Exploring the irrigation potential in peri-urban landscapes

Olufunke Cofie &

Priyanie Amerasinghe

Presentation at the SRP Irrigation WorkshopILRI, Addis Ababa. 24 May, 2012

This Session

Describe the space: peri-urban landscape

Present the potential for irrigation

Highlight some research areas

Group discussion on relevance of research areas

The Rural – Urban Continuum

Rural Peri-urban interface

UrbanLivelihoods drawn from the land - crop cultivation, livestock, fishing etc

Livelihoods drawn from labour markets within non-agricultural production. Farming often secondary  

Access to land for housing and buildingmaterials not generally a problem

Access to land for housing very difficult; housingand land markets highly commercialized 

More distant from government as regulator and provider of services 

Closer but more vulnerable to ‘bad’ governance 

Access to infrastructure and serviceslimited

Access to infrastructure and services not as limited except for low-income groups.

Less opportunities for earning cash: more for self-provisioning;  

Greater reliance on cash for access to food, water,sanitation, employment, garbage disposal etc 

Conventional farms consisting of interdependent sub-units

partly unconventional farms more specialised independent units acting in cluster

Farm produce are staple crops mainly. Large livestock.

Farm produce are perishable products especially green vegetables, dairy products, poultry,

Production factorsLow land price; Lower costs of labour; High costs of commercial inputsVariable cost of water

Production factors High land price, land scarcityHigher costs of labour; Lower costs of commercial inputs; High cost of (drinking) water

Distant markets; marketing through chain 

Closeness to markets; direct marketing to customers possible;

Urban characteristics in rural locations- tourism, mining, high-value crops, diverse non-agricultural production and strong links to cities

Rural characteristics in urban location (agriculture, ‘village’ enclaves, easier access to land than the urban areas  

Adapted from Satterthwaite and Tacoli (2003) and De Zeew (2010)

Features of peri-urban landscape

• Pressure on available land and water resources• Constantly changing environment• Large concentration of low to middle income

earners• Often used as dump sites for urban wastes• Receives storm and waste water from the city

Drivers of Change in PU Landscape

Urban development

Demographic pressure

Political factors

Climate Variability

Market forces

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL

Multi-functional • Recreational services• Receives/ use Urban Wastes• Reduction of Urban Ecological Footprint• Improved Micro-climate• Biodiversity

Building Social Capital• Poverty Alleviation• Social Inclusion• Community Building• Social Safety Net• Food Security & Nutrition

Market oriented agriculture• Income Generation• Employment Generation• Enterprise Development• Value chain development

ECONOMIC PU landscape serves many functions

Source: http://www.ifpindia.org/Indiapolis-Workshop-Urbanization-in-India,999.html

Trend of urbanization in Ashaiman, Ghana (Forkor et al, 2010)

2. Potentials of PU for Irrigation

Several past studies on the potential of UPA:• CGIAR Urban Harvest• FAO Food for cities• RUAF• SWITCH• URAdapt • SCOPE• IDRC’s Cities Feeding People• UN-Habitat• ARI, UniversitiesGenerally, all focused on ‘spot’ studies of urban agriculture and the immediate fringes; not much work on the PU landscape as a system

What do we know?

Timbuktu

Freetown

Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

-;

Institutional gardens with/without rain water harvesting

Kwazulu Natal, South Africa

Community Based Allotment Gardens

Roof Top Gardening, Darkar

Food Provided by UPA

City Local needs met by UPA (% )

Havana 64 (rice), 58 (vegetables), 39 (non-citrus fruits), 13 (tubers), 6 (eggs)

Dakar 70-80 (vegetables), 65-70 (poultry)

Dar Es Salaam 60 (milk), 90 (vegetables)

Jakarta 10 (vegetables), 16(fruits), 2 (rice)

La Paz 30 (vegetables),

Sofia 48 (milk), 53 (potatoes), 50 (vegetables)

Shanghai 60 (vegetables), 90-100 (milk), 90 (eggs), 50 (pork, poultry )

Nariobi 50 (low income households)

Hong Kong 45 fresh vegetable,68 live poultry,15 pigs, 45 vegetables

Singapore 25 vegetables

Hanoi 80 fresh vegetables, 50 pork, poultry and fresh water fish, 40 eggs

Kathmandu 37 Horticulture crops, 11 animals, 30 vegetables

United States 70 fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants

Vancouver 70 Spinach

Source: Compiled from various sources by Cofie et al. 2003

Significance for poverty alleviation

City, Country Typical net income in USD /month per farm

Bamako, Mali 20 – 200

Cotonou, Benin 50-70

Ouagadougou, Burkina 25-100

Accra, Ghana 40-50

Lagos, Nigeria 120

Source: Danso et al 2003

Monthly net income from mixed vegetable farming in selected cities in W. Africa

Sources: Moustier (2000), IWMI (2001)

