Urban agriculture has, for centuries, served as a vital input in the livelihood strategies of urban households in the developing countries. Urban agriculture has expanded rapidly within the last 20 years as a response to the economic crises exacerbated by the structural adjustment programs and increasing migration. The legalization of urban agriculture as a step towards securing lands for the urban poor has left a governance vacuum, which should be filled through policy formulation and regular institutionalized management.
Urban agriculture has, for centuries, served as a vital input in the livelihood strategies of urban households in the developing countries. Urban agriculture has expanded rapidly within the last 20 years as a response to the economic crises exacerbated by the structural adjustment programs and increasing migration. The legalization of urban agriculture as a step towards securing lands for the urban poor has left a governance vacuum, which should be filled through policy formulation and regular institutionalized management.
Urban agriculture has, for centuries, served as a vital input in the livelihood strategies of urban households in the developing countries. Urban agriculture has expanded rapidly within the last 20 years as a response to the economic crises exacerbated by the structural adjustment programs and increasing migration. The legalization of urban agriculture as a step towards securing lands for the urban poor has left a governance vacuum, which should be filled through policy formulation and regular institutionalized management.
2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
IN THE FIELD Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries Erik Bryld United Nations Development Programme. Kathmandu, Nepal Accepted in revised form April 15, 2002 Abstract. Urban agriculture has, for centuries, served as a vital input in the livelihood strategies of urban house- holds in the developing countries. As a response to the economic crises exacerbated by the structural adjustment programs and increasing migration, urban agriculture has expanded rapidly within the last 20 years. An examina- tion of the general trends in urban agriculture reveals a number of issues policy-makers in developing countries should address to provide services to ensure a sustainable behavior towards urban cultivation. Most important is the legalization of urban agriculture as a step towards securing lands for the urban poor. The illegal status has left a governance vacuum, which should be lled through policy formulation and regular institutionalized management in a participatory manner including all relevant stakeholders if food security has to be increased and environment improved in an urban development context. Key words: Environment, Food security, Gender, Governance, Livelihood strategies, Policy, Structural adjustment, Urban agriculture, Urban planning Erik Bryld is a Human Geographer by training from the Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen. He currently works as Urban Development Ofcer for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Nepal and has previously worked as Project Coordinator for the Danish University Consortium for Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management (SLUSE). Prior to this, he was associated with the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the United Nations Secretariat Department for Economic and Social Affairs. This article was written partly during his time with SLUSE and partly with UNDP. Introduction Agricultural production in urban areas is not a new phenomenon in developing countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates that approximately 800 million urban residents were engaged in agricultural production in the mid-1990s, commercial or subsistence (UNDP, 1996; Borgue, 2000). Urban agriculture has undergone a radical transformation since the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Africa, urban cultivation has become a permanent part of the landscape. In the beginning of the 1980s, a mere 1025% of the urban population in Africa was engaged in urban agriculture while up to 70% of the urban population in Africa, and up to 60% in Asia, have become urban cultivators in the 1990s (Rogerson, 1997). Today, 70% of the poultry food consumed in Kampala is produced within the city boundaries. In Kathmandu and Zambia, more than a third of the subsistence food production is produced within the city. All three cities have witnessed a massive shift in use of the urban landscape from open spaces to agricultural production. In Dar es Salaam, the number of families engaged in agricultural production has increased from 18 to 67% from 1967 to 1991, making urban agriculture the second largest employer after petty trade (UNDP, 1996; Ratta and Nasr, 1996). The primary driving force behind this continuous increase in urban agriculture is an increase in migra- tion from rural to urban areas as well as the worsening economic situation of the urban population as a consequence of the Bretton Woods Institutions Struc- tural Adjustment Programs. The Structural Adjust- ment Programs focus on growth aiming at increasing the income level through management of resources more properly through market liberalization (Scott, 1993). The Structural Adjustment Programs have, however, often resulted in a noteworthy economic setback of the poorest