Urban, Peri-urban Agriculture and Food Security Among Small-Scale Agricultural Producers: Southern Africa

Abstract

Agriculture is the backbone of most of the economies of the countries in Southern Africa and agricultural production and associated processing industries form a major economic sector of most countries in the region. Agriculture employs over 70 % of the population and agriculture supports the main livelihood systems of about 75 % of the rural population and like in the rest of the developing countries farmers constitute the largest group of natural resource managers. In Southern Africa, urbanization is growing at an alarming rate due to increasing rural–urban migration triggered by dwindling employment opportunities in rural areas and pull factors that lure the young and able bodied rural population to towns. While cities will continue to depend largely on rural agriculture, substantial contribution is increasingly coming from within the urban and the urban fringe environments to improve food security of the urban poor.

“Africa can and should feed Africa”. Mr. Carlos Lopes, Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) January 2014

Appendices

Appendix 1: Legal and Policy Aspects of Urban Agriculture in Tanzania

Urban agriculture (UA) in Tanzania is practiced in a generally favorable political and legal context. At the national level, during the 1970s and 1980s, the government, faced with a poor economy, issued policies encouraging people to undertake urban agriculture. This was for urban dwellers to attain food self-sufficiency, to grow food in order to offset sky-rocketing inflation. Government and political leaders time and again told urban dwellers to raise livestock and produce their food in their backyards and other open space. Policies behind this included Siasa in Kilimo (Politics is Agriculture) of 1972 and Kilimo cha Umwagiliaji (Irrigated Agriculture) of 1974, Kilimo cha Kufa na Kupona (Agriculture for Life and Death) of 1974/75 and Mvua za Kwanza ni Zakupandia (First Rains are for Planting) of 1974/75. Others included the National Economic Survival Programme (NESP) of 1981/82, the National Food Strategy of 1982, the National Livestock Policy (NLP) of 1983, the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) of 1983, and the National Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) of 1986–1990.

At the ministerial level, urban agriculture has been partly encouraged by agricultural extension officers who offer non-formal education to urban dwellers. In a bid to encourage urban dwellers to produce own food, the government set up an urban agriculture extension service in the 1970s under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS). Currently, MAFS uses its urban-based Agriculture/Livestock Extension Agents (ALEAs) who work in towns to promote the raising of livestock and growing of crops. ALEAs visit urban dwellers and impart modern skills and knowledge (non-formal education) about agriculture so that the farmers’ production will increase. It was in the early 1980s when government policies of encouraging urban agriculture, especially livestock keeping, started to have negative effects on the operations of most urban councils and the physical urban environment. So it was time to review the existing municipal bylaws regarding farming in town.

The first urban bylaws regulating the growing of crops and raising of livestock in urban centers were enacted by the British colonial authorities in 1928 under Rule 16 CAP. 101 titled bylaws for regulation of cultivation and keeping of animals in urban areas. These bylaws had three main objectives: (1) to prohibit people of African descent to grow crops and raise livestock in urban areas; (2) to prevent urban agricultural activities in urban areas, because it was thought to increase the presence of malaria-causing mosquitoes, especially crops taller than one meter; and (3) to maintain a cleaner urban environment and sustain urban aesthetics by preventing people of African descent from growing crops in most of the towns’ open spaces.

After independence in 1961, most of these bylaws became moribund. Later, however, most towns and municipal councils found it necessary to revive the bylaws so as to regulate urban agriculture for the smooth running of towns. The essence of these bylaws is that growing crops or raising animals is allowed, be it under certain conditions. In Tanzanian towns, bylaws on crop cultivation make a distinction between areas where growing crops is completely prohibited and where it is permitted. Growing crops is also not permitted within a distance of fourteen meters from road banks. As for the river valley, however, crop cultivation is not allowed within a distance of fifteen meters from the river banks. The cultivation of annual crops is unrestrictedly allowed in these areas. For permanent crops, however, a written permission from the Municipal Director is needed. Other bylaws regulate the proper ways in which crops have to be cultivated, including for instance use of machinery, planting time, use of inputs, weeding, use of certified seeds, planting on slopes, as well as how to act in case of plant pests or diseases. Other bylaws stipulate the penalties on not adhering to these regulations, including fines, imprisonment and destruction of crops.

