11

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Urbanization and its Curses

2.1.1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization is one of the most striking features of the demographic shift taking

place in the world. At the beginning of the 20th century, only 13 per cent of the world’s

population lived in cities. In the next five decades, however, the figure was more than

doubled (to 30%) and reached 47% in 200 (UN Population Division, 2002). As of 2008,

according to Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008), more than three billion people live in

urban areas remarking the exceed of the world’s urban population over the number of

rural population. The projection of UN-HABITAT (cited in Veenhuizen and Danso,

2007) showed that by 2020, about 60% of the world’s population will live in cities. The

UN Population Division extended the projection and found that by 2050 more than 6

billion people (70%) live in urban centers (FAO, 2011).

Figure 1: The Dynamics of Rural-Urban Population

Source: FAO (2011), Veenhuizen and Danso (2007)

6255

4030

3845

6070

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 1995 2030 2050 Year

Urban

Rural

12

Without any single exception, all countries in the world are unwearyingly urbanizing. In

the beginning of 20th century, for instance, 50% of Americans lived in small rural

communities but as of 2002 less than 20% of US population lived in rural areas and the

remaining 80% lived in metropolitans. In developing countries, the urban population has

increased fivefold over the last 30 years. As of 2002, over 40% of the populations in low-

and middle-income countries (that amounts to more than 2 billion people) lived in urban

areas (World Food Program [WFP], 2002).

Yet, the magnitude and rate of urbanization is not uniform across the countries of the

world. Some regions of the world are highly urbanized (like Latin America, North

America, and Europe) while some others are less urbanized. But those countries that are

highly urbanized are characterized with low rate of urbanization and vice versa. For

instance the level of urbanization is very high North America (82.2%) whereas its rate of

urbanization is among the lowest in the world (0.26). On the other hand, the level of

urbanization in Africa is low (39.6%) while its growth rate is 1.27%, the highest in the

world next to Asia (UN Population Division, 2012)

By and large, according to Romanik (2007), the African continent (especially the

southern African region) is the fastest urbanizing region in the world. Cameroon from the

west, Tanzania from the east, Republic of South Africa from the south regions and Libya

from the north are leading the race of urbanization in Africa (ibid, 2007). It is known that

the number of urban residents of many African countries will double in 20 years and the

projection then shows that by the year 2025, more than half of the population in this

continents will be living in urban areas. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has also an eye-

catching pace of urbanization. Five decades ago, only one fifth of the inhabitants in Asia

and Sub- Saharan Africa lived in cities. But in 2002, one out of three SSA people lived in

urban areas (UN-HABITAT, 2001). Today, approximately 39% of the SSA population

lives in urban areas.

When looked at the percentage of its people living in urban areas (17%), Ethiopia may be

considered as one of one of the least urbanized countries in Africa. But the headcount of

the Ethiopian urban population large enough to surpasses the urban population of some

13

countries that are called highly urbanized such as Djibouti, Eritrea, Mauritius, and many

more. According to the World Bank report published in 2012, the urban population is

growing at higher rate (3.8% per annum) than the growth rate of the entire population

(2.9% per annum). This high growth rate of urbanization is due to aggravated by high

rate of in-migration to towns and the increase in the number of urban centers (Leulseged

et al., 2012). The corresponding projection shows that by 2050, about 42.1% of the total

population is expected to be inhabited in urban centers (ibid, 2012). From the

aforementioned facts, it is evident that the urban population of Ethiopia will surpass the

rural population soon. Thus, despite the fact that Ethiopia is one of the least urbanized

countries in Africa (next to Burundi, Uganda, and Niger), the large population size of the

country coupled with the high growth rate of urban population ensures that the country is

among top ten African nations with large number of people living in cities.

2.1.2. The urbanization of poverty

Most cities in developing countries have great difficulties coping with the rapid urban

growth. City municipalities of these countries faced serious challenges in providing even

the basic services such as drinking water, sanitation, basic health services and education.

As a result, urbanization often comes with more of complexities than its blessings. Few

among the multitude that accompany urbanization are malnutrition, food insecurity,

unplanned and informal settlements, pollution from urban wastes, decrease in urban

shelter and security of tenure, backlogs in delivery of basic services, increasing inequality

and segregation and degradation of the urban environment (Smith, 2002). The resultant

effect of these problems is the chronic poverty. According to UN Habitat (cited in

Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008) rapid urbanization has profoundly altered the

distribution and face of poverty. in the developing world, the levels of urban poverty was

lower than that of rural. But the rate of urban poverty is increasing at a more rapid rate

with the growth of urban population. It is expected that by 2020, about 40-45% of the

poor in Africa and Asia will be concentrated in towns and cities (WFP, 2002).

Urbanization of poverty occurs everywhere, but is deeper and more widespread in

developing countries. Statistical reports show that SSA hosts the growing share world’s

14

absolute poor. The share of world poor living in SSA has increased from 10% in 1980 to

30% in 2000 and projected to be 50% in near future. Urban poverty in SSA has a broader

meaning of cummulative deprivation, characterized by filthy living conditions, risk to

health and life from poor sanitation, air pollution, natural disasters, and the breakdown of

traditional family and community safety networks (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008)

2.1.3. Urban food security

As reiterated, the rapid urbanization brings about severe challenges for assuring access to

basic services such as adequate housing, water, sanitation, education and health care

facilities. Above all, food security is the foremost challenges that city municipalities of

developing countries face. Before embarking on the food security impact of urbanization,

let us make the concept of food security clear. Of course there is no homogeneity among

authors in the definition of food security. But in 2001, FAO defined food security as

… a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have

physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food

that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and

healthy life (FAO, 2002; p.12).

Alternatively food security is defined as the ability to secure an adequate daily supply of

food that is affordable, nutritious, hygienic and culturally-appropriate, and involves the

reliable and sustainable production, procurement, distribution and consumption of goods

(World Health Organization [WHO], 2003).

As can be inferred from the above definitions, there are four key dimensions to household

food security: food availability, food access, food supply stability and food utilization.

Several authors argued that urbanization jeopardizes all the four dimensions of food

security. According to Kennedy (2003), urban dwellers largely depend on food supplied

from rural areas or imported. Before reaching the final consumer, the product pass

through a long chain of intermediaries such as wholesalers, intermediate purchasers,

distributors and vendors that increases the ultimate price paid by the consumer. The urban

poor who often have limited income and cash reserves are particularly vulnerable to price

15

changes. Most often the wholesale food markets as well as discount supermarket chains

are commonly located in the city outskirts. Thus, the urban poor often are obliged to

purchase food in small neighborhood shops, where the price is high and availability of

fresh produce is limited (Kennedy, 2003).

In general, with over 50% of people in the world living in urban environments, ensuring

food security and appropriate nutrition of the urban population, in particular of the

poorest households, has become a tremendous challenge in many cities in developing

countries (Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007). Of course, food insecurity is a national concern

for both urban and rural families as well as both developed and developing countries. No

country in the world is 100% food secure. In USA, the richest country of our planet

where there is huge agricultural surplus and food is generally plentiful, safe, nutritious,

and relatively inexpensive, 31 million people were food insecure in 1999, including

approximately 12 million children (Brown, 2002). In 2006, 10.9% of households in the

states were food insecure at some point of the year and as many as 40 million people

were requesting emergency food assistance from shelters and food pantries during the

year (Thompson, 2008).

2.1.4. Features of urban food insecurity

Malnutrition and food insecurity in urban areas and those in rural areas have different

causes. This is due to a number of factors that characterize poor people’s livelihoods in

urban settings. According to WFP (2002), the following are some of the major cause of

difference in urban and rural food insecurity.

The household structure: urban households often have a higher ratio of

children to adults, thus putting pressure on an income earner’s ability to ensure

the household’s food security. The possibility of hosting non-family member

may further complicates household targeting.

Nature of employment: Urban livelihood systems are highly dependent on

precarious employment. In most cities of developing countries, employment in

the formal sector are rapidly shrinking that in turn limits the livelihood

16

opportunities available to the urban poor. Although employment in the informal-

sector is growing, it is highly unstable, poorly remunerated and susceptible to

seasonal variations.

High dependence on women: urban women are more likely heading

households than their rural counterparts. Although they can engage in income-

producing activities, women’s occupations are less secure than those of men, and

their participation in the informal sector is greater. Women’s increasing role in

both formal- and informal-sector activities has not diminished their household

labor obligations. Urban women adapt their work schedules to respond to the

needs of young children (childcare); this can jeopardize their ability to generate

sufficient income to maintain their families’ food security.

Higher food expenditure: the urban dwellers pay more proportion of their

income for food, water, transport, and the like. Urban poor can pay almost 30%

or more for their food than rural counterparts. The situation is worse for urban

poor who live in slum areas where urban infrastructure is hardly developed.

Inadequate urban infrastructure: urban environment are more polluted than

rural areas. The pollution is usually borne disproportionately by the poorest

segment of the urban population. The lack of basic water, sanitation, and

drainage and solid-waste disposal services makes it impossible for the poor to

prevent contamination of water and food, maintain adequate levels of hygiene or

control insect-vectors of diseases. In general, infrastructure and social services

are inadequate and affect people’s health, nutritional status and food security

Little Access to Safety Nets: the urban poor have little (if any at all) access to

formal assistance. One of the reasons is that most of the poor especially the slum

dwellers are not officially registered with municipal authorities and often have

no legal status. Informal safety nets tend to be weaker in urban areas because of

the poor definition of community and hence the lack of allegiance to it, lack of

family members living close by, and the high incidence of violence and crime,

which rapidly diminishes the trust necessary for non-family collective action.

17

2.2. The Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture

2.2.1. Urban vs peri-urban

Before embarking on the issue of PU agriculture, it is essential to clarify peri-urban as a

separate concept apart from urban. There is old tradition of labeling areas as urban or

rural. An urban area is the region where large number people who have non agricultural

jobs live. It can refer to towns, cities, and suburbs that have density of human structures

such as houses, commercial buildings, roads, bridges, and railways. Areas not considered

as urban are rural (NETSSAF, 2008).

But sociologists are critical of such simplistic definitions. We cannot assume that one

particular area is rural and another is urban, as individuals have their own definitions. For

example, a row of shops in a rural village may be considered to be urban to local farmers

whereas others may see an urban area as a place with many mixed-use buildings and with

a high population density. The concept of peri-urban emanates from the limitations or

inadequacy of the simplistic dichotomy between rural and urban.

Literally, peri-urban areas can be described as those immediately adjoining urban areas,

localized outside formal urban boundaries and urban jurisdictions, which are in a process

of urbanization and which therefore progressively assume many of the characteristics of

urban areas (NETSSAF, 2008). But the key feature of peri-urban environments is their

dynamic nature, wherein social forms and arrangements are created, modified and

discarded. They are areas of social compression or intensification where the density of

social forms, types and meanings increases, fomenting conflict and social evolution

(Iaquinta & Drescher, 2000).

To make the concept and distinctions of peri-urban more clear, let’s begin with the

concept of urban. The three important components in the definitions of

urbanization/urbanism, according to Iaquinta & Drescher (2000), are demographic

component (i.e., increasing population size and density), economic sectoral component

(i.e., a primarily non-agricultural labor force), and social-psychological component (i.e.,

consciousness of what it means to be urban). While the first two are are the bases for

18

defining urbanization, the third (the social psychological reflection or response to

urbanization) is the core definition of urbanism. The social psychological component

essentially refers to those values, attitudes, tastes and behaviors that are seen to be

characteristic of urban as opposed to rural dwellers (Iaquinta & Drescher, 2000)

It is further argued that proximity to the town center is not sufficient enough to define or

characterize peri-urban. The fact that much peri-urban "place" is closer or proximate to

the city is substantively important and instrumental to a comprehensive understanding of

peri-urban, but it is incidental to an elemental understanding of peri-urban. According to

Iaquinta, & Drescher (2000), "proximity to city" cannot be the base for the definition of

per-urban. Rather it merely allows us to distinguish between "types" of peri-urban, not to

define peri-urban in the first place. Additionally, concentration on geographic location as

a basis for defining peri-urban also undermines a clear understanding of the rural-urban

spectrum as dynamic, interactive and transformative. The social-psychological

component is the one most often omitted from peri-urban definitions. Yet as some

scholars and policy analysts have argued, ignoring this component misses the reality of

peri-urban, underestimates the prevalence of social change and misclassifies the

experiences of numerous people and communities in the real world (Iaquinta & Drescher,

2000).

