september 2010 urban agriculture uamagazine · culture products through food processing and...

ww

w.r

uaf

.org

UA24

SEPTEMBER 2010

From Seed to Table Developing urban

agriculture value chains

URBAN AGRICULTUREMAGAZINE

Increase the Impact of Urban Farming

Motivations and Barriers to Stakeholder Participation

Influence of Public Policies on Urban Production

24

www.ruaf.org

In this issue

Urban Agriculturemagazine Editorial 03

StrengtheningUrbanFarmerOrganisationsandTheirMarketingCapacities 11

VegetableBoxSchemeinCapeTown,SouthAfrica 17

UsingValueChainAnalysistoIncreasetheImpactofUrbanFarming 21

DistancetotheCityandPerformanceofFoodChainsinAntananarivo,Madagascar 24

MarketAccessforUrbanandPeriurbanFarmersinYangon 28

AComparisonofUrbanAgricultureandShortFoodChainsinParisandTunis 31

ValueChainDevelopmentofAvocadoinVietnam 35

TheLearningAllianceonChainEmpowerment;BurkaGudinaCooperativeUnioninEthiopia 38

UrbanAgricultureintheNetherlands 40

UrbanAgricultureasCommunityEngagementinManchester 43

MotivationsandBarrierstoStakeholderParticipationinLocalFoodValueChainsinPhoenix,Arizona 46

GeneralViewonPotatoProductioninKhartoumState,Sudan 49

TheRoleofFarmerOrganisationsinMarketingPeriurban‘SafeVegetables’inVietnam 50

InfluenceofPublicPoliciesontheUrbanProductioninPiracicaba,Brazil 53

AnAnalysisofMarketsinRosario,Argentina 55

CommunitySupportedUrbanAgriculture:TheOrti SolidaliprojectinRome 58

PromotingValueChainsinUrbanAgricultureforLocalDevelopmentinQuito 61

CoverIn this issue of the UA Magazine you will find examples of differ-ent forms of value chains and value chain development in urban agriculture.

Photo: Producer harvested organic vegetables for box scheme business in Cape Town. by: Femke Hoekstra

46

24Location and Perfor mance of Food Chains

Motivations and Barriers to Stakeholder Participation

Marketing Periurban ‘Safe Vegetables’ 50

Urban Agriculture magazine • number 24 • September 2010

3

www.ruaf.org

Editorial

Some urban farmers seek to enhance their income by engaging more directly or more efficiently in processing and marketing. But many of these, often poor, urban farmers are not able to sufficiently invest in starting a business, often do not under-take a proper analysis of market demand and tend to choose industries that have low entry costs, such as poultry production and food preparation. This pattern generally leads to rapid market saturation, low levels of productivity and competition that drives down returns to the business owners (Campbell, 2009). Value chain analysis and value chain development help connecting urban and periurban producers with urban markets in a more sustainable way. In this Magazine you will find examples of different forms of value chains and value chain development in urban agriculture.

Value chainsAnyfarmerproducingasmallsurplusthatheorshesellstoalocaltraderbecomespartofavaluechain(DeKoningandDeSteenhuijsenPiters,2009).Exceptforthehobbyistallot-mentfarmer,truesubsistencefarmersinthissensehardlyexist.Evenpoorurbanfarmerswilltrytoselltheirsurplus,ordeliberatelyproducetosell,andthusarepartofurbanvaluechains.

Valuechainscanbeinterpretedinanarroworbroadsense.Inthenarrowsense,avaluechainincludestherangeofactiv-ities performed within a business to produce a certainoutput.Thiscanbe,forinstance,aproducergrouporcoop-erative that isnotonly involved inproductionbutalso inprocessingandmarketingoftheproduce.Eachactivityaddsvaluetothefinalproduct.Somecallthisformofvaluechaindevelopment“vertical integration” or“functional upgrad-ing”andrefertothebroaderconceptofvaluechaindevelop-mentashorizontalintegration(Laven,2009).

Thebroaderdefinitionofvaluechainslooksatthecomplexrangeofactivities implementedbyvarious actors (linkinginput suppliers, primary producers, traders, processingenterprises,wholesalers,retailers,etc.)tobringarawmate-rialtothefinalconsumer.Thisapproachlooksnotonlyatthe

From Seed to Table: Developing urban agriculture value chains Marielle DubbelingFemke Hoekstra

René van Veenhuizen

activitiesimplementedbyasingleactor,butatthelinkagesbetweenthedirectactorsinthevaluechain:theorganisa-tion,coordinationandpowerrelationsbetweenthem(M4P,2006). Coordinating the supply, production, processing,tradingandotherrelatedfunctionsofvariousactorsinthevaluechainensuresanefficientproductflowthatmeetstherequirementsofaspecificmarketsegment.Itrequiresthatactorsinthevaluechaininvestinlonger-termbusinessrela-tions,focusonchainoptimisationandaddingvalue(agoodexampleisthearticleonp.35).

Inagriculturalvaluechains,agriculturalgoodsandproductsflowupthevaluechain(“fromseedtotable”)andmoneyflowsdownthechain.Eachofthedirectactorsperformsoneormorespecificfunctions,therebyincurringsomeexpensesandgainingsomeincome,andthus“addingvalue” to theproduct.Chainsmaybeshort(e.g.,theproducersellingitsproduceonthefarmoratafarmers’marketdirectlytotheconsumeras illustrated inseveralarticles, for instanceonMyanmaronp.28)orlongerwithproducepassingthroughthehandsofmiddle-men,theprocessingindustryandretail-ersbeforeitreachestheconsumer(addingcostsandincreas-ing prices along the way). In urban areas the linkagesbetweenproducersandconsumersareoftenshorterthaninruralareas(thoughitisnotalwaystheshortestchainsthatperformbestasisillustratedinthearticleonMadagascaronp.24).Inadditiontothedirectactors,valuechainsmayalsoinvolvevariousbusinessandfinancialserviceprovidersandregulatinginstitutions(e.g.extensionandbusinessservices,creditsuppliers,qualitycontrol,trainingandtechnicalassis-tance).

Farmers market in Uruguay Photo: Hans Peter Reinders


4

Editorial

www.ruaf.org

Global versus local chains Food has become an increasingly global business, as thedistancesittravelshavegrownsubstantially.“IntheUSalonefrom 1997 to 2004, the average distance covered by foodconsumed in households increased by about 22 per cent,from6760to8240kilometres” (RaeChietal.,2009).Suchglobalvaluechaindevelopmenthasbothsocialandenviron-mental consequences. Increased transport and coolingcontribute togreenhousegasemissions, forexample. Ontheotherhand,producetransportedfromAfricatotheUKsupportsamultitudeofAfrica’s small-scale farmers, farmworkersandpackers.Anestimated1to1.5millionlivelihoodsin sub-Saharan Africa depend directly and indirectly onUK-basedsupplychains(RaeChietal,2009).Thatthisalsocarries risks became clear after the financial crisis, whenthousandsofKenyanfarmworkershadtobe(temporarily)laidoffafterdrasticreductionsin(flower)inputs.

Inresponsetotheseconcerns,severalorganisationsspecifi-cally promote the development of local value chains, alsodubbed localsupplychainsorcircuit courts.Althoughstillrelativelycomplextomanageduetothevariabilityinprod-uctsandproductqualityandquantity,marketingof localproducts is increasingly taken up by collectives of urbanproducers, especially where producers are converting tomoreecologicalandorganiccultivationmethodsandapplya joint quality control system (e.g. organic certification,green label).Suchorganisationsofurbanproducersoftenselltheirproductsdirectlytoconsumersthroughtheirownoutlets,farmers’marketsandfoodbasketschemesorspecialorganic corners in supermarkets (see also the article onRosarioonp.55).

Thereisanincreasingmarketforlocalorregionalproducts(highlightedbytheslowfoodmovement,BuyLocalEatLocalcampaigns,etc.),inpartbecauseconsumersareincreasinglywillingtopayhigherpricesforlocallyproducedandgood-

qualityproducts.Asoilpricesincreaseandaffectfoodpricesthat were previously dependent on cheap long-distancetransportation, and as consumer consciousness of foodmiles and ecological footprints increases, such localisedproduction may become even more important in thefuture.

Whether thisdevelopmentpresentsa truealternative forlarge segments of the population remains to be seen, asillustratedinthearticleonParis-Tunis(onp.31).ThisMaga-zinewillpresentsomeexperienceswithdifferentformsofmarketing (e.g. farmers’ markets, box schemes, sales tosupermarkets, etc.); highlighting their opportunities andconstraints.SeethearticlesontheNetherlands,CapeTown,Rosario,Phoenix,Rome,ManchesterandAccra.

Local urban and periurban agriculture chains often addvaluenotonlytoproducts,butalsotoservices.Thebox(byFleuryonp.34)onagro-tourismintheUmbrianvalleyinItalypresentsoneexampleofthispotential.

Value chain development Theaimofvaluechaindevelopmentistooptimisetheentireflowofaproduct,fromproductiontothefinalconsumer,byidentifying bottlenecks in the chain, improving relationsbetweenvariousactorsinthechain(inputsuppliers,produc-ers,traders,processors,etc.),reachingeconomiesofscaleandenablingproducerstomeetcertainmarketstandards.Itisseenasaneffectivetooltostimulateeconomicgrowthandhelpraisetheincomesofsmallproducersandthe“economi-callydisadvantaged”.

One could say that functional upgrading (i.e. producersgainingmorefromthevaluechainbytakingonadditionalfunctionslikeprocessingtheiroutput)isthemosteffectivewaytoimprovethelivelihoodsofthepoor.Bytakingovertherolesofotheractorsinthevaluechain,suchastheprocess-

Rules and regulations: governmentalcontrolnormsand

interventions

Business and financial service suppliers:

Agriculturaltraining&assistance,Financialservices,Marketinformation,PR/Communications;

Businesstraining&assistance.

Direct value chain actors: Inputsuppliers(seed,compost,equipment) Producers(primaryproduction;postharvesthandling) Traders(transport,storage,cooling) Processingindustry(cleaning,processing,packaging/labelling) Shopkeepers(retailing) Consumers(consumption)

PRODUCT FLOW


5

www.ruaf.org

ingindustryandmiddlemen,producerscanretainalargerpartofthefinalproductprice.Addingvaluetourbanagri-cultureproductsthroughfoodprocessingandmarketingisaninnovativewaytogenerateincomeandcreatenewjobs.ForeveryUS$100thataconsumerpaysforaprocessedagri-culturalproduct,$23goestothevendor,$27tothepersontrading thegoods, and$35 to theprocessor.Theproducerearnsonly$15.By linkingfoodproduction,processingandmarketing, producers can earn a higher return for theirproducts(RaeChietal,2009).

