Cultivating Kaunda's plan for self-sufficiency: Is urban agriculture finally beginning to receive support in Zambia?

Abstract

Urban agriculture has become one of the key survival strategies for the urban poor in the developing world. Yet most cities do not have policy to support it and many actively discourage it. This paper reviews the situation in Zambia's four largest cities. During the 1960s–1970s, the Kaunda government attempted to create a supportive policy environment for urban agriculture, which included support for peri-urban cooperatives. However, the current situation reveals that a near absence of institutional support for urban agriculture constrains farmers' activities. The authors' survey of 400 farmers established both the value of such agriculture as a survival strategy and the need for support measures. The paper concludes with an overview of institutions that need to be implemented to enhance the relevance and scope of urban agriculture in Zambia and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

Keywords:

• urban agriculture
• urban and peri-urban agriculture
• cooperatives
• survival strategies
• malaria
• Zambia

1. Introduction

Solving the problem of poverty may be the biggest challenge facing humankind today. There have been some successes in attaining the Millennium Development Goals, but the most recent United Nation (UN) report on the Goals says that ‘greater effort is required’, especially to deal with malnutrition in Africa. In this era of decentralisation, local authorities are now better positioned to take action. There is an urgent need for municipalities to set up poverty relief and food-security initiatives and systems in the areas under their jurisdiction (Mbiba, 1994; UN, 2008).

In the global South, the poor have many livelihood strategies. Among these, urban agriculture is increasingly being recognised not only as a survival strategy but also as a way to increase income and improve the overall quality of life (Sanyal, 1987; Thaman, 1975, 1995; United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 1996; Mougeot, 2006; Thornton, 2008, 2009a,b). Gogwana notes that it is an ‘important socioeconomic activity, particularly for the poor’ (2001:58). Although this kind of agriculture is only one strategy among many for combating poverty and malnutrition, the authors argue that it deserves greater institutional recognition and support. Examining the institutions and policies that either directly or indirectly constrain the practice can go some way to facilitating it.

There are several useful definitions of ‘urban agriculture’ and ‘urban and peri-urban agriculture’ in the literature (Binns & Lynch, 1998; Mbiba, 1995, 2000; Mougeot, 2000). Urban agriculture typically includes the production of crops and the raising of livestock within city boundaries. Urban and peri-urban agriculture can be broadly understood to include any agriculture-related activities – production, processing and marketing – occurring in built-up intra-urban areas and the associated peri-urban fringes (often green belts) of cities and towns (Yeung, 1987; Mougeot, 2000; Thornton, 2008). However, urban agriculture is not restricted to food crops and can also include animal husbandry, aquaculture, agro-forestry and horticulture. Urban and peri-urban agriculture takes place in vacant spaces such as roadsides, along banks of rivers and streams, on and around buildings, in wetlands and, in some countries, on rooftops (UNDP, 1996; Obosu-Mensah, 1999).

Many local authorities in the global South have traditionally been reluctant to support urban agricultural activities, viewing them as marginal or even illegal (Rogerson, 1992; Ellis & Sumberg, 1998; Mougeot, 2006). However, since support for urban agriculture is increasing, the issue of the appropriate institutional responses can and should be debated (UNDP, 1996). The importance of this debate cannot be overstated, in view of the recent warnings by the UN (2007) that, given current trends, most countries in sub-Saharan Africa will not meet any of the Millennium Development Goal targets. As part of a broader institutional response to poverty alleviation and environmental management, urban agriculture has proven to be an effective strategy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Tefera & Tikubet, 2007), Gaborone, Botswana (Cavric & Mosha, 2001), and Kampala, Uganda (Environmental Alert, 2007).