Apart from the sociological view, peri-urban areas are also seen as an interface between

the urban and rural areas, also called the transition zone or interaction zone, where urban

and rural activities are juxtaposed, and landscape features are subject to rapid

modifications, characterized by strong urban influences, easy access to markets, services

and other inputs, ready supplies of labor but relative shortage of land and risk from

pollution, urban growth and waste disposal problems. In general, PU are areas in a

process of urbanization and which therefore progressively assume many of the

characteristics of urban areas. Peri-urban areas have some characteristics which are

similar to rural areas. These include inadequate sanitation systems and infrastructures to

meet basic needs, as well as a significant proportion of residents living in the lower

income categories (NETSSAF, 2008).

19

2.2.2. Definition of urban and peri-urban agriculture

The growing poverty, hunger and lack of formal employment opportunities have

stimulated the practice of agricultural activities in and around urban areas. This form of

agriculture, which is expected to be the first to respond to the emerging urban hunger and

food insecurity, is called Urban Agriculture or Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. There

seems little confusion in literature in defining this form of agriculture. Some used the

word ‘Urban agriculture’ and other use Urban and peri-urban Agriculture for the same

concept. So, there is no a clear cut limit to both forms of agriculture, and different

authors defined them in a way convenient for their purpose. The following are some of

the definitions of Urban and/or UPU agriculture.

• Urban agriculture is is the growing, processing, and distribution of food and

other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in

and around cities. Brown & Carter (2003)

• Urban agriculture refers to small areas (e.g., vacant plots, gardens, verges,

balconies, containers) within the city for growing crops and raising small

livestock or milk cows for own-consumption or sale in neighborhood markets

(FAO, Cited in Romanik, 2007)

• Urban agriculture is an industry that produces, processes and markets food

and fuel, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town,

city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed throughout the urban and

peri-urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing

natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops and

livestock. (United Nations Development Program[UNDP], 1996)

• Urban Agriculture is the growing, processing, and distributing of food and

other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in

and around cities. Martin Bailkey and Joe Nasr (cited in Brown, 2002)

• Urban agriculture is defined as the practice of food production (that includes

the cultivation of crops, vegetables, herbs, fruit, flowers, orchards, parks,

forestry, fuel wood, livestock, aquaculture, and bee-keeping) within a city

boundary or on the immediate periphery of a city (Gittleman, 2009).

20

• UA can be defined as the growing of plants and the raising of animals for

food and other uses within and around cities and towns, and related

activities such as the production and delivery of inputs, processing and

marketing of products. (Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007).

Comprehensive list of authors who used some other definitions is found in Smith (2002).

Why is there such a plethora of definitions for a phenomenon that is not only very old,

but also increasingly practiced on a global basis? The answer probably lies in the fact that

Urban plays a variety of roles, and means different things to different people, who strive

therefore to include such roles and activities into definitions. Some authors tried to

distinguish between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture. But the definitions

given to urban agriculture is often mixed with the definitions of peri-urban agriculture

and practically it is difficult to demarcate urban agriculture from peri-urban agriculture.

In most studies what is said urban agriculture is the one that includes the agricultural

practices in villages very near to the urban centers but not included in urban municipality

command areas. To avoid the confusion in using the terms, it is more preferable to use

the term ‘urban and peri-urban agriculture’ to refer to the practice of food production

(that includes the cultivation of crops, vegetables, herbs, fruit, flowers, orchards, parks,

forestry, fuel wood, livestock, aquaculture, and bee-keeping) within a city boundary its

immediate periphery (Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007; Gittleman, 2009).

With the urbanization process, UPU agriculture has become a key element in food

security strategies. Two and half decade ago, UNDP estimated that 800 million people

were engaged in urban agriculture world-wide and 200 million of them were considered

to be market producers, employing 150 million people full-time and producing 15-20%

of the world’s food (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008). Likewise, PU agriculture adds

much to many African economies. Denninger et al (1998) (cited in Egbuna, 2008)

estimated that nearly 25 out of the 65 million people living in urban areas of Eritrea,

Ethiopa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia obtain part of their food from PU

agriculture and that by 2020, at least 35-40 million urban residents in Africa will depend

on PU agriculture to feed themselves.

21

2.2.3. Intra urban vs peri-urban agriculture

The practice of agricultural activities in or around the towns is generally called urban and

peri-urban agriculture. However, this generic name, UPU agriculture, can be subdivided

in to intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture. Intra-urban agriculture takes place within

the inner city. Most cities and towns have vacant and under-utilized land areas that are or

can be used for urban agriculture, including areas not suited for building (along streams,

close to airports, etc.), public or private lands not being used (lands waiting for

construction) that can have an interim use, community lands and household areas.

Research data seem to indicate that intra-urban agriculture tends to be more small-scale

and more subsistence-oriented than peri-urban agriculture.

Peri-urban agriculture takes place in the urban periphery. Experiences in various parts of

the world including Cuba, Argentina, Lebanon and Viet Nam seem to indicate that farm

enterprises located in the fringe of the city are on average larger than those in the city

centers and more strongly market-oriented. But Peri-urban areas tend to undergo dramatic

changes over a given period of time, there is an influx of people from both rural and

urban areas, population density increases, land prices tend to go up and multiple land use

emerges. Such changes effect the agricultural production systems, which tend to become

smaller scale with more intensive production, and shift from staple crops towards more

perishable crops and animal production (meat, eggs, milk).

2.2.4. Taxonomy of urban and per-urban farming systems

Several attempts by have been made by different authors to describe and classify urban

production systems. Yet, it lacks consistent typology because most researchers of the area

have developed their own approach, leading to a large variety of definitions and

subdivisions of local farming systems. Furthermore, lack of an institutional home for

UPU agriculture studies in various countries, the diversity in farming conditions within

the urban setting and the high dynamism in UPU agriculture contribute for the difficulty

of arriving at common typology in urban farming system. Most of these classifications of

UPU agriculture only capture part of the reality and suffer from a lack of clarity and

22

differences between regions or cities, and with an overlap among systems. Some of the

various approaches commonly used to classify urban production systems are given

below.

Location: This classification is based on the location where the activity is carried out.

Using this base, different authors (listed in Van Veenhuizen and Danso , 2007)

distinguish between different forms of urban agriculture. Some of these classifications

includes: ‘intra-urban’ and ‘peri-urban’ agriculture (based on distance to the city centre,

administrative boundaries, and population density), on-plot’ and off-plot (based on the

use of residential land) and private land, public land or semipublic’ (based on the

ownership of land).

Types of produce: this in turn has a number of sub categories. Based on the types of

output, we may broadly classify UPU agriculture as food production and non food

production. The food production may further be classified as crop production, animal

production and mixed production, all of which may again be classified in to more specific

types of produces. Non-food products include aromatic and medicinal herbs, ornamental

plants, tree products (seed, wood, fuel, etc.) and tree seedlings.

Degree of market-orientation: this is based on the purpose of production. According to

this criterion we may have commercial/for-market production and subsistent production.

Of course, this classification is not mutually exclusive in the sense that many mixed types

of UPU agriculture can be found in small-scale enterprises producing partly for the

market and partly for home consumption, which is even the most common farming type

in many cities. This days, market oriented UPU agriculture has got an increasing role to

the national economy both in volume and value. But in most cities of developing

countries, UPU agriculture is meant for self consumption.

In his review of UPU agriculture classification, Egbuna (2008), has also noted the other

base of classification such as production system (indoor vs outdoor), time allocation (part

time vs full time), production time (seasonal vs year round), product destination

(subsistence vs market). Furthermore, a number of researchers used different combination

23

of variables to distinguish between UPU agriculture. Van Veenhuizen and Danso (2007)

reviewed the different types of UPU agriculture classified using multiple criteria.

2.2.5. The scope and special features of UPU agriculture

As can be inferred from the aforementioned definitions, urban and peri-urban agriculture

mean different to different individuals. Likewise, the scope of UPU agriculture is

stretched and narrowed with different authors UPU agriculture and its focus varies from

place to place. In some countries (like DR Congo, Burundi, Namibia, Guinea, Ivory

Coast) UPU agriculture comprises horticulture especially fruits, vegetables, roots and

tubers and other activities like small livestock, aquaculture and urban and peri-urban

forestry are considered to be complementary. But in Lima (Perú), where approximately

15% of households pursue UPU agriculture, the most important activity is raising of

small livestock. In some slum areas, as much as 48% of households are involved in UPU

agriculture and the vast majority is in livestock. In Kibera slum (Kenya), for instance,

livestock is found to be a crucially important component of family activity (Hoornweg &

Munro-Faure, 2008). In general, important sectors of UPU agriculture include

horticulture (Horticulture comprises vegetables, fruit crops, root and tubers, ornamentals,

mushrooms and condiments), poultry, livestock, fodder and milk production, aquaculture,

and agro-forestry.

UPU agriculture has unique features that distinguish it from other form of agriculture.

The most important distinguishing feature of UPU agriculture is strong integrity with

urban economic, social and ecological system. UPU agriculture uses urban resources

such as land, labor, urban organic wastes, water and produces for urban citizens. Further,

it is strongly influenced by the urban conditions such as policies, competition for land,

urban markets and prices, and makes a strong impact on the urban system (urban food

security and poverty, urban ecology and health) (Mougeot, 2000, cited in Veenhuizen and

Danso, 2007).

Some people wonder the fundamental difference between UPU agriculture and rural

agriculture and the nature of relationship they have at all. To this end, several researchers

24

have tried to clearly distinguish between PU agriculture and rural agriculture. To show

the fundamental difference between urban and rural farming, different authors use a

number of varying criteria. Some authors use closeness to the city centre, inclusion in the

administrative municipal boundaries and type of products grown as criteria to make such

distinctions (Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007). Others use more detail bases such as farm

type, livelihood, farmer type, products, cropping calendar, production factor, farmer

organization, social context, environmental context, and availability of research and

extension services, market, and land security (source).

According to De Zeeuw (2004) (cited in Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007), the following are

some of the major difference between UPU and rural farming:

Farm Types: while agriculture in rural areas is conventional containing interdependent

units, UPU agriculture is more of unconventional (partly mobile, sometimes without

soil, and more specialized independent units acting in clusters/chains).

Livelihood: rural farming is usually a primary livelihood to farmers offering fulltime

engagement. In UPU agriculture, however, farming is often a secondary livelihood, and

hence farmers often work on part-time base only.

Farmer type: rural farmers are usually born farmers who have strong traditional

knowledge. UPU farmers, on the other hand, are beginner urban citizens who engage in

agriculture due to economic hardship or recent migrants with weak traditional

knowledge.

Products: rural farming commonly engages in production of staple crops, cattle and

sheep. Urban farming, on the other hand engage in production of perishable products

especially green vegetables, dairy products, poultry and pigs, mushrooms, ornamental

plants, herbs, fish, etc.

Cropping calendar: while rural farming is more of seasonal and rain fed, UPU farming

is year round and irrigated.

25

Production factor: rural farming is characterized by lower cost of land and labor,

higher cost of commercial inputs, and variable cost of water. UPU farming, however,

higher cost of land and labor, lower cost of commercial inputs, high cost of clean water

and availability of low cost organic wastes and waste water.

Farmer Organization: rural farmers share some common background and often get

easily organized but UPU farmers are more of dispersed and from a greatly varied socio-

cultural background and hence hardly organized.

Social context: rural farming is practiced by a relatively stable and homogeneous

community where most families engage in farming and share a common social

background. But UPU farmers often undertake activities outside their own neighborhood

and the percentage of households engaged in farming in a neighborhood is highly

varying. Furthermore, many external stakeholders with varying interest involve in urban

farming but there is only few in rural farming.

Environmental Context: rural farming is often undertaken in a relatively stable

environment and unpolluted land and water resources. In the contrary, UPU farming is

often undertaken in a relatively fragile environment and polluted land and water

resources.