part of the population who cannot afford the free market prices of basic food. These programs resulted in a removal of subsidies to food production in the developing countries seeking loans fromthe World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which consequently led to a liberalization of the 80 ERIK BRYLD food trade, which again resulted in signicant price rise (vefold) (Ratta and Nasr, 1996). Parallel with the rise in prices, salaries and real wages were devalu- ated up to 10 times, leaving the citizens with limited resources for food provision. This double burden has increased the intra-urban poverty and pushed urban citizens to become engaged in urban agriculture in order to feed the household (Potts, 1997; Scott, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a; Ratta and Nasr, 1996; Maxwell, 1999). Terminology Mwalukasa (2000: 150) denes urban agriculture as: . . . carrying out farming activities in built-up areas where open space is available, as well as keeping livestock (dairy, cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and fowl) in built-up and in peri-urban areas. This denition captures the essence of urban agriculture, while at the same time it illustrates one of the main problems with its conceptualization, that of dening the key area: urban, in a development context. UNDP (1996: 9) denes urban: . . . in a broad sense, to encompass the entire area in which a citys sphere of inuence (social, ecological, or economic) comes to bear daily or directly on its population. But where does the citys social, ecological, or economic sphere end? Cities are not isolated areas and their sphere is, therefore, not a pre-set boundary. As Tacoli (1998: 3) puts it, [there] . . . is a lack of recognition of the complexity of ruralurban interactions which involve spatial as well as sectoral dimensions. . . . The growing evidence of the scale and nature of urban agricul- ture and of rural non-agricultural enterprises and employment suggests that these distinctions are over-simplied descriptions of both rural and urban livelihoods. Activities related to urban agriculture are rarely isol- ated from rural areas. Activities in rural and urban areas are often inter-linked across space and sectors. The problem with the denition very clearly reveals that city borders are uent, which is further empha- sized by the active rural-urban interactions taking place in the peri-urban areas. 1 It is, therefore, important that urban agriculture is seen as a dynamic concept. There is thus a need for recognition of the diversity of urban agriculture. When dealing with issues of urban agriculture and making policies within this eld, it is vital that the particularities of the settings are taken into consideration while at the same time it is important to understand that urban agriculture is not an isolated phenomenon, but an activity inter-linked with activities in both peri-urban and rural areas. Where is urban agriculture practiced and by whom The increase in urban agriculture has brought with it new spaces where cultivation is exercised. Most common is cultivation in the backyard and around buildings. However, community, and public lands, and parks, have also been invaded by urban agricultur- ists within the last decades. Among these are areas allocated to other uses, such as roadsides and airport buffers as well as areas not suitable for building such as streamsides, oodplains, drainage way-leaves, wetlands, and steep slopes (Freeman, 1993; UNDP, 1996). Even though the majority of the produce grown in urban areas in the developing countries goes to subsistence, there are also other incentives for going into urban agriculture. Some urban high- income inhabitants use agriculture as a strategy of further accumulation through the production of high yield crops close to the market, while some middle- income households use urban cultivation as means of consolidation, securing the family well-being. The majority of urban agriculturists are, however, engaged in cultivation as a means of survival (Freeman, 1993; Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996; Rigg, 1998). Urban agriculture has become a survival strategy for urban households. As Maxwell (1999: 1950) puts it: Under circumstances where low-income urban populations are spending up to three-quarters of their total income on food, the issues of income and livelihood are directly linked to food security. . . . People are not passive victims within the constraints they face, people do their best to cope, to make ends meet, to protect their livelihoods, and meet their basic requirements. Having the opportunity of growing food or keeping poultry, therefore, becomes a critical component in the ability of staying alive in the urban environment, despite the fact that it is illegal in most developing countries (Maxwell, 1999; Nugent, 2000). The urban poor 2 rarely have access to farming plots of such a magnitude that they can support the whole family with food. Consequently, urban agricul- ture generally serves as a vital side earning for most households. The poorest families often have to sell some of their produce to survive in order to pay rent, school, or medical expenses, even if this means that the family will not receive sufcient food. In a study by POLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE 81 Freeman (1993: 12) in Nairobi, the most commonly expressed prime