Verticalintegrationdoesnot,however,automaticallyleadtohigherincomes.Addingactivitiesalsomeansaddingcostsandrisks.Moreimportantly,itrequiresanewsetofassetsandskills,suchas(a)technologicalinnovation(forexampleusingappropriatetechnologiesforgradingandprocessing);(b) access to financing (for investing in processing andmarketingfacilities;forworkingcapital);(c)moreadvancedhumanresourcesandmanagerialcapacities;and(d)organ-

isational structures (to adhere to delivery procedures andobligations).Evenifeconomicbenefitsfortheproducerswerea certainty, the producers (or producer groups)would stillhave tomeet these additional requirements, which is notnecessarilypossible.Others(Laven,2009)arguethattheneteffectofvaluechaindevelopmentinitiativesisoftennegligi-ble,becausetheysimplytakebenefitsawayfromonegroupofthepoor–processorsandtraders–andgivethemtoanothergroup–theproducers.Similarly,horizontalcoordination(poorgroupsworking together to achieve economies of scale ininputmarkets, bulk up outputs and increase theirmarketpower)mayworkinsomeplacesandnotinothers.

Interventionsinthevaluechainshouldinthiscontextfocuson facilitating enterprise development, including bothmicro-entrepreneursandsmallfarmers,toimproveproduc-tivityandaccessto(new)markets,addvalueandenhanceallianceswithotheractorsinthevaluechain(MF,HPCandTriodosFacet,2010).

Based on personal comments by Yves Cabannes, Gordon Prain and Pay Drechsel.

In their analysis of the economic impact of urban agriculture, the authors of the article on p. 21 reduce the complex problem of poverty reduction to improving incomes for the poor. This is a narrow view of the (potential) contribution of urban agriculture to sustainable urban development and to improving the livelihoods of the urban poor. The authors conclude that there is still insufficient data to determine the impact of urban agriculture, but that there is high potential for increasing the incomes of urban farmers through mechanisms 2 and 3. They propose that value chain analysis is needed to further understand and enhance this impact.

Although we agree that there is a need for value chain analysis, which is illustrated in this issue of the UA Magazine (e.g. by the RUAF FStT programme described in the article on p. 11, we would like to make a few critical remarks here about the ODI article. Firstly, the limited impact ascribed to urban agriculture under mechanism 1 (expenditure substitution) underesti-mates, in our understanding, the importance of self-provisioning. One example is the contribution urban agriculture can make in improving the health of the urban poor by providing access to higher quality agricultural products (the nutritional benefits were illustrated in a recent study by RUAF with IDRC and UN Habitat in Rosario, Bogota, Accra, Kitwe and Colombo. This is an essential point because better health is a key component in breaking the poverty spiral.

Regarding mechanism 2 (income from marketing), more attention could have been given to the diversity of chains and the additional income generated in these chains.

Also, one should look at higher aggregate benefits at the city level. (This is quite difficult, and hardly quantitative, but one could look at the different subsidies now provided for maintenance and policy, among other expenses, for open space management, employment creation, etc.; see for example Van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007). This also includes labour creation (mechanism 3) for a wide variety of other actors at input and output levels (compost producers, seed suppliers, porters, transporters and retailers in kiosks, which are often small scale and often belong to the poor).

There is indeed a lack of solid, empirical data on the economic impact of urban agriculture, as also demonstrated by this paper, but there is a wealth of information on the wider impact of urban agriculture, which does affect the poor and their living environment.

Furthermore, the article does address the contribution of “verticalisation” of production (as presented in earlier contributions to the UA Magazine, for instance on PROVE in Brazil in UA Magazine 16). Therefore, essential stages in the chain are not considered, such as production of inputs and agro-processing (or transformation of primary products), which add value to the crops or animals produced. More importantly it does not consider at all the issue of fair and social development and the mechanisms that are necessary for a fair distribution of the added value to the urban (poor) farmers, as discussed in a number of articles in this issue (Rosario, Brazil, Italy).

We will pursue this discussion in following issues of the UA Magazine. Your reaction is very welcome at [email protected].

The relation between urban agriculture and poverty reduction


6

www.ruaf.org

Editorial

Chain governanceAsillustratedabove(andinthearticleontheNetherlandsonp.40),valuechaindevelopmentmayofferproducersawaytoaccessnewmarketsaswellastoaddvaluetotheirprod-ucts.Butvaluechains–andespeciallyglobalvaluechains–oftenexcludethemostvulnerablefarmers,whomaynotbeable to meet product standards or other requirements(licenses).Moreover, smallholderswhoare able to partici-patemaybenefitonlymarginallyduetotheunequaldistribu-tionofpower,wherepricesforexamplearesetbydominatingprocessors,inputsuppliersorsupermarkets(Laven,2009).

Actors in the chainmay thus be excluded from decision-making in the chain, or alternatively they may activelycontribute to designing and steering the processes andforms of cooperation. Chain governance determines theconditionsunderwhich chainactivitiesare carriedout. Itdetermines,forexample,farmers’participationinmanag-ingvariousaspectsoftheirproduct’svalue,suchasthedefi-nitionofgradesandstandards(possiblycreatingthechain’sownbrands),thetargetingofconsumers,themanagementofinnovationandsoon.Asstatedearlier,thisparticipation,however,alsoentailsgreaterrisks,investmentsandrespon-sibilities,whichfarmersshouldbewillingandabletobear.Becoming organised into cooperatives is one way smallproducers canachievea strongervoiceandposition,as isalsooutlinedbelow.

Governanceisalsoimportantwithrespecttotherulesandregulationsgoverning(partof)thechainortheservicesthatarefeedingintothechain.Valuechainsarealsotiedtoenvi-ronmentalfactors,astheestablishment(ordevelopment)ofvaluechainsmaycreateaddedpressureonnaturalresources(landandwater)andinfluencesoildegradation,biodiversityandpollution.

Finally,thesocialandeconomicimpactsofparticipationinthevaluechainshouldbe taken intoaccount,particularly

thepotentialimpactofvaluechaindevelopmentonpovertyreduction. Improvementof value chainsmay increase thetotalvolumeandvalueofproducts that thepoorcansell,resultinginhigherabsoluteincomes.Anotherobjectivemaybetosustainpoorfarmers’shareinthesectoror increasetheirmarginsperproduct,sothattheygainnotonlymoreabsoluteincome,butalsorelativeincomecomparedtootheractors in the chain.The latter canbedefinedaspro-poorgrowth(M4P,2006).

Thisisanimportantissue,butonlyscatteredinformationonthis impactofurbanvalue chaindevelopmentexists.Theeconomicimpactofurbanagricultureisthereforeacurrenttopicofresearch.Thearticleonp.21byODIprovidesaframe-workforandanalysisoftheimpactofurbanagricultureonpoverty reduction.The framework illustrates fourmecha-nismsthroughwhichurbanagriculture impacts thepoor:expendituresubstitution(bygrowingtheirownfood,fami-liesmaysaveonfoodexpendituresandusethemoneyforother purposes); income from marketing; income fromlabour(e.g.farmworkersonlarger-scalecommercialfarms)andreducedfoodpricesduetotheinfluxoflocalproduce.

The process of value chain development Therearebasicallythreeapproachestovaluechaindevelop-ment,andtheseareillustratedwithsomeexamplesbelow.

Add value through processingOneexampleoffunctionalupgradingorverticalintegrationistheformerBrazilianprogrammePROVE(SmallAgriculturalProduction Verticalisation Programme). PROVE was aprogramme designed to promote small-scale agriculturalproduction,processingandtrade.Throughthisprogramme,about500smallagro-industrialfacilitieswerebuiltinBrazilintheperiod1995-1998,creatingmorethan700jobs.Duringthissameperiod,themonthlypercapitafamilyincomeofthoseinvolvedintheprogrammerosefrom25to100dollars(HomemdeCarvalho,2006). PROVE involvedmanyurbanand periurban agricultural systems, including vegetablegardening,fruitgrowingandlivestockkeeping.Interventionfocused on the individual producer and his/her extended family. The basic idea was to improve prices by creatingaddedvaluethroughprocessing(seealsoarticleonSudanonp.50).Theapproachwasthusproduct-driven,improvingthevalueofwhatthefarmersalreadyproduced.

Theprogrammespecifically lookedat (government) inter-ventions that can help alleviate the constraints limitingverticalintegration,suchas:

Adding value through processing Photo: Hans Peter Reinders

Inside Thiri Mingala Market, Yangon Photo: George O’Shea


7

www.ruaf.org

• lowdegreeof(orinappropriate)supportservices• limitedaccesstoproductiveresourcesandinsecureland tenure• limitedaccesstofinancing• lowdegreeoforganisationofurbanproducers• lowproductivityandprofitability• lowdegreeofbusinessplanning,marketingskillsand information.

Focus production on market nichesAnexampleofthissecondapproachistheRUAF-FromSeedto Table programme, which focuses on strengthening a group or groups of producers(a)toaddvaluetotheirproductsbyimprovingproductionandengagingin(simpleformsof)processing,packaging,brandinganddirectmarketing,butalso (b) to focus production on strict demands ofmarket niches,suchastheecological/organicmarket,supermarketsorthetouristindustry(seearticleonp.11).Theproducersaresupportedtoformanassociativeorcooperativebusiness,inordertolowertransactioncosts,createeconomiesofscaleanddevelopgreaterlobbyingandnegotiatingpower.Akeyaspect of RUAF’s approach is that not only technical andorganisational optimisationand innovations are stressed,but also practical exchange and learning and improvedrelationswithotherchainactorsandserviceproviders.Thestartingpoint in theRUAF-FStTprogramme is toenhanceurban producers’ capacity to innovate urban farmingsystemsfromamarketchainperspectiveandrealiseconcreteimprovementsin“one most promising product”.Innovationandmarketingarethusseenaskeytoeconomicsuccess(seeforexamplethecaseofstrawberriesonp.40).Tobesuccess-

fulproducershavetolearnhowtobettermeetmarketandconsumerdemand (in termsofquality,variety, safetyanddeliveryrequirements).AsimilarapproachistakenbytheLearningAlliancevaluechaindevelopmentinitiatedbyAgri-ProFocus(seep.38).

Intervene in other parts of the value chain Alternatively, thevaluechaincanbeviewedaspartoftheentireurban(ormetropolitan)foodsystem.Allpossible–butnotnecessarily connected – stakeholders in the chainareconsidered, both those who specialise in one part of thechainandthoseinvolvedinseveralparts.Thisapproachtovaluechaindevelopmententailsfirstselectingonespecificvaluechainandthenlookingatallaspectsofthatchaininordertodecidewhereitneedstobestrengthened.Thebenefitsofthisapproacharethatitallowsthechoiceofinterventiontoemergefromtheanalysisandmayleadtotheconclusionthatthegreatestpro-poorimpactwouldnotbeintheproduc-tionsegmentatallbutcouldbeachievedbyworkingwithprocessorsortradersorothers(seeavocadoarticleonp.35).

Valuechainanalysisinthisapproachisundertakentomapthe actors participating in the production, distribution,marketingand sales of aparticularproduct (orproducts)andcanprovideinsightintothedistributionofbenefitsandearningsamongvariousvaluechainactors.Itcanshedlightonhowto improveorganisationandcoordinationamongvaluechainactorsandindicatewheretointervenetoachieveadesireddevelopmentoutcome,beitbenefitingaparticularactor, maximising income and employment, improvinggovernanceoralleviatingpoverty.