Research and extension service: research and extension service are relatively available

in rural farming but rarely available for urban farming. But UPU farmers individually

get access to libraries, research organizations, market information, more easily than their

rural counterparts.

Credit services: similar to research and extension service, the credit service is available

to rural farmers (especially to the men large farmers) than UPU farmers.

Market: rural farmers are often located at longer distance from central markets and

marketing is often undertaken through chain. But PU farmers are closer to markets and

hence sell their products directly to their customers. Furthermore, urban farming involve

higher degree of local processing that is unlikely in rural farming

26

Land security: while land security is relatively high in rural farming, it is very unsecure

in PU farming.

In a nut shell, PU agriculture is generally characterized by difficult working conditions,

closeness to markets, high competition for land, limited space, use of urban resources

such as organic solid wastes and wastewater, low degree of farmer organization, mainly

perishable products, and high degree of specialization or more specialized production

units (Veenhuizen, 2006). It is often specialized on short cycle, high value and low input

crops, essentially leafy vegetables that are highly to gradually include fruit and

vegetables, non-wood forest products and the long-term cycle management of the tree-

based food production system (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008).

Despite the flapping of the difference between PU agriculture and rural agriculture,

consensus is gradually maintained among researchers and planners on the fact that urban

agriculture, though conceptually different, is complementary to rural agriculture. It is

complementary because, it provides products that rural agriculture cannot supply easily

(for example, perishable products, products that require rapid delivery upon harvest), can

be a substitute for food imports, and can release rural lands for the production of export

commodities (Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007).

But it is widely argued that UPU agriculture has a clear comparative advantage over rural

agriculture. Broadly stated, a comparative advantage for UPU agriculture over rural

agriculture exists when either supply conditions or demand conditions allow UPU

agriculture to better serve the urban market by supplying something otherwise

unavailable or by producing at a lower cost, including environmental cost. In places

where rural infrastructure is poor, or where farm to market systems are inadequate, UPU

agriculture can fill critical gaps. As a result of its “proximity”, UPU agriculture has de

facto shortened the food chain, allowing for substantial savings in energy and other post-

harvest handling expenses. However, UPU agriculture should not be developed in

competition with rural agriculture, but should concentrate on activities in which it has a

comparative advantage, such as production of fresh, perishable foods.

27

2.2.6. Evolution and state of UPU agricultural practices

Historically the production of food within and close to cities was an integral part of

survival. There are ample natural examples that reflect the rescuing role that UPU

agriculture played when livelihood is at risk. For instance, the first "gardens for the poor"

that emerged in Germany two centuries ago was a reaction to the widespread of hunger

and poverty in Germany and other European countries due to the rapid industrialization,

accompanied by urbanization and migration. Urban allotment gardens, consisting a piece

of land between 200 and 400 square meters were one response to this food crisis and of

course it safeguarded a number of Berlin residents. According to Axel Drescher (cited in

Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008), Germany has now more than 1.4 million organized

allotment gardens and millions of private home gardens. Allotment gardens play an

important role for the production of fresh fruits and vegetables but also for recreation and

conservation of nature in cities.

Similarly, the Victory Gardens that was established in USA in 1917 was also the result of

economic hardship that USA faced during WW-I. According to Thompson (2008), the

basic objective of the Victory Gardens (also called war gardens) was to feed US soldiers

during WW-I and WW-II. By that time cities were encouraged to cultivate public and

private gardens. In addition to contributing to wartime meals, the gardens indirectly

benefited many hungry urban and suburban residents and produced some economic

benefits. The Victory Gardens were also means for government to address employment

problems during the Great Depression, rather than intentionally producing a real food

security initiative (Thompson, 2008).

The “Wahlen” of Switzerland during the Second World War (1939-1945) also reflects the

expansion of UPU agriculture following economic challenges. To face the awaited

invasion by Nazi troops, the Chief Crop Production Officer of the Swiss Federation, Dr

Wahlen, launched a national potato scheme to ensure Swiss self sufficiency for basic

food. According to Ciparisse (cited in Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008), the plan

consisted promotion of potato cultivation in all free plots of home gardens, empty plots

28

and public gardens and indeed helped them escape the crises earning their survival

nutrition.

The expansion of UPU agriculture in Havana-Cuba, the country often referred to have a

success story in UPU agriculture, was a measure taken in response to economic crises

due to fuel shortages, transport problems and lack of pesticides. The boom of urban

agriculture in Russia was also a response to economic crises following the cracking of

Soviet Union. The introduction of free market raised the Russian food price and made it

unaffordable to most urban residents. As a result, many urban dwellers have been

engaged in urban agriculture. According to Brown and Carter (2003), the use of idle and

provisional land in urban areas produces 30% of the total food grown in the country and

80% of the vegetables. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of Moscow families engaged

in food production increased from 20 to 65%. By and large, significant number of world

population is engaged in urban agriculture. In 1996, the United Nations Development

Program estimated that 800 million people are engaged in urban and peri-urban

agriculture world-wide (Lee-Smith, 2010). Of these, 200 million are considered to be

market producers, employing 150 million people full-time. At that time, 15-20% of the

world’s food is produced in urban areas.

As is the case in other parts of the world, UPU agriculture has been an alternative

whenever African economies have failed. For instance, the economic structural

adjustment program that was introduced in 1980s have badly affected the urban low-

income households The SAP was meant to liberalize market but instead resulted in a rise

of food prices to five-fold. The liberalization means the shifting of responsibility for

coping with food insecurity away from the state towards the individual and household

level. Then a heavy burden had come to urban households who largely depend on market

for the major part of the food they consume. This SAP induced economic shocks has

created a good atmosphere for urban agriculture to rehabilitate. Since 1980s, a number of

households in African towns/cities had engaged on urban agriculture to supplement

incomes and improve family nutrition (Chimbowu & Gumbo, 1993). According to

Gittleman (2009), in the beginning of the 1980s, a mere 10-25% of the urban population

29

in Africa was engaged in urban agriculture, but in 1990s up to 70% of its urban

population become urban cultivators.

Despite the rescue role that UPU agriculture played whenever urban livelihood is

challenged, it hardly received a heartfelt welcome from urban planners/administration.

Rather, being considered too dirty for the wealth and glory of the city, all forms of

agriculture has been pushed out of cities in to rural areas. But due to the inevitable call it

received gets during all economic hardship, which is more often than not in developing

countries, urban and peri-urban agriculture remained an important form of livelihood to

urban poor. Currently, millions of urban dwellers throughout African cities revert to

farming either to supplement their household income or because they cannot afford to

meet their daily food needs. Thus, agriculture can no longer be relegated to being an

exclusive rural issue, but recognized as a human, economic, ecological and land issue that

need to be thought of on an urban scale.

The rapid growth of urbanization caused a boom of UPU agriculture in Africa. The

infrastructural development in Africa is quite at infant stage to support the development

of industries and commercial agriculture. But according to Romanik (2007), UPU

agriculture is not constrained by lack of infrastructure because there is less need for

packaging, storage, and transportation of food; i.e., beside the rise of demand for some

food items that are not sufficiently supplied by the rural farmers, its comparative

advantage in resource requirement makes UPU agriculture to flourish in Africa. Thus,

there is a natural ground for UPU agriculture to flourish in Africa and is practiced on all

cities of Africa. A good example is Kampala, the capital of Uganda, which has been

referred to as the garden city of Africa. For decades, residents of Kampala have relied on

urban agriculture for food, employment, and income. Farming activities have spread

throughout the Ugandan capital, taking over all manner of available space from

abandoned fields to grounds along roads and waterways. Unfortunately, many residents

viewed these agricultural activities as a nuisance. Except livestock all other farming

practices were considered harmful to public health and the environment.

30

In cities like Dakar, Bamako, Accra and Kumasi, depending on crop and season, between

60 and 100% of the consumed leafy vegetables are produced within the respective cities

with employment figures ranging from 1000 to 15,000 jobs (Romanik, 2007). Denninger

et al (1998, cited in Egbuna,2008) estimated that nearly 25 out of the 65 million people

living in urban areas of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia currently

obtain part of their food from UPU agriculture and that by 2020, at least 35-40 million

residents will depend on UPU agriculture to feed themselves. Similarly, a study from

Zambian showed that as of 1989, half of urban community practiced vegetable gardening.

Beside its employment opportunity, UPU agriculture contributes much in agricultural

food supply of many African towns. Evidence from Urban Harvest (2003) indicates that

while 60% of the city’s land in Kampala, Uganda is used for agriculture, about 40% of

the food eaten in the city is produced within the city limits. Similarly, according to Ayaga

et al. (cited in in Romanik, 2007), Nairob (Kenya) had an estimated annual production of

50,000 bags of maize, 15,000 bags of beans, 42 million liters of milk, 250,000 chickens

and 45,000 goats and sheep. Referring to an International Development Research Center

(IDRC) project Report, Romanik, noted that about a quarter of household food in Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania was the produce of UPU agriculture. The report further showed that

UPU agriculture in Dar es Salaam is practiced not just by the poor, but also by the better-

off households in the city.

Citing a number of studies on Dar es Salaam, Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008)

reported that UPU agriculture contributes to 90% of leafy vegetables produced in the city,

60% of milk (worth 7 million USD), 20-30% of food consumption produced in 50% of

households. A study conducted in 1993 shows that agriculture in the city contributed

substantially to household food supplies. By that time, 1.9 million poultry, 33,564 pigs

and 40,930 goats were produced in Dar es Salaam. According to COFIE et al. 2003 (cited

in Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008), UPU agriculture accounts for more than 60% of the

informal sector and is the second largest urban employer (20% of those employed). The

annual gross output of urban agricultural enterprises in the city of Dar es Salaam totaled

more than 25 million USD. Being aware of the fact that become integral part of urban

31

livelihood strategies, the city’s policy makers have decided to support and promote urban

agriculture.

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a traditional exercise in Ethiopia, and the urban-based

population is used to keeping cattle, sheep, and chickens, or growing rain-fed crops such

as maize and vegetables, on the plots adjacent to their houses. There are a large number

of households whose lives are associated with farming in Addis Ababa city. According to

Gittleman (2009), UPU agriculture directly support over 51,000 families of Addis Ababa

and have an indirect influence on the lives of all other parts of the urban environment.

There are many factors that justify the rationale of urban agriculture in Ethiopian cites:

first, the prevalence of drought that regularly hit the country jeopardize food security of

the market dependent citizens by reducing the affordability of food prices. According to

Gittleman (2009), the annual pause in production due to seasonality can cause the prices

of highly used fruits and vegetables such as tomatoes and onions to skyrocket 200-

1000%. Such an increase in price leaves many families dangerously without access to

nutritious food and severely food insecure. In cities where large share of the population

live in slums like Addis Ababa, a slight increases in food prices can push many

individuals and families into hunger. Second, the country does not have efficient

transportation system that brings fresh produce from the far rural farms. Thus, the

provision of fresh produce locally through urban agriculture is thus absolutely critical to

the food security and nutrition of urban residents.

UPU farmers of Addis Ababa produce both for home consumption and for market. A

survey of household consumption of vegetables in Addis Ababa in 1983 showed that

17% of the 1,352 surveyed households produced their own vegetables or for own

consumption (Gittleman, 2009). Those who are producing for market are also making

good profit from UPU agriculture. A study conducted in Addis Ababa in 1994 showed

that half of the surveyed urban farmers had a higher monthly income of most employed

population in the city without including vegetables consumed by the households

themselves. In 2009, it was estimated that urban farmer in Addis Ababa city on average

earns a monthly income of 607.6 ETB from crops. This is a substantial increase, and

indicates urban agriculture’s growing role in securing financial stability for residents of

32

Addis Ababa (Gittleman, 2009). In 1994, there was no stated policy regarding urban

agriculture in Ethiopia. Now, however, in many large regional towns of Ethiopia, the

municipal governments are gaining interest in urban farming as part of their poverty-

reduction programs, they encourage urban dwellers, especially the poor and formally

unemployed, to raise-fast-return animals.

2.2.7. Who is UPU farmer?

There is no comprehensive classification of UPU growers that encompass the entire range

of people involved in UPU agriculture. But we may look at the composition of urban

farmers on the bases of three major variables: economic, gender and place of birth.