Institutional support for urban agriculture in Africa's cities is not unprecedented. From the 1960s to the 1970s there were national plans to encourage and support urban gardening, including upgrading squatter settlements by increasing plot sizes to allow for food production (Rakodi, 1988; Drescher, 1999). But these plans, although funded by the World Bank, did not conform to the approaches prescribed by the Bank, and thus were not put into action. Although not specifically referring to peri-urban agriculture, in the Third National Development Plan (1978–1983) the former president of Zambia Dr Kenneth Kaunda specified the need for making cities self-sustaining cities by increasing urban food production (Rakodi, 1985). This was largely to take the form of peri-urban production units supported by agricultural extension services. However, Kaunda's humanistic approach of combining self-sufficiency in agriculture with import substitution did not accord with the aspirations of members of his government who accepted the World Bank's deterministic modernisation by industrialisation prescriptions (Quick, 1977). In the so-called ‘modern’ city, maize crops in backyards and open spaces were discouraged through slashing by municipal officials, in the misinformed belief that mosquitoes breed in the water caught in the stems and this increased infestation leads to malarial outbreaks (Rakodi, 1988). Nevertheless, urban farming is widely practised throughout Zambia's small rural towns and larger cities (Sanyal, 1986; Hampwaye et al., 2007).

This paper examines current local government institutional responses to urban agriculture in Zambia and the requirements of urban farmers, and considers how more support might be offered, in terms of both policy and practice, with specific reference to four important industrial and administrative cities in Zambia: Lusaka, Kabwe, Ndola and Kitwe. It suggests that although the role of urban agriculture is widely acknowledged, policy and support are generally lacking (while there are no specific laws, by-laws or regulations that entirely support such agriculture, there are also none that directly prohibit it). It argues that urban farmers need specific support in order to farm more effectively. The paper concludes with an overview of institutions that should be put in place to support the practice of urban agriculture more effectively.

2. Focus and methods

This paper is based on research into the incidence of urban agriculture in Zambia and the extent of support for it. It was undertaken in 2008/09 as part of a study sponsored by the Global Development Network that sought to establish the extent to which urban agriculture can be regarded as a poverty alleviation strategy and how much appropriate institutional support is already in place.

The research methods used were as follows: a review of the literature and policy documents on urban agriculture globally and in Zambia; a series of interviews, primarily with the urban local authorities in the four case study cities, Lusaka, Kabwe, Ndola and Kitwe, who currently are or could be engaged in support of urban agriculture; and a questionnaire survey of 400 urban agriculturalists to discover their agricultural practices, their perceptions of government support or the lack of it, and the kind of support they felt they needed. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively and the findings synthesised.

3. Literature review: The role of urban agriculture, and institutional responses

Urban agriculture is a widespread phenomenon in most cities in the developing world (Harcsa, 1993). Approximately 800 million people globally are involved in urban and peri-urban agriculture (UNDP, 1996). In Latin America about 50 per cent of people living in the cities practise agriculture, and in Africa about 40 per cent (International Food Policy Institute, 2002). Urban agriculture has become significant in several African cities in countries such as Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Sawio, 1994; Tevera, 1996). The dramatic increase noted in recent years can be attributed, inter alia, to rapid urbanisation, poor food production and distribution, withdrawal of subsidies by many governments in the developing world, high unemployment rates and unsustainable incomes (Mougeot, 2006). The benefits of urban agriculture are widely recognised in the literature – it has been practised for food production in many urban centres throughout the developing world not only recently (Thaman, 1975, 1995; Sanyal, 1987; Drakakis-Smith, 1992; Rogerson, 1993, 1996, 2003; Webb, 1998; Thornton, 2006, 2008, 2009a,b; Thornton & Nel, 2007) but throughout the history of human settlement (Lee-Smith & Ali Memon, 1994).