Pick-your-own in Beijing Photo: Lu Mingwei / IGSNRR


8

www.ruaf.org

Suchvaluechainanalysisaimsto:- mapthechainsofinterlinkedproductionandexchangeactivitiesina(sub)sector(N.B.thefirststepinvaluechainanalysisistodecidewhichsectororproducttofocuson.Athorough market analysis can show which productionsystems are most efficient – see the article onMadagascar);

- mapgeographicspreadoflinkages;- identifykeystakeholdersatdifferentlevelsandlocationsofthechainandinrelationtoopportunities/constraints;

- measurethevalueaccruingtodifferentlevels, locationsandstakeholdersinthechain;

- identifygovernancestructuresaffectingthedistributionofvalue;

- identifyinterventionsdirectlytargetingdifferentlevelsofthechain,theirimpactsandalternatives.

Inthiswaytheoptionsforawholerangeofotherinterven-tionsareassessed–suchasvertical contracting(i.e.produc-ersenteringintolong-termcontractswithbuyers);product upgrading (improving thequalityof theiroutput);process upgrading(producingtheiroutputmoreefficiently)and/orinter-chain upgrading(applyingtheskillsgainedfromonevaluechaintoanothertoimprovereturns).

Thesethreeapproachesthusdifferwithrespecttothetargetgroupstheyworkwith,whichcouldbeallactorsinthechain,groupsofproducers(orindividualfarmersandhouseholds,asinthecaseofPROVE.However,inallcases,strengtheningorganisationofproducers,facilitatingpoliciesandaccesstofinancingarekeytothesuccessoftheapproaches.

Strengthening producer organisationsProducerorganisationscanplayanimportantrolein(urban)agricultural supply chains as intermediates betweenindividual farming households and other chain actors(buyers,processorsandservicesuppliers,suchasfinancialinstitutes and governments). They may have severalfunctions, including collecting, processing andmarketing

agricultural products, collective buying or production offarm inputs, implementing quality control and providingmembers with technical and market information, adviceandtraining(seethearticleonVietnamonp.51).Thedegreeof organisation of urban farmers is often low and thefunctioningofexistingfarmergroupsandorganisationsisoften poor. This hampers their development efforts andlimitstheircapacitytonegotiatewithlocalauthoritiesandservice providers. It also hampers the development ofconcertedeffortsbyurbanfarmerstoengageinprocessingactivities–addingvalue to theirprimaryproducts–or toengage indirectmarketing toconsumersoracquiringanimprovedposition in themarketingchain.Well-organisedurbanproducergroupsandassociationsmayalsoplayanimportantroleineducatingtheirmembers,productqualitycontrolandenhancingaccesstocreditandotherproductiveresources (including urban organic wastes and treatedwastewater).

Strengtheningexistingurbanfarmergroups(theircohesion,management and financial planning capacity, and theirinter-linkages)willthusimprovethechancesofsuccessforfarmer-leddevelopmentprojects.Forexample,asaproducerorganisationhas tobenefit itsmembersandat thesametimegenerateasurplustoensureitscontinuedoperation,itmust be able to prepare a comprehensive business plan.Financialsupportmaybeneededatthestart-upphaseformarketanalysisandforhiringqualifiedcommercial/finan-cial personnel, in addition to support for organisationalstrengthening and increasing the organisation’s andmembers’capacitytoperformallthesenewfunctions(Tonetal.,2007).

Facilitating policies Developmentofurbanagriculturevaluechainscanplayanimportantroleinlocaleconomicdevelopmentandincomegenerationbyurbanpoorandmiddle-classhouseholds(seethe article by ODI). Although generally little informationexistsontheincomeandemploymentgeneratedbyurbanagriculture related enterprises, the data that does existindicatesthattheemploymentgeneratedcanbesubstan-tial(seePROVEabove).Theseenterprisesarealsoimportantintherespectthatinputsupply,production,servicedelivery,processing and marketing systems may be set up andmanaged by specific vulnerable groups (e.g. youth orwomen).Urbanagriculturevaluechainscaninvolveanythingfrom small-scale and low-capital enterprises to capital-intensive, large-scale businesses. General support needsinclude improving quality control (processing andmarket-ing),farmerorganisationandcooperation,accesstocapital,credit and markets (information), and new distributionchannels.Municipalprogrammesthatpromotetheprocess-ingandmarketingoflocalurbanagricultureproductsshouldtry to increase theparticipationofrelevanturban institu-tions and farmers. At the same time,municipalitiesmustmodify legislationand improve thepoor’saccess tocapitalandmarketingvenues(seearticleonPiracicabaonp.53).

Municipalitiesorinternationalorganisationsmaybeabletoencourage existing credit institutions to establish specialBelo Horizonte

Photo: IPES


9

www.ruaf.org

creditschemesforurbanagriculturerelatedenterprises,bycreatingforexampleaguaranteefund.Aco-responsibilityprinciple involving the government (contributing withsubsidiesoraguaranteefund),theentrepreneurs(mobilis-ingtheirsavingsandpayingbacktheircredit)andtheprivatesector (which contributesgenerallywith credit lines)mayconstitutethebasisformodelsofenhancingaccesstocreditandcapitalforspecificallypoorerpeople.Municipalitiesandlocal support organisationsmay also facilitate enterprisedevelopmentandmarketingbysmallurbanproducersby:• providingurbanproducersaccesstoexistingcitymarkets,assisting them in the creation of farmers’ markets orauthorisingfoodboxschemes;

• supportingtheestablishmentofqualityor“greenlabels”forecologicallygrownandsafeurbanfood;

• providing start-up licensesand subsidies (or tax reduc-tions),technicalandmanagementassistancetocoopera-tiveandindividualsmall-scaleagro-processingandpackag-ingenterprisesandenterprisessupplyingecologicalfarminputs(compost,earthworms,openpollinatedseedsandplantmaterials,bio-pesticides)tourbanproducers;

• providingtimelymarketinformationtostakeholders;• ensuring preferential local procurement, e.g. throughregulationsrequiringthataspecificpercentageorvolumeof food offered at local schools (Belo Horizonte, Ile deFrance),institutionalcafeterias,restaurantsorsupermar-kets(BeloHorizonte)besourcedfromlocalproduce.

Finally,effortstoorganiseproducersalsoneedtobeunder-takenindependentlyfromgovernment,soastoensurethecontinuityofprogrammes(RUAFetal.,2008).

FinancingAccesstoadequateandtimelyfinancialservicesforallactorsinthevaluechainhasproventobeakeyelementforsuccess.Farmersneedworking capital tobuygood seedsor otherinputsortoinvestinequipment.Tradersneedfundstopayfarmers incashat themomentofcropdelivery toensure

thatfarmersdonotselltheirproduceelsewhere.However,tradersoftenlackthecollateraltogetloans.Processorsalsoneedmoneytobuyinputsorexpandtheiroperations(KITand IIRR,2010).Suchfinancing isnotalwaysavailable.Forsmall-scalecommercialurbanagricultureproducers,accessto credit and other sources of financing (e.g. subsidies/grants)iscrucialtofurtherdeveloptheiragriculturalproduc-tionand/orprocessingandmarketingactivities.However,financial serviceprovidersareoftennot familiarwith thesector,regarditastoorisky(doubtingthewillingnessandabilityof the smallentrepreneurs to repay theirdebts)orhaverequirementsandproceduresthatarenotaccessiblefor poor urban farmer groups. If not supported throughspecificschemes(seeabove),manygroupsthusturntoself-managedschemes,suchasAGRUPAR,(seep.61)whichimple-mentedaself-managedmicrocreditschemeintheformoftheGrassrootsInvestmentSocieties.Thisschemeisadaptedtotheneedsandcharacteristicsoftheurbanfarmersandgivesanadditionalpushtotheirbusinessactivities.

Inordertoprovidemoreinformation,knowledgeandclearrecommendationsthatwillservetobroadencollectiveandindividual financing opportunities for poor urban andperiurbanproducers located in these cities, RUAF recentlyinitiatedlocalstudiesoncreditandfinancingopportunitiesforurbanandperiurbanagricultureineachofits18partnercities.Resultsofthesestudiesarebeingdiscussedwithlocalcreditandfinancinginstitutionstolobbyforandputintoplace(new)financialproductsservicingsmall-scaleurbanproducers.

Examplesof value chain financing include theofferingoffinancialservicestosupporttheentireproductflow(fromtheproducer to the final consumer), building on existingrelationsinthechain.Thisformoffinancingcanspreadriskamong the financial institutions and chain actors andprovidesalternativestotraditionalcollateralrequirements.

Family cleaning and grading carrots, Magadi Photo: IWMI South East Asia


10

www.ruaf.org

ReferencesCampbell, R. (2009) Linking the poorest to economic growth: Value chain approach enhances food security, ACDI / VOCA, Washington.De Koning, M. and De Steenhuijsen Piters, B. (2009) Farmers as shareholders: A close look at recent experience. Bulletin 390. KIT Publishers, Amsterdam. KIT and IIRR (2010) Value Chain Finance: Beyond Microfinance for Rural Entrepreneurs, KIT Publishers, Amsterdam. Laven, A. (2009) ‘Empowering rural entrepreneurs’, The Broker – Issue 16 Including the rural poor in global markets; The power of value chains, Stichting International Development Publications, Leiden. M4P (2006), Making value chains work better for the poor; a tool book for practitioners of value chain analysis. http://www.markets4poor.org/Making%20Value%20Chains%20Work%20Better%20for%20the%20Poor Parsons, H. (2006) The importance of upgrading for Micro and Small Enterprises in the Competitive Value Chain, ACDI / VOCA, Washington.Ton, G., Bijlman, J. and Oorthuizen, J. (2007) Producer organisations and market chains: facilitating trajectories of change in developing countries, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.Rae Chi, K., MacGregor, J. and King, R. (2009) Fair miles; recharting the food miles map, Big ideas in development series, Kiser, B. (ed), IIED, Oxfam, OxfordRUAF, ETC-Urban Agriculture and the Ryerson University’s G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education and Centre for Studies in Food Security (2008) Marketing support and quality control, Module 11 - Input supply, service delivery and post-production systems, Distance Learning Course 3 Urban Agriculture Types.Homem de Carvalho, J. (2006). PROVE - Small Agricultural Production Verticalisation Programme. In R. Van Veenhuizen, Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities (pp. 201-204). Philippines: IIRR, IDRC and RUAF Foundation.

For example, microfinance institutions can link withproducer organisations to provide small input loans toproducers,while banks simultaneously provide an invest-mentloantoaprocessingcompanyinthechain.Orabankmaylendmoneytoatraderbecausethetraderhasaregularsupplyofproductsfromaproducergroupandloyalcustom-ersthatguaranteesales(KITandIIRR,2010).Whencustomersarewillingtosignsalescontractswiththeirsuppliers,evensmallfarmersbecomecreditworthy.OnesuchexampleofvaluechainfinancingisbeingtestedinBulawayo(Zimbabwe),where a system of contract farming for production ofmushroomshasbeensetup.Aconsortiumof restaurantsand supermarkets will fund production initially for twourbanproducergroups.Themoneywillnotgodirectlytothefarmersbuttoabankthatwilladministertheloanonbehalfoftheconsortium.Thefarmerswillthensell50percentoftheirmushroomstotheconsortiumandthesurplustoothermarkets.The fundingbeingprovided is for the infrastruc-tureandinputs.Thebankwillprovidesubsidisedtrainingforthefarmersandwillnotchargethefarmersfortraininginbusinessmanagementandbookkeeping(personalcommu-nicationT.Mubvami,MDP/RUAF,June2010).