Economic status: Food production in the city is in many cases a response of the urban

poor to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food, and the lack of purchasing

power. Thus, in all regions, urban and peri-urban agriculture is an activity in which the

poor are disproportionately represented (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008). However,

this does not mean that entry to UPU agriculture is blocked to the economically well to

do families. One may find lower and mid-level government officials and school teachers

involved in agriculture. Few richer people are also found in the list either seeking good

investment for their capital or for leisure. Despite such tiny mixes from middle and

higher income groups, most urban farmers are low-income men and women who grow

food largely for self-consumption and cash income, on small plots that they do not own,

with little (if any) support or protection.

Origin: there is no consensus whether urban farmers are native inhabitants or migrants.

Some authors reported that most urban farmers are recent immigrants. According to

Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008), many rural migrants, seeking better livelihoods in

cities, have agricultural backgrounds and often end up participating in informal activities,

such as UPU agriculture. Others (like Drakakis-Smith et al., 1995 and del Rosario, 1999,

cited in Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007) rejected such claims and argued that more often

than not, UPU farmers have already lived in the city for long periods of time and gained

access to urban land, water and other productive resources. The latter group further

33

argued that many of urban dwellers who chose agriculture as one of their livelihood

strategies have no rural backgrounds.

Gender: several authors (see Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007) noted that women represent an

important portion of urban farmers. This is more visible when the plot is close to home.

As such, urban farming reflects the gender based division of labor in the sense that it is

more likely that the men seek other urban employment while the women combine

farming activities with their other tasks in the household.

2.2.8. Role of UPU agriculture

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a significant economic activity, central to the lives of

hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. It has several direct and indirect

benefits to the household and the national economy. In sum, the main roles of UPU

agriculture are as follows:

i. Contributes to urban food security: This is the most important contribution of UPU

agriculture to urban livelihood. A number of studies conducted in different countries have

shown the significance of UPU agriculture in reduction of food insecurity problems. One

powerful example in this regard is the UPU agriculture of Havana (Cuba) where half of

the vegetables consumed in the city were grown in the city’s farms and gardens (Brown

and Carter, 2003). In Singapore 80% of the poultry and 25% of the vegetables consumed

were produced with its 10,000 urban farmers. As of 2003, 44% Vancouver (Canada) and

14% London (UK) residents grow some food in their own gardens. It is estimated that

Londoners could produce up to 232,000 tons of fruits and vegetables or 18% of the

population’s nutritional needs. In the same year, Massachusetts (US) produced 15% of its

food needs, but has the potential to produce more than 35% (ibid, 2003). In general, the

UNDP estimates that 15% of food worldwide is grown in cities. The contribution of UPU

agriculture to urban food security is more significant in Africa than in any other

continent. Mbaye and Mouseir (cited in Egbuna, 2008) reported that in 2000, urban

farmers of Dakar (Senegal) produce 60% of the city’s vegetable demand and 65 –70% of

34

the national demand of poultry. In the early 1990’s, about 90% of the fresh vegetable

consumed in Accra (Ghana) was from production within the city (CENCOSAD, cited in

Armar-Klemesu, 2001). During the same time, Kampala (Uganda) residents living within

a 5 kilometers radius of the city centre produced about 20% of the staple food consumed

within that same area (Maxwell & Zziwa, 1992). Furthermore, Maxwell & Zziwa found

that 55% of 150 producers in Kampala obtained 40% or more of their household food

needs from their urban garden. Bowyer-Bower and Drakakis-Smith (cited in Armar-

Klemesu, 2001) found that in Harare (Zimbabwe), a disaggregated profile of self

produced food consumption and its variation by income indicated that 60% of food

consumed by a quarter of the low income group was self produced.

ii. Improve urban nutritional security: Although cities will remain largely dependent

on imported food from rural farms (and even to some extent on international supply),

increased local production of vegetables and fruits are especially important for improving

nutrition security and the health of urban populations. According to Maxwell, Levin and

Csete (1998), urban agriculture provides an informal safety net for the urban poor. In

their study conducted on Kampala and Accra, they found a statistically significant

relationship between urban farming and nutritional status. The contribution of UPU

agriculture to food security and healthy nutrition for the urban population is probably its

most important asset.

iii. Empowering the urban minority: The women, the poor, the refugees, HIV/AIDS-

affected households, disabled people, female-headed households with children, elderly

people without pensions, and jobless youth are the primary victims during the economic

downturn. UPU agriculture is an important food and income source for households

headed by these minority groups. The minorities often use micro-gardens for their UPU

agriculture activities. Of course it is uncommon to see more women farmers engaged in

micro gardens than other types of UPU agriculture. A major reason why the micro-

gardens are very popular for women is because their cultivation requires less physical

effort. Women can engage in urban agriculture while taking care of children. In addition

the system is highly water use efficient which again reduces the burden of carrying

irrigation water but also helps to safe water which is expensive and scarcely available. In

35

most of Eastern and Southern African cities, women are the major actors of UPU

agriculture.

iv. Reduce Food-miles: Imported food (either from rural farms or international

markets) can travel thousands of miles before being consumed. This phenomenon

sometimes referred to as “food miles,” results in declining freshness. According to

Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008), the average food item found in supermarkets of

Accra (Ghana) traveled 3700 kilometers, and in Canada it travels 2400 kilometers on

average. This contributes to unnecessary packaging, addition of artificial colors and

preservatives and increases the middlemen that push the prices further up to make it

unaffordable to the poor. UPU farming cuts back on “food miles” (the energy required to

get food to your plate), which is a big factor especially where most packaged food is

imported. In developing countries, long distances, bad roads, poorly maintained trucks,

lack in cold storage, and urban crowding cause spoilage of 10 to 30% or more of post-

harvest produce in transit (FAO, 2002). Beside its contribution of food items affordability

to urban poor, UPU agriculture plays a significant role in reduction of carbon dioxide

emission, fossil fuel use and noise and air pollution that would have been created in

transportation (WHO, 2001).

v. Reduce urban food price/expenditure: In low income families, the largest share

of household expenditure goes to the purchase of food items. Since most of the poor in

developing countries are net food buyers, a lion’s share of their income is devoted to food

expenditure. Studies conducted in different regions of the world showed that urban poor

families can spend as much as 80%of their income on food. For instance, Egbuna (2008)

found that most households in Nigeria, for instance, spend an average of 50-80% of their

income on food. But the persistent rise in the costs of supplying and distributing food

from rural areas to the urban areas (due to increase in fuel cost, deteriorating transport

and storage infrastructure and so forth) demands a greater proportion of the households’

income. UPU agriculture offers the comparative advantage of its location to the urban

poor. Its proximity allows for saving on energy at various levels of the food chain (on

packaging, transport, storage, and distribution). The saving will have an effect on the

final retail price of the food commodities in favor of the poor. Thus, the cost of local

foods would be lower because of savings made from less transport, less storage, less

36

middlemen, less processing and packaging. Any savings on food expenditure translates

into family income which is then available for non-food expenditures and improvements

in living conditions. In addition to spending less on food and save more, low income

groups could perhaps earn more by producing one’s own agricultural food need. Some

estimates suggest that in low income countries, 10-40% of the income of households

could come from them producing and processing their own food.

vi. Reducing urban Poverty: for decades, poverty and food insecurity have been

considered as rural problems. But the rapid urbanization that is occurring in many

developing countries has given birth to a large class of urban poor. According to

Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008), poverty is becoming more urban and that the poor

are urbanizing faster than the population as a whole. It is estimated that about one-quarter

of the developing world’s poor live in urban areas. Thus, chronic poverty is no longer an

exclusively rural problem, but is increasingly concentrated in urban centers. UPU

agriculture helps in reducing urban poverty in a number of ways: enabling urban family

to be food self sufficient and allow for saving on food expenditures; providing a source of

income, through sale of surplus; and supply nutritious and fresh foods to local markets at

competitive or affordable prices

vii. Utilization of overlooked/neglected resources: Urban agriculture can build on

existing, but somewhat neglected or undeveloped, expertise and social relationships of

the urban landscape itself. It is an alternative to vacant lots that immediately yield

multiple benefits. City revitalization efforts which include urban agriculture have a

regenerative effect when vacant lots are transformed from eyesores- weedy, trash-ridden,

dangerous gathering places into bountiful, beautiful and safe gardens that feed peoples’

bodies and souls. Advocates of urban agriculture argued that cities have other sources of

unused land (such as school and hospital lands, roof tops) that have been put into food

production. Green roofs, spaces of contained greenery located on the roof of a building,

offer numerous economic, social, and environmental benefits.

viii. Reusing waste streams: Growing cities will produce more and more wastewater

and organic wastes. For most cities the disposal of wastes has become a serious problem.

Municipality authorities usually transport and dump the wastes as far away and as

cheaply as possible from the city. UPU agriculture can contribute to solving waste

37

disposal and related problems by turning urban wastes into productive resources such as

compost production, vermiculture, and irrigation with treated waste water (Veenhuizen &

Danso, 2007). Urban agriculture can use its own waste and the waste of residents and

industries to produce food. Recyclable food waste can be used as compost for gardens

and feed for livestock. In a nut shell, urban and peri-urban agriculture is part of the urban

ecological system and can play an important role in the urban environmental management

system, actively preventing waste dumping, absorbing urban waste and turning illegal

waste dumping sites into productive open spaces, while transforming the organic waste

materials into compost for sustainable soil fertility management (Hoornweg and Munro-

Faure, 2008).

ix. Provides opportunities for entrepreneurship: UPU agriculture can be an effective

arena for the development of small businesses. It enhances the development of

microenterprises in the production of necessary agricultural inputs (e.g. fodder, compost,

and earthworms), the processing, packaging and marketing of products and the provision

of services such as animal health services, and transportation (Veenhuizen & Danso,

2007). Thus, a city that promotes urban agriculture can have green space and employed

people that pay taxes rather than costing taxpayers’ money.

x. Helps in mitigating climate change: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001), global average surface

temperature has increased by 0.6°C (±0.2°C) throughout the 20th century, and predicted

to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. UPU agriculture would contribute to

a global effort to reduce the possible environmental and socioeconomic complications

that might arise due to the climate change. By capturing carbon dioxide, UPU agriculture

helps to lower the temperature through evapotranspiration. In recognition of its role in

mitigating the effects of both air pollution (resulting from urbanization) and rising

temperatures (resulting from climate change) city municipalities has started to consider

UPU agriculture in their environmental protection plan. In this regard, a remarkable work

is done by Brisbane (Queensland, Australia). Brisbane is the first city in the world to

include both urban agriculture and green roofs in an action plan to meet predicted global

climate change challenges. A study conducted in Canada have shown the possibility of

reducing Toronto’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.18 tons per year and

38

creation of $5.5 million worth of locally produced fruits and vegetables just by making

only 6% of its rooftops green that is equivalent to just 1% of Toronto’s land area. To sum

up, UPA can be used in urban greening which can provide fuel wood for urban residents,

reduce urban pollution and temperatures, and offer recreation opportunities to improve

quality of life for all urban residents, and in particular for youth and elderly people.

xi. Reduce social violence: studies show that a large share of urban population

increase settles in urban slums from where many violent come out. The involvement of

slum dwellers in productive activities such as UPU agriculture, not only improve their

access to food and generate income, but also calms urban violence and social deviance.

Thus, UPU agriculture has to be appraised not only for its economic benefits in sensu

strictu, but also for its contribution to the social welfare and for its role in reducing total

dependency on food aid (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008).

To sum up, modern day cities are faced severe problems of poverty, food insecurity and

environmental degradation. In such stuck UPU agriculture plays much in terms of

increasing the intake of food, creating job opportunities, and generating income for urban

poor. Thus, the growing of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, the rising of food

expenditures, the rise of urban unemployment, and the need to recycle urban wastes are

the major reasons why urban agriculture matters. Furthermore, the landscape and

biodiversity management, community building, and recreational and educational role of

UPU agriculture to urban citizens add additional credit to the sub-sector (Smit and

Bailkey, 2006).