motivation for urban cultivation is the need to avert hunger for the cultivators and their families by producing staple crops. Urban agriculture then becomes a form of semi-proletarism where the producers rely on both subsistence and cash income (Freeman, 1993; Maxwell, 1995; Rigg, 1998). In the developing countries, especially in Sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia, this production pattern generally means that it is the women who are in charge of cultivation (Mbiba, 1995b; Maxwell, 1995). There seems to be two main reasons for this. First, urban cultivation is relatively easily tted into womens daily work pattern. With the plots situated relatively close to the residence, the female household members are easily attending to the produce if and when they have a break from other duties. 3 Second, different research from developing countries show that men generally do not regard urban agriculture as a business, but only as a marginal activity (Maxwell, 1995; Dennery, 1996). This relatively strong divide in gender roles has revealed two signicant consequences. First, the increase in developing households engagement in urban agriculture has burdened women even more. If not engaged in other income generating activ- ities, women usually work full time on domestic duties, as they are generally responsible for the house- hold reproduction, which usually includes obtaining food and water, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, and looking after children, elders, and the sick, besides being engaged in petty trade. Furthermore, it is usually women rather than men who forgo food in order to feed their children. Besides adding to the daily burden of work, these cuts in spare time keep women from acquiring higher-paying informal or formal sector occupation. In this sense, urban agri- culture can become a low-income trap that imprisons unskilled women (Potts, 1997; Freeman, 1993; UNDP, 1996). On the other hand, different research shows that women are generally very pleased with being engaged in urban agriculture (Freeman, 1993; Dennery, 1996; Maxwell, 1999). Urban agriculture is, thus, an important livelihood strategy for the household and especially the female members. The above illustrates the problem of working with the household as an entity when researching livelihood strategies. Often it becomes very unclear where the household begins and ends. Households may be multi- spatial. The different members of the household may work in both rural and urban areas. Some household members may even reside in urban areas for periods of time for generating cash while the rest live and work in rural areas. And even so, they will often all be part of the household livelihood strategy. However, this distinction is not made easier by the fact that household members do not always pool their incomes, resulting in different and often individual livelihood strategies. Even so, urban agriculture is a vital element in the survival strategy of the household members who can generate extra income through the utilization of the potentials of urban cultivation (Smith, 1996; Tacoli, 1998; Rigg, 1998; Zeeuw et al., 2000). Potentials Urban agriculture brings with it great potentials for enhancing the situation of the urban citizens, especially those with the lowest incomes who are dependent on the access to locally grown food. Food security As urbanization increases, so does the need for suf- cient food. The opportunity to grow and/or acquire food produced locally, therefore, becomes a crit- ical component in surviving in the city. Thus, urban agriculture plays a signicant role in contributing to the welfare of especially poor urban residents (Maxwell, 1995; Lourenco-Lindell, 1996; Mwalukasa, 2000; Nugent, 2000; Zeeuw et al., 2000). Research conducted by the World Bank (UNDP, 1996: 160) has shown that a majority of adults and children living in low-income urban areas have diseases that limit their capacity to learn and work. This situation can be improved if the citizens are engaged in urban farming, which will decrease malnutrition and increase the quantity of food intake. Resources freed by the produc- tion of urban cultivation can, for instance, be used to balance the family diet by purchasing other kinds of food, e.g., sh, fruit, and vegetables. Urban poor are generally more dependent on cash income to purchase food. Daily dietary intakes, therefore, vary according to the days income and market price. Consequently, a stable intake of self-grown produce will reduce the citizens dependence on their uctuating salaries and improve their nutrition (Smith, 1996; UNDP, 1996). Economic advantages Since most of the produce of urban agriculture is used for subsistence consumption, it can be dif- cult to assess the impact of urban agriculture on the economy. There is little doubt, though, that urban agriculture creates considerable economic activity in the cities. This is, among other factors, caused by the increasing economic use of land, since income is generated from temporarily available land and lands not suitable for building (Mbiba, 1995a; Ratta and Nasr, 1996; Smith, 1996; UNDP, 1996). It is difcult 82 ERIK BRYLD to assess whether urban agriculture in the developing countries has a signicant impact on the macro- economics. However, as have been described before, being relieved from utilizing a vast amount of the household earnings on food