Limits of value chain developmentValuechaindevelopmentinurbanagricultureisanimpor-tantnewapproachtourbanagriculturedevelopment.Itiscertainlyintheinterestsoffarmersandcitygovernmentstoenhancetheeconomicbenefitsandimpactofurbanagricul-ture.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatonlypartoftheurbanagriculture producerswant or are in a position to investmoreintheiragriculturalactivitiesandtoparticipatemoreintensivelyinthemarket,inadditiontotheirself-provision-ingof food.Theseproducersneedassistance indesigningandimplementingvaluechaindevelopmentprojectsfocus-singoninnovatingtheproduction,processingandmarket-ing of certain selected products. For such projects to besuccessful, the farming households or producers shouldmeetthefollowingcriteria.

• Market orientation:Thefarmersorgroupsmustalreadybesellingsurplusproductsandhaveastronginterestinfurther developing their market production and/orengaginginprocessinganddirectmarketingactivities.

• More homogeneous target group: It ismoredifficult towork with a very heterogeneous target group, so theproducerstobesupportedshouldpreferablyhaveasimilarfarmingsystem(e.g.allvegetableproducersoralldairyfarmers)andworkundersimilarconditions(forexamplehaveamoreorlesssimilardegreeofmarketorientation).

• Closeness/clusters: Supportwill bemore difficult if theparticipants are spread out thinly over a vast area.Preferablytheyshouldbelocatedinoneareaorinalimitednumberofclustersnottoofarapartfromeachother.

• Organised: The producers should have already partici-patedinsomeformofcooperation/organisation,althoughthismightbeveryinformal.

Value chain development is not suitable for the develop-ment of all types of urban farming systems. Subsistence-orientedhomeorcommunitygardens,forexample,willcallforotherapproachesandsupportmeasures.

MarielleDubbeling,FemkeHoekstraandRené[email protected]

A micro finance and development NGO in Madina, Accra Photo: Irene S. Egyir


11

www.ruaf.org

IntroductionManypoorurbanhouseholdsareactiveinlocalproductionoffoodandrelatedactivities(e.g.foodprocessingandstreetvendingof food, compostmaking, supplyofanimal feed).Some of these poor urban and periurban producers aremainlyinterestedinproducingfoodfortheirownhouseholdconsumption, tosavesomecash thatwouldotherwisebeusedtobuyfood(poorurbanhouseholdsoftenspendmorethan50percentoftheircashincomeonfood)andtoearnsome additional income from occasional sales of surplusproduction.Othersproducevegetables,herbs,fruits,mush-rooms, eggs,milk, ornamental plants, etc., for sale on theurbanmarketasamainsourceofincomeforthehousehold.Acomparativeadvantagefor theurbanproducers is theircloseproximitytotheurbanconsumers.Researchhasshownthatmarket-oriented,small-scaleurbanagricultureisoftenmoreprofitablethansmall-scaleagriculturalproductioninruralareasandgeneratesincomesaboveformalminimumwagelevel(VanVeenhuizenandDanso,2007).

However,theurbanproducerswhoseektoproduceforthemarketalsoencounteranumberofconstraints,includingalowdegreeoforganisationandlowproductivity.Mosturbanfarmersareorganised informally, ifatall.This limits theircapacitytoimprovetheirproductionsystemandhampersthedevelopmentofconcertedeffortstoacquireastrongerpositioninthemarket,engageindirectmarketingtourbanconsumersand/orundertakeprocessingactivities,addingvaluetotheirprimaryproducts.Italsolimitstherepresenta-tionoftheirinterestsindecisionmakingatvariouslevels.

Productivityinsmall-scale(intra-andperi-)urbanproduc-tionisgenerallylow.Thisispartlybecauseurbanagriculturehasforalongtimebeenseeninmostcitiesasanunaccept-ableformofurbanlanduseanditsimportanceforpovertyreduction, food security, waste recycling and sustainableurban development has gone unnoticed. Consequentlysecurityoflanduseforurbanagricultureisoftenlow(makingproducersunwillingto invest in the land)andagricultureresearch and extension organisations and other serviceprovidershavepaidlittleattentiontourbanagriculture.Duetothehistoricallackofrecognitionforurbanagriculturebynationalandcityauthorities,appropriatetechnologiesfor

Strengthening Urban Farmer Organisations and their Marketing Capacities: The RUAF “From Seed to Table” programme Henk de Zeeuw1

thespecificconditionsofurbanagriculturehavebeenslowtodevelopandurbanproducersstillhaveverylimitedaccesstoagriculturalinformation,creditandinfrastructure.

The RUAF “From Seed to Table” programmeAgainstthisbackground,theRUAFFoundation2initiatedthe“FromSeedtoTable”programme(RUAF-FStT),whichhelpsgroupsofpoorurbanproducersorganisethemselves,anal-ysemarketopportunities,improvetheirproductionsystemsanddevelopshortmarketingchains forselectedproductsthroughretailersordirectlytourbanconsumers.RUAF-FStTbuildsontheresultsoftheRUAF“CitiesFarmingfor the Future” Programme (RUAF-CFF),whichwas imple-mented from 2005 to 2008. During those years RUAFFoundation partners supported local governments, urbanfarmergroups,NGOs,universitiesandotherstakeholdersin20citiesof17developingcountriesinmulti-stakeholdersitu-ationanalysisandstrategicplanningonurbanagriculture.Theseprocesseshaveledinmanyofthesecitiestothelegal-isationofurbanagricultureand its incorporation in localdevelopmentpoliciesandtheprogrammesoflocalorgani-sations3.

In these same cities, and as part of the new policies andaction plans, the RUAF “From Seed to Table” programmecooperateswithlocaldevelopmentNGOsto:• strengthentheorganisationofurbanfarmergroupsand

Just-harvested good-quality fresh carrots, Magadi Photo: IWMI South East Asia


12

www.ruaf.org

enhancetheircapacities;• formulateandimplementinnovative“FromSeedtoTable”projectsinaparticipatoryway(e.g.projectsthatwillinno-vate the farming systems of the urban producers anddevelopjointprocessingandmarketingactivitiesbasedon a market analysis and participatory business plan-ning);

• enhanceurbanproducers’accesstocreditandfinancing.

Starting points: farmer-led learning and action Reducing poverty through micro-enterprise development, while maintaining nutritionThe FStT projects target low-income urban householdsinvolvedinsomekindofagriculturalproductionthatwanttoengagemoreintensivelyinmarket-orientedproductionasameansofself-employmentandincomeraising,andthatmeettheminimalconditionsforcommercialfarming(e.g.secureaccesstolandandwater).AlthoughtheFStTprojectsenhancethemarketingandincome-generatingcapacityoftheurbanproducers,thisshouldnotleadtodeteriorationofhousehold food security and nutrition. These aspects arethusgivendueattentioninFStTprojects.

Enhancing farmer innovation capacity, experiential learningGiventhedynamicandchallengingurbanconditions,FStTsupporttotheurbanproducersfocusesstronglyonbuildingtheirproblem-solvingcapacities(problemanalysis,identifi-cationandtestingofalternativesolutions)aswellastheircapacity to identifyandutilisenewmarketopportunities(analysis of specific requirements of various marketsegments,adaptationofcropchoiceandproductionprac-tices, certification and trademarks, establishing strategicalliances,etc.). IntheFStTprogramme,farmersparticipatedirectlyinmarketanalysisandbusinessplanninginordertodevelop the required analytical and innovative capacities.Market analysis, designofmarketing strategies andbusi-ness planning are usually seen as very complicated andhighlytechnicaltasksthatcanonlybedonebyspecialisedorganisationsandconsultants.InFStTweseektodemystify

them, offering amethod formarket analysis and projectdesign that is understandable to the producers and thatinvolvestheminallstagesoftheprocess.

The FStTprogrammealso stimulates ahands-on capacitydevelopmentprocessinwhichlearning,planninganddoingare closely interwoven.Themain instrumentsusedare:a.participation of farmer representatives in the local teamthatiscoordinatingtheprojectactivities,b.implementationof“urbanproducerfieldschools”(basedonthesameprin-ciplesasthe“farmerfieldschools”methodology4butsimpli-fied and adapted to the specific conditions of the urbanproducers) and c. organisation of farmers in functionalcommitteesatgroupandassociationlevelandtheirdirectinvolvementinandresponsibilityforthedevelopmentandmanagementoftheirownbusinessesfromtheverystart.

Interactive Thisdoesnotmeanthatthefarmershavetodoeverythingbythemselves.Theinteractionwith“knowledgeableoutsid-ers”iscrucialinFStTinordertostimulatetheanalysisandplanningprocessandtoinformtheproducersaboutaspectsthey have little knowledge about. But the knowledgeableoutsiderstakepartasadvisorswhohelptheproducersmakewell-informeddecisions,nottellthemwhattheyshoulddo.Moreover,theknowledgeableoutsidersarenotonlyproduc-tionandmarketingspecialists,butalsofarmerswhoalreadyhaveexperiencewithproducing,processingandmarketingof a certain product,managers of small-scale agro-enter-prises,traders,managersofsupermarketsandotherpeoplewithknowledgeandexperienceofrelevancefortheintendedbusiness.

GenderFStTprojectsencouragewomenproducerstoactivelytakepartinallactivities.Thiswillhelpthemmakefulluseoftheirexperienceandknowledge,ensure that their interestsaretakenintoaccount,strengthenthemintheirrolesasfoodproducersandmarketersandenablethemtoparticipateinleadingrolesinthefarmerorganisationanditsactivities.Tothateffect,specialemphasisisgiventoenhancingthelead-ershipskillsofwomenproducers.

The process Capacity development of local partner organisations and work planningTo initiate the programme in January 2009, NGOs wereselectedineachoftheRUAFpartnercities.MosthadalreadyparticipatedinthelocalMulti-stakeholderForumonUrbanAgricultureandFoodSecuritypreviouslyestablishedinthatcitywithsupportofRUAF-CFF.VariousstaffoftheseNGOswerebroughttogetherintwoplanning/trainingworkshopsforeachof thesevenregions inwhichRUAFoperates.ThefirstworkshopfocusedontheFStTapproach,theselectionandstrengtheningofurbanproducergroupsandthesitua-tionanalysis.Thesecondworkshopwasheldthreemonthslater,once theresultsof thesituationanalysiswereavail-able,andfocusedonbusinessplanning,projectdesignandthe organisation and implementation of urban producerfieldschools.