2.2.9. The challenges of UPU agriculture

Despite their immense contribution to the national economy in terms of employment,

food security, urban sanitation and environmental protection urban farmers often face a

number of problems. The following are few among the many challenges that urban

agricultural activities encounter.

i. Insecurity of tenure and land use: The greatest problem facing periurban

agriculture is the insecurity of land rights. UPU agriculture is influenced by rapidly

39

changing land rights, uses, and values which in turn impacts the livelihoods of many

urban poor. Studies show that many of those involved in urban agriculture do not own the

land they use to farm. For example, in 2008, at least 20 million people in West Africa are

engaged in different forms of UPU agriculture with no real right over the land they are

farming (Brown and Carter, 2003). There is no doubt that the fast rate of urbanization in

the region will kick them out of UPU agriculture to increase the number of unemployed

in cities. Without title, UPU farmers risk losing their investment when the land is taken

for other purposes. Thus, UPU farmers are under a constant threat of losing access to

their plot and being forced to stop production activities. As urban areas expand the

increased demand for land and the change in land use puts pressure on land tenure

arrangements and risk UPU lands which are often customary or informal with no link to

formal legal institutions.

Land security is the most important factor for farm plan and investment and thus to

sustainability of the subsector. If farmers think that the land will be taken away by the

municipality shortly, they won’t make any investment on the farm land that would have

increased future productivity. Rather, they focus on the short term return of the land

which in turn jeopardize the sustainability of urban and periurban agricultural produce

and price. There are a number of empirical studies that shows the role of land security to

UPU agriculture. In Kano (northern Nigeria), where ownership is secure, it is observed

that farmers intensively invest in their farm land. It has encouraged farmers to develop

sustainable practices like using animal manure to treat the soil, feeding plant biomass to

the animals, and using dead wood for fuel (Toulmin & Gueye, cited in Romanik, 2007).

According to Toulmin and Gueye, this system of sustainable farming, built on notions of

sustainability and property rights, has been practiced in the region for several centuries.

In other regions of Africa like Kasava (Ghana) where land insecurity is common, the

periurban farmers live in a veil of confusion and hardly interested on farm land

investment. Toulmin and Gueye (cited in Romanik, 2007) reported that farmers close to

Kasava are becoming wary of investing in the land they farm, because of land insecurity

and even opt for wage paying jobs than farming . According to Mbaye and Moustier

(cited in Egbuna, 2008), the intensification of construction in the peri-urban area of

40

Dakar has led to a 29% decline in grain production between 1980 and 1994, and a 6%

decline in the area of fruits and vegetables. The lack of land access coupled with its weak

security would definitely refrains urban dwellers from participation in UPU agriculture.

This would mean an economic, social and environmental loss to the city.

ii. Start-up costs: like other investment ventures, agricultural enterprises have start-up

costs that include labor, site management, water, tools and equipment, rent and insurance,

processing, packaging, and marketing materials. Meeting these start-up costs is not an

easy stuff to poor households as it demands significant share of family income/wealth.

Despite the role of increased agricultural production and processing of agricultural

produce in order to meet the rising demand for food, small farmers continued to face

problems in accessing the required financial services that will enable them to carry out

their activities in a businesslike manner. In particular, accesses to seasonal credit and

longer term loans for investment in agriculture as well as savings and deposit facilities

that help farmers to build up reserves for the future that can be used to mitigate shocks

and to meet unexpected expenditures are of importance to the farmers as is also access to

quality advisory services. To the extent financial institutions are present in the rural areas,

they are often of a member-based nature, e.g. credit unions, savings and credit

cooperatives etc. Although their mandate is to serve their members, they are often unable

to satisfy all the needs of the farming population due to lack of resources.

The situation for urban and per-urban farmers is far from being any better. Majority of

the urban farmers especially the women farmers have poor resource base. The situation

is made considerably worse by the lack of legitimacy of the urban agricultural sector.

Despite the geographical proximity, urban based commercial banks and other financial

institutions usually do not cater to this category of farmers. Commercial banks normally

find enough business in other sectors of the economy and therefore do not consider UPU

farmers as being potential clients. This prevents UPU farmers not only from increasing

their production but also from presenting acceptable collateral in order to obtain a loan

from a bank. Their credit worthiness is further limited by the fact that their farming

activities have a level of insecurity considered too high by most lenders: they do not own

the land, they farm on plots only temporarily available, their produce is more prone to

41

theft than in a rural setting, and even when considered legitimate, their activity often

lacks official recognition and an institutional base.

iii. Water scarcity: Shortage water is a phenomenon that threatens the entire world.

Demographic growth coupled with economic development usually makes the demand of

fresh water exceed its supply. According to Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008),

urbanization increased pressure on the quality and quantity of local water resources

worsening the water scarcity. The scarcity of fresh water in urban areas forces farmers to

use waste waters (including heavy industrial wastes) that jeopardize the safety of UPU

agriculture products. Although UPU agriculture may help cities turning urban wastes into

productive resources they are more susceptible to contaminations from industrial wastes.

This situation is so sever in a fast growing African cities where infrastructure

development for water distribution has often not kept pace with the rate of urbanization

and has resulted in water access problems and high water prices (ibid, 2008).

iv. Limited extension service: In order to realize agricultural potential and to increase

agricultural yield, farmers should be supported with necessary extension services.

Agricultural extension is mainly concerned with, but not limited to, dissemination of

useful and practical information relating to agricultural activities such as cropping

practices, innovative technology dissemination, protection of crop from pests and

diseases, market trends and prices of various crops in the markets. Like rural farmers, the

efficiency and effectiveness of urban farmers depends on the institutional support they

get. They will succeed only if they are given due recognition and receive up to date

extension service. Yet most of urban farmers do not get any of the aforementioned

extension services. Many urban and peri-urban farmers lack the knowledge and skills in

production, processing, and marketing. For instance, in many climates, food production is

seasonal and thus not as dependable as a year round source of food security. Many urban

residents have limited knowledge and access to facilities for preserving foods that they

grow. Furthermore, urban farmers often find it difficult to market their locally-grown

foods to groceries, restaurants, and institutions because of wholesale distributors’

monopolies.

42

v. Lack of political attention: Although UPU agriculture is widely practiced in many

cities, the important role that it plays in improving both the economy and environment

often earns no credit. Most city municipalities are either ignorant or shortsighted the

important role UPU agriculture plays. Of course policymakers and planners in most cities

lack the required exposure to scientific information on the economic and ecological role

of urban agriculture. As a result, they consider growing food in cities as a left-over from

rural traditions and as a marginal activity with little economic importance. There are also

instances when city municipalities perceive urban agriculture as a threat to health and

thus consider it as "illegal" activity and even levy tax. Such biases, have led to

unnecessary and damaging legal restrictions including taxation.

vi. Lack of research: The limited extension services (like training and technical

assistance), bank credit and access to supportive infrastructures is mainly due to limited

amount of research in the area of UPU agriculture has contributed to the minimal support

to and slower expansion of the sector. There are a growing number of research activities

on rural and large scale farming. But the development of new technologies appropriate

for confined spaces, based on ecological farming principles and the re-use of urban

resources are fail to attract the attention of scientific community. This minimal support to

UPU agriculture slower the expansion of the sub-sector.

These and other challenges to urban agriculture will definitely prevented farmers and

consumers from realizing its full potential.

2.2.10. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda

The last decade of 20th century marks the increasing recognition of urban agriculture at

both national and international development agenda. An ice-breaking role was played by

the UNDP that established the Urban Agriculture Advisory Committee (UAAC) in 1991.

Following this, giant international research and development institutions such as the

International IDRC, UNDP, FAO, the Directorate General for International Cooperation,

Netherlands (DGIS), the French Agricultural Research Centre for International

Development (CIRAD), ETC Foundation, Urban Harvest (Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research [CGIAR], International Water Management Institute

43

(IWMI), German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and The Urban Agriculture

Network (TUAN) established Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA) in 1992.

Beside their independent efforts, several international organizations (like UNDP; Urban

Management Program (UMP- LAC); UN-HABITAT; FAO; IDRC; IPES) join hands to

support the inclusion of urban agriculture (UA) initiatives in local development strategies

since mid 1990s. Since then, a number of meetings, briefings, workshops, seminars,

conferences and initiatives have been conducted in different countries such as South

Africa, Thailand, Ethiopia, Kenya, Botswana, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Bolivia and

Namibia. In addition to this several publications have been made by independent

researchers, FAO and its partners in electronic as well as hard copies. (Veenhuizen and

Danso, 2007)

Because of awareness creation works done by the aforementioned international

organizations, the 21st century leaders and policy makers have developed positive attitude

towards UPA and an increasing number of them are formulating policies and

programmes on urban agriculture (Veenhuizen, 2006), although the nature of support

and incentives given to UPA varies with countries. The municipalities of Rosario

(Argentina) and Cagayan de Oro (The Philippines), for instance, grant tax exemptions to

land owners and allow poor urban farmers to use vacant private land. The municipality of

Governador Valadares reduced the tariffs for irrigation water and provides incentives for

composting and reuse of household wastes. The City of Cape Town provides incentives

in the form of the supplying irrigation water, tools and compost to poor urban farmers.

These individual actions were soon followed by joint “Declarations on Urban

Agriculture” in which local and national level policy makers have stated their formal

commitment to develop policies and programmes on urban agriculture. Some of the

remarkable declarations are: The 1997 Dakar-Senegal Declaration, The 1999 Medellin-

Colombia Declaration, The 1999 Barcelona-Spain Declaration, the 2000 Quito

Declaration, and the 2007 La Paz Declaration. While most of these declarations were

basically concerned about access to food security by the urban poor, the Dakar and Quito

declarations specifically address and recognize the role of UPA and set the support

package that city mayors/municipalities were promised to give to the sub sector.

44

While many have started the campaign of encouraging UPU agriculture after the

declaration, some has started long ago. For instance, the Stockholm City Estate Office

adopted guidelines that support urban agriculture in 1975. The guideline encouraged the

inclusion of leisure gardens in urban plans and space for gardening in new residential

area plans. It also includes education and information package for urban growers. In

twenty years time, the local authorities in greater Stockholm provided over 8,000

allotments and there were over 7,000 names on the waiting list (WHO, 2001).

The Cuban system is one of the remarkable examples of effective government policy

support in encouraging urban agriculture. Havana’s agriculture involves a range of

different systems and technical innovations but the success factor of the program lies in

its flexibility to meet the needs of producers and consumers. Consequently in just about

one decade (1989 – 2000), UPU agriculture in Cuba has moved from a marginal

component in urban food systems to an activity covering 12% of the land area of the city

of Havana, involving a network of more than 22,000 urban and peri-urban producers. In

1990, UPU agriculture offered 117,000 direct and 26, 000 indirect jobs to Cubans and

accounts for almost 60% of all Cuban vegetable production. Even in some other

municipalities of Cuba, the average production outputs already reach the level required to

meet the daily dietary vegetable intake of 300 grams per person recommended by the

FAO (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008)

Mexico is also a country with good government support to UPA. In the year 2007, the

local government of Mexico City has launched two programs: Backyard Agriculture

Program and Urban Agriculture Program. The Backyard Agriculture Program was

designed to encourage the capital's residents to use all available space to grow crops and

planned to increase its scope by at least 50%. The Urban Agriculture Program, on the

other hand, focuses on encouraging communities to make communal land available for

more ambitious crops such as corn (a Mexican staple), and fruit. This program was also

targeted to involve about 200,000 city residents in the medium term (Hoornweg &

Munro-Faure, 2008).

45

In El Alto (Bolivia), the municipal authorities has launched a project called “Popular

Micro-gardens” that has initiated an urban and peri-urban agriculture program with the

aim of improving the availability and access to high quality vegetables and reducing

poverty. According to FAO (cited in Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008), the project has

introduced small scale and simple “solar” green houses, combined with micro-garden and

organic production technologies and benefited some 7,000 families in the form of

training and access to infrastructure and supplies. The project evaluation shows that it had

significant impact on the amount and diversity of food items that the participant

household consumed. According to Hoornweg and Munro-Faure (2008), it increases a

household’s consumption of fresh and fruit and vegetables by 85% and diversified their

basket of consumed species from 6 to 15.

