“To Subsidise My Income”

Afrika-Studiecentrum
Series
Editorial board
Dr Piet Konings (African Studies Centre, Leiden)
Dr Paul Mathieu (FAO-SDAA, Rome)
Prof. Deborah Posel (University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg)
Prof. Nicolas van de Walle (Cornell University, USA)
Dr Ruth Watson (Birkbeck College, University of London)

VOLUME 7
“To Subsidise My Income”
Urban Farming in an East-African Town

By

Dick Foeken

BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
•

2006
 Cover photo: Sam Owuor

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Foeken, D.
To subsidise my income : urban farming in an East-African town / by Dick
Foeken in association with Samuel O. Owuor … [et al.].
p. cm. — (Afrika-Studiecentrum series ; 7)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15202-1
ISBN-10: 90-04-15202-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Urban agriculture—Kenya—Nakuru. I. Title. II. Series.

S473.K4F64 2006
630.9173’2—dc22
2006043929

ISSN 1570–9310
ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15202-1
ISBN-10: 90-04-15202-4

© Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic
Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

This book is dedicated to

Marijke
Contents

Maps, Figures, Boxes, Tables ix

Photos xi
Glossary and abbreviations xii
Foreword xiv

1 The issue 1
Urbanization and urban poverty 1
Urban agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa 2
Urban agriculture in Kenya 5
Aspects of urban farming 8
Theoretical considerations 14
The present study 17
2 The setting 21
Nakuru town 21
The study population 33

3 The farmers 37
Numbers and geographical distribution 37
Urban farmers and non-farmers 40
Rural farmers and non-farmers 44
4 The crops 49
Urban plots 49
Crops and inputs 51
Yields 57
Problems 63
5 The animals 67
Animal production 67
Rearing systems 70
Inputs 72
Problems 75
Waste disposal 77

vii
 6 The benefits 79
Importance of urban farming as perceived by respondents 79
Food supply 83
Food consumption and nutrition 86
Income 89
Employment 92
7 The support 95
Assistance for crop cultivators and livestock keepers 95
The Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (ARDP) 98
The Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF Kenya) 102
8 The environment 109
Introduction 109
Urban farmers’ environmental awareness 112
Perceptions and attitudes 114
Heavy metal concentrations 117
9 The schools 123
Institutional farming 124
School farming in Kenya 125
School farming in Nakuru town 126

10 The poor 137

Introduction 137
Farming 138
Benefits 144
Support 147
Environment 148
Schools 148
Gender 149
11 Summary and conclusions 153
Introduction 153
Summary of findings 154
Theoretical reflections 158
Policy and the future of urban farming in Nakuru 162

Annexes 169
References 209
Index 219

viii
Maps
2.1 Kenya and location of Nakuru town 22
2.2 Evolution of the boundaries of Nakuru town 25
2.3 Economic structure 28
2.4 Structure of housing 30
A2.1 Distribution of the research clusters 176

Figures
2.1 Monthly rainfall, selected years 23
3.1 Farmers in town, by housing density 40
5.1 Types of livestock by household income 69

Boxes
8.1 Safety of “sewage crops” 110
9.1 Nakuru Prison Farm 124

Tables
2.1 Characteristics of sampled households 34
3.1 Numbers of households practising farming in 1999 by area and
type of farming 38
3.2 Percentages of households farming in town, 1998 39
3.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: summary of household characteristics 41
3.4 Non-farmers: reasons for not farming in town by type of farming 43
3.5 Rural farmers and non-farmers: summary of household characteristics 45
4.1 Summary of characteristics of urban plots by housing density 50
4.2 Material inputs for crop cultivation in town 55
4.3 Number of inputs by input category 56
4.4 Harvests of major crops cultivated in town 58
4.5 Mean harvest (all crops) by plot size 59

ix
 4.6 Mean harvest (all crops) by use of material inputs 60
4.7 Mean harvest (all crops) by household characteristics 61
4.8 Most frequently mentioned problems with crop cultivation in town 63
5.1 Livestock in 1998: numbers of households and ‘demography’
by type of animal 68
5.2 Livestock rearing system by type of livestock 71
5.3 Purpose of livestock keeping by type of livestock 72
5.4 Inputs for livestock keeping by type of livestock 73
5.5 Most frequently mentioned problems with livestock keeping
by type of livestock 75
5.6 Disposal of animal waste by type of livestock 77
6.1 Reasons for growing crops and keeping livestock in town 80
6.2 Importance of urban farming activities for crop cultivators
and livestock keepers 81
6.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: summary of general food security issues 84
6.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: nutritional status of pre-school children 88
6.5 Employment in the urban agricultural sector 93
7.1 Summary of livestock-keeping characteristics by type of assistance 97
7.2 Forms of support for the ARDP farmers 99
7.3 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: material welfare levels 101
7.4 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: cattle and milk sales 102
8.1 Urban farmers’ awareness of the environmental impact of their activities 113
8.2 Urban non-farmers’ and officials’ perceptions regarding the environmental
impact of farming in Nakuru town 114
8.3 Urban non-farmers’ and officials’ attitudes regarding urban farming 116
8.4 Characteristics of the sampling sites 118
8.5 Sites with relatively high heavy metal concentrations in the soils 119
8.6 Heavy metal concentrations in water, by type of water source 119
8.7 Sites with relatively high heavy metal concentrations in Amaranthus 120
9.1 Frequency of school farming by school characteristics 127
9.2 Persons responsible for farming by school category 127
9.3 Inputs used for crop cultivation by school category 129
9.4 Destination of farm produce by school category 131
9.5 Frequency of school feeding programme by school characteristics 132
10.1 Farming by income class 138
10.2 Summary of urban plot characteristics by income class 141
10.3 Summary of livestock-keeping characteristics by income class 143
10.4 Urban farmers: summary of general food security issues by year and
income class 145
10.5 Assistance with livestock keeping by income class 147
10.6 School farming and school feeding by income level of neighbourhood 149