Strengthening Urban Farmer Organisations and their Marketing Capacities: The RUAF “From Seed to Table” programme

Pig-raising project Agrosilves in Belo Horizonte, Brazil Photo: IPES


13

www.ruaf.org

Selection of urban producer groups and initial training of local team membersOn the basis of the established criteria the local partnerNGOsselectedurbanproducergroupsandorganisedmeet-ingstoinformtheproducersontheformulationandimple-mentationoftheintendedproject.Theinterestedproducersselectedthemaleandfemaleproducers(oftentwoofeach)whowouldparticipateinthelocalteamtocoordinateprep-arationoftheprojecttogetherwiththeNGOstaff.TheNGOstaff organised a short introductory training for theseproducersonthesituationanalysis.

Situation analysis Thesituationanalysisincluded:a.Arapidandparticipatoryreviewoftheactualproductionsystems of the selected urban producer groups (mainproducts, production and marketing practices, genderaspects,accesstolandandotherresourcesandsecurityofuse,mainconstraints).

b.Ananalysisofthemainstrengthsandweaknessesoftheselectedurbanproducergroupswithaviewtothechal-lengesahead.

c.Arapidandparticipatorymarketanalysis.TheRUAFstaffdevelopedathree-stepmethodologyfortheparticipatorymarket analysis5. First, available secondary informationwas analysed and key informants were interviewed inordertoidentifyalimitednumberof“promisingoptions”:productsthatareorcanbeproducedbytheurbanproduc-ers and that have interesting market prospects (e.g.production and packaging of organically grown greenonionsforsaleunderthegroup’sownbrandtohigh-endrestaurantsandhotels).Second,moreinformationoneachoftheseoptionswascollectedtoenabletheproducerstomake the finalselectionof the“mostpromisingoption”(often shortened toMoPO6). The selectionwas done bymaking a group assessment of a number of pre-estab-lished criteria (production costs,market price, level andstabilityofmarketdemand,competitiveness,availability

of required licenses and support services, value addingpotential,levelofinvestmentneeded,etc.).FortheselectedMoPO,additionalinformationwascollectedthatwouldbeneededforthedevelopmentofabusinessplan.

Business planningThe local team developed a business plan for the MoPOselectedbytheproducers.Thebusinessplanincluded:• The business idea: what is the business the producerswanttodevelop?Thisincludestheselectedproductandrelatedmarketingconcept:e.g.sellingcut,mixed,washedandpackagedgreen vegetables for stir-fries, soups andcurries.

• Themarketingstrategy:towhomandhowdotheproduc-ersplantosellthisproduct?

• The operational plan: the activities through which theproducers will realise the production, processing andcommercialisationoftheMoPO,includingplanningandadministrativeactivities.

• Thefinancialplan:thecalculationofcostsandbenefitsoftheproductionattheindividualandgrouplevel;invest-mentneedsandfinancingstrategy.

• The partner strategy: with which other actors will theproducers(needto)cooperateinordertogetthebusiness

Participatory diagnosis and market analysis, Magadi Photo: IWMI South East Asia

Production and Processing in Belo Horizonte Photo: IPES


14

www.ruaf.org

running (licenses, technical and management supportservices,transport,bankservices,etc.)

Urban producer field schoolsThemaininstrumentusedtogetthebusinessesstartedwastheurbanproducer field school (UPFS). Starting from thebusinessplan,themostimportanttechnicalandorganisa-tionalchangesthatwouldhavetoberealisedinordertogetthebusinessupandrunningwereidentified.Subsequentlytherequiredknowledgeandskillsrelatedtothesetechnicalandorganisationalchangeswerespeltoutandstructuredinlearningmodules.ThetechnicalchangescouldhavetodowiththeproductionoftheMoPOaswellastheprocessing/packagingandmarketingoftheproduct(e.g.howtoassessandgradethequalityoftheproductasdeliveredbytheindi-vidual producers or subgroups to the association). Theorganisationalchangeswouldrelatetooperation,manage-ment and administration of all steps in the process ofproducingandmarketingtheMoPO.Eachof thesemodules/sessionswere implemented in theweeksbeforetherelatedactivitieshadtobeimplementedinpractice(e.g.asessiononhowtoorganiseandoperatethebuying and distribution of newly required inputs a fewweeks before this had to start functioning, a session onproductionpracticesintheweeksbeforethenewcropvari-ety had to be planted, or a session on the technical andorganisationalaspectsofthecollection,washingandpack-agingafewweeksbeforetheharvestwasinitiated).InmostUPFS sessions both technical and organisational aspectswere discussed and practiced. All sessions startedwith areview of the activities implemented so far, and possiblesolutions toproblems thathadarisenwerediscussed.Allsessionsendedwithplanningtheactivitiestobeperformedbytheproducergroupsinthecomingweeks.InthiswaytheUPFSwasnotonlyalearningplatformbutalsoavehicleforperiodicworkplanningandevaluationwiththeproducers.

Eachsessionwaspreparedandguidedbyafacilitatorfromthe local project team togetherwith one ormore invited“experts”(experiencedfarmers,technicalspecialistsoftheextensions service, university staff,managers of of small-scaleenterprises,etc.).Sessionswereimplementedasmuchaspossibleinlocationswheretheproducerscouldobserveand/or practice themselves what was discussed in thatsession(inthefield,inapackagingshed,etc.).

InmostcasestheUPFSwasrepeatedduringmorethanoneproduction cycle, focusing the new sessions on gaps inknowledgeandskillsandtechnicalororganisationalprob-lemsidentifiedduringthefirstcycle.

Some examples of FStT projects being imple-mentedThe FStT programme started in January 2009 and bySeptember/OctoberinmostoftheRUAFpartnercities,localproducergroups(eachinvolvingbetween50and150urbanproducers) had formulated a business plan and the FStTprojectswerereadytobeimplemented.Sincethenavarietyof farmer-led agro-businesses have started focussing oncherry tomatoes,mushrooms,babypotatoes,strawberries,dressedchickens,cabbage,carrots,greenchillies,packagesofmixedvegetables,boxeswithavarietyofvegetables,driedherbs,springonions,eggs,pigletsandotherproducts.

In the limited space availablewe can present below onlythreeofthe18projectsthatarecurrentlybeingimplemented.Afourthcase(communitygardenersinCapeTownmarket-ing their organic vegetables through a box scheme) ispresentedinthefollowingarticle.

Diversifying into organic mushrooms, BeijingIn Huairou (a periurban village of Beijing, China) RUAFFoundationcooperateswiththeBeijingAgriculturalBureauand theHuairouVegetablesCooperative,whichhadbeengrowing grapes for many years but wanted to diversify.Basedonthemarketstudy,thecooperativedecidedtoalsostartgrowingmushrooms.WithhelpfromtheAgriculturalUniversityofBeijing,UPFStrainingwasorganisedtofamil-iarise a core groupof producerswith the ins andouts ofmushroomgrowing; and the university also supplied thequalityseed.Themushroomsarenowgrown in thesamesemi-permanentplastictunnelsinwhichthegrapesusedtogrow.OnemushroomclusterwasestablishedattheoriginalHuairoucooperative(50members)andtwootherclusterswereestablishedintwoneighbouringvillages(20memberseach).TheHuairoucooperativetrainedtheproducers,sellsthe inputs (bars/mushroom seed) and buys the produce(through a type of contract farming/outgrowing system).HuairouCooperativealsolinkedupwithamarketingcoop-


Flyer to promote upcoming urban producer field school meeting Photo: IPES

Organic mushrooms in Beijing Photo: IGSNRR


15

www.ruaf.org

erativetosellthetop-qualitymushroomstosupermarkets.Thesecond-gradeproduceissoldlocally.

Themainchallenges include:a.qualitymanagement (theproductionpracticesstillneedfurtherupgrading),b.qualitycontrol (theproducedeliveredto theHuairouCooperativedoesnotalwaysmeettherequiredstandardsbuteffectivemonitoringsystemsarenotyetinplace.

Spring onions under the olive trees in AmmanRUAFFoundationiscooperatingwiththeUrbanAgricultureBureauoftheMunicipalityofGreaterAmmanandtheIraqElAmirWomenCooperativeAssociationlocatedinaperiurbanarea of Amman. After performing themarket analysis theCooperative decided to start organic production of greenspringonionsundertheirolivetrees,topackagetheminsmallbunchesandsellthepackagesundertheirownbrandname.Overeightyfamiliesarepartofthebusiness,75percentofwhich is represented by women. An Urban Producer FieldSchoolwasorganisedwithassistancefromvariousuniversitystaff and a farmer-entrepreneur with wide experience inproductionandmarketingofspringonions.TheUPFSsessionsincludedvariouscultivationaspects (seedingunderplastic,fertilitymanagement,pestanddiseasemanagement,etc.)aswellasorganisationalaspectsofthenewbusiness(adminis-tration, buying/distribution of inputs, collection, grading,packagingandmarketingoftheproduce).

Thegroupdesigneditsownlabelbasedona“ResponsibleProduction Protocol” that guarantees that a. the producecomes from a radius of 10 km or less from the centre ofAmman, b. ecologically sound production practices wereapplied,c.itsproductiondidnotinvolveanyabusivewomenorchildlabour,andd.75percentormoreofthepricepaidbytheconsumersflowsbacktotheproducers.Thefirstspringonionharvestwasabigsuccess.Producewassoldtohigh-endrestaurantsandhotelsatJD1.2to1.5(JD1=€ 1)perbunchofonions(around1kg),whilepredictionsmadeinthebusi-nessplanwereforJD0.7to1.0.

Themainchallengeshererelatetothemaintenanceofsoilfertilityandpreventingincidenceofdiseasesandpestsintheonions.Atpresent thebestcroprotationoptionsarebeingevaluated(withregardtotechnicalandmarketingaspects)includinglettuce,basilandcoriander.InanewroundofUPFSsessions the group will be trained in the cultivation andmarketingoftheseadditionalcrops.Thecultivationofspringonionswillinfuturebeconcentratedinthosemonthsoftheyearduringwhichdemandandpricesarehighest.

Bottling of fruit juice in Freetown InFreetown,RUAF-FStTisbeingimplementedincooperationwiththeNGOCOOPIandtheNationalAssociationofFarmers(NAFSL).OneoftheparticipatingproducergroupsisLelimaWomen’sGroupinthepopularKissyeasternareaofFreetown,a30-strongself-helpwomen’sgroup.Thegroupconsideredseveral products and innovations during the inventory ofoptions and tested them during the market scan.Whileinitiallyverykeenonyoghurt,duringtheprocessofcompar-ingmarketdemand,pricesandpossiblereturnsandprofitstheychosebottledfruitjuiceastheirMoPO.TheUPFStookthegroupthroughtechnicaltraininginhygiene,safefoodhandling,pasteurisationandbottlingaswellastrainingin

Integrated Pest Management training on chili cultivation Photo: IWMI South East Asia

Spring onions are weighed and packed in plastic bags or sold in bulk in large bunchesPhoto: Salwa Tohme Tawk


16

www.ruaf.org


Note1) I thank my colleagues René van Veenhuizen, Marielle Dubbeling,

Marco Serena and Femke Hoekstra for their contributions to this article

2) RUAF Foundation is an international network of one Northern and seven Southern-based development organisations collaborating since 2000 to support the development of pro-poor urban agriculture in developing countries. DGIS, the Netherlands, and IDRC, Canada, are the main funding agencies of the RUAF Foundation programmes.

