablo A. (compilador). 1999. Procesos Metropolitanos y Agricultura
Urbana. Mexico, DF: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco and FAO.
Torres-Lima, Pablo, Beatriz Canabal-Cristiani, and Gilberto Burela-Rueda. 1994. Urban
Sustainable Agriculture: The Paradox of the Chinampa System in Mexico City.
Agriculture and Human Values XI(1):37-46.
Tricaud, Pierre-Marie. 1996. Ville et Nature Dans les Agglomérations d'Afrique et d’Asie.
Collection Etudes et travaux. Ministéré des Affaires étrangéres and Ministére de la
Coopération. Paris: France, Editions du Gret.
Tricaud, Pierre-Marie. 1987. Urban Agriculture in Ibadan and Freetown. The Food-
Energy Nexus Programme. Paris: United Nations University.
Tricaud, Pierre-Marie and Philippe Blancher. 1993. Espaces Naturels dans une Métropole
Indienne: Ahmedabad. 2 Volumes. Ministére des Affaires Étrangéres, Direction du
Dévloppement et de la Coopération Scientifique, Technique et Éducative, Paris.

Selected Readings
UNDP. 1989. The Productive Home and Urban Community. Suggestions for the
Development of Productive Activities as a Basis for Improvement of Poor Urban
Settlements. Preliminary Discussion Paper. Bogotá, Columbia: UNDP.
UNDP. 1988. Ingresos por Hidroponia en Asentamientos Populares Urbanos. Bogotá,
Columbia: UNDP and Departamento Nacional de Planeación.
UNICEF. 1982. The UNICEF Home Gardening Hand-Book. For People Promoting
Mixed Gardening in the Humid Tropics. New York: United Nations Information
Division.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1997. Fertile Ground: Planning for the
Madison/Dane County Food System. Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Urban Resources Systems. 1984. Urban Agriculture: Meeting Basic Food Needs for the
Urban Poor. Urban Examples 9. New York: UNICEF.
U.S. Environment Protection Agency. 1981. Land Application of Municipal Sludge for
the Production of Fruits and Vegetables. A Statement of Federal Policy and
Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Peace Corps. 1981. Intensive Vegetable Gardening. R-25. ICE M-701. Washington,
D.C.: Peace Corps.
van der Bliek, Julie. 1992. Urban Agriculture: Possibilities for Ecological Agriculture in
Urban Environments as a Strategy for Sustainable Cities. Leusden, the Netherlands:
ETC Foundation.
van Gorder, Steven D. and Douglas J. Strange. 1983. Home Aquaculture: A Guide to
Backyard Fish Farming. Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.
Vasey, Daniel E. 1981. Functions of Food Gardens in the National Capital District. Port
Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea.
von Baeyer, Edwinna and Dinah Shields. 1993. The No-Garden Gardener: Container
Gardening on Balconies, Decks, Patios and Porches. Toronto: Random House.
von Braun, Joachim et al. 1993. Urban Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in Developing
Countries. Trends, Policies, and Research Implications. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI
(International Food Policy Research Institute).
Waaijenberg, Henk. 1996. The Vegetable Garden in the Tropics with Special Reference
to Africa. Agrodok — Series No. 9. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Agromisa.
Wade, Isabel M. 1986. City Food: Crop Selection in Third World Cities. San Francisco:
Urban Resources Systems.
Wade, Isabel M. 1986. Planning for Basic Food Needs in Third World Cities. Ph.D.
dissertation. Berkeley, California: University of California at Berkeley.
Wals, Harry. 1982. Town Farms: New Approaches in the Use of Active Educational
Methods in the Environmental Field. Strasbourg, Council of Europe (Nature and
Environment Series No. 26). Croton, New York: Manhattan Publishing.

Selected Readings
Watkins, David. 1993. Urban Permaculture: A Practical Handbook for Sustainable

Living. Clanfield, Hampshire, England: Permanent Publications.
WHO Scientific Group. 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in
Agriculture and Aquaculture. Technical Report Series No. 778. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Winblad, Uno. 1992. The Productive Homestead. Report of a Study Tour in Botswana.
Report to SIDA. Stockholm: SIDA (Swedish International Development Agency).
World Wide Fund for Nature (India). 1991. The Wetlands of Calcutta: Sustainable
Development or Real Estate Takeover? East Region Office. Calcutta: World Wide
Fund for Nature (India).
Yudelman, M., A. Ratta and D. Nygaard. 1998. Pest Management and Food Production:
Looking to the Future. Food, Agriculture and the Environment. Discussion Paper 25.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).
Yue-man Yeung. 1985. Urban Agriculture in Asia. The Food-Energy Nexus Programme.
Paris: United Nations University.
Zapp, Jorge. 1991. Cultivos Sin Tierra: Hidroponia Popular. Bogotà: UNDP.
Zurick, David N. 1983. Food Production in the Urban Environment of Kathmandu,
Nepal. Unpublished. Honolulu: University of Hawaii and East-West Center.