x
Photos
1 Nakuru town seen from the lower slopes of the Menengai Crater 20
2 Crop cultivation in the medium-density area of Bangla Desh 20
3 Crop cultivator in Lanet uprooting seedlings 36
4 Labourer feeding chickens in Rhonda Weavers 36
5 Crop cultivation in Kabachia 48
6 Ziwani estate 48
7 Dairy cows in zero-grazing in Kabachia 66
8 Chickens kept in a house in Kabachia 66
9 Animal waste disposal site in a compound in Lanet 78
10 James Mwangi’s butchery 106
11 Nakuru’s dump 122
12 Dairy cattle roaming in the street feeding on household waste
in Stadium area 122
13 Back-to-back constructed houses in Rhonda Weavers leaving
no space for farming 136
14 Crop cultivation in a more spacious part of Kwa Rhonda 136
15 Dairy cow in zero-grazing in Rhonda Weavers 152
16 Rabbit keeping in Lanet 152
17 Experimenting with bag cultivation (sukuma wiki) in the
ARDP compound 165

xi
Glossary and abbreviations

4-K (Club) Kuungana, Kufanya, Kusaidia, Kenya

(“Get together, act and help Kenya”)
ARDP Agricultural and Rural Development Programme
CBD central business district
CBO community-based organisation
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics (Nairobi)
Cd cadmium
CDN Catholic Diocese of Nakuru
chang’aa local brew, usually made of maize
debe measurement comparable with a bucket (17-18 kg)
dhania parsley
ECLOF Ecumenical Church Loan Fund
g gram(s)
ha hectare(s)
HAZ height-for-age, median z-score
Hg mercury
jembe kind of hoe
kcal kilocalories
kg kilogramme(s)
kienyeji local chicken
Ksh. Kenyan shilling(s)
kunde peas
l litre(s)
LA21 Localising Agenda 21
m2 square metre(s)
maharague beans
mahindi maize
managu black night shade
matatu type of joint taxi
mavaki local vegetable
mbiriganya egg plant
mchicha ‘wild spinach’
MCN Municipal Council of Nakuru
mg milligram(s)
NGO non-governmental organisation

xii
NSFCK National School Feeding Council of Kenya
NUAP Nakuru Urban Agriculture research Project
panga kind of cutlass
Pb lead
ppm parts per million
RVIST Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology
saget spider plant
SAMCAF Southern Africa Microfinance Capacity Building Facility
sh. (Kenyan) shilling(s)
shamba plot
sukuma wiki kale
terere amaranthus
TOL temporary occupation license
ugali stiff maize porridge
UNCHS (Habitat) United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
US$ US dollar(s)
WAZ weight-for-age, median z-score
WHZ weight-for-height, median z-score
WHO World Health Organisation
WMS III Welfare Monitoring Survey 1997
Zn zinc

xiii
Foreword

John and Mary arrived in Nakuru in 1971 and settled in Lakeview where
they still live today. They have always cultivated maize and beans for home
consumption in town on a plot measuring 100x50 feet. In 1999, they grew
kale and arrowroot as well. They used no chemicals and did not irrigate the
crops. They only harvested in 1999 a small amount because of the drought.
Mary dug up some arrowroot each month. She did not sell anything but gave
away a few cobs of maize to her children. Mary is the one responsible for
farming and does it all on her own, spending on average two hours a day on
the shamba1 all year round. The main impact of the drought was that she had
to spend more money on food than in normal years. Cultivating crops in
town is important for her because “it helps to feed my family”. It has be-
come more important for her over the years because “now food is expensive
but I’m able to deal for that with what I harvest”. She gets something from
the shamba throughout the whole year. So she would never stop with her
farming activities because it helps “to subsidise my income”.

This describes in a nutshell the importance of urban farming for a low-income

household like that of John and Mary. Even though plots are usually small and
production is quite modest, it does help these people in terms of food, and indi-
rectly also income. This book is about such people.
Farming in town, however, is not without its critics. For many urban manag-
ers and policy-makers, agriculture is simply not an acceptable type of urban
land use. On official maps showing urban land uses, agriculture is seldom
included. Moreover, urban managers are inclined to stress its negative environ-
mental aspects, such as pollution, erosion, noise, smell, etc. They see urban
agriculture as a menace that should preferably be forbidden. Others, however,
including many researchers, stress the importance of the activity for the liveli-
hood of urban residents (the poor in particular), as well as the (potentially)
positive contribution urban agriculture can make towards urban food supply, the

1
Shamba is the Swahili word for plot or piece of land.
xiv
management of the urban environment – for example in terms of waste man-
agement and recycling – and its aesthetic attraction.
Urban farming is not only an important but also a complex phenomenon,
with economic, social, cultural, political, environmental as well as legal aspects.
This book discusses urban farming from this broad perspective, even though it
is not possible to treat all aspects at length. The studies on which it is based took
place in Nakuru, Kenya, a medium-sized town, of which there are so many in
sub-Saharan Africa. A whole range of questions are answered in this book: Who
are the farmers of Nakuru town? What crops do they grow and how? What
types of livestock are kept and how? What are the benefits for Nakuru as a
whole and for the people involved? To what extent are the farmers supported
and to what effect? What is the environmental impact of farming in Nakuru? In
addition, a specific form of institutional urban agriculture is also discussed,
namely school farming. Finally, special attention is devoted to the poorer seg-
ments of Nakuru’s population. Do they participate in urban farming and if so, to
what extent do they benefit from it?
The research team received an enthusiastic welcome from the relevant local
officials when this study on urban agriculture in Nakuru was originally pro-
posed in 1998. In the context of the Localising Agenda 21 programme, urban
planning was being developed, and systematic knowledge of urban agriculture
was lacking. It was therefore decided to start the research project, which was
being known as the Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research Project (NUAP), with a
general survey in 1999 to obtain an overall picture of farming activities at town
level. Besides this main study, a number of smaller studies were carried out in
the following years, all of them dealing with a specific aspect of urban farming
in Nakuru (see Annex 1).
In November 2002, a two-day workshop was organized in Nakuru to dis-
seminate the results of all these studies among the local stakeholders and to
formulate suggestions for improvements in the sector and recommendations for
policy and planning. The present book reflects all the studies carried out in the
context of NUAP, including the results of the workshop (see Annex 11).
Different researchers participated in the research project: Samuel O. Owuor,
Wijnand Klaver, Correta E. Odera, Peter W. King’ori, Ernest O. Nyandwaro
and Nicole Versleijen. Their efforts and enthusiasm are highly appreciated and
are ‘rewarded’ by co-authorship of the chapter(s) concerned. Nicole Versleijen
agreed to allow her thesis to be used throughout the book, for which I am very
grateful. It not only enlivens the otherwise somewhat dry text but also shows
that each urban farmer is actually an individual ‘case’. A large number of local
officials, representatives from local non-government organizations, urban
farmers and assistants participated in some stage or in some specific study in the
research project. They are too many to mention them individually by name, but