3) A book on the experiences gained in the RUAF-CFF programme with the multi-stakeholder approach to policy development and action planning in urban agriculture has recently been published (Dubbeling et al., 2010) .

4) Ample information available at: www.farmerfieldschool.info5) In this process we used a number of manuals on participatory

market analysis that had been published recently or were available in draft version, e.g. Joss et al. 2002; Lundy et al. 2004; Ostertag 2004; Dixie 2005; Tracey-White 2005, Bernet et al. 2006 (in earlier Spanish draft version)

6) In several cases the selected MoPO was not one product but a combination of products e.g. “small packages of washed and cut mixed green vegetables for wokking, soups and curries” or “boxes with sorted fresh seasonal vegetables for home delivery”

References De Zeeuw, H. and Dubbeling, M. (2009) Cities, food and agriculture: challenges and the way forward, RUAF Foundation, LeusdenBernet, T. Thiele, G. and Zschocke T. (eds) (2006) Market chain approach (PMCA) User Guide. CIP, Bogota (read in earlier Spanish draft version)Dixie, G. (2005) Horticulture Marketing Marketing Extension Guides # 5 FAO-AGS, Rome Dubbeling M., De Zeeuw, H. and Van Veenhuizen, R. (2010) Cities, Poverty and Food; Multi-stakeholder Policy and Action Planning in Urban Agriculture, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK.Joss S., Schaltenbrand, H. and Schmidt, P. (2002) Clients First. A rapid market appraisal toolkit, Helvetas, Zurich. Lundy, M. et al. (2004) Increasing the competitiveness of market chains for small holder producers; a field guide, Rural Agro-enterprise development project, CIAT, Costa Rica.Ostertag, C.F. (2004) The Territorial approach to rural business development. Module 2: Identifying and assessing markets for small scale rural producers Rural Agro-enterprise development project, CIAT, Costa Rica. Tracey-White J. (2005) Rural-urban marketing linkages; an infrastruc-ture identification and survey guide Agricultural Services Bulletin 161, FAO, Rome. Van Veenhuizen, M. and Danso, G. (2007) Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper no. 19. FAO, Rome.

organisational strengthening, businessmanagement andmarketing.

Thegroupsetupabasicprocessingandbottlingfacility.Theyuse recycled sterilisedglass tobottle fruit juice (currentlymainlymango).Anadaptednon-commercialblenderisusedtopreparethejuicewhilepasteurisationisdoneinalargelocal pot on a screened fire; and the juice is bottled andcappedwhilehot.Anumberoftestingsessionswithcustom-ersinbarsandrestaurantswereorganisedtocomparethreedifferentmixesbeforethefinalrecipewaschosen.

InMay2010SALONEMangoJuice“proudlyproducedinSierraLeone”becamethefirst locallybottledfruit juice inSierraLeone.Thegroupisabletoofferthejuicecommerciallyatatradeandretailpricelowerthanimportedjuice.

Themainchallengeisthatthemarketdemandisconsider-ablylargerthantheproductioncapacity.Thegroupisnowmovingintoorganisingyear-roundproductionofjuicefromseveral seasonal fruits. The group currently targets theFreetowncapitalmarket,butinvestorshaveshownaninter-estinsub-contractingthegrouptoproduceandbottlejuice,whichwould thenbe transported cold to and sold in theprovinces.However,thegroupstilllackstherequiredbusi-nessexperience tonegotiatewithseasonedinvestorsandthe sudden expansion of their business has already putconsiderablestrainongroupdynamicsandcohesion.Theseaspectswillneedtobecarefullymonitoredandaddressedtopreventthegroupfromfallingvictimtoitsownsuccess.

Henk de Zeeuw DirectorRUAFFoundationEmail:[email protected]

FSTT training in Accra Photo: René van Veenhuizen

Group saving and internal lending, Magadi - organisational strengthening Photo: IWMI South East Asia


17

www.ruaf.org

Vegetable Box Scheme in Cape Town, South Africa Femke Hoekstra

Rob Small

Although quite a number of experiences with com-munity supported agriculture (CSA) and box schemes in Europe and the United States have been documented, there are not so many examples from the South. Abalimi/Harvest of Hope is a special case even in the South, as it is a social enterprise that works with poor people in urban areas who are the producers of the vegetables.

How it startedAbalimi Bezekhaya1(meaning“FarmersofHome”inXhosa)isacivilsocietyorganisationworkingtoempowerthedisad-vantaged through ecological urban agriculture. Abalimioperates in the townships of Khayelitsha, Nyanga andsurroundingareasontheCapeFlatsnearCapeTown.Thisarea has a population of nearly one million people, themajorityofwhomarefromtheEasternCape- theformerapartheidhomelandsofTranskeiandCiskei.Manyareunem-ployed.Abalimihasbeenworkingwithsmall-scaleproduc-ers living in these informal settlements for 28 years. Theproducers(ormicrofarmersasAbalimicallsthem)arepoorpeople –mainlywomen –who are engaged in vegetablegardening in home gardens and community gardens inordertosupplementtheirdiet,improvehouseholdfoodandnutritional security, and provide sustainable additionalincome.Other benefits are community building, personalgrowthandself-esteem.

ThecentraltoolforthesuccessofAbalimi(andHarvestofHope)isthedevelopmentofthe“DevelopmentChain”.Therationale behind the Development Chain is that conven-tional approaches pull the urban poor into commercialproductiontoosoon,whiletheyfirstneedtogothroughanumber of preparatory steps to enable social learning.Furthermore, without sufficient support (subsidies andtraining) the development that ensues is unlikely to besustainable.Astep-wiseapproachisnecessarytodealwiththesocio-political,environmentalandeconomicdynamicsandchallengeswhichthepoorencounteronadailybasis,suchaspooreducation,povertymentality,gender/racialandclasstensions,verypoorsoilandmassunemployment.Thedevelopmentchainhasfourphases:thesurvivalphase,thesubsistencephase,thelivelihoodphaseandthecommercialphase (read more on the development chain in VanVeenhuizen,2009,p.160).

OvertimeAbaliminoticedthatsomeoftheproducersinthesubsistencephasehad theambition to sell (partof their)

produce,butitwasastruggletoselltheirproducetoawideraudience than their local community (selling “over thefence”).Atthesametime,AbaliminoticedagrowingpublicinterestinqualityorganicproduceinCapeTown.Thiseven-tually led to the settingupofamarketing systemsellingboxesoforganicallygrown,in-seasonvegetablesonaweeklybasis.AmarketingunitwithinAbalimiwascreated,namedHarvestofHope.

ThemaingoalsoftheHarvestofHopeinitiativeareto:• createasustainableandexpandablemarketforproduc-ersinandaroundCapeTown;

• use thismarketasanengineforgrowthandaninstru-mentforpovertyalleviationinpoorcommunities;

• give customers access to fresh competitive organicproduceandcontributetofewerfoodmiles.

Why a box scheme?Afterathoroughmarketanalysis,anorganicvegetableboxwaschosenasthemostpromisingmarketingoptionfortheproducersforanumberofreasons.Theboxsystemissuffi-cientlyflexibletodealwithcropfailures,lateharvestsandpoorquality,givingproducerstimetolearnaboutconsistentproduction, intermsofbothqualityandquantity.Varyingtheboxcontenteachweekallowsforyieldinconsistencyasproducers build towards stable output targets, becausequantitiesdonothavetobeexact.Theconceptofthefoodboxdealswithvariouschallengesthat producers face: broadening the distribution chain(accesstomarketsoutsidetheirlocalcommunity),cashflowandliquidityissues(gettingcashmonthlyinsteadofhaving

Harvest of Hope staff packing vegetable boxes Photo: Femke Hoekstra

Urban Agriculture magazine • number 24 • September 2010 www.ruaf.org

18

towaitanentiregrowingseason),pricefluctuations(aregu-lar price is guaranteed), as well as seasonal fluctuations(contentsoftheboxmaydiffer).

AlthoughthepricethatproducersgetforsellingtoHarvestofHopeis(often)lowerthaniftheysoldcropsdirectlytothelocal community, Harvest of Hope offers them a regularmarketandamoresecureandupfrontsourceofincome.Thepricesetforthevegetablesisbasedonacomparativeanaly-sisofpricesatdifferentsupermarketsandwholesalers.

How the scheme worksThe participating producers are trained in agribusinesssystems.Theysignsimplecontractstogrowspecifiedcropsinadesignatedsizeplotforpre-plannedyieldsatpre-deter-minedprices,tobeharvestedontargeteddates.Theproduc-ersdothequalitycontrol,harvesting,cleaningandbunchingofvegetablesthemselves.HarvestofHopepicksupthevege-tablesfromthegardensonceaweekanddeliversthemtothepackingshed,whichislocatedontheperimetersoftheAbalimiofficeandhasalltheequipmentneededtoprocessvegetables.Therethevegetablesareweighed(torecordtheamountofvegetablesdeliveredbyeachgarden),washed,cutandpackagedorbundled,dependingonthetypeofvegeta-ble.Anequalnumberofvegetablesarepackedineachbox.Thecorepackingstaffconsistsofaboutfivepeople,includ-ingAbalimifieldstaff.Inaddition,severalproducersworkinthepackingshedona rotationalbasis to learnabout theentireprocessofprocessingandmarketing.

Thereare two typesofboxes.Thebigbox (soldatR95~10Euros),astackablecrate,containsbetween9and12differentvegetablesdependingonthecostsofproduction.Standardvegetablesintheboxarepotatoes,onions,carrots,asaladpackandbeansprouts.Othervegetables,dependingonthe

season, include tomatoes, green peppers, butternut, babymarrows, sweetpotatoes, beans,peas,pumpkins, spinach,Swisschardandbeetroot.Boxesalsousuallycontainaspecialandexpensivevegetable,suchasmushrooms,cherrytoma-toes, red or yellow peppers, which are supplied by otherfarmers.Thesmallbox,whichwasintroducedondemandinFebruary2009(soldatR65~7Euros),isactuallyaplasticbag(theyarelookingforabetteralternative)containing6to7varietiesofvegetables.

After the packing, the Harvest of Hope staff delivers theboxes to the collectionpoints,mostofwhichareprimaryschools(about15-20intotal)inthesuburbsofCapeTown,butalsosomeinstitutionsandaretailoutlet.Schoolsseemtobethebestdistributionplaces,asparentscancombinecollectingtheirchildrenwithpickingupafoodbox.

Harvest of Hope in numbers, April 2010:• Harvest of Hope is the marketing unit of Abalimi. Since

it was started in February 2008 it has grown from work-ing with 8 producer groups to 18 groups (with 118 producers) and has increased the number of commer-cial subscribers to their weekly food boxes from 79 to about 180 in April 2010 (and the number of subscribers continues to increase).

• For each 100 boxes produced, 8,415m2 of land is required. The total amount of land used for Harvest of Hope is 26,047m2.

• Income per producer is up to R3,000 a month on an average plot of 500m2.