due to self-production means that resources formerly bound to purchasing food can now be used on other pressing needs, such as school fees, medical treatment, or rent. This inevitably increases the room for maneuver for the household, especially for the women who are the most frequent urban cultivators. In this way, urban agriculture can serve as an empowerment of women and at the same time promote increased welfare for other household members. Environmental advantages Besides the direct nutritional benets of urban agricul- ture for the cultivators, there are several other environ- mental advantages worth noticing. Most developing country cities do not have environmentally sustain- able policies when it comes to nutrient recycling. In most cities, there is a general throughput of resources, increasing the amount of garbage wasted. There are different ways of improving the cities environments, among these planting of trees, reducing consump- tion, and improving the efciency of the infrastructure. The cultivation of plants and trees helps reduce dust and absorbs pollutants through its foliage. Trees and plants can also increase the humidity in arid climates and reduce radiational heating through conversion of groundwater into atmospheric humidity. Cultivation can also turn unsightly lots into green areas, preserving the much needed green belts in the cities. Furthermore, there is a constant demand for fuel wood in the devel- oping cities, a demand, that can be supplied partly by forestry in urban and peri-urban areas (UNDP, 1996). Urban agriculture also contributes to an improved urban environment in other ways. One of the most ef- cient ways of improving the environment is through recycling of organic waste. Compost from urban organics can easily be applied in urban and peri- urban plots and serve as fertilizer. Furthermore, human excreta can be used in sh farming (Smith, 1996; UNDP, 1996; Furedy et al., 1999). Also, research in Bangkok by Frge et al. (2001) documents how huge quantities of plant nutrients that could be recovered and reused are discharged into the river and wasted. A nutrient recycling program that transferred these wastes to the urban cultivated plots could improve the environment and increase the output of urban agriculture. Problems As have been shown, there are several advantages of promoting urban agriculture, but as this section will reveal, living with and managing urban agriculture is not unproblematic. In almost all developing countries, urban agricul- ture is de jure and/or de facto illegal. It is generally viewed as an artifact of rural life and therefore not belonging in the city. Furthermore, it is perceived as having only marginal importance to the urban economy and the people engaged in this sector are seldom people with inuence on the city manage- ment level. Last, urban agriculture is perceived as a public health nuisance (Scott, 1993; Maxwell, 1995; Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996). Potential health hazard Urban agriculture can be a health hazard. Multiple problems can occur when solid waste is processed or wastewater is used for irrigation and sh farming. Poor management of compost piles increases diseases, among these bronchitis, tuberculosis, dysentery, and cancer caused by waste gases. Furthermore, lead in soil and air is a major contaminant that green leafy vegetables can concentrate in their leaves. There have also been cases of untreated wastewater being used for farming resulting in cases with cholera (UNDP, 1996; Furedy et al., 1999; Borque, 2000). In some regions, chemical fertilizer is used to enhance the output, a practice that can pose potential environ- mental problems. This practice is catalyzed by the fact that urban cultivation is still illegal in many developing countries, forcing the farmers to get as much out of the production in the shortest period of time (Smith, 1996). Taking up space for houses Besides feeding the poor in the cities, there is an urgent need for providing shelter for the homeless. The vast amount of land used on urban agriculture is an obstacle to urban housing provision. In the city of Harare, more than 400,000 people lack housing, forcing people to live in shanties with increased health hazards due to overcrowding and a potential re hazard, since they are built so closely together (Mbiba, 1995a). This problem illustrates the hazards that urban poor face daily and the problems urban planners face in solving these vital issues. POLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE 83 Difculties faced by urban agriculturists The fact that urban agriculture is illegal in most devel- oping countries results in several related problems. The most obvious are the increasing food shortages in the major cities, which becomes more difcult to accommodate when the open spaces of the city cannot be used for cultivation. This brings with it several disadvantages for the cultivators. Insecure yields due to slashing and theft As a way of enforcing the prohibition against urban farming, guards from city council occasionally destroy/slash crops on public or municipal land even in times of food shortages. On top of this, many urban agriculturist have to face theft as a daily problem (Drakakis-Smith, 1993; Scott, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a). Freeman (1993: 10) has documented that almost half of urban cultivators in Kenya have