3.1 Policy issues

Urban agriculture does not yet enjoy as much support as rural agriculture, despite the argument that it could become a key intervention strategy for alleviating urban poverty in developing cities of the global South (UNDP, 1996; Hampwaye et al., 2007; Thornton, 2008). In many cases local government interventions are impeded by their negative perceptions of the activity, the perceived health risks, and the marginal and micro-scale nature of urban agricultural activity, all of which make support difficult. Many governments in developing countries consider urban agriculture an ‘illegal’ activity and it has been ‘resisted by generations of public officials’ (Binns & Lynch, 1998:778). Institutional responses have ranged from repressive to accommodative to supportive (Hampwaye, 2008; Thornton, 2009a,b). Many local governments, particularly in Asia and Africa, do not support urban agriculture because they see it as anti-modern, ‘backward’, and ‘archaic’ (Mbiba, 1994; Rogerson, 2003; Thornton, 2008). However, several local governments in the developing world have realised its significance and started recognising and supporting it. This positive trend is noted in Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Latin America and some cities in Africa, such as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Lado, 1990; Mwalukasa, 2000).

Most local governments in Africa have, however, responded negatively to urban agriculture (Hampwaye, 2008). In many cities it has been accorded no legal status (Rakodi, 1985, 1988; Rogerson, 2003). It is common for some local authorities in Africa to destroy crops in their areas of jurisdiction, allegedly for contravening certain by-laws (Mascarenhas, 1986; Mougeot, 2006). It is, however, important to note that although local governments in Africa are perceived generally to have a negative attitude to urban agriculture there are some exceptions. Cities in South Africa and Lesotho accommodate it to the extent of providing extension services (Mbiba, 1994; Tevera, 1996). It is tolerated in Zambian, Malawian and Tanzanian cities, but not in those of Kenya and Zimbabwe (Tevera, 1996).

Recently, in response to increasing urbanisation and its associated challenges, such as poverty, food insecurity, growth in informal (squatter) settlements and increasing unemployment, local governments in Africa have begun reconsidering their position in respect of urban agriculture. Increases in the urban populations are straining the capacities of cities worldwide. Therefore, in cases where poor urban households spend 50 to 90 per cent of their income on food, many observers argue for these households to become more proactive in meeting their own food needs, as well as contributing to the overall urban food supply and chains of production (Tinker, 1994; Lynch, 2005; Rogerson, 1996, 2003; Foeken & Mwangi, 2000; Foeken et al., 2002). It is self-evident that appropriate policy and institutional support will be required to facilitate such activity.

Despite the seeming absence of support, urban agriculturalists are driven to succeed. This is particularly evident in Harare, Zimbabwe, which some argue (Mbiba, 2001) has overtaken Lusaka, Zambia, as ‘the capital city of urban agriculture in Africa’ (a title earlier assigned to Lusaka in a study by Sanyal, 1987:198), demonstrating that, even in the absence of institutional support, urban farmers will strive to succeed in a country very severely affected by the economic downturn. However, where there has been over-regulation as well as absence of support, as in Lusaka, this can have the effect of dampening enthusiasm.

4. Findings in Zambia

4.1 The prevalence of poverty in Zambia

Poverty is a fact of life for most people in Zambia. The poor performance of copper, the country's primary product, over the last 40 years, structural adjustment, recession and the poor performance of the agricultural sector have worsened socio-economic conditions for the majority of the population. Although poverty levels have declined since the 1990s (86 per cent in 1993, 72.9 per cent in 1998), a significant percentage of the population remains poor (UN Statistics Division, n.d.). In 2006 it was estimated that 64 per cent of the national population could be classified as poor (Ndulo et al., 2009). While the incidence of poverty is higher in rural areas than in urban centres, the reverse is true of the unemployment rate, with 35 per cent unemployed in cities and 5 per cent in the rural areas (Ndulo et al., 2009). The state does not have sufficient economic resources to respond adequately to poverty and unemployment. And while there is a certain amount of social welfare support for the aged and the destitute, it was only in 2002 that, in terms of the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, the goal was set to support the livelihoods and welfare of the most vulnerable in society (IMF, 2002; Kaela, 2008; Kapungwe, 2008; Mulungushi, 2008). While this represents a significant improvement on the existing situation, in reality only 8 per cent of the poor are actually benefiting (Ndulo et al., 2009), which means that the rest need personally initiated subsistence in order to survive. Urban agriculture thus has a critical role to play. In this study's survey of 400 urban farmers in the four centres, 67 per cent of respondents said their economic conditions had deteriorated over the last two years (2007–09), and an average of 60 per cent had experienced threats to their food security. The desperate nature of the prevailing situation and the key role that urban agriculture plays as a survival strategy is emphasised by the fact that only 15 per cent of the 400 farmers sold more than 60 per cent of their produce. For the majority, production is primarily for household consumption. Despite this, crop sales constituted on average 42 per cent of household incomes, which illustrates the very low level of cash earnings.