Labelled plots in a community garden Photo: Femke Hoekstra


19

www.ruaf.org

Supporting the CSA movementRunning the business encompasses production planning,training and preparing producers for (semi-) commercialproduction, monitoring the producers’ performance, andarranginginputsandfinance.Anintermediaryorganisationoperatingbetweentheproducersandconsumers(inthiscaseAbalimi/Harvest of Hope) is required, especially during theinitialperiod.Atoperationallevel,thebusinessisnowalmostentirelyrunbythetargetgroup,whilebeingrepresentedatmanagementandboardlevelbythemainleaderoftheproduc-ersandotherlocalblackleadersfromthetargetcommunity.

Abalimimonitors the sustainability of all gardens on thebasisofseveralpre-definedindicatorstomakesurethattheproducers are ready to become part of Harvest of Hope.Furthermore, Abalimi organises the production planning.HarvestofHopedevelopedaplanningtool,whichshowsforeachweekoftheyearhowmuchneedstobeplantedineachgardentoobtainacertainamountofkilosperweekperbox(fora totalnumberofboxes).HarvestofHopeplans foraproduction surplusof 10%.Through this surplus, theyareabletocopewithproductionlossandtheycandelivertheirbestproducetotheircustomers.Thesurplusgoestocharityprojects,staffandvolunteers.

Inaddition,UrbanProducerFieldSchools(UPFS,whicharepartoftheRUAFFromSeedtoTableproject)aimtolookatweakareasintheproductioncycleandtrainproducers inordertoincreaseproduction.UPFSprovidetrainingsessionsonsubjectsincludingqualitycontrol,soilmanagementandpestmanagement.

Abalimiprovidesinputssuchasseeds,seedlings,compost,fertiliserandequipment.Theseareeitherfreeorsubsidised,dependingonthepriceoftheinput.Groupsarestartingtocontribute(100%ofseedandseedlingcosts,10%ofbulkcowmanure costs) and this is deducted from their monthly

payment.Atpresentthegroupsareonlycapableofcontrib-uting as they cannot afford tomakenew investments bythemselves,butAbalimibelievesthatsubsidiesandservicesarenecessaryforanyfarmingactivitynowadays.

Consumer relationsIt remains a challenge to keep all consumers satisfied.ConsumersareinformedbyweeklyemailsandcanparticipateasavolunteerorjoinaweeklytourtothegardensandthepackshedtobecomepartoftheCSA.Acustomerfeedbacksurvey(March2010)among56non-activeconsumersshowedwhypeopledecidetoquit.Thishadtodowith(acombinationof):- Size(concernfor23%ofcustomers):eithertoomuchquan-tityleadingtofoodwasteortoolittleofeverything;

- Variety(aconcernfor25%):kindofvegetablesoffered(toomuchor too littlevariety,notenoughof thebasics (likepotatoes),ornot“child-friendly”enough);

- Pickup(25%):concernswithtime,dateorlocation.Somewouldpreferhomedelivery;

- Financial(7%):financialconcerns,beingabletofindthesamequalityoffoodcheaperinsupermarket;

- 5%hadstartedtheirowngardenandproducedenoughvegetables;

- 7% had issueswith choice; somewanted to be able toselectforthemselvesorknowinadvancewhatwouldbeintheboxsotheycouldadapttheirothershoppingbasedonthisinformation;

- Othershaveeithermoved;arebuyingmore readymadefood(cut,peeledandprepared);foundanothersupplier;ordon’t knowhow to prepare the vegetables (although arecipeisalwaysincluded).

Furthermore, when the schools close during the holidaythereisnoalternativemarketoutlet,sosalevolumescanbevery low. This year box numbers dropped from 195 to 131duringthemostrecentholiday.

Masikhanye garden in Khayelitsha Photo: Femke Hoekstra

Urban Agriculture magazine • number 24 • September 2010 www.ruaf.org

Vegetable Box Scheme in Cape Town, South Africa

The futureSince 2008,Harvest ofHopehasdeveloped froma small-scale initiative to a well-organised, complex logisticalmarketing business. It has created access for small-scaleproducers to a new market and is working towards the

Note1) Abalimi is one of the local RUAF partners and Harvest of Hope is

part of the From Seed to Table programme.

ReferencesAbalimi Bezekhaya. (2009). HoH Business Plan. Cape Town: Abalimi Bezekhaya.Femiano, M. (2010). Harvest of Hope customer feedback survey. Cape Town: Abalimi Bezekhaya.Van Veenhuizen, R. (2006) Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. Philippines: IIRR, IDRC and RUAF Foundation.

Developing an Organic Box Scheme in Accra, Ghana The demand for sustainably produced and healthy vegetables and fruit is growing in Ghana. This provides an opportunity to set up sustainable local value chains. A consortium of farmer cooperatives and traders in Accra, supported by the Netherlands-based NGO Agro Eco-Louis Bolk Institute (LBI), is developing an organic fruit and vegetable box scheme.

Organic produce grown in Ghana is currently mainly exported. Growing crops for the local as well as the international market will enable the (often small-scale) farmers to diversify their farms, thereby reducing their financial risks and also benefit-ting the soil, water conservation and biodiversity.

The partnersThis initiative is the work of the Forward Ever Youth Cooperative (supported by the Ghana Organic Agriculture Network), Ideal Providence Farms, and Quin Organics.

Forward Ever sites are located around Woe, a suburb of Keta in the South East of Ghana. Established in 1997, the cooperative has 45 registered members, all of whom are full-time vegeta-ble farmers. These farmers will provide vegetables for the box scheme including cucumber, lettuce, cabbage, green pepper, chilli, eggplant and okra. The farmers grow these crops accord-ing to organic agriculture principles and are in the process of acquiring organic certifications. Ideal Providence Farms, established in 1998, manages the production of tropical fruits and herbs on two farms covering a total of 85 acres. This company is also active in organic wild collection: about 150 women in Northern Ghana collect shea nuts, which are processed into shea butter for export to European and other markets. Quin Organics is a certified organic farming and processing business in Ghana that deals in vegetables, herbs and spices. In addition to running a nucleus farm, it also coop-

creationofanalternativefoodsystem.In2010,HarvestofHope won the Impumelelo Innovations Award, which“rewardsexceptionalprojects,whichinvolvepartnershipswith thepublic sector thatenhance thequalityof lifeofpoorcommunitiesininnovativeways”.

Insomecommunitygardens,theaverageageofproducersisashighas60yearsandthelevelsofproductionremainrelatively low. The low level of participation of youngerpeople may have sustainability implications in the longrun.

Femke Hoekstra ETCUrbanAgriculture/RUAFEmail:[email protected] Small AbalimiBezekhayaEmail:[email protected]

erates with farmer-based organisations in the Keta District through an out-grower scheme and a training scheme. Quin Organics focuses on both the local and the export market. It will provide fruits and herbs for the box scheme and is in the process of building a pack house for processing and storage.

The box schemeInterested consumers will register and receive a weekly box of organic vegetables and fruits for a fixed price. The box can be delivered to an office or residence, or picked up at one of several locations in town (including fruit stalls, supermarkets and gas stations). The box scheme targets high- and middle-income Ghanaians in Accra as well as expats, since these people are willing and able to pay a bit more for the quality products.

The initiators aim to make the box scheme financially inde-pendent once it is up and running. The farmers will receive a fair price, which includes a premium for the organic products and sufficient extra to cover the costs of assembling, packag-ing, marketing and distribution. It is estimated that some investment will be needed at the start of this initiative, for which funds are currently being raised.

Willem-Albert Toose, Agro Eco - Louis Bolk Institute and Anne OudesEmail:[email protected]@gmail.com

20

Sample of a large organic vegetable box in Accra


21

www.ruaf.org

Using Value Chain Analysis to Increase the Impact of Urban Farming This paper summarises work attempting to answer two apparently simple questions: Can urban agri-culture reduce urban poverty? And, if it can, in what ways can poverty be reduced? It also explores the role of value chain analysis in understanding bet-ter the role of urban agriculture.

A team at the Overseas Development Institute1recently had a chance to investigate these questions in ascopingstudyundertakenfortheInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre2.Theaimofthestudywastore-appraisetheroleofurbanagricultureinpovertyreductionindevelopingcountries.Theresearchwasbasedonanextensivereviewoftheliterature,keyinformantdiscussions3andfieldvisitstoAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmerica.

Conceptual framework Povertyisaboutmuchmorethanalackofmoney.Themulti-dimensionalnatureofpovertyshouldpromptustoexamineenvironmental and social issues related tourbanagricul-ture,aswellaseconomicaspects.However,giventhattheenvironmentalandsocialimpactsofurbanagriculturehavebeeninvestigatedmuchmorevigorouslythantheeconomic,our analysis was restricted to a strict focus on incomepoverty.

Thereareseveraldifferentchannels throughwhichurbanagriculturecanimpactthepoor.Theurbanpoorcanbenefitdirectlyfromtheirownon-andoff-plotagriculturalactivi-tiesincities–byusingtheirproduceforhouseholdconsump-tion,orsellingittoprovidehouseholdincome.Beyondthisdirecteconomicbenefitarelessdirectwaysthroughwhichurban agriculture can contribute to reducing urbanpoverty.

First,periurbanagriculturebylargeproducersrequirestheallocationoflabouralongdifferentpartsofthevaluechain–on-farmlabour,marketingandtransportation.Secondly,urbanagriculture is ahelpful channel for theproductionandsupplyofcheapfoodincitiesandtownsthatisafford-abletotheurbanpoor–whoareprimarilynetbuyersoffood.ThesedifferentcontributionsareshowninFigure1.

Jonathan Mitchell Henri Leturque

Figure 1: Linking urban agriculture and urban poverty reduction

Ourapproachtounderstandingtheagriculturesectorintheproductive city focuses on examining the following fourmechanisms:• Mechanism 1. Expenditure substitution: where homeproductionforownconsumptioncontributestohouse-holdfoodsecurity.Growingtheirownfoodmakespeopleless dependent on purchases and this could have animpact on poverty levels by freeing up householdresourcesthatcouldbeusedforotherexpenditures.

• Mechanism 2. Income from marketing:whereproduceissoldandthisgenerateshouseholdincome.Thismecha-nism involves producing food and other agriculturalproductsforthemarket.Farmerswhogrowfortheirfami-ly’sownconsumptionmayinfactsellpartoftheirproduceeitherbecausetheycannotuseitallorbecausetheywanttoearnfromit.

• Mechanism 3. Income from labour:whereworkrelatedtourbanagriculturegeneratesincome.Themainopportuni-tiesareonlargercommercialfarmsproducingvegetables,poultry,fishandfruitthatemploymainlyunskilledlabour-ers, but they are also related to inputs, processing andmarketingorotheragriculturalservices.

Mechanism 1:Expenditure substitution

Urbanpoorgrowfoodforown

consumptionandsoreducehouseholdfoodpurchases

Urban agricultural activities

Urban poverty reduction

Mechanism 2:Income from

marketing

Urbanpoorgrowfoodandsellittogeneratehouseholdincome

Mechanism 3:Income from

labour

WorkisgeneratedbyUAwhichgeneratesanincomeflowfortheruralpoor

Mechanism 4:Price impacts

CheapfoodproducedbyUAbenefitspoorurbanconsumers


22

www.ruaf.org

• Mechanism 4. Price impacts:wherecheapfoodproducedthroughurbanagriculturebenefitspoorurbanconsum-ers.Theurbanpoorbenefitfromthesupplyofcheapfoodin cities, irrespective of whether they are urban foodproducersornot.