However, although these bylaws exist and clearly stipulate the penalties for defaulters, they are rarely implemented. For instance, it is common to see crops of all varieties planted in all municipal administrative wards, road reserves, riverbanks, public open spaces including children playgrounds, and surveyed plots, rendering the bylaws ‘toothless.’ In towns, bylaws on livestock keeping define “animals” as cattle, donkeys, goats, horses, mules, pigs and sheep. In other words, small livestock like improved chicken, local chicken, ducks, rabbits and turkeys, most of which are now raised in urban areas, are left out. Most town Councils’ bylaws stipulates that they “shall earmark certain areas to be known as “specified areas” within the urban area for the purpose of keeping animals [and] along which to move an animal or animals and permits shall be issued by the Councils in respect of animals authorized in the Urban Areas”. Yet, the bylaws do not specify the numbers and types of animals that urban dwellers are allowed to raise in different density areas.

Bylaws forbid keeping animals outside “a building, structure or enclosure”; hence, keeping animals in free range is prohibited. Moreover, according to bylaws do not allow animals to be kept “in a building or part of such building that is used for human habitation”. Yet, people do keep improved chicken, goats, sheep and local chicken in their houses. On the other hand, chicken (local and improved) are not defined as “animals” in these bylaws. Animals can only be moved with special permission from the Council. Most urban dwellers keep animals without having a permit. Bylaws which require urban dwellers to remove manure, liquid filth, and other animal waste are never enforced. The fact that there are many senior government and ruling party officials among the livestock keepers who break the bylaws with impunity, is probably the best assurance for most other livestock keepers that they will not be punished whenever they break the law. The National Human Settlements Development Policy of 2000 of the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlement Development says the following regarding Urban Agriculture:

• Urban agriculture exists in most urban areas both in the developed and developing countries. As an economic activity, it provides income and employment opportunities to the urban populations, and a reliable supplementary source of food supply to urban dwellers at affordable prices. As a land use, well-planned urban agriculture creates a pleasant greenery scene.

• Issue. Although urban agriculture is considered an important component in sustainable development, improperly practiced urban agriculture conflicts with other urban land uses and leads to land degradation, water pollution, and is a threat to health and safety.

• Policy statement. The government shall: (i) designate special areas within planning areas whereby people will be granted legal rights to engage themselves in agricultural activities; (ii) continue to regulate and research on the conduct of urban agriculture and will ensure that it does not disrupt planned urban development; (iii) review existing laws to facilitate planned urban agriculture; and (iv) facilitate the construction of appropriate infrastructure to mitigate/prevent land degradation, water pollution, and health and safety hazards in areas whereby urban agriculture is permitted.

  Thus, the legal context is somewhat confusing for the urban farmers. The national government pursued a generally favorable policy and even tried to encourage people during periods of severe economic recession. Even, though farming in town is generally accepted, the bylaws at the local level pose many restrictions to the practice. Many urban farmers appear not to know what is allowed and what is not. On the other hand, despite these regulations, enforcement is sparingly done and discriminatory in nature (the elite are less affected), councils lack funds and personnel to reach sprawling and sometimes unplanned urban areas.