Selected Readings
Collections of Papers:
African Urban Quarterly. 1996. Special issue on Urban Agriculture (Lc Mougeot, ed.).
11(2-3).
Annales de la Recherche Urbaine. 1997. Special issue on Natures en Villes. 74::31-39,
85-93, and 103-112.
Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición. 1992. Special issue on II Taller
Latinoamericano Sobre Nutricion y Salud en Areas Urbanas. 42(4).
Arid Lands Newsletter. 1997. Special issue on Urban Agriculture in Drylands. 42.
http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln42.html
Development. 1986. Special issue on Urban Self Reliance (P. Gutman and J. Perlman,
eds.). 4:2-39.
Economie et Humanisme. 1985. Special issue. 282:5-33.
Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 1987. Special issue on Urban Agriculture and Self-Reliance
(I. Sachs and D. Silk, eds.). 9(2):1-42.
Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 1985. Special issue on Household Gardens and Small-Scale
Food Production (V. Niñez, ed.). 7(3):1-67.
Gate. Special issue on Urban Agriculture. 2:4-47.
Greenprints. Special issue on Urban Agriculture. No. 1 (1999).
Hunger Notes. Special issue on Urban Food Production: Neglected Resource for Food
and Jobs (I. Tinker, ed.). 18:2
IDRC Reports. Special issue on Farming in the City: The Rise of Urban Agriculture (L.
Mougeot, ed.). 21(3): 2-20.
IDRC (International Development Research Centre). 1993-1995. Cities Feeding People
Series. 14 reports. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. Papers originally presented at an
international workshop on the urban environment sponsored by the Environment and
Natural Resources Division, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, 1993; and the conference of the
Canadian Institute of Planners and World Congress of the International Federation for
Housing and Planning, Edmonton, Canada, 1994.
New Village Journal. 1999. Special issue on Community Gardens. Issue 1.
Revista Interamericana de Planificacion. 1988. Special issue on Urban Agriculture and
Energy. 85.
SINA. 1998. Special Feature on Farming in the City 42:5-15.
Source. Special report on Ways with Waste. 3(4).
Unasylva. 1993. Special issue on Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry. 44(173):2-51.
UNU Work in Progress. 1986. Special issue on Food + Energy = Development. 10.
Urban Age. 1998. Special issue on Feeding the City. 5(3).

Selected Readings
Urban Agriculture Magazine. Several issues have been published since 2000, all
thematic. wwwruaf.org
Urban Ecologist: The Journal of Urban Ecology. 1997. Special issue on Securing Food
in the City. 2:3-13.
Urban Perspectives. 1993. Special issue on Urban Agriculture and Food Security. 4.
WHY. 1999. Special issue on Food: From Field to Feast. 31-32:1-18.
Witness (The). 1999. Special issue on Community Food Security. 82(1-2):5-23.
World Paper. 1995. Special section on Urban Agriculture. June:10-14.
Unpublished proceedings of the International Workshop on "Planning for Sustainable
Urban Development: Cities and Natural Resource Systems in Developing Countries,"
at the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales College of
Cardiff, in Cardiff, Wales, July 13-17, 1992.
Unpublished papers and reference articles from the International Workshop on Urban
Agriculture & Sustainable Environment. Calcutta, India, 1995. Organized by Centre
for Built Environment and Urban Agriculture Network.

Urban Agriculture PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Agriculture PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Agriculture

Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities

With the financial support and permission of the

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 1

the stages of production included in urban agriculture; and

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 2

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 3

Myths and Reality

Myth 1. Urban agriculture means household and community gardening.

Myth 2. Urban agriculture is a temporary activity.

Myth 3. Urban agriculture is a marginal activity or means of survival.

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 4

Myth 6. Urban agriculture is not hygienic.

Myth 7. Urban agriculture causes pollution and damages the environment.

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 5

Myth 8. Urban agriculture is unsightly and aesthetically inappropriate in the city.

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 6

others have begun to recognize it as an important development tool. By reporting on the

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 7

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 8

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 9

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 10

Links and Differences Between Urban and Rural Agriculture

Continuum in Space and Time — Urban-Rural Food Systems

Urban Agriculture and Rural Economies

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 11

Urban Agriculture and Rural Agricultural Surpluses

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 12

Location Specificity — Comparative Advantages of Urban and Rural

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 13

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 14

Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Urban Systems

Urban Agriculture and the Sustainable City

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 15

The sustainable city is the subject of considerable analysis as urban deconcentration

The Urban Nutrient Cycle

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 16

The Hydrological Cycle

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 17

(upstream and downstream). Quality control of farming systems is a necessary condition

Urban Agriculture and the Urban Food System

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 18

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 19

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 20

Beyond Food Demand and Supply — Urban Food Security

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 21

Community Food Security and Food Systems

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 22

Several varieties of community-based food systems have been identified. Ecoville is a

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 23

community‘s social and economic development‖.36 This document explores several

Structure of Urban Agriculture

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 24

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 25

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 26

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 27

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 28

Chapter 1 Second Revision — 13 Nov 2001 Page 29

With the financial support and permission of the

Table 2.1 Global estimates of the level of urban agricultural

Actively engaged urban farmers (worldwide) 800,000,000

1. Actual employment, not job equivalents

Parameter Range of data and significance