been exposed to theft of which the majority of victims are women. Findings are conrmed by Smith (1996: 29), who found that 60% of the cultivators in Harare had exper- ienced theft. As a result of the legislative constraint and theft, urban agriculture has developed so that risks have been minimized. Some cultivators have chosen to produce vegetables that have a lower yield but look like non-consumable weeds in order to hide the produc- tion from both authorities as well as thieves. Others have chosen to produce a narrow band of crops that ripens faster in order to reduce the time of stature and, thus, the period where there is risk of slashing and theft (Scott, 1993; Freeman, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a; Smith, 1996). This strategy, however, also reduces the yield. Consequently, these risk-adverse production forms provides the cultivators and in the end the city with less produce than could potentially have been produced, adding to the food scarcity in the city (Scott, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a; Smith, 1996). Gate keeping and lack of secure tenure Only 20%of the urban agriculture cultivated in the city in developing countries is cultivated on land owned by the cultivator. The majority is taking place on public land or on land leased from a local landlord. The ongoing migration to the city puts an intense pressure on the few available plots of land. Many who would like to cultivate are therefore not able to nd sufcient land. Those residents who have resided in the city for several decades have been the rst to seize land. Consequently, urban cultivators are not necessarily the poorest residents. Newcomers are excluded from access to plots due to the older residents gate keeping. Getting access to land requires social and political information about where land is available, what the ownership is, and what risks there are from culti- vating. The most vulnerable groups, such as women headed households and young unemployed migrants, are, therefore, often excluded from cultivation (Scott, 1993; Borque, 2000; Mbiba, 1995a). The gate keeping that is taking place in the city also results in potential landlordism, overpricing urban cultivators for access to land. Having succeeded in acquiring access to land does not mean secure tenure, however, because of the absence of legitimacy. First, the cultivator is not exempted from slashing of crops, since the landlord has usually taken the land from the municipalities illegally. Second, since the rent is illegal the lessee has no recourse to any kind of action if the landlord breaks the contract (Scott, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a). Unsustainable land use/exploitation As has been highlighted in the section above, urban cultivation is not very sustainable if steps are not taken to introduce recycling systems and create environ- mental awareness among agriculturist. One of the main problems is also that fear of eviction leads people to, as mentioned above, plant short-duration seasonal crops, which could reduce the ecological diversity. Further- more, the cultivators can nd little incentive in making investments to improve soil fertility when they risk slashing and eviction. This neglect of the soil results in increased soil impoverishment and erosion, which causes silting and endangers ground water supply (Scott, 1993; Bowyer-Bower and Smith, 2000; Zeeuw et al., 2000). Reasons for lack of legalization Acommon denominator among the majority of articles within the eld of urban agriculture is the underlining of urban policy makers reluctance to engage in pro- urban agriculture policies (see among others Maxwell, 1995; Smith, 1996; Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996; Mwalukasa, 2000; Borgue, 2000). There is a general lack of exibility among urban planners towards urban cultivation. The practice is seen as reminiscence from the past, which does not compile with the general modern view of the city (Drakakis-Smith, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a). This becomes particularly apparent in the city of Harare, where there is no direct law against urban agriculture, but where the authorities use other laws, such as environmental and habitation laws, to act against the cultivators, actions that Mbiba (1995a: 96) has found to be both sporadic, ad hoc, and unplanned. If urban agriculture is to be legalized, steps also have to be taken to create an overall understanding of the 84 ERIK BRYLD benets of urban cultivation in the urban planning departments. Policy implications Urban agriculture is vital for the survival of the urban poor in most developing countries. It is a response to the still increasing urbanization and economic worsening of the situation of the poor as a consequence of structural adjustment programs and increasing migration (Ratta and Nasr, 1996). For many citizens, it is a paramount addition in the quest for improving urban food security. It has, thus, become a vital element in the household survival strategies in the urban areas in the developing countries, through the improvement of nutrition and economic base of the household. Furthermore, urban agriculture has the potential of improving the environment through greening and nutrient recycling. As has been illustrated, urban agriculture is, however, not unproblematic and, if conducted without city planning and facilitation, can