Thesemechanismsarenotmutuallyexclusive–householdpovertyreductionoftenresultsfrommorethanonemecha-nism. For example, households growing vegetables mayconsumepartofthecropandsellpartofitandarethereforesimultaneouslyengagedinmechanisms1and2.Ifthehouse-holdalsobuysfoodandotheragriculturalproducethatisproducedlocallybyothers,thenitisalsoengagedinmecha-nism4.Similarly,productionsystemsandvaluechainscanincorporatecombinationsofdifferentmechanisms.Reallifeis often complicated,which iswhyweuse frameworks tosimplifyamessyreality.

However,thisframeworkisusefulbecauseitremindsustoconsiderallthediversewaysinwhichurbanagriculturecanpotentiallyreducepoverty.

Examine the empirical evidence about what we do (and don’t) know Producingacomprehensivepictureoftheoveralleconomicimpactofurbanagricultureistricky.Dataislimited(especiallyonmechanisms3and4)and,whatisavailable,oftenfocusesonspecificcommoditiesandisgeneratedfromdifferent,andincompatible, methodologies. However a meta-analysis ofhouseholdsurveysbytheRIGA4program(FAO)offersasnap-shotoftheimportanceofurbanfoodproductionacross15countries.Thisanalysissuggeststhefollowing:

• Manyurbanpeopleparticipateinagriculture:some20to80percentofthepoorestfifthofthepopulation.

• Urban agriculture generally represents a very limitedproportionofurbanpeople’sincome,exceptinsub-Saha-ranAfrica,whereagriculturecontributes15to50percentoftotalincomeintheAfricancasestudiesbelow.

• Resource-poor households are themost active partici-pantsinurbanagricultureand,forthemitrepresentsalargershareoftheirtotalincome.

Thissuggeststhaturbanagricultureisgenerallyrelevanttourbanpoverty-sinceitinvolvestheurbanpoor.However,whetheritshouldbepartofurbanpovertyreductionstrate-gies isanotherquestion. Thisdependsonwhetherurbanagriculturerelatedincomescangroworatleastbesustained.Our conceptual framework is auseful toolwithwhich tostudy eachmechanism’s potential to contribute tourbanpovertyreduction.

Mechanism 1ismostprevalentinsituationswheredeterio-ratingfoodsuppliesandpovertyhavemadeownproductionanimportantcopingstrategy.Thissituationismorepreva-lent in Sub-Saharan Africa in areas where urban povertylevelsandfoodinsecurityarehigherthananywhereelse,andaccesstolandisofteneasier(relativetomoredenselypopu-latedcitiesinAsia).Thismechanismwasalsoprevalentinothercrisisortransitioncontexts,suchasinEastEuropean

citiesandHavana,Cuba,after thefallof theSovietUnion.Harare,Zimbabwe,isthemostcontemporaryexampleofacityinwhichurbanfoodproductionsurgedinresponsetoeconomic stress (e.g. Redwood, 2009). The importance ofmechanism 1 often appears more limited out of crisiscontexts.Forexample,inGhana,althoughveryhighpropor-tions of urban people are involved in agriculture, it onlycoversatinyshareofurbanfoodcosts5.

Mechanism 2orproductionforthemarketwasidentifiedasa critical mechanism across all the recent case studiesreviewed-andalsothemostimportantintermsofincomegenerated. Urban agriculture can complement rural foodinfluxbyprovidingproductsthatruralagriculturecannotsupplyeasily.Forspecificperishableproducts,itisreportedtosupplyasmuchas80percentofurbanconsumption(e.g.leafyvegetablesinAccra).

But beyond its overall contribution to urban food supply,what is striking is the extremediversity of productionbyurbanfarmerssoldtolocalmarkets.Whiletheproductionoftraditional perishables such as vegetables,meat, fish andmilkcontinuestobewidespread,othercropsincludingflow-ers,fodderanddifferentusesoflandsuchasagro-tourismarealsobecomingmoreimportant.Valuechainstructuresare also diversified; they can be very simple in situationswhereproduceissolddirectlybyfarmerstowalk-inclientsorextremelycomplexwhereavarietyofdifferentusers,trans-port, collection and marketing channels operate. Also, itappearstoofferrelativelyhighincomestourbanvegetableproducersinEastandWest-Africancities.However,beyondinformation gathered through studies of fresh vegetableproduction,ourunderstandingofmarket-orientatedurbanagricultureisoftenstilllimited.

Mechanism 3 is anunder-researched area.Urbanagricul-turallabourhasonlybeenstudiedinafewcitieswherethereisanecdotalevidenceofitsscale.Beyondbeingaresearch‘gap’,thereisnoreasonthatitshouldnotbeasimportantasothermechanisms,withworkerseitherhiredonlargeurbanand periurban commercial farms, or working as casuallabour for smaller-scale farmers. It is plausible thatmosturbanagriculturewagelabourersareincomepoor,whereasthisisnotnecessarilythecaseforpeopleinvolvedasprodu-cers,eitherforthemarketoffortheirownconsumption.

Mechanism 4linksurbanagriculturetourbanfoodsecurity.It isclear that thevastmajorityofurbandwellersarenetfoodbuyers.Evenurbanfarmerscanrarelyproduceenoughfood,inqualityanddiversitytofeedtheirfamilies.Guaranteedaccesstocheapfoodisamajorconcerntourbanpoor,andthereforetourbanpolicymakers.Butdoesurbanagriculturecontributetotheregulationofurbanfoodprices?

Urbanagriculturecancontributea significant shareof somespecificproductstourbanmarkets.However,availableinforma-tiononafewcities(figure 2)suggeststhat,onthewhole,itonlyplaysalimitedroleinsupplyingurbanfoodmarkets.Itisunlikelythatithasasignificantpoverty-reducingeffectbydepressingthepricesofthestaplefoodsconsumedbytheresourcepoor.


23

www.ruaf.org

livelihoodsofmanyurbanpoor (aswellas thenon-poor).Mechanism4 (foodprices)wouldhavea verywidespreadimpactontheurbanpoorifurbanagriculturehadasignifi-cantinfluenceonthepriceofstaplesinurbanareas–butthereisnoevidenceofthisinfluence.Inaddition,thesetwomechanisms are associatedwith coping strategies ratherthandevelopmentalstrategies thatcanreducepovertyatscaleonasustainablebasis.

This leavesuswithMechanisms2 (marketedoutput)andMechanism3(agriculturalwages),whichhaveclearpoten-tial to reducepovertyby increasing farmer incomes.Boththese mechanisms are also clearly associated with liveli-hoods and development strategies.We believe that valuechainanalysisiswell-suitedtoanalysinghowtoimprovetheproduction, processing and marketing systems of urbanagriculture–andalsohowtoenhancethepro-poorimpactofthesechains.Viewingagriculturethroughavaluechainlens is standardpractice in ruralareas,but ismore rarelyapplied to urban agriculture. Adopting a value chainapproachshouldhelpinbuildinglinkswiththerestofagri-culturaldevelopmentthinking.Sofar,mosturbanagricul-tureworkhasfocusedonproducers,whilefarlessattentionhasbeenpaidtomarketintermediaries,whicharecriticaltotheoperationofthewholechain.

Jonathan Mitchell and Henri Leturque Email:[email protected]@odi.org.uk

Notes1) The ODI is the United Kingdom’s leading development policy ‘think tank’

(see www.odi.org.uk): an independent organisation with a mission to inspire and inform development policy and practice to reduce poverty and suffering.

2) The IDRC is a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies.

3) We acknowledge the valuable insights provided by RUAF, the World Bank, FAO, Rockefeller Foundation and policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and farmers in six cities in four countries.

4) Rural Income Generating Activities5) A recent IWMI survey of people engaged in backyard gardening in

Kumasi and Accra showed that this activity contributed in general to an annual savings between 1 and 5per cent of overall food expenditures with the higher values (up to 10 per cent) reported by the poorer house-holds.

6) African indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture / edited by C.M. Shackleton, M. Pasquini and A.W. Drescher. Earthscan, 2009.

ReferencesDrechsel, P. Graefe, S. Sonou, M. and Cofie, O.O. 2006. Informal Irrigation in Urban West Africa: An Overview. IWMI Research Report 102. Redwood, M., ed. 2009. Agriculture in Urban Planning: Generating Livelihoods and Food Security. London and Ottawa: Earthscan and IDRC. Zezza, A. and Tasciotti, L, 2007. Does Urban Agriculture Enhance Dietary Diversity? Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Developing Countries. ADED, FAO. Shackleton, C.M, Pasquini M, and Drescher, A.W. (2009) African indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture. Earthscan, London.

Figure 2: Contribution of different areas to urban food inflows in selected West-African cities

Source: Drechsel et al. , 2006.

Information gaps Whatisclearfromtheanalysisaboveisthatmechanisms2and3appeartoholdthebestpotentialforincreasingurbanfarmer incomesatscale.Bothmechanismsarealso inher-ently appropriate for a value chain analysis. Value chainanalysis separates the different functions, or nodes, ofproduction, processing andmarketing in order to under-standhowtheywork,whoparticipatesandgains,andhowthe efficiency of the chain can be improved. Value chainanalysis isalsowell-suitedasa framework tounderstandthelabourmarketeffectsofurbanagriculture.Despitethispotential,veryfewstudies6havefocusedonurbanagricul-turevaluechainstodate.

Atpresentweknowinsomecasesabitaboutthenumbersofproducersandtheirreturn,butwerarelyknow:• whoparticipatesandthevalueofthatwhichiscapturedinnodesotherthanproductionofthevaluechains;

• thenumbersofwagelabourerswhodependonurbanagriculture and related services, their backgrounds,labourconditionsandwagelevels;

• the other income sources of those engaged, and thesignificanceofurbanagriculturetotheirlivelihoods;

• thedifference in income levelsbetween those (fullyorpartly) engaged in urban agriculture at various nodesandtheaverageincomeofurbandwellers(whichwouldprovideabetterideaofitsrelativeimpact);

• howtoimprovetheefficiencyandpro-poorimpactoftheproduction,processingandmarketingsystemsofurbanagriculturevaluechains.

Thisiscriticalinformationtobeabletodesigninterventionswhichwillbothimprovethefunctioningofcurrentproduc-tion,processingandmarketingsystemsandalsoenhancethe incomes of participants in urban agriculture valuechains.

Implications Basedonavailableinformation,mechanism1and4seemtohaveaweakpoverty-reducingeffect.Astheyaretheonlytwoinvolvingaverylargenumberofpoorpeopleinurbanareas,urbanagriculturemayonlyhavealimitedpotentialtotrans-formurbanpoverty.Mechanism1(productionforownuse)makesapositivebutgenerallyverysmallcon

september 2010 urban agriculture uamagazine · culture products through food processing and...

Documents