Likewise, African governments come to recognize the very important role that UPA

plays and need to integrate urban agriculture into the urban economies and legislative and

institutional arrangements. In this regard, the “Harare Declaration on Urban and Peri-

Urban Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa” (2003), signed by ministers

responsible for local governments from Kenya, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, and

Zimbabwe is an indication of a forward step made by African governments to support

and improve urban agriculture. Realizing the country’s law is outdated and failed to

recognize that many residents derived their livelihoods from urban farming, Ugandan

leaders initiated policy changes that would support urban farming practices. Although the

bill to change the law face deep resistance from the public who held the attitude that

urban farming is inappropriate in cities, Kampala has joined the Edible Landscape Project

(ELP) that help the integration of urban agriculture into urban planning and housing

design

In some cities like Kinshasa, it is observed that UPA creates more jobs than in any other

sector of the informal or formal economy. Furthermore, according to Hoornweg and

Munro-Faure (2008), households earn a monthly net income that exceeds the wage of a

public employee. Cognizant of the role that UPA plays in urban livelihood, the Kinshasa

city administration had taken a number of initiatives for the expansion of UPA. The city

municipality has arranged infrastructure and equipment for 1500 hectares that benefits of

46

225,000 urban dwellers and also about 900 hectare of land is legalized and documented

for UPA activities (Ibid, 2008).

To wind up, during the last couple of periods, attention to urban agriculture has increased

markedly. As of today, UPA is intensified in almost all cities and a growing number of

cities are revising the existing policies or formulating new policies and action

programmes on UPU agriculture (Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007); i.e., the promotion of

urban agriculture at international, national and local level has grown. Yet, many urban

farmers around the world operate without formal recognition of their main livelihood

activity and lack the structural support of proper municipal policies and legislation. UPU

agriculture largely remains an informal sector that is not being integrated in agricultural

policies or urban planning. Thus, significant number of urban farmers in many cities in

the world still struggles to get their main survival strategy recognized by city authorities

(Veenhuizen, 2006).

2.3. The Vegetable Subsector and Urbanization

2.3.1. Production of vegetables and fruits in towns

Urban and peri-urban agriculture comprises a vast majority of activities. But it rarely

engages in the production of staple crops like cereals and tubers, which can easily be

stored and transported with limited losses from rural areas. Horticulture, especially fruits

and vegetables are the largest component of UPU agriculture. There are a number of

reasons for the popularity of vegetable production in urban areas.

First, vegetable production requires little space. Vegetables can be produced on small

plots, making efficient use of limited water and land resources. Thus, the limited space

requirement, especially where landholding is very limited like urban centers, makes

urban farmers to adopt vegetable production. Furthermore, vegetable items, as opposed to

other food crops, have a considerable yield potential.

47

Second, most vegetables have short gestation period and thus they provide a quick

response to emergency needs for food (several species can be harvested 60 to 90 days

after planting). Furthermore, the broad diversity of vegetables allows year-round

production, employment and income.

Third, vegetables are highly demanded in urban markets. Fresh vegetables constitute an

important component of diversified diets. By providing antioxidants (such as vitamin A,

C, and E), fruits and vegetables prevent birth defects, cancer, cataracts, heart disease,

hypertension, stroke and diabetes. Fruits and vegetables are good sources of minerals

such as iron, zinc, calcium, potassium, and phosphorus and contain ample fiber,

important for digestion and bowel movements (Tsegaye et al, 2009). This multiple

benefits of vegetables and fruits makes it highly demanded in markets and creates a good

opportunity for vegetable production to expand in urban areas.

Fourth, as vegetables are naturally the most perishable agricultural items. As a result,

they need very quick disposal. But due to insufficient infrastructure and transport

services, rural farmers lose a substantial amount of their vegetable production only due to

post harvest management. Because of its perishability, vegetable production is, thus,

more comfortable in or around cities than in rural areas.

Furthermore, the changing food habits of people (because of urbanization), the possibility

of producing more biomass per unit area and fetch more prices per unit production are

some of the reasons for intensification of vegetable production in and around cities.

2.3.2. Benefits of vegetable consumption

Vegetables are one of the most natural foods and contain different vitamins, minerals and

thousands of other plant chemicals known to provide health benefits. They are important

protective food because they prevent disease and hence are highly beneficial for health

(Carey et al., 2011). Thus, eating vegetables regularly can have many health benefits.

More specifically, consumption of vegetables and fruits can reduce the risk of non-

communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer, and

can simultaneously promote healthy environments and sustainable development (WHO,

48

2001). Conversely, lack fruits and vegetables in diet may result in a number of health

complications.

To promote the enough consumption of vegetable and fruit consumption across the globe,

WHO and FAO has initiated and organized a number of scientific discussions. A recent

WHO/FAO expert consultation report on diet, nutrition and prevention of chronic

diseases, sets population nutrient goals and recommends intake of a minimum of 400gm

of fruits and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers) for the

prevention of chronic diseases such as heart diseases, cancer, diabetes and obesity

(WHO, 2011). According to WHO, consumption of the recommended level of fruits and

vegetables can save up to 2.7 million lives worldwide. Furthermore, 31% of ischemic

heart disease, 20% of esophageal cancer, 19% of ischemic stroke, 19% of gastric cancer,

and 12% of lung cancer worldwide could be prevented by increasing dietary intake of

fruits and vegetables to the minimum recommended daily intakes established by the

WHO (Hall & Lynch, 2009).

2.3.3. Actual production and consumption of vegetables

Production:

Vegetables are produced all over the world by almost all countries. In the beginning of

21st century global vegetable production amounted to a total of 881 million tons and has

grown by 56% in the last decade. Asia cultivates by far the most vegetables in the world

and has also shown strongest growth over the last decade. Much of this growth can be

attributed to China which cultivates over 22 million hectares of vegetable crops on a

global total of 52 million hectares. Table depicts the per capita production of fruits and

vegetables in each continent.

49

Table 1: Availability of Fruits and Vegetables Per Continent (kg/capita/year)

Country Vegetables Fruits Total

Africa 51.7 53.5 105.2

Latin America 47.2 100.7 147.9

Asia 136.1 47.3 183.4

Europe 111.4 84.6 196.0

North/Central America 105.2 110.5 215.7

Source: Ganry (2009)

It is evident from Table 1 that Asia is leading even in terms of per capita vegetable

production followed by Europe and North/central America. Though fertile, the African

continent is characterized by the lowest producing region next to Latin America. In terms

of fruit production, however, Latin America is doing the most next to North/central

America. Similarly, there are variations among African countries in terms of vegetable

and fruit productions. Table 2 shows the per capita availability of fruits and vegetables in

selected African countries

50

Table 2: Availability of Fruits and Vegetables in some SSA Countries (kg/capita/year)

Country Vegetables Fruits Total

Benin 54.5 32.9 87.4

Burkina Faso 18.3 5.9 24.2

Cameroon 78.8 79.6 158.4

Congo 18.4 56.8 75.2

Eritrea - - 8.8

Ethiopia - - 21.4

Ghana 31.6 117.7 149.3

Kenya 33.8 51.3 85.1

Madagascar 18.1 44.5 62.6

Malawi 19.5 39.4 58.9

Mali 24.5 2.7 27.2

Mauritius 76.1 36.8 112.9

Mozambique 6.2 16.7 22.9

Niger 50.1 4.3 54.4

Rwanda 29.2 163.4 192.6

South Africa 42 33.1 75.1

Zambia 22.6 11.1 33.7

Zimbabwe 10.2 10.6 20.8

Sudan 30.2 28 58.2

Nigeria 61.3 67.9 129.2

Uganda 19.9 206.4 226.3

Botswana 29.2 35.2 64.4

Source: Ganry (2009)

Within African continent, the island Mauritius is the largest per capita producer of

vegetables followed by the two West African countries, Cameron and Nigeria. On the

other hand, Uganda, Rwanda and Ghana are the largest per capita producer of fruits in

African continent. Even if disaggregated data is not available, it is shown that, the two

51

East African war heroes, Eritrea and Ethiopia, are the least per capita producers of

vegetable and fruits.

Consumption:

The health benefits of fruits and vegetables shown in epidemiological studies led to the

recommendation of at least 400gm of fruit and vegetables intake per day (Hall & Lynch,

2009; Demise, Ali & Zerfu, 2009). In line with this, WHO/FAO set a goal of five daily

serving of fruits and vegetables. But low vegetable and fruit consumption remains one of

the major global problems because of the fact that WHO/FAO goal is too far from being

met by most countries (Hoornweg & Munro-Faure, 2008).

According to the 2003 World Health Report, low fruit and vegetable intake caused about

19% of gastrointestinal cancer, about 31% of ischemic heart disease and 11% of stroke,

about 85% cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 15% of cancers (WHO, 2011). It is also

reported that in 2000 alone, low fruit and vegetable intake caused a global death of 2.7

million and 26.7 million disability adjusted life years (Hall & Lynch, 2009). As a result,

WHO ranked low fruit and vegetable consumption among its twenty risk factors in global

mortality, just behind the better known killers such as tobacco use and high cholesterol

levels. Hall and Lynch showed that 78.0% of respondents mainly from low- and middle-

income countries consumed less than the minimum recommended five daily servings of

fruits and vegetables.

Obviously, the estimated levels of current fruit and vegetable intake vary considerably

among countries ranging from less than 100g/day in less developed countries, to about

450 g/day in Western Europe. Similarly, there is great heterogeneity in consumption of

fruit and vegetables within the African continent. According to Hall and Lynch (2009),

while the risk of low fruit consumption is higher in Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Tunisia

and Zambia, it is the lowest in Namibia. Studies show that market prices are the major

barriers to vegetable and fruit consumption in low-income consumers, and thus

developing public policies to make fruits and vegetables more affordable for low-income

families should be examined.

52

Table 3: Prevalence of Low Fruits and Vegetable Consumption in Selected SSA

Countries in 2002/03

Country % of low consumption (95% CI)

Male Female

Burkina Faso 77.0 82.1

Chad 60.5 65.3

Congo 61.9 62.3

Cote d’Ivoire 71.3 70.4

Ethiopia 57.7 64.1

Ghana 36.6 38.0

Kenya 85.7 87.9

Malawi 37.8 42.2

Mali 59.5 68.3

Mauritius 89.4 89.6

Morocco 79.4 85.7

Senegal 81.2 83.1

South Africa 72.2 66.7

Sri Lanka 68.0 67.1

Tunisia 95.0 93.8

Zambia 78.6 77.5

Zimbabwe 87.4 85.5

Source: Hall and Lynch (2009)

Like the cases in other developing countries low fruit and vegetable consumption is a

major public health problem in Ethiopia. FAO estimates that Ethiopians eat less than 100

gram of fruits and vegetables/per day, an amount less than a quarter of the recommended

fruit and vegetable consumption. In the study conducted in nine regions of Ethiopia,

Tsegaye et al (2009) confirmed the suboptimal consumption of fruit and vegetables in

Ethiopia. They noted that much of the soil and climate in many parts of the country is

favorable for horticulture yet many regions of Ethiopia especially Afar, Addis Ababa,

Harari, Tigray and Dire Dawa, respectively, exhibits low consumption of vegetables and

53

fruits as reflected in the deficiency of Vitamin A. Furthermore, they found that 75% of

children in Afar and Tigray eat less than one-third of the threshold set by WHO as risk

zone.

2.4. Technical Efficiency: Its Concept and Measurement

2.4.1. Concepts and definition of efficiency

The concept of efficiency emanates from the overwhelming idea of production function.

Thus the explanation of efficiency will only be complete and clear if we start from the

concept of production and production function.

Let’s consider a producer as an economic agent that takes a set of inputs and transforms

them into a set of outputs. The production function is thus the functional (mathematical)

relationship between inputs and output. It expresses the technological relationship between

inputs and output of a product. In particular, the production function tells us the maximum

quantity of output the firm can produce given the quantities of the inputs that it might

employ and the technology used. A very simplistic form of production function may be

written as Y = f (X) where Y is the quantity of output, X is the vector of quantity of various

inputs, and f is functional form to be specified.

For various reasons, all firms may not be producing the maximum possible outputs. Only

few firms could produce on the production function and the vast majority of firms often

produce below the production function curve. How close a firm is to the production

function curve is what is called efficiency. Thus, efficiency refers to how well a firm is

performing in using resources to produce outputs given available technology. Relevant

efficiency concepts within economic literature include technical, allocative and economic

efficiencies.

Economic efficiency is an overall performance measurement that generally refers to the

extent to which objectives are achieved in relation to the economic resources used

(Nguyen & Coelli, 2009). More technically, economic efficiency represents the efficient

54

resource/input mix for any given output that minimizes the cost of producing that level of

output or, equivalently, the combination of inputs that for a given monetary outlay

maximizes the level of production (Forsund et al., 1980).

Economic efficiency consists of technical efficiency and allocative (or factor price)

efficiency. Technical efficiency reflects the ability of a firm to maximize output for a

given set of resource inputs, while allocative (or factor price) efficiency reflects the

ability of the firm to use the inputs in optimal proportions given their respective prices

and the production technology. As can be inferred from its definition, allocative

efficiency can be estimated when price information is available and a behavioral

objective assumption, such as cost minimization or revenue/profit maximization is

appropriate. But technical efficiency can be estimate only from data pertaining to

physical quantity of inputs and output.

Thus, a farm is considered technically inefficient if it fails to produce maximum output

from a given level of inputs. Furthermore, one farm is technically more efficient than

another farm if it produces a higher level of output given that both use the same level of

inputs.

2.4.2. Estimation of technical efficiency

Measurement of agricultural efficiency has been one of the most important research

themes of agricultural and economic sciences. Since farm efficiency is considered as an

important performance measure and success indicator, studies on agricultural efficiency

attracted large national and international attention. Furthermore, it is only by measuring

efficiency that one can identify the sources of inefficiency so that policy formulations to

improve farmers’ performance can be effectively done; i.e., efficiency studies provide

both qualitative and quantitative evidence on the impact of some factors on the

performance level.

According to Green (cited in Herrero & Pascoe, 2012), the level of technical efficiency of

a particular firm is characterized by the relationship between observed production and

some ideal or potential production. The measurement of firm specific technical efficiency

55

is based upon deviations of observed output from the best production or efficient

production frontier. If a firm's actual production point lies on the frontier it is perfectly

efficient. If it lies below the frontier then it is technically inefficient, with the ratio of the

actual to potential production defining the level of efficiency of the individual firm.

Michael Farrell was often credited for shading light on the measurement of technical

efficiency. But the idea of measuring efficiency of a production unit dates back to at least

the 1950s. In 1951, Koopmans defined technical efficiency as the capacity of the firm to

maximize outputs given inputs. In 1957, Farrell extended the work of Koopmans to a

method to measure technical (in) efficiency (Nguyen & Coelli, 2009). Farrell's definition

of technical efficiency led to the development of methods for estimating the relative

technical efficiencies of firms. Following this several techniques of efficiency

measurement/estimation are emerged in economic literature.

The common feature of the estimation techniques developed after Farrell’s work is that

information is extracted from extreme observations from a body of data to determine the

best practice production frontier (Lewin & Lovell, cited in Herrero & Pascoe, 2012).

From the computed best practice production frontier the relative measure of technical

efficiency for the individual firm can be derived. Despite this similarity the technical

efficiency estimation approaches have numerous differences. Generally, the techniques

fall under two distinctly opposing approaches: parametric (econometric) approach and

non-parametric (mathematical) methods (Seiford & Thrall, cited in Herrero & Pascoe,

2012).

The parametric approach involves modeling the production frontier using various

econometric techniques. It estimates a frontier function under a specific production

function. The most common functional forms include the Cobb-Douglas, Constant

Elasticity of Substitution and Translog production functions. This implies that the

parametric frontier method impose a functional form on the production function and

make distributional assumptions about the data. This is an often quoted disadvantage of

the technique. The most popular representative of parametric approach is stochastic

frontier analysis (SFA).

56

A nonparametric approach, on the other hand, is a linear programming technique and

often represented by a technique called Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). The DEA

technique does not impose any assumptions about functional form and hence it is less

prone to misspecification. Further, since a non-parametric approach does not take into

account random errors, it is not subject to the problems of assuming an underlying

distribution about the error term. However, DEA cannot take account of such statistical

noise. As a result, the efficiency estimates may be biased if the production process is

largely characterized by stochastic elements. Thus, it is clear that the two techniques use

different methods to envelop data, and in doing so they make different accommodation

for random noise and for flexibility in the structure of production technology.

In general, the econometric and mathematical approaches differ in many ways and none

is absolutely superior to the other. Each of them has both advantages and disadvantages.

A well-recognized limitation of the nonparametric approach is its deterministic nature.

Deterministic frontiers assume that all the deviations from the frontier are a result of

firms’ inefficiency. Although it may suffer from specification error (if the functional

form is misspecified), econometric approach is superior to the mathematical approach in

distinguishing the effect of noise from the effects of inefficiency. In this paper, an

econometric approach is used to estimate the technical efficiency of firms. The following

section provides a brief account of the stochastic frontier analysis which is the good

representative of parametric approach.

2.5. The Stochastic Frontier Analysis

The stochastic frontiers assume that part of the deviation from the frontier is due to

random events (reflecting measurement errors and statistical noise) and the other part is

due to firm specific inefficiency (see Battese, 1991; Coelli et al., 2005). Thus, the

stochastic frontier approach makes allowance for stochastic errors arising from statistical

noise or measurement errors. This technique decomposes the error term into a two-sided

random error that captures the random effects outside the control of the firm (the decision

57

making unit) and the one-sided efficiency component. The model was first proposed in

1977 independently and simultaneously by Aigner et al. and Meeusen and Broeck.

Following earlier literature (such as Ike & Inoni, 2006; Nega & Ehui, 2006; Idiong, 2007;

Khan, Huda & Alam, 2010), the stochastic production function is defined as follows:

............................................................................................. 1

Where:

is the quantity of output of household i

is the vector of input quantities used by household i

β is a vector of unknown parameters and

is a composed error term

Taking the natural logarithm of both sides of the equation, we can alternatively define the

above stochastic production function as

.............................................................................. 2

Equation 2 indicates that the stochastic production function has two parts: the

deterministic part, represented by ; and stochastic part, represented by . As

discussed in section 2.4.2, the stochastic frontier distinguishes itself from other

econometric models by partitioning the stochastic error term into two components: the

systematic random error accounting for statistical noise and the inefficiency component.

The former is a two sided error component while the latter is one sided error component.

Thus, the error term, , of the model is decomposed in to two independent elements:

................................................................................................... 3

Where: v is the two sided error component, and u is the one sided error component

The two sided (symmetric) error component ( is assumed to be identically and

independently distributed as and is also independent of . This component

captures effects of random factors outside the farmer’s control (e.g., weather, disease,

58

flood, topography etc.), measurement errors on the dependent variable, and other

statistical noise (Bravo-Ureta & Pinheiro 1997). The one sided error component ( , is

assumed to follow some particular distributions, of which the most frequently used are

half-normal, truncated normal, exponential and gamma distributions (Bravo-Ureta &

Pinheiro 1997). Different distributions could potentially give rise to different efficiency

estimates and the extent to which the efficiency scores and their ranking are sensitive to

distributions is not well documented in the literature. Therefore, the choice of distribution

is sometimes a matter of computational convenience (Nguyen & Coelli, 2009).

In this study, as typically done in the applied stochastic frontier literature u is assumed to

follow a half-normal distribution with and is identically and independently

distributed. This component measures technical inefficiency relative to the stochastic

frontier; i.e., it measures the extent to which an observed output falls short of the

potential output for a given technology and input levels (due to firm-specific knowledge,

the will, skills, effort of management and employees, etc) (Bravo-Ureta & Pinheiro 1997;

Ike & Inoni, 2006; Idiong, 2007; Khan et al., 2010)

According to (Rezitis et al., 2002), the ratio of the variance of the two error components

( shows the relative variation of the standard errors. i.e., if λ= , then values

of λ closer to zero indicates that the symmetric error dominates the one sided error.

This implies that the disparity between the observed output and the frontier output is

primarily due to factors outside the control of the farmers. Thus, λ is close to or equal to

zero means, , a situation where there is no technical inefficiency; i.e., the

production unit is said to be technically efficient only if . If there is no technical

inefficiency, then it means that the firm is operating at its maximum possible production

frontier, given the technology and other exogenous factors. Hence, the technical

efficiency of an individual farm from the above can be defined in terms of the ratio of the

observed output to the corresponding frontier output, given the available technology

(Amos, 2007).

To make it clear, let’s rewrite the stochastic production function (of Equation 1) as

follows

59

............................................................................................ 4

The frontier function (Y i*) can be derived from the observed or stochastic function by

letting ui=0. Thus, the frontier function can be written as

................................................................................................ 5

Given the equations for stochastic and frontier functions, the technical efficiency of a

given household can be written as:

TE = Yi/Y i *

.................................................................................................................. 6

Where

TEi is technical efficiency of household i

Yi is the observed output,

Y*i is the frontier output, and

0 < TEi< 1.

The one sided component reflects technical efficiency relative to the stochastic

frontier. Thus for a farm whose output lies on the frontier, and for one

whose output is below the frontier (Rezitis et al., 2002).

2.6. Early Empirical Studies on Agricultural Efficiency

Since the theoretical developments in measuring (output-oriented) technical efficiency

was introduced by Debreu (1951 and 1959), the study of the technical efficiency of

smallholder farmers’ agriculture has attracted a number of researchers from various

disciplines especially those of economics and agriculture. Today, there is a wide body of

empirical research on the economic efficiency of farmers in both developed and

developing countries (for reviews see Battese, 1991; Coelli, 1995).

60

Schultz (1964) “poor but efficient” hypothesis is the first of its kind in efficiency

measurement of peasant farming. According to Shultz, traditional farmers, given a long

period of time to learn their production process, will identify their respective optimal

input and output bundles. The implication is that there is no efficiency loss at smallholder

subsistent farmers and policies aiming to increase peasant production shall devote much

on development of crop production technology.

However, innumerable empirical studies rejected Schultz’s hypothesis by showing

technically inefficiency of smallholder producers. This latter group of researchers calls

for identification of action on determinants of inefficiency. For instance using a Cobb-

Douglas production frontier (estimated by the maximum likelihood techniques) and its

corresponding dual cost frontier, Bravo-Ureta and Pinheiro (1997) has presented

measures of technical, allocative, and economic efficiency for a sample of sixty peasant

farmers of the Dominican Republic. Their analysis reveals average levels of technical,

allocative, and economic efficiency equal to 70%, 44%, and 31%, respectively,

suggesting a possibility of substantial gains in output and/or decreases in cost given

existing technology. Interestingly, Bravo-Ureta and Pinheiro pointed the importance of

agricultural productivity gains stemming from technological innovations and call for

research efforts directed toward the generation of new technology.

Similarly, a study conducted by Krasachat (2003) indicates the existence of technical

inefficiency in Thailand agricultural production. Using the DEA and 23 years annual data

(1972-1994), the researcher concluded the possibilities of increasing efficiency

significantly by increasing farm size. Bravo-Ureta and Evenson (1994) have tried to

measure efficiency (allocative, technical and economic) level of Paraguay peasant

farmers. They employ stochastic efficiency decomposition methodology to quantify the

efficiency of cotton and cassava producers and conclude that there is a room to more than

double the economic efficiency in both cases. They argued that this giant efficiency

improvement potential can be achieved by improvements in educational and extension

services.

61

The literature on productive or technical efficiency in African agriculture is emerging.

Tchale and Sauer (2007) measured the level and determinants of technical efficiency of

maize based smallholder farmers of Malawi using a bootstrapped translog stochastic

frontier. The results show that use of integrated soil fertility options improves farmer’s

technical efficiency compared to the use of inorganic fertilizer only. Furthermore, they

concluded that access to agricultural input and output markets, credit provision and

extension services strongly influence smallholders’ technical efficiency and calls for

strengthening these public policy issues. Similarly, Chirwa (2007) estimated technical

efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Malawi and identifies sources of

inefficiency using plot-level data. The average efficiency score of 46.23% showed that

smallholder maize farmers in Malawi are inefficient. He also found that association and

hybrid seeds would improve the efficiency level.