result in health hazards and overcrowding. Most of these problems can be dealt with, however, in a manner that drastically limits the nuisance and promotes sustainable land use. Programs and legislation can be introduced that can reduce the contamination of waste, modify the agri- cultural practices, monitor compost, recycle nutrients, and educate the cultivators in sustainable land-use. The problem is that solid waste management in urban areas in the South is often inadequate and under-resourced. This is furthermore complicated by the illegality of urban agriculture, which still prevails in many devel- oping countries (Smith, 1996; Nunan and Shindhe, 2000; Frge et al., 2001; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). Steps, therefore, need to be taken to provide services to ensure a sustainable behavior towards urban cultivation. Even though countries like Zambia and Uganda have taken positive steps towards legalizing urban agriculture, in many developing country cities, urban agriculture is, however, still illegal, leaving urban cultivators with an array of problems from slashing and theft to gate keeping and exploitation of land. If the practice was legalized, this would reduce the fear of slashing and theft and motivate high yield cultiva- tion, reducing food shortages in the city. Furthermore, policies should be implemented that would take into consideration the securing of lands for the urban poor and thus deal with the insecure tenure. As long as there are not sufcient resources available to provide secure livelihoods for the urban poor there is no other viable solution than to legitimize urban agriculture. In order to secure the benets of urban agriculture and forego some of the hazards of unplanned cultivation, legaliza- tion of the practice and recognition of the potential is thus necessary. If legalized, most of the problems described above could be handled through action plans at municipality, city or state level. Steps could be taken to improve the cultivation techniques and assist in creating the right environment for environmental improvement and food generation, which is so essential to cities in the developing countries. There is, however, no service provision provided for urban agriculturists as long as it remains illegal. Consequently, urban agriculture is not incorporated in the city plans. As Rogerson (1997: 360) states, Despite its widespread occurrence for subsistence consumption, urban food and livestock production is usually not appreciated by urban author- ities and certainly not planned for and supported. The government, be it local or national, should, as a policy-setting authority, regulate and facilitate urban agriculture, but instead banning has left urban cultiva- tion in a policy vacuum where there exists a lack of governance (Drakakis-Smith, 1993; UNDP, 1996). This lack of governance leaves the cultivators disem- powered and the city with less resources and a more fragile environment. There is, thus, a general need for lling the governance vacuum through legalizing urban agri- culture, formulating policies, and institutionalizing regular management of urban agriculture. These processes inevitably mean the involvement of all stakeholders in policy formulation in order to secure sustainability. A solution could be to introduce decentralized boards with representatives from both municipality and agriculturists with an insurance of the presence of all levels of cultivators, among these the most vulnerable groups. A contextual focus is needed, since it is important to recognize the specic context within which urban agriculture is taking place in the developing countries. There is no single or uniform solution to urban agricultural planning. Each city has its own context within which the diversity related to both socio-economics and environment will need to be addressed. Planning will have to evolve through dialogue between different stakeholders from the city ofcials to women cultivators. Mutual under- standing will have to be created if the potentials of urban agriculture are to be realized. Creating this good governance policy framework, however, can not be initiated unless urban agriculture is legalized. Acknowledgments The author is grateful for the valuable comments of Dr. Jakob Magid, The Royal Veterinary and Agri- POLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE 85 cultural University, Copenhagen, and Dr. Katherine Gough, Institute of Geography, University of Copen- hagen. The content of the article is, however, the sole responsibility of the author. Notes 1. The peri-urban refers to a series of interactions between rural and urban areas, characterized by ows of produce, nance, labor, and services; and by the economic, socio- logical, institutional, and environmental change taking place in the fringes between the urban and rural areas. 2. Poverty is difcult to dene, since it is not possible to set up an objective poverty indicator since poverty is always relative. It is about living and well-being and not neces- sarily possessing (see also Sen, 1987; Rahnema, 1992). It is difcult to assess well-being but often necessary to be able to distinguish between different social and economic stand- ards and standards of nutrient intake. In this paper, poor refers to households and individuals with low incomes who are often confronted with food scarcity, due to the nature of the subject discussed. Other aspects of social poverty are not included in the concept. 3. In a survey conducted by Mbiba (1999b) in Harare it was found that the average distance between the residence and the plot of the respondents was 1.76 km. References Atukunda, G. and D. Maxwell (1996). Farming in the city of Kampala: Issues for urban management. African Urban Quarterly 11(23): 264275. Borgue, M. (2000). Policy options for urban agriculture. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agri- culture on the Policy Agenda. Feldang, Germany: Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL). Bowyer-Bower, T. A. S. and D. Smith (2000). Africas back- yard farms boost food security. But are they harming urban life? DFID: homepage, ID21. Deelstra, T. and H. Girardet (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Feldang, Germany: Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL). Dennery, P. R. (1996). Urban food producers decision making: A case study of Kibera, city of Nairobi, Kenya. African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3): 189200. Drakakis-Smith, D. (1993). Food security and food policy for the urban poor. In J. Dahl, D. Drakakis-Smith, and A. Narman (eds.), Land, Food and Basic Needs in Developing Countries. Gteborg, Sweden: Department of Human and Economic Geography, University of Gteborg. Freeman, D. B. (1993). Survival strategy or business training ground? The signicance of urban agriculture for the advancement of women in African cities. African Studies Review 36(3): 122. Furedy, C., V. Maclaren, and J. Whitney (1999). Reuse of waste for food production in Asian cities: Health and eco- nomic perspectives. In M. Koc, R. MacRae, J. L. Mougeot, and J. Welsh (eds.), For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Ottowa, Canada: International Devel- opment Research Centre. Frge, J., J. Magid, and F. W. T. P. de Vries (2001). Urban nutrient balance for Bangkok. Ecological Modelling 139: 6374. Lourenco-Lindell, I. (1996). How do the urban poor stay alive? Food provision in a squatter settlement of Bissau, Guinea- Bissau. African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3): 163168. Maxwell, D. (1995). Alternative food security strategy: A household analysis of urban agriculture in Kampala. World Development 23(10): 16691681. Maxwell, D. (1999). The political economy of urban food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 27(11): 19391953. Mbiba, B. (1995a). Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe, Implica- tions for Urban Management and Poverty. England: Avebury. Mbiba, B. (1995b). Classication and description of urban agriculture in Harare. Development Southern Africa 12(1): 7586. Mwalukasa, M. (2000). Institutional aspects of urban agri- culture in the city of Dar Es Salaam. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Feldang, Germany: Food and Agricul- ture Development Centre (ZEL). Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local economies. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Feldang, Germany: Food and Agriculture Devel- opment Centre (ZEL). Nunan, F. and D. K. Shindhe (2000). Waste not want not: Making the most of urban organic waste. Retrieved from http://www.id2l.org/zinter/id2lzinter.exe?a=l&i=2cfn3& u=3e24f95f. Potts, D. (1997). Urban lives: Adopting new strategies and adapting rural links. In C. Rakodi (ed.), The Urban Chal- lenge in Africa. Geneva: United Nations University Press. Rahnema (1992). Poverty. In W. Sachs (ed.), The Develop- ment Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Ratta, A. and J. Nasr (1996). Urban agriculture and the African urban food supply system. African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3): 154161. Rigg, J. (1998). Rural-urban interactions, agriculture and wealth: A southeast Asian perspective. Progress in Human Geography 22(4): 497522. Rogerson, C.M. (1997). Globalization of informalization? African Urban economies in the 1990s. In C. Rakodi (ed.), The Urban Challenge in Africa. Geneva: United Nations University Press. 86 ERIK BRYLD Scott, J. (1993). Urban agriculture: A response to the impact of structural adjustment measures. In A. Goodland (ed.), Feeding Urban Africa. Wye, UK: Wye College Press. Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living: Lecture I, concepts and critiques. In G. Hawtorne (ed.), The Standard of Living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, D. (1996). Urban agriculture in Harare: socio-economic dimensions of a survival strategy. In D. Grossman, L. M. van den Berg, and H. I. Ajaegbu (eds.), Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Africa: Proceedings of a Workshop: Netanya, Israel, 2327 June. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Tacoli, C. (1998). Beyond the rural-urban divide. Environ- ment and Urbanization 10(1): 35. UNDP (1996). Urban Agriculture Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme Publication Series for Habitat II, Volume One. Zeeuw, H., S. Guendel, and H. Waibel (2000). The integration of agriculture in urban policies. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Grow- ing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Feldang, Germany: Food and Agriculture Develop- ment Centre (ZEL). Address for correspondence: Erik Bryld, UNDP, UN House, P.O. Box 107, Kathmandu, Nepal Phone: +977-1-523200, Ext. 1031; Fax. +977-1-523991; E-mail: erik.bryld@undp.org