Significance of UA for Family Livelihood Support

City, Country %of Households in agriculture

Doula, Cameroon (1998) 16

Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (1988)

20

Nairobi, Kenya (1994) 30

Accra, Ghana (2001) 46

Kumasi, Ghana (2001) 57

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dilutedwastewateror polluted

water

Untreatedwastewater

Groundwater Treatedwastewater

River Othersurface

water bodies

Rainfed Irrigationcanal

Opendrainage

Num

ber o

f citi

es

Water Lifting & Storage

Lome

Kumasi

Food flows in and out of Kumasi,

Ghana

Peri-urban Kumasi

KMA

Rural areas

Markets to Households

Food items to Markets

From markets out of city

Peak season (PS) 57%

Lean season (LS) 88%

PS 36%LS 12%

PS 7%LS 4%

48%

52%

Different cities, different paths to water sustainability

Chong Qing

Hamburg Beijing

Birmingham

Lodz Zaragoza

Alexandria Tel Aviv

Accra

Belo Horizonte

BLUE-G

REEN

network,

eco-hydrology

Leak reductio

n

Natural

treatm

ent,

water/city

planning

Urban design

Water

conservation,

strategic plans

Rainwater harvestin

g,

urban agricultu

re

Brown roofs Sustainable

drainage

Strategic

planning, urine

recyclingGreywater

recycling

Lima

Slum beautification,

urban agriculture

Cali

River restoration,

Sustainable dev.

Use of Musi River, Hydrabad• Adaptation to quality• Adaptation to demands

Urban Peri-urban Rural

40 KmVegetables Para grass Paddy Rice

Livestock

Hyderabad +40 Km

Water Quality in the Musi River

PHA Sept 2008 21

Irrigated agriculture in Hyderabad (QuickBird satellite image, 2006)

27 km stretch of Musi River

Amberpet to Pillaipally

City of Hyderabad

Periurban zone 1562 HH (6808)

Rural zone 1109 HH (5081)

For the Peri-urban landscape Problems are becoming more complex

Solutions need to be more holistic with new integrated scientific approaches, new paradigms

More demand-driven R4D outcome-oriented approach

Emphasis on partnerships and collective action

Need to develop a range of scientific, technological and socio-economic and institutional solutions suited to the changing context of the landscape

• understanding of the dynamics of transformative processes and pressures that is exerted on the peri-urban landscapes with reference to water availability, water quality, accessibility, storage. and overall potential for irrigation development

• assessment of water, land availability and access in the current context and predict future changes based on observed developments in the vicinity - implications for irrigation and associated water investments needs;

• assessment of coping mechanisms of people who are engaged in peri-urban farming in the face of development. Understanding how these mechanisms evolve in relation to developmental pressures will inform the kind of irrigation innovations to adapt to the changing environment

• innovative irrigation farming practices to cope with the dynamic changes brought on by urban development, environmental changes and also climate change.

Key Questions - 1

• What are the administrative and market driven approaches, for water transfers, and competition for irrigation of high value perishable vegetables and other uses.

• Will PU areas be the sinks for urban storm water /run-off and become areas of storage? Can we look at the water transfers, water productivity, aquifer recharge potential, ecosystem services, livelihood aspects, economic contribution to cities from the PU areas?

• Can we expect an ultimate scenario, where all rural settings acquire PU features?

• Some mapping and modeling to see the water hydrology and cropping patterns in these areas?

Key Questions - 2

• Can we have positive food balance despite urbanisation? If so, how? What is the scope for agriculture in controlled environments like greenhouses in Periurban areas?

• Can there be sets of greenhouses using water from harvested urban roofwater /runoff to produce ornamentals and fruits? Can we get major agri-businesses to explore this idea?

• What is the potential for conjunctive use of urban waste water and ground water in periurban areas?

Key Questions - 3

Possible Research Topics

Research Topic1

• Mapping Changes in PU landscapes and the potential for irrigation

Research Topic2 • Policies and Institutional Aspects

Research Topic3 • Water Demand and Allocation

Thanks for your attention

Questions, Comments, Clarifications???

SCENARIO IN 2012

ResourcesGreen growth

SCENARIO IN 2030