xv
all of them have been acknowledged in previous publications (Foeken & Owuor
2000; Foeken et al. 2002) and in forthcoming theses. One person has to be
mentioned, however, namely my colleague, student and friend Samuel Ouma
Owuor. Without his unconditional hard work and support at all stages of the
project, NUAP would not have run as smoothly as it did.
Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Leo van den Berg for his detailed
comments on the manuscript, to Nel de Vink for drawing the maps and to Ann
Reeves for correcting what otherwise might have been my ‘English translation
of Dutch’.

xvi
 1
The issue

Urbanization and urban poverty

In June 1996, the second world-wide Habitat Conference took place in Istanbul.
The conference was entirely devoted to the rapidly increasing urban population
in the world and the concomitant problems regarding urban management. In the
beginning of the 20th century only 13% of the world’s population were living in
cities, but by the year 2010 over half of all people on earth will be urbanites
(UNCHS 1996: 12). Especially in the Developing Countries, the urbanization
process is taking place at an extremely fast rate. Although sub-Saharan Africa is
still the least urbanized continent in the world, during recent decades it has
known the most rapid growth of the urban population (UNCHS 1996: 84). It is
expected that by the year 2020 about 60% of the population of sub-Saharan
Africa will be living in urban areas.1
Besides natural growth, a major cause of the rapidly increasing urban popu-
lation is the influx of migrants from the rural areas. Most of these migrants have
only one way to go as soon as they have reached the city, namely to one of the
slums or shantytowns where the urban poor live. Since the beginning of the
1980s in particular, these low income areas have grown substantially. It was
estimated that in 1993 about 55% of the Nairobi population of about 1.5 million
lived in these ‘unplanned’ and ‘unserviced’ areas (Gathuru 1993).
For many of these slum dwellers, it is very hard to find employment. More-
over, by the early 1990s, most African countries were implementing structural

1
See http://www.fao.org/News/1997/970405-e.html.
2 CHAPTER 1

adjustment programmes (SAPs), implying, amongst others, drastic cuts in

public expenditures, trade liberalization, increased interest rates, etc. As a con-
sequence, unemployment increased and real incomes fell, while at the same
time prices rose and welfare services declined. Particularly the urban poor were
hard hit (Tinker 1994; Drakakis-Smith et al. 1995).
Meanwhile, urban poverty is increasing dramatically in many African coun-
tries. Kenya is one of these countries. Most of these people live in slums or
slum-like areas with limited access to basic services such as adequate water,
schools and health services. Many of the urban poor have no regular work and,
hence, no regular income. Moreover, a relatively large percentage of their
income is spent on rent and food. As a result of their poverty, these people are
excluded from credit facilities with which some kind of small business might be
set up.
People’s responses to (urban) poverty are twofold: first, they try to raise or at
least maintain their income level and, secondly, they reduce their expenses.
Raising or maintaining one’s income can usually only be done by diversifying
income sources, mainly in the informal sector. Livelihoods have become in-
creasingly dependent on the informal sector and on casual work. Expenses may
be cut in areas like education and health (all the more so because under struc-
tural adjustment these services have become virtually unaffordable for many of
the poor), and cuts can be made on material expenses, as well as on consump-
tion and dietary patterns.
Growing numbers of the urban poor engage in illicit income-generating
activities. Hawking without a license and in forbidden areas is common. Some
women engage in brewing prohibited liquor and in prostitution, in spite of the
health risks involved. Drug dealing and peddling is on the increase as well
(Kanji 1996). Another, often illegal activity that has become widespread is the
production of food within the city or town limits. This is now an important
coping mechanism in the context of cuts in food subsidies, increases in the cost
of living and decreasing household purchasing power. Indeed, urban agriculture
is by some seen as one of the means to realize Millennium Development Goal 1,
which calls for a 50% reduction of poverty in the world by 2015 (see e.g.
Mougeot 2005).

Urban agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa

Farming in town is a common feature of sub-Saharan Africa (Obudho & Foeken

1999). It was estimated that in the mid-1990s as much as 40% of the urban
population in Africa was involved in urban agriculture (Mougeot 1994a).
 THE ISSUE 3

Studies have been carried out across the continent2 and from these, the follow-
ing picture arises.3
Farming is undertaken wherever land is available. In built-up areas, this can
be in one’s own compound (‘backyard farming’ or ‘on-plot farming’) or on land
belonging to someone else (‘open space farming’ or ‘off-plot farming’), the
owner being either the government or a private person. Farming is particularly
common on the outskirts of urban centres, on formerly rural land that has now
become part of the urban centre due to boundary extensions (‘peri-urban farm-
ing’4). In these zones, both small-scale and large-scale farming can be found.
However, as the urban centre grows, these areas gradually lose their rural char-
acter and farming becomes increasingly of the other two types.
Farming in town has increased enormously over the past two decades due to
the economic crisis that prevailed in most African countries. For the poor,
increasing their food security is usually the main motivation for farming in
town, and for some it is even a survival strategy. Nevertheless, many of the poor
also sell some of their produce, partly to be able to pay for other basic house-
hold needs, but also because some crops are perishable and cannot be stored