Source: Malongo RS and Mlozi MRS (2003). Legal and Policy Aspects of Urban Agriculture in Tanzania. www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/econf4_submittedpapers_mlozi.pdf

Appendix 2: Harare Metropolitan Governor and Resident Minister Address 2010

He acknowledged that for years, farming has not been regarded as an urban land-use and local authorities have been quick to cut down crops grown by residents on open spaces within cities and towns. He said although local authorities’ by-laws on urban farming have not changed, most municipal authorities have realized the importance of farming for urban residents. They are now allocating land at the periphery of urban areas to town and city residents intending to grow different food crops. He gave the example of Mr and Mrs Edgar Makowe of Tynwald in Harare who have been practicing peri- urban farming for some years and it had significantly contributed to the upkeep of their family. He told them last season the Makowes planted maize on four hectares of land and they managed to harvest a yield that is as good as any if not better than that harvested by communal farmers. On the back of the good harvest, the Makowes invited agricultural experts to come and share their expertise to encourage neighbors and friends to take this type of farming seriously. Speaking at the occasion, Governor David Karimanzira urged other urban dwellers to emulate what the Makowes have done and help eradicate poverty in the country. Mr and Mrs Makowe said they are now looking to farming as a viable option of sustaining their family and supplementing the family income. Speaking at the same event, Ivan Craig an agricultural expert with a local seed manufacturing concern also noted that peri-urban agriculture is one of the several tools for making productive use of urban open spaces, treating and recovering urban waste and managing fresh water resources more effectively. He also stressed the importance of knowing the soil type and using the appropriate seed. Agricultural experts also encouraged people practicing peri-urban agriculture to plant trees in open spaces they are utilizing for peri urban purposes so as to conserve the environment. Last year, government allocated 60.000 ha of land for urban agriculture in Harare in a bid to eradicate poverty in urban areas.

Source: Urban Agriculture (2010) Residents urged to take peri-urban farming seriously. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Appendix 3: Packing Some of the Abalimi Project Vegetables at Harvest of Hope Shed

Appendix 4: Cape Town’s Women Take the Lead in Farm-Focused Social Enterprise

Tuesday mornings are always busy for the staff of Abalimi Bezekhaya, an urban agriculture project operating in the sprawling townships of Cape Town, South Africa. Each Tuesday, peppers, eggplants, cabbages, beets, and the like are collected from dozens of community gardens to be sorted, boxed and driven to 25 pickup points around the city. On a particular Tuesday in February though, there is a problem. The list of recipes distributed with each box includes one that calls for leeks, but leeks are nowhere to be found. “What’s the crisis today?” asks Rob Small, the co-director and founder of Abalimi Bezekhaya (“farmers of the home” in the native Xhosa language). “I think it might be this,” he says, pointing to the leek-less boxes. Despite daily hurdles, Small and his staff are successfully running a hybrid social enterprise that provides training, financial support, and food security to small farmers. The roughly 15,000 people Abalimi reaches—3,000 farmers, with an average of five family members—all live in the historically disenfranchised Cape Flats townships, where residents have faced high crime rates, a lack of opportunity, and a 30 % to 40 % unemployment rate since the days of apartheid.

Abalimi’s profitable social business, Harvest of Hope, relies on a community-supported agriculture model that provides customers (who pay in advance) a box of fresh, organically grown produce harvested from community gardens each week. Abalimi’s main objective is securing access to “local fresh food and nutrition security” through a combination of subsistence plots and community gardens. The organization is addressing three of South Africa’s most chronic problems—unemployment, racial disempowerment, and nutritional inequality—with a blend of entrepreneurship, philanthropy, and organic compost. “These days, to be charitable means you’re making people weak,” Small says, referring to the negative stigma attached to nonprofits. “Social businesses are conducted with the interest of the whole at heart, while the individual is honored and recognized within that.”

Liziwe Stofile, who lives in the township of Khayelitsha, trains Abalimi’s new farmers. She explains that in her home province of the Eastern Cape, where many Cape Flats’ residents are from, few Africans grow or eat vegetables like peppers, chard, or green beans. Instead, they grow traditional subsistence crops like potatoes, squash and mealies (corn), which offer less nutritional diversity than what she eats today. “What is happening now,” says Vatiswa Dunjana, another trainer and field worker living in the township of Nyanga, “is we are learning something about the healthy food: what to cook, how not to overcook, what veggies you can eat raw while picking in the garden—it is boosting our bodies.”

While the food grown by Abalimi’s farmers goes to their own families first, the main customer base for Harvest of Hope’s commercial produce is not the residents of nearby townships. Instead, the main customers are the white residents of wealthy Cape Town suburbs. It is, however, common for township residents to buy one or two bunches of vegetables from nearby community gardens. Stofile says these small-scale transactions are subtly changing the tastes of residents. “Farmers are growing a variety of vegetables that suit the community’s needs. The community doesn’t want to buy leeks, green onions, baby marrows. They want to buy spinach, cabbage, and white onions, and maybe just a few spring onions when they are making their imifino,” Stofile says, referring to a green vegetable stew commonly prepared in South Africa.

Small encourages this trade in the townships and hopes it will expand in the future into local farmers markets. But he says Abalimi plans to stick with the CSA model, even if township residents can’t afford it yet. “The CSA model is the most conscious, viable and fair form of social business on the planet,” Small says. “It is 1,000 % more equitable and fair to the farmers.” When Small talks about the challenges of running Abalimi, rarely does he mention things like poor soil quality, early frosts, or controlling insects without the use of pesticides. He says his biggest challenges have little to do with cultivating organic fruits and vegetables, and everything to do with the mindsets of the people he works with. “Go back [in time] and maybe you’ll find yourself in a clan, in a tribal grouping maybe under a king or queen. Here in Africa, that group consciousness is very recent. You can encounter it still,” Small says. “Relationship in Africa is far more important than results.”

Small recounts a recent incident in which vegetables that required refrigeration prior to delivery were repeatedly left just outside the refrigerator door, causing them to wilt. Despite being instructed numerous times, the staff repeated the same mistake for several weeks. Small believes the staff did this to show their collective dissatisfaction with some aspect of management but, he said, upsetting the client only served to “damag[e] the ground they walk on.” “The biggest challenge is people’s ability to conceive of potential and future possibilities,” he says. Recently, Small stepped down as the day-to-day director of Abalimi and handed the responsibility over to a formidable Xhosa woman referred to as ‘Mama Kaba,’ a longtime staff member with considerable experience and clout. Small was eager to step down and said that the decision was in part an attempt to reverse the perception of Abalimi as a “black empowerment project led by white people.”

In the townships where Abalimi operates, it’s not uncommon for women to be leaders in the community and in charge of social projects. This is reflected in the core staff of Abalimi, which is mostly female. “From the beginning, we took [Mama Kaba] as the one who is in charge because she’s an older woman and she’s got more experience,” Stofile says. “The reason that women take over most of the community gardens is because they want to take vegetables home to feed their children. The men only want to make money.” While he wants more young men to get involved to reap the benefits of small farming, Small doesn’t see the women-led movement as a problem. “The mothers and grandmothers tend to be more honest and values driven, thus development really happens, rather than smoke and mirrors,” Small says.

Abalimi trains individuals in their target group—the disadvantaged, poor, and unemployed who “don’t fit to the western European model for getting jobs”—to what Small calls the livelihood stage—more than subsistence farming, but not large scale enough to be fully commercial. “[The livelihood stage] is the stage which governments and development agencies worldwide generally don’t understand,” Small says. “They try to leapfrog people from subsistence to commercial.” Small recalls a time when he struggled to convince farmers that they could sell the excess produce from their subsistence plots for money. He describes jumping over fences into small plots to scavenge the surplus harvest that would otherwise be left to spoil. “It took many years to get to the point where black people in South Africa accepted that organic was different and valuable,” Small said. “No one, except one or two of us [at Abalimi], really believed that reliable, adequate money could be made from micro-farming on tiny bits of wasteland, until they saw it pouring into people’s accounts.”

Source: Learn in Agriculture, Business and Farm (2012) Cape Town’s Women Take the Lead in Farm-Focused Social Enterprise

Appendix 5: Oranjezicht Farm Layout and Some of Its Horticultural Products

Source: www.ozcf.co.za/