Using the stochastic frontier production function analysis, Amos (2007) estimated the

productivity and technical efficiency involved in cocoa production in Nigeria. He came

up with mean efficiency level of 0.72 (minimum 0.11 and maximum 0.91). It shows the

existence of some inefficiency among the sampled farmers. The researcher has tried to

identify the determinants of efficiency and claim that age of farmers, level of education

and family size are the major contributing factors to efficiency. The researcher also noted

for the existence of opportunity for increase in farmers’ efficiency. Using the same

technique, Msuya, Hisano, and Nariu (2008) estimated the levels of technical efficiency

of smallholder maize farmers in Tanzania and provided an empirical analysis of the

determinants of inefficiency. Using 233 household data, they found very small and

highly variable productivity and efficiency. While the mean productivity is 1.19 ton per

hectare, the average technical efficiencies of smallholder were 0.606. But the productivity

and technical efficiency had a wide range, 0.01-6.77 ton per hectare and 0.011 to 0.910,

respectively. The researchers argued that low levels of education, lack of extension

services, limited capital, land fragmentation, and unavailability and high input prices are

found to have a negative effect on technical efficiency.

Okon, et al (2010) examined technical efficiency of urban agriculture using stochastic

frontier analysis. Using household data of garden egg producers in Uyo Metropolis

62

(Nigeria), they found that small farmers perform better than large farmers in terms of

technical efficiency. The average efficiency level was 86%, with gender and land size

being the major determinants. On the other hand, using unbalanced panel data of Nigeria,

Ogundari (2013) examined the technical efficiency of smallholder croppers and its

relationship with crop diversification. They found an inefficiency level of about 24%, and

the existence of correlation between the computed technical efficiency crop

diversification indices. Furthermore, they identified education, extension, and crop

diversification as efficiency increasing policy variables.

Most of these studies conducted so far are based on (something) production method.

These methods explicitly assumed (something to be checked). Sherlund et al (1998)

criticized those approaches for misleading policy makers. They argued that agriculture in

general and smallholder farming is not as blessed as other sectors like banking in

controlling physical production environment. Using plot level panel data of Ivorian rice

farmers (and controlling for exogenous factors), they come up with a finding that

supports Schultz’s hypothesis. More specifically, they found a lower technical

inefficiency estimates for Ivorian rice farmers and argued that smallholder farmers are

largely managerially efficient. They also argued that managerial characteristics and

practices are uncorrelated to estimated technical inefficiency and hence it is better to

focus on research to expand smallholder rice production frontier

The technical efficiency of the small scale sugarcane farmers of Swaziland was

investigated by Dlamini, Rugambisa, Masuku, & Belete (2010) using stochastic frontier

production functions. They employed Cobb-Douglas type stochastic production frontier

function model to examine whether there exists technical inefficiency variations between

Vuvulane scheme and Big bend individual farmers. The results revealed a widely varied

technical efficiency levels: for the Vuvulane sugarcane farmers, efficiency ranges from

37.5 to 99.9% with a mean of 73.6%, whilst for the Big bend sugarcane farmers it ranges

from 71 to 94.4% with a mean value of about 86%. Finally they conclude that the

technical inefficiency decreased with increased farm size, education and age of the

sugarcane farmer, but increased when small scale sugarcane farmers engaged in off-farm

income earning activities.

63

The result of a study made by Adeyemo, Oke, and Akinola (2010) on 200 randomly

selected cassava growers of Ogun State, Nigeria showed a relatively larger but varying

efficiency levels. Using budgetary and stochastic frontier analyses, they calculated

efficiency level ranged between 88.69 and 100 with a mean of 89.4. Although a number

of studies have been conducted worldwide, only little is known on efficiency of

smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Using LISREL, Yohannes et al., (1993) have tried to

analyze the linkages between socioeconomic variables in the production efficiency of

peasant agriculture in central highlands of Ethiopia. They found that cognitive ability or

skills, technologies adopted, physical factors, and extension education contribute (in

descending) order to crop and milk production.

Beside efficiency in crop production, there were some attempts to measure the

inefficiency of smallholder dairy producers. Using the stochastic production frontier

technique and household data from the central Ethiopian highlands, Nega & Ehui (2006)

confirmed the existence of systematic inefficiency in milk production. Specifically, they

argued that the average efficiency level of the farmers can be increased by more than

20% with appropriate training of dairy farmers on feeding, calving, milking, cleaning of

cows, storing milk, marketing as well as other management skills.

Using non-parametric data envelopment analysis method, Jema (2007) estimated

technical, allocative and economic efficiencies and showed the existence of substantial

allocative and economic inefficiencies of production in small holders' vegetable-

dominated mixed farming system of eastern Ethiopia. He found mean technical,

allocative and economic efficiencies of 91, 60 and 56%, respectively. Jema further

argued that asset, off / non farm income, farm size, extension visits and family size were

the significant determinants of technical efficiency, whereas asset, crop diversification,

consumption expenditures and farm size have significant impact on allocative and

economic efficiencies. Furthermore, Jema (2008) evaluated the production and marketing

performance of vegetables in the Eastern and Central parts of Ethiopia and showed the

existence of significant economic inefficiency. Jema attributed the inefficiency to lack of

asset and capital formation, as well as extension and credit services, thus calling for

institutional capacity building.

64

As can be seen from the above review, most of the studies conducted to measure the

production efficiency in Ethiopia focused on rural agriculture. As far as the knowledge of

the researcher is concerned there is no single research output on efficiency of vegetable

farmers around PU areas of Ethiopia, despite the fact that it is an important source of

livelihood to a large sum of urban household.

2.7. The Issue of Sustainability

2.7.1. Background

Sustainability is a concept that has got wide attention across the horizon. Though the

issue has started winning the interest of academia, policy makers and the civil societies in

the second half of 20th century, the pace of urgency to ensure the sustainable use of

resources through the world has been remarkable. Every year, hundreds of thousands of

politicians, academia and policy makers are gathered at different corners of the world to

discuss and put action plan on this very special issue. The good example is the Earth

Summit1 that gathered 172,108 people at level of heads of State or Government (from

105 nations) and about 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

under the theme Environment and Sustainable Development. In the following sections,

the concept of sustainability as well as its measurement techniques is presented.

2.7.2. Definition of sustainability

Sustainability defies any simple definition. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘sustain’

is long-term support or permanence. Thus, Sustainability, literally defined, is the capacity

to support, maintain or endure. These days, however, different scholars and institutions

redefined it with more value loaded terms, depending on the subject for which

sustainability is sought. For instance, the US Environmental Agency has defined

sustainability from environmental perspective as creating and maintaining the conditions

under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling 1 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 3-14

June 1992 http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

65

the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations2.

According to the agency, sustainability is making sure that we have and will continue to

have the necessary resources in a way that protect human health and the environment.

Similarly, the World Commission on Environment and Development has defined

sustainable development as "...development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs...” (Our Common

Future, 1987). This implies that in sustainability, stewardship of both natural and human

resources is of prime importance.

2.7.3. Sustainability of agriculture

Sustainable agriculture may be defined as the act of farming using principles of ecology.

But this definition is too narrow to accommodate the social and economic aspect of the

issue. In a broader sense, sustainable agriculture may describe farming systems that are

capable of maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such

systems must be resource-conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive, and

environmentally sound." Thus, sustainable agriculture may be defined as a practice that

meets current and long-term needs for food, fiber, and other related needs of society

while maximizing net benefits through conservation of resources to maintain other

ecosystem services and functions, and long-term human development (Rao and Rogers,

2006). This definition integrates three main goals of sustainable agriculture:

environmental health (environmental sustainability), economic profitability (financial

sustainability), and social and economic equity (social sustainability).3

2 http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm 3 http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sarep/about/def

66

Figure 2: The Three Main Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture

According to Foeken, Sofer and Mlozi (2004) sustainability of a given town’s urban

agriculture can be discussed at two levels: at micro (the household) level and at macro

(the town) level.

Micro level sustainability: this is sustainability measured at the household level. At this

level, sustainability refers to the concept of sustainable livelihood. A livelihood is

sustainable if it is adequate for the satisfaction of self-defined basic needs and proof

against shocks and stresses (Foeken et al., 2004). Sustainable urban agriculture at

household level refers first and foremost to the provision of food and/or income in order

to maintain a certain standard of living.

Macro level sustainability: this is sustainability of UPU agriculture at the town level.

Foeken et al. (2004) argued that at town level, sustainable urban agriculture is usually

only related to the environmental consequences of the practice: farming in town can only

be sustainable as long as it does not harm the urban (ecological) environment.

Although this is certainly important, other aspects are relevant as well, in particular

employment creation, the marketing of produce and an enabling legal and policy setting.

Table 4 shows the characteristics of each of these aspects of sustainable urban agriculture

at both micro and macro levels.

67

Table 4: Characteristics of Sustainable Urban Agriculture, by Level

Micro level Macro level

Food supply (quantity and quality)

• self-consumption in producing household

• sales of produce to other urban dwellers; donations to neighbors and relatives in town

Income generation

• direct income through sales of crops, animals and animal products; indirect income through saving on food costs

• for laborers, for suppliers of inputs, for transporters of produce, for traders of produce

Employment creation

• own (family) labor

• for laborers, for suppliers of inputs, for transporters of produce, for traders of produce, for extension officers

Marketing of produce

• ready access to markets • smooth marketing channels for agricultural products produced in town

Environmental balance

• awareness of the impact of urban agriculture on the urban environment and willingness to take the environment into account; practice organic farming; abstain from use of polluted water for irrigation; prevention of erosion; practice recycling

• awareness of the importance of a healthy urban environment and willingness to realize it

• solid and liquid waste management, including compost making, for recycling purposes

• generating the required infrastructure for recycling

Enabling legal and policy setting

• producers to abide by (by-) laws and regulations; guaranteed access to open spaces for farming purposes for a certain period of time

• adaptation of restrictive (by-) laws and regulations to recognize the reality of urban farming; enforcement of adapted (by-) laws and regulations; encouragement of organic farming, proper waste management, and recycling; creation of farming zones; allocation of land for farming; provision of production incentives

Source: Adopted from Foeken et al. (2004)

68

2.7.4. Evaluation of sustainability of PUA

Evaluation of sustainability poses more challenge than its definition. This is mainly

because most initiatives on agricultural sustainability have been at individual scientist

and group levels and there are only limited attempts at developing systematic frameworks

(Rao & Rogers, 2006). As a result, different authors or group of scientists used seemingly

different criteria to assess sustainability of PUA. For instance, Fialor (2002) stated that

the sustainability of PU agriculture hinges on the security of access to land input use and

availability, output levels obtained and the prices received per unit of output, as well as

capacity to achieve these prices without significant negative environmental

consequences. Others adopted the FAO Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land

Management (FESLM) to assess the sustainability of urban agriculture. The FAO-

FESLM has five elements (1) maintains or enhances production/services, (2) reduces the

level of production risk, (3) protects the potential of natural resources and prevents

degradation of soil and water quality, is (4) economically viable and (5) socially

acceptable (Drechsel & Dongus, 2010). The lack of standard sustainability assessment

criterion led researchers to use varied indicators. Some of the indicators used by different

authors are summarized by van Veenhuizen and Danso (2007) and presented in the

following table.

69

Table 5: Sustainability Indicators Used in Studies on PUA

Indicators/Criteria Examples of study

Productivity Asia: Yeung (1986); Nairobi: Dennery (1996)

Land security Kumasi and Accra: Flynn-Dapaah (2002); Drechsel et al.

(1999)

Protection of environment

and people

Manila: Angeles (2002); Bangkok: Burleigh and Blake

(2001)

Economic viability General: Smit et al. (1996, 2000); UAM, no. 1. 2, and 7:

various articles. Moustier and Danso, (2006)

Acceptability (social,

political)

Accra: Obosu-Mensah (2002); Harare: Mushamba (2002);

West-Africa: Flynn-Dapaah (2002); North America:

Kaufman and Bailkey (2000)

Ability to form

cooperatives

Harare: Mushamba (2002); Manila: Angeles (2002)

Combined indicators,

SWOT

Cape Town: Small (2002); General: Streiffeler (1987);

Ouagadougou Gerstl (2001)

Source: Veenhuizen and Danso (2007)