4.2 Main findings from the survey of urban farmers

The study of the four centres found a variety of types of urban agriculture, mostly backyard gardens, communal crop farming or animal husbandry, or any combination of the three. It was found that 44.3 per cent of the respondents have backyard gardens, 25 per cent grow crops on communal land, and 9.5 per cent cultivate both backyard and communal land. A combination of food gardens and livestock rearing was common among those surveyed:

• 2.8 per cent have backyard gardens and are engaged in animal husbandry (breeders),

• 6.8 per cent grow crops on communal land and are also engaged in animal husbandry, and

• 8.8 per cent keep animals (non-breeding stock) and also grow crops on communal land.

It is noteworthy that only a small proportion of urban farmers are primarily engaged in animal husbandry. This is because there are strict policies prohibiting the keeping of livestock in urban areas, since they are regarded as a public nuisance. The high cost of livestock feed is another factor that restricts livestock farming, especially poultry farming. Of those involved in crop production, 56 per cent were primarily cultivating in their backyards, 29.9 per cent primarily on communal land and only 13.2 per cent in both. The town of Kabwe has a larger number of crop farmers in its rural–urban fringes than the other three towns. As a result, there is not much incentive for households to grow their own, since it is cheaper to buy them at the market.

Almost all the respondents said they would like to receive some measure of support from the government. They want help with farming, marketing, training, disease control, and extension support. The survey statistics for the four centres indicated the following levels of desire for government support and assistance: Lusaka 80 per cent, Kitwe 82 per cent, Ndola 85 per cent and Kabwe 100 per cent. Levels of government support are currently low – there is clearly a shortfall that is not being addressed.

4.3 Policy with respect to urban agriculture

The information in the sections that follow was derived directly from interviews with state and non-state officials in Zambia and urban farmers. To protect the confidentiality of informants, the interviews are not sourced to particular individuals.

Policies in the four cities vary significantly. Of interest in this study is the degree to which they either help or hinder agricultural activities in cities. While policy statements and political speeches implicitly support the principle of urban agriculture, various legal restrictions remain. Notably, the Local Authorities Act and the Public Health Act restrict the presence of animals in urban areas and identify urban agriculture as a potential breeding ground for malaria carrying mosquitoes (Hampwaye et al., 2007; Ndola City Council, 2008). As a result, in recent years it has been noted that most council officials in Zambian cities have been tolerating agricultural activities and, as interviews in a parallel study have shown, their awareness of the impact of poverty and economic decline has led them to adopt a more laissez faire attitude (personal communication, R Fitchett, MA student, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, February 2009).

However, despite indications of local level endorsement, lack of clarity over the legality of urban agriculture nationally has inhibited local councils from developing support mechanisms – an indication of the degree to which they look to the national government for guidelines. The primary legal constraints on urban agriculture relate to issues of land access and public health (in particular the perception that mosquitoes breed where farming activities exist in the city). Despite these concerns, urban agriculture has increased as a result of the economic downturn, particularly the decline of the copper mining industry and the resulting closure of mines, especially in the Copperbelt Province (where Ndola and Kitwe are situated). This has led many officials, particularly in Kabwe, Ndola and Kitwe, to recognise its importance. However, the absence of policy in all centres, except to some degree in Ndola, is a constraint of some significance.

Of the four cities, Lusaka is the most conservative, tolerating but not endorsing urban agriculture. Kabwe and Kitwe recognise its role and value, particularly as a survival strategy in times of economic crisis, but both have yet to formulate policy. By contrast, Ndola is the most progressive and is now actively developing a policy. With the help of the Municipal Development Programme and funding from the Dutch Government, stakeholder forums have produced a draft policy to ‘provide guidelines for the development of a participatory framework and process for the development of urban agriculture in Ndola’ (Ndola City Council, 2009:7). An additional goal is to formally recognise and support urban agriculture. Although the policy is still a draft, what is proposed reflects a sympathetic and tolerant response, and initial efforts are being made at applied support (this is discussed further in Section 4.4 below). However, the draft identifies some legal and land constraints that require attention. While officials in Kabwe and Kitwe seem more supportive of urban agriculture than those in Lusaka, there is scope for all three cities to provide further endorsement and encouragement and perhaps even to adopt Ndola's policy.

At the national level, the Public Health Act, in particular the controversial alleged link between urban agriculture and malaria (Rakodi, 1988; Klinkenberg et al., 2008), needs to be reassessed in the aim of a more tolerant national policy (Hampwaye et al., 2007). Rakodi cites a 1978 study from the Medical Journal of Zambia, in which entomologists found no mosquito larvae in any plants during the rainy season. This study concluded that ‘There seems to be no reason associated with malaria control that the practice of slashing maize should be continued’ (Rakodi, 1988:502). Rakodi also notes that entomological studies commissioned by the Zambian Government rejected the claim that maize crops pose any threat as a mosquito breeding ground (1988:502). However, a recent study of a supposed maize–malaria link conducted in rural areas (urban areas were excluded) found that when pollen shed from food crops occurs within 10 metres of where mosquitoes tend to breed (such as stagnant pools), this can combine to increase the mosquito population (Kebede et al., 2005). Klinkenberg et al. (2008:1) indicated that, whereas mosquito host-seeking activity peaked between 2:00 and 3:00 am, insecticide-treated bed nets should be an effective control method. There is the potential to develop maize varieties that shed their pollen before peak mosquito development (Kebede et al., 2005).

Infrastructure investment into storm water run-off channels and other forms of drainage systems in urban and peri-urban areas could limit the amount of stagnating water (e.g. poorly drained streets and residential areas) in or within close proximity to human settlements. The study by Klinkenberg et al. (2008) showed that mosquito infestations were found where irrigation systems are poorly managed, in shallow pools or in dug-out wells. Poor housing, stagnant water and lack of investment in infrastructure, in terms of drainage and properly managed irrigation and stormwater run-off channels, are more significant variables to be considered when assessing the risk of malarial outbreaks where urban agriculture occurs.

4.4 The practice of urban agriculture

Although urban agriculture is widely practised, land access constraints within and on the fringe of cities (particularly on forestry land) are a problem for both farmers and the authorities. Backyards, wetlands and land along streams are the primary sites. However, in some places there are clearly demarcated farming blocks, especially in peri-urban areas, where cooperatives have been operating for some decades and have been receiving government support in the form of seeds, inputs and resources. As mentioned in Section 4.2 above, research results indicated that most urban agriculturalists do not receive extension services and generally operate informally. In many instances, direct support for urban agriculture comes from non-municipal agents – non-governmental organisations (NGOs), churches and grass-roots organisations. However, one noteworthy form of support from local authorities is that most urban centres have market areas where local produce can be sold, which will help with urban food distribution and sales, in the event that urban agricultural output can be increased.

The survey of 400 urban agriculturalists in the four cities, complementing the survey of local authorities, revealed how little institutional support there is and what participants hoped government could deliver. Only 16 of the 400 farmers said they had received any support from government officials. Of these, four had received veterinary support and 12 had received general farming advice. Some details of the marketing, training, disease control and extension support they require are as follows. They want help with basic inputs required to farm, such as fertiliser (26 per cent of all respondents), seed (10 per cent), loans (10 per cent) and securing land access (12 per cent). They want support and advice to do with animals (8 per cent), pests and weeds (4 per cent), water issues (8 per cent), equipment and labour (10 per cent). Market access, surprisingly, does not feature very prominently (2 per cent). Arguably, given the unsupportive practices of local governments in the past (the slashing of crops), and a seemingly indifferent attitude to urban agriculture on the part of some local officials (in the case of Lusaka), the issue of market access has, historically, not been a factor in urban farmers' decision to cultivate. Significantly, the survey shows that farming is being carried on in cities in the absence of defined support – a testimony to the resilience of the farmers and the severity of the economic crisis that prompts their actions.

More broadly, macro-issues such as access to land constrain farmers' choices. Just under half of the farmers surveyed (49 per cent) had secure access to land. Most farmed in their own backyards. Insecure land access affects their sense of security and permanence and discourages investment. Added to this, the cost of transport, lack of storage facilities and associated wastage make it difficult for them to market their produce – a problem the state could help to relieve.

5. Synthesis and assessment of evidence from the case studies

These four case studies indicate that urban agriculture is widespread in Zambia, particularly in areas where the copper industry has declined, but that policy is unformulated, apart from a start in Ndola. There appears to have been policy support at a national level historically, but now national law is a major barrier to the practice. In the study sites there was ‘a lack of formal access and support for these smaller urban agricultural projects’, which indicates ‘a need for policy legally to allow and support backyard opportunities, which would also counteract the bias towards rural over urban agriculture’ (Nel et al., 2009).

Legal access to land other than backyards was found to be a constraining factor, and there was particular mention of a need for access to forestry land. Poor access to water, and problems with electricity supply and theft were also mentioned by informants. A policy to help guarantee land access either by allowing community gardens or providing leasehold rights to current urban farmed land could go some way to offering urban farmers practical assistance and a sense of security.

Local authorities in the four case-study cities have organised access to markets and retail outlets for community produce. Policy needs to recognise the importance of supporting this industry and also the higher-end consumer product demand, as the benefits of urban agriculture are not necessarily limited to subsistence products. Three of the case studies endorsed the role of women in urban agriculture, a benefit to women that is once again noted in the literature. While ‘urban greening’ would considerably enhance the urban environment in Zambia, policy does not seem to have yet moved into this terrain. This issue, along with others such as animal husbandry, needs to feature more prominently in future land management debates.

The problem of limited finances was raised in all of the case studies. The Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IMF, 2002) indicated that either bureaucracies lacked the ability to spend budgeted allocations or finances were slow to be released. There is a need for policy and systems that will allow the speedy release of resources for small initiatives, with a focus on projects with low cost and high outcome ratios. Another issue which has yet to feature in debates in Zambia is how the costs and benefits and associated input requirements of urban agriculture as a source of food supply compare with those of more conventional food supply chains. Such a debate needs to inform considerations of the possible reallocation of state funds from rural to urban agriculture and whether local states, as part of their current portfolio of activities, can perhaps assist urban agriculture more directly, either through funds or loans or by improving access to land and water.

6. Future institutional considerations

These Zambian cases show that urban agriculture is hampered by lack of policy support, lack of funding and limited access to land. The authors' recommendations are as follows.

Supportive national and local policy needs to be developed to focus local government resources, and to ensure buy-in by municipalities and see that they endorse and support urban agriculture. Synergy between national and local government policy is clearly of value, so as to recognise the value of backyard, urban, and peri-urban agriculture and the links between them, across urban boundaries. National laws need to be assessed, especially the Public Health Act, and lessons can be learned from the experience of local-level policy formulation in Ndola. There is also a need to ensure that inappropriate policy does not actually restrict urban agriculture.

Access to state and municipal land emerged as a key theme. Clarity is needed, to ensure that farmers can feel more secure in their activities and that uniform approaches are adopted by the authorities. Local government departments, including planning, economic development and parks, have a role to play in ensuring safe and secure access to land, water, electricity, municipal markets, providing extension support, and clarifying the legal status of urban agriculture.

Government has a role to play in providing support and extension services not just to rural but also to urban farmers, and making this more readily available to backyard farmers in addition to the current support for community gardens and peri-urban farming. Local universities can be tapped into for research, support and training. Partnerships can be formed with church and community groups. NGOs can be applied to for support, training and even assistance with market access. Marketing of produce is a key challenge, and targeted support in this regard is desirable. The existing local government urban market outlets in Zambia could be extended to assist urban farmers, and links could be established with retail chains.

There is scope for the authorities to learn from what the farmers want in the way of advice and farming inputs, as revealed in this study. To give farmers a voice through consultation and a community forum is clearly an imperative.

The study also revealed that:

• Women farmers are in particular need of support.

• As both the farmers and the authorities lack sufficient finance to support local action, the authorities need to target low-cost high-output projects rather than expensive ‘flagship’ projects, and financial support needs to be made available with the minimum of delays.

• There is a need to look into the range of products produced, and the related technical considerations and requirements, such as fodder production for middle-income households with stock.

• Policy and support must be environmentally appropriate and sustainable.

7. Conclusion

Concessions for urban farming in Zambia, as part of Kaunda's national plan for self-sufficiency in agriculture in cities, towns and rural areas (Office of the President, Zambia, 1979; Rakodi, 1985, 1988), were overturned by internal ideological power struggles resulting from the adoption of World Bank-prescribed neoliberal approaches and the demise of Kaunda's ‘rural socialism’ (Quick, 1977:1). The existing peri-urban cooperative schemes are, it appears, vestiges of Kaunda's policy of self-sufficiency. Although urban agriculture is widely practised in Zambia, appropriate institutional and material support is not yet fully in place. While policy is evolving in some parts of the continent, such as Ethiopia (Ashebir et al., 2007), Uganda (Azuba & McCans, 2006) and South Africa (Njokwe & Mudhara, 2007), applied interventions in support of urban agriculture appear less widespread. In Zambia, with some exceptions (primarily in Ndola), it would appear that the role such agriculture can play needs greater recognition, while policy still largely needs to be developed. Perhaps, as noted above, some best practice examples of policy planning can be found within the African continent.

A start has been made in formulating policy, but ensuring land access, and deciding whether also to target backyard producers and how to support marketing are key challenges. The health risks need to be clarified, particularly in the matter of whether urban agriculture provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes, as discussed in Section 4.3, above. The seemingly low levels of success attained by farmers, high turnover rates of participants, limited funding and support and also land and water access constraints are unfortunate realities that prevail in almost all cases. Over and above policy support, significantly greater levels of concrete action will be required on the part of local institutions if urban agriculture is to move beyond its current status as a marginal survival strategy. On the positive side, themes such as recognition of the need to work through partnerships and the role of NGOs and universities emerge as positive aspects that should be encouraged. In all the cities examined, the main shortcomings are economic, particularly the limited or non-existent financial support for urban agriculture and, perhaps more seriously, the near absence of support for the marketing of produce.

It is clear that institutional challenges exist for urban agriculture in Zambia and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Such agriculture can aid the attainment of the first Millennium Development Goal as a support strategy for mitigating urban poverty and food insecurity. The beneficiaries can play an active and critical role, but they are unlikely to prosper in the absence of supporting policy, access to land and resources, and extension and marketing support from local institutions.

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible by a research grant provided by the Global Development Network Secretariat, New Delhi, India.