2
See e.g. on Benin: Brock 1999 (Cotonou); Botswana: Byerley 1996 (Gaborone);
Central African Republic: Villien 1988 (Bangui); Congo: Vennetier 1961 (Pointe
Noire); Congo DR: Mianda 1996 (Kinshasa); Ethiopia: Egziabher 1994 (Addis
Ababa); Ghana: Armar-Klemesu & Maxwell 2000, Obosu-Mensah 1999 (Accra);
Guinea-Bissau: Lourenço-Lindell 1996 (Bissau); Mozambique: Sheldon 1991;
Nigeria: Tricaud 1987 and Gbadegesin 1991 (Ibadan), Ajaegbu et al. 2000 (Jos),
Gefu 1992 (Zaria); Senegal: Mbaye & Moustier 2000 (Dakar); Sierra Leone: Tri-
caud 1987 (Freetown); South Africa: Baxter 1994, Rogerson 1994, Eberhard 1989
(Cape Town); Tanzania: Mosha 1991, Mlozi et al. 1992 (general); Dongus 2000,
Jacobi et al. 2000, Mlozi 1996, Sawio 1993 and 1994 (Dar es Salaam); Foeken et al.
2004 (Mbeya, Morogoro); Togo: Schilter 1991 (Lomé); Uganda: Maxwell 1994 and
1995, Atakunda & Maxwell 1996 (all Kampala); western Africa: Diallo 1993;
Zambia: Sanyal 1985, Rakodi 1988, Drescher 1996 (all Lusaka); Zimbabwe: Mbiba
1995, and Drakakis-Smith et al. 1995, ENDA-Zimbabwe 1996, Gumbo & Ndiripo
1996, Mbiba 2000 (all Harare).
3
Although many of the described characteristics of urban agriculture in sub-Saharan
Africa apply to the whole region, the description fits better for the eastern and south-
ern African regions than for the French-speaking western African region. In the
latter area, urban farming tends to be somewhat less omnipresent, more of a com-
mercial character and more of a men’s business either or not organized as coopera-
tives.
4
‘Peri-urban’ is defined here as the zone between the built-up area and the town
boundary. There exist other definitions in which the peri-urban zone extends further
than the municipal boundary, hence including the rural areas around the urban
centre. The usual criterion is whether production is for the urban market or not (see
e.g. Jacobi 1997: 2). For simplicity and clarity reasons, we prefer the more limited
definition of peri-urban.
4 CHAPTER 1

and/or because storage space is unavailable. For medium-income and high-

income households, commercial considerations are usually of more importance
than among the poor, although the consumption of self-produced vegetables and
milk is often highly valued. But for most of these households, the basic reason
to do so is the same as for the poor, namely, as is often stated by the farmers
themselves, “to subsidise my income”.
The majority of African urban farmers are women. In most parts of Africa,
women have traditionally been responsible for household food provision and
farming is relatively easy to combine with the care of children. Women also
often have lower educational levels than men, so it is difficult for them to com-
pete in a shrinking labour market. Farming may, thus, be the only option left to
them in a situation of unemployment and poverty. Several studies have found
that the number of female-headed households is disproportionately high among
urban farmers. It has also been shown that recent migrants often do not practise
urban farming. A person has to be settled and have access to the right networks
in order to be able to gain access to a plot of land.
The crops grown are mostly basic food crops such as maize, beans, cassava,
sorghum, rice and yams. A wide range of vegetables is also cultivated, some of
which are often sold because of their perishability and because there is a ready
market available. Some urban farmers grow crops such as tomatoes, spinach
and lettuce solely for commercial purposes but in general this is more common
in western Africa than in eastern and southern Africa. Tree crops are not very
commonly found due to the uncertainty of land tenure that many urban farmers
experience.
Urban farmers face various constraints such as irregular rainfall, drought,
flooding, water logging, poor soils, pests and disease, and the destruction of
crops by animals, all of which are no different from the problems faced by rural
farmers. Other problems, however, are more specifically related to the urban
context and particularly confront the poor who practise off-plot farming. Exam-
ples include uncertainty regarding land tenure, theft of crops, lack of capital and
inputs, the threat of eviction and the possible destruction of crops.
In many African countries, urban farming is illegal. By-laws frequently date
from colonial times and forbid all agricultural activity within the boundaries of
urban centres. However, as the practice has become increasingly widespread
over the last two decades, a change in policy has occurred. During the 1960s
and 1970s, policies were restrictive in the sense that harassment and destroying
of crops were common measures taken by the local authorities. In the 1980s,
however, a gradual shift in attitude took place and nowadays, urban farming is
usually tolerated as long as it does not become a nuisance. As far as crop culti-
vation is concerned, the height of a crop, particularly maize, is important
because it is said that criminals can hide in it and mosquitoes are assumed to
 THE ISSUE 5

breed in the axils. In some urban centres, for example Dar es Salaam, the local
authorities are encouraging the practice of urban farming in order to raise food-
supply levels.
Urban agriculture is considered by many as an environmental hazard. Live-
stock can cause noise, bad smells, traffic accidents (when roaming in the
streets) and spread diseases. Crop cultivation can cause soil erosion, contami-
nated water can be used for irrigation purposes and crops cultivated along the
road sides are prone to air pollution. Since urban farming tends to be more
intensive than rural farming, the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and
insecticides can have an impact on the urban environment, causing pollution in
not only the plants but also the soil and groundwater. The recycling of sewage
and urban solid waste and turning it into compost is often put forward as a kind
of panacea for both urban crop production and the improvement of the urban
environment. Although environmental awareness is growing in Africa, such
measures have not (yet) been put into practice.

Urban agriculture in Kenya

The first and up to now most comprehensive study on urban agriculture in

Kenya was the one carried out by the Mazingira Institute in 1985 (Lee Smith et
al. 1987; Memon & Lee-Smith 1993; Lee-Smith & Memon 1994). The study
was carried out in six towns of various sizes (including Nairobi) thought to be
representative of ‘urban Kenya’ as a whole. The study population consisted of
households from all income categories. It was found that farming is a very
common activity among urban households: almost two-thirds grew part of their
food; 29% of the urban households did so within the boundaries of the town in
which they lived (i.e. urban agriculture per se). Almost half of the households
kept animals; 17% did so within the town boundaries. It was estimated that
about 25 million kg of crops were produced in Kenya’s urban areas in one
season and some 1.4 million animals were kept. Most of the agricultural pro-
duce – both crops and animals – was meant for subsistence purposes, which is
related to the fact that most urban farmers appeared to be women and that most
households carrying out urban farming belonged to the lower income catego-
ries.
All other studies regarding urban agriculture in Kenya focused on the coun-
try’s capital, Nairobi. Freeman undertook a survey in nine randomly selected
open spaces in Nairobi in 1987, using plots to locate respondents (Freeman
1991, 1993; Lado 1990). Mwangi as well as Dennery concentrated on Nairobi’s
poor, the former studying the importance of urban farming for the households’
food security and nutritional condition, the latter focusing on decision-making
6 CHAPTER 1

among food producers (Mwangi 1995; Mwangi & Foeken 1996; Foeken &
Mwangi 1998; Dennery 1995, 1996). What is common in all these studies is not
only the widespread occurrence of food production within a city like Nairobi,
but also the practice of ‘traditional’ farming systems and techniques, the
importance of urban food production as a source of both food and income, and
the constraints the producers face. As for the economic value of urban farming,
it is especially important for the low-income groups, and female-headed house-
holds in particular. Regarding the constraints, pests and diseases, theft and lack
of access to land are the prevailing problems.
Four different farming systems can be distinguished in Nairobi (and in most
other Kenyan urban centres as well) (Foeken & Mwangi 2000). The first one,
small-scale subsistence crop production, is by far the most common one,
particularly among the low-income households. Farmers always plant a variety
of crops on their shambas (plots), but basic staples like maize, beans and kale
(sukuma wiki5) particularly stand out as the crops cultivated by the large
majority of the farmers. Conspicuously absent are tree crops, for reasons of
limited space (many plots are too small) and uncertainty regarding land tenure.
The labour needed is mainly done by women. For instance, in 80-85% of the
farming households in the low-income areas of Korogocho and Pumwani/East-
leigh, the women were responsible for the farming activities (Mwangi 1995).
Cultivation practices are usually very simple: the panga (sturdy bush knife) and
jembe (hoe) are about the only tools used. The use of ‘modern inputs’ is quite
limited. Maintaining or improving soil fertility is mainly done by means of
animal droppings or other organic material. Only a (small) minority of the
farmers uses chemical inputs, because most farmers cannot afford it.
The second farming system concerns small-scale market-oriented crop
production. Despite its potential in terms of food, employment and income,
small-scale crop production entirely for commercial purposes is a rare phe-
nomenon in Nairobi. In areas like Dagoretti and Kasarani very small farms
(0.25-2 acres) exist where vegetables are produced for the urban market under
intensive production systems (Mugambi 2002). Most of these farms are located
at valley bottoms where irrigation is possible the whole year through. Besides
this type of small-scale commercial farming, a few other types exist. The first
one concerns ornamental crops, grown in plastic bags. It is commonly more
well-to-do people who engage in this activity and who have employees to run
the place. The plants are mainly seedlings sold to individuals and landscaping
companies. The second type also concerns seedlings, notably of vegetables,

5
Sukuma wiki is a typical ingredient in the diet of the poor households, favoured as
the usual supplement with the basic ugali dish (stiff maize porridge). It grows fast,
gives high yields, and has a high nutritional value.
 THE ISSUE 7

grown on very small plots. An example is the Mathare Self-Help Group con-
sisting of jobless slum dwellers. The group succeeded in obtaining permission
from the City Council to till land next to the road in Kariokor. The seedlings are
sold to farmers as far as the rural areas of Kiambu. Finally, Freeman (1991)
mentions a very special crop: ‘natural hay’. He noticed that Kikuyu women
scythed the lush grass on roadside verges with their pangas, to be collected by
dealers for selling on the market as animal fodder. Although not a cultivated
crop in the strict sense, Freeman considers the crop as “a product of the city’s
open spaces with evident commercial value” (p. 92).
The third farming system, small-scale livestock production, is often com-
bined with subsistence crop cultivation, but is usually for both subsistence and
commercial purposes. Livestock is a quite common sight in Nairobi (and other
Kenyan towns), especially in the open spaces in the outskirts of the city. Never-
theless, zero-grazing is the dominant production system (Mukui 2002). Particu-
larly among the urban cultivators, livestock keeping is quite common: Freeman
(1991) found that over half of ‘his’ cultivators kept some livestock. Poultry is
by far the most common species. Recent figures from the Ministry of Agricul-
ture6 show that there were some 68,000 layers and 290,000 broilers in Nairobi
in 2001 (Isika et al. 2002). Moreover, the population of pigs was estimated at
about 41,000, sheep and goats at 40,000 (1999 figure), dairy cattle at 17,000,
indigenous cattle (zebu) at 6,000, and rabbits at 9,000. About 28.6 million litres
of milk were produced in Nairobi in the year 2000. If space were available,
many more people would like to keep livestock. There is little knowledge on
inputs for livestock rearing. Practices like dipping, spraying, vaccinating and
using veterinary drugs are not very common. This partly explains the high
mortality rate among the Nairobi livestock. Most farmers give additional feed-
ing to their animals, such as crop residues and/or urban waste.
Finally, large-scale commercial farming can be found in the south-western
part of the city (Mugambi 2002). These are mainly dairy farms – with 20 to 100
dairy cows – that sell their milk to processors or large hotels. Three flower
farms are located in the Karen/Langata area. These flowers are exported by
plane to the Aalsmeer flower auction in The Netherlands. Finally, a number of
farms are specialized in raising pedigree cattle and racing horses.

6
Because the City of Nairobi has provincial status as well, figures for Nairobi are
available in the annual provincial reports of the ministry, unlike other cities and
towns in Kenya.
8 CHAPTER 1

Aspects of urban farming

In this section, five aspects of urban farming are briefly discussed: socio-
economic aspects, farming techniques, environmental issues, the legal and
institutional setting, and urban-rural linkages. The first three of these aspects
form the core of this book. The fourth aspect (legal and institutional setting) is
here and there dealt with in the context of the other aspects. Finally, although
the fifth aspect (urban-rural linkages) is certainly also of importance in relation
to the urban dwellers’ food provision, this aspect is only touched upon, because
it forms the topic of a separate study (Owuor 2003, 2006; Foeken & Owuor
2001).

Socio-economic aspects
In socio-economic terms, urban agriculture can be caught in three, interrelated
aspects: gender, income and food security. As for gender, in general, urban
agriculture is dominated by women, at least in eastern and southern Africa.7
This applies in particular to the low-income urban households for whom urban
farming is done either for raising the household’s food security or for survival.
In Kampala, the ‘survival’ group appeared to consist mainly of female-headed
households (Maxwell 1994). Traditionally, providing the household with food is
the women’s responsibility. This may also explain the fact that it is mainly
staple food crops that are cultivated.
Urban agriculture is attributed a potentially beneficial role in terms of the
urban economy, urban food supply and urban development in general (Smit et
al. 1996). Although largely an informal economic activity, urban farming
provides employment as well as an income for those involved. This income can
be directly realised through the sale of crops or indirectly as a result of the need
to purchase less food. Studies from Tanzania revealed substantial direct in-
comes from selling crops (Stevenson et al. 1996; Kiango & Likoko 1996) and
even more so from selling livestock products, milk in particular (Sawio 1993;
Mlozi 1997; Foeken et al. 2004). However, the impact on income is usually the
indirect one, which is indicated by the term ‘fungible income’ (Smit et al.
1996), i.e. money otherwise spent on food is saved so that other necessary
expenditures can be done. Evidence of this indirect impact was found by Max-
well (1995) in Kampala and Mwangi (1995) in Nairobi. In Dar es Salaam, a
group of home gardeners was reported to save a sizeable amount of money each
month by producing part of their own food (Mlozi 1998).

7
See e.g. Rogerson 1992; Lee-Smith & Memon 1994; Sawio 1994; Streiffeler 1994;
Tinker 1994; Matshalaga 1996.
 THE ISSUE 9

At the town or city level, urban farming contributes positively to the provi-
sion of fresh food (horticulture, fruit, eggs, milk, etc.) for the urban dwellers.
However, this contribution varies from city to city, ranging from 20% in Wind-
hoek (Namibia) and Gaborone (Botswana), 30% in Lilongwe and Blantyre
(Malawi), to 50% in Nampula (Mozambique) and 50-90% (depending on the
type of vegetables) in Dar es Salaam (Egal et al. 2001). But because of its
usually low productivity, the sector’s potential in terms of food supply as well
as employment is much higher than presently appreciated, as various studies
have indicated (for an overview, see Nugent 2000).
Food producers in town, especially those in vulnerable groups, benefit
directly in terms of increased food security (Armar-Klemesu 2000). However,
in the few studies comparing the energy intake of producers and non-producers,
the former’s intake level was usually only slightly higher than that of the latter
(Egal et al. 2001). In a slum area in Nairobi, Mwangi (1995) found that farming
households were better off in terms of energy consumption when compared
with non-farming households. Although the difference was not statistically
significant, the farmers benefited also in another way, namely by being less
dependent on food gifts and food transfers during periods of relative food
scarcity. Moreover, growing food also helps improve the quality of people’s
diets by providing fresh fruit and vegetables. Defining food security as “secure
access at all times to sufficient food” (Maxwell & Frankenberger 1992: 8)
implies that in the longer run, access to urban land is certainly a factor when
talking of household food security. As Maxwell (1995: 1677) points out, losing
access to urban land is much more of a risk in this respect than the actual
amount of land.
Equally little is known about the nutritional impact of urban farming activi-
ties for the producers. In the same study by Mwangi (1995), it was found that
wasting (low weight-for-height, indicating acute malnutrition) was lower among
under-fives in producing households, while for stunting (low height-for-age,
indicating chronic malnutrition) no differences were found. In Kampala
(Uganda), it was the other way around, stunting being significantly lower
among children in producing households compared with non-producing house-
holds, while the wasting levels were about the same (Maxwell 1995). Also in
Kampala, Semwanga (2002) reported a higher probability of having malnour-
ished children in households not owning livestock than in households with
livestock, be it that the difference was, again, rather small.

Farming techniques
Studies so far carried out in Eastern Africa revealed that farming systems
among the urban farmers are not different from the systems practised in the
10 CHAPTER 1

rural areas where most of them came from.8 Most households grow staples like
maize, while vegetables are also very common. This is not surprising since
many of the urban farmers are poor women whose prime responsibility is to
feed the household.
Since most plots are very small, farming techniques are very simple. The
only tools used are usually hoes and cutlasses (Rakodi 1995; Gbadegesin 1991).
Moreover, inputs like chemical fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides for crop
cultivation are generally used sparsely (e.g. Gbadegesin 1991; Lee-Smith &
Memon 1994; Mwangi 1995), one exception being the crop cultivators in the
Tanzanian town of Mbeya9 (Foeken et al. 2004). The reason for this may be
twofold. First, households are often too poor to be able to afford such inputs.
Secondly, since the land that is cultivated by the urban poor often does not
belong to the ones who cultivate it, any investment is too risky. However, it
may be expected that those urbanites who farm on their own compound do use
‘modern’ inputs.
Except for those who use their backyard for farming purposes, irrigation is
not common. In Mbeya and Morogoro (Tanzania), about one in ten crop culti-
vators irrigated their crops (Foeken et al. 2004). In Nairobi, Freeman (1991)
came across one out of each eight cultivators practising some kind of irrigation.
Cornish (2002a) estimated that an area of 2,220 hectares within a radius of 20
km from the city centre was under irrigation. For many of the poorer farmers,
only those who have plots along a river can benefit from the yearly flooding of
the river bringing water and nutrients into the soil. This water is highly polluted,
however, hence the crops grown on these fields can be harmful for humans.
Irrigation with sewage water is not uncommon. For instance, in Kibera, about
25% of the farmers used it (Dennery 1995). According to Cornish (2002b), the
use of sewage water has increased during the past ten years. Although tapping
from sewage pipelines is illegal and serious health risks are involved (faecal
contamination), the water and sewage authority is aware of the practice but
seems to advocate a policy of what Cornish calls “grudging acceptance”.

Urban farming and the urban environment

Urban agriculture is considered by many as an environmental hazard because of
the danger of soil erosion and the use of contaminated water for irrigation
purposes, while crops cultivated along road sides are prone to air pollution

8
See e.g. Lee-Smith et al. 1987; Freeman 1991; Egziabher et al. 1994; Maxwell
1995; Mwangi 1995.
9
Where one-third of the cultivators used chemical pesticides, 40% insecticides and
three-quarters chemical fertilizers. Interestingly, the percentages of farmers in a
Tanzanian town of comparable size (and also comparable with Nakuru), Morogoro,
using chemical inputs were much lower (Foeken et al. 2004: 58).
 THE ISSUE 11

(Mosha 1991). Since urban farming tends to be more intensive than rural farm-
ing, the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides can have a great
impact on the urban environment. Animals can cause overgrazing and traffic
accidents (Smit et al. 1996: 205-206). At the same time, it is the urban poor
who are most at risk in relation to the environmental problems of the cities,
which were in the mid-1990s described as being ‘very significant’ (Burgess et
al. 1996: 19) and as having reached ‘crisis proportions’ (Nuwagaba 1996: 23).
It is the poor who suffer most from lack of access to land for purposes of hous-
ing and economic activities, from lack of access to water for both drinking and
farming, from the effects of air pollution for both people and crops, and from
the dumping of the city’s waste often in the vicinity of the slum areas. In this
context, if well-managed and legalized, urban agriculture is seen as a solution
for both lessening the food insecurity of the urban poor and improving the urban
environment in general (UNCHS 1996: 410-411; Brock & Foeken 2005). Or, to
put it differently, “urban farming can help to create an improved micro-climate
and to conserve soils, to minimise waste in cities and to improve nutrient recy-
cling, and to improve water management, biodiversity, the O2-CO2 balance, and
the environmental awareness of city inhabitants” (Deelstra & Girardet 2000:
47). Land use, use of (partly treated) sewage water, use of composted solid
waste as well as other types of organic waste (plants, animals) are all compo-
nents of the so-called ‘closed-loop system’ that existed in the pre-industrial city:
“liquid and solid city wastes are returned to the land and serve as the prime
source of soil building and enrichment for the production of perishable food for
the city” (Smit et al. 1996: 12; Nelson 1996).
An attempt to change the attitudes of local governments was a Dutch initia-
tive in Kenya called the Green Towns Project (Duchhart & Grootenhuis 1993).
In the context of this programme, local authorities receive training in urban
planning, with special emphasis on the integration of environmental issues in
the Local Authorities Development Programmes. In this approach, proper urban
agriculture is implicitly part of sustainable urban development. Three Kenyan
towns had been chosen as pilot towns, namely Eldoret, Nanyuki and Migori.

Legal and institutional setting

Crop cultivation and livestock keeping in town is practised under different
conditions than farming in the rural areas. It takes place “within the confines of
residential areas and in a legal regime (...) that restrict activities associated with
both crop and livestock production” (Mukui 2002: 9). In Kenya, the Local
Government Act, Water Act, Public Health Act, Animal Diseases Act, as well
as several other acts, provide each local government with the power to restrict
farming activities in town. In practice, it means that although officially forbid-
den, city authorities tolerate urban farming (Gathuru 1993). Still, in the mid-
12 CHAPTER 1

1980s different local authorities in Kenya pursued different policies regarding

urban farming. For instance, in Nairobi, Mombasa and Kakamega, a laissez-
faire attitude (or neglect) prevailed, while the local governments in Isiolo and
Kitale implemented favourable measures for urban farmers (Memon & Lee-
Smith 1993).
Open space planning in Nairobi is administered by zoning regulations based
on the ‘city beautiful’ idea dating from the colonial period. Hence, urban agri-
culture was long considered a misfit in urban development (Mwangi 2002). For
instance, it was seen as a traditional activity carried out by recent immigrants
from the rural areas. Studies have shown that this is a myth: urban farmers are
those who have been in town for quite a number of years; are settled so to say
(see e.g. Mougeot 1993; for Kenya: Mwangi 1995; Mwangi & Foeken 1996).
Urban farming was also seen as a subsistence kind of economic activity, incom-
patible with the ‘modern’ character of the city. Through the years, zoning regu-
lations have changed somewhat, particularly regarding informal sector activi-
ties. With written permission – a so-called temporary occupation licence or
TOL – livestock may be grazed on the outskirts of the city (Munari 1994;
Karanja 1994). The regulations regarding crop cultivation have not changed and
this activity is still officially forbidden. However, there do exist zones where
agriculture is permitted (Quon 1999), notably on the outskirts of the city, i.e. the
areas that came to be located within the city boundaries after the expansion of
1964. Within the ‘old’ boundaries, the present policy is largely one of ignoring
the activity, certainly as far as the urban poor in the informal settlements are
concerned. In general, however, urban farming is not being incorporated in
urban planning. In the most recent government policy initiative on urban
planning (the Physical Planning Act of 1996), agriculture is still systematically
excluded from the urban land use system, which, according to Mireri (2002)
negatively affects the development of the sector.
The majority of the Nairobi farmers are completely left on their own, getting
no assistance or advice of any sort. However, the Ministry of Agriculture does
provide extension services, in principle to everyone who asks for it. Yet, road-
side, riverside and sewage line farming are not recognized by the officers as it
has been prohibited in the 1961 Nairobi City Council by-laws and never been
reviewed since then (Ateka 1999). This implies that many of the poor urban
cultivators do not qualify for extension. Moreover, those who do qualify are
often either not reached or do not get the advice they need. According to
Mugambi (2002), some of the reasons are that (1) the majority of the city farm-
ers are part-time farmers, usually not at home during the extension officers’
visiting hours, and (2) many farmers carry out specialized forms of agriculture,
to which the advisory service is not adapted.
 THE ISSUE 13

Very little research has been done on this aspect of urban agriculture. This is
the more surprising as, according to the existing literature, some of the major
problems faced by the urban farmers are related to it: security of access to land,
too small plots, lack of infrastructure, harassment, lack of extension services,
etc. Meanwhile, some NGOs have been trying to fill this ‘gap’ by actively
assisting urban farmers. The Undugu Society’s work in one of the Nairobi
slums is a case in point (Gathuru 1993).

Urban-rural links
As far as rural-urban linkages in Sub-Sahara Africa are concerned, the focus has
so far predominantly been on the urban dwellers contributing to the livelihood
of the rural dwellers, usually by means of remittances of family members living
in town. Hardly anything is known about the reverse flow, i.e. in how far urban
households realise part of their livelihood from rural sources. In a survey in
Harare in three residential areas of different socio-economic statuses, it was
found that just over one-third of the respondents claimed to hold land outside
the city from which they could receive food crops (Drakakis-Smith 1992). Two
other surveys held in Harare in 1985 and 1988 revealed that respectively 40%
and 53% of the households claimed to have access to rural land (Potts &
Mutambirwa 1990). However, only about half of the 1985 population said they
had used the land productively the previous year, despite the fact that the rains
had been good. For those who actively farmed the rural land, the produce –
either self-consumed or sold – represented a fairly significant addition to the
households’ income.
In a general survey of 1985 it was found that 55% of the Kenyan low-
income urban population stated to have access to rural land (Lee-Smith et al.
1987), while at least one-third of them stated to have livestock back in the rural
areas (Lee-Smith & Memon 1994). As for access to rural land, the same figure
was found in 1994 among households in a Nairobi slum area (Mwangi 1995).
Of the latter, 44% said to be the actual owners of the plot(s), while in all other
cases parents or relatives appeared to be the owners. However, ownership by the
urban households did not automatically mean that they also used the plot them-
selves: half of the rural plots owned by the urban households were either let to
be used freely by others (mostly relatives) or were left idle. Further analysis of
the 1994 data indicated that those of the urban poor who did have access to rural
land were better off in terms of food security than those who did not (Foeken &
Mwangi 1998).
14 CHAPTER 1

Theoretical considerations

From a theoretical point of view, the study fits in the livelihood approach. A
livelihood is defined as comprising “(…) the capabilities, assets (including both
material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living”
(Carney 1998: 4, derived from Chambers & Conway 1992). Central to the
livelihood approach is that people should not be seen as passive victims of
adverse circumstances,10 but instead develop all kinds of actions and strategies
aimed at preserving a certain livelihood level.11 The keyword is ‘access’, the
crucial question being in how far people have access to all kinds of resources
(or ‘assets’ or ‘capitals’).12 So important is ‘access’ that, according to Bebbing-
ton (1999: 2022), “[it is] perhaps the most critical resource of all”, since, as
Rakodi (2002b: 293) observes, “proximity and availability [of resources] mean
little if access is denied”.
The livelihood approach distinguishes five “vital” resources,13 although their
boundaries are not always that clear nor is the categorization exhaustive (Rako-
di 2002a):
1) Natural resources: land, water, pastures, etc. Natural assets may be less sig-
nificant in an urban setting (Meikle 2002), but with increasing reliance on agri-
culture (both urban and rural), access to land and security of tenure have
become important resources for urban dwellers (see Payne 2002).
2) Physical resources: basic infrastructure and services (shelter, transport, wa-
ter, energy, communications, hospitals), equipment, tools, inputs, food stocks,
household assets, livestock, etc.
3) Financial resources: savings, loans, credit, wages/salaries, pensions and re-
mittances. Urban households are highly monetized and so access to a monetary
income is essential.
4) Human resources: capabilities, skills, experience, labour, knowledge, crea-
tivity, health, etc. These are important to the fulfilment of productive and repro-
ductive tasks. Capacity to work is the main asset of the urban poor. Lack of
skills and education affects the ability to secure a livelihood in towns more di-
rectly than it does in the rural areas.

10
I.e., the adverse circumstances as briefly described in the first section of this chapter.
11
See e.g. Chambers 1983; Jones 1999; Rakodi 2002a; De Haan & Zoomers 2003;
Kaag et al. 2004.
12
For more details on these types of resources in an (African) urban setting, see for
instance Rakodi 2002a and Brown & Lloyd-Jones 2002.
13
See e.g. Mitlin 2003; De Haan 2000; Rakodi 2002a; Carney 1999; Chambers 1995;
Blaikie et al. 1994; and Chambers & Conway 1992. Some scholars use the term
‘assets’ or ‘capitals’ instead of ‘resources’; here, the terms ‘assets’ and ‘resources’
are used interchangeably.
 THE ISSUE 15

5) Social resources: formal and informal networks from which various opportu-
nities and benefits can be drawn by people in their pursuit of livelihoods. These
are mainly reciprocity and trust embedded in social relations, social structures
and societal institutional arrangements. Closely linked to social resources are
political resources based on access to the political process and decision-making
(see Devas 2002). Meikle (2002: 42) elaborates that the urban poor are linked
into structures of governance through their dependence on or exclusion from the
delivery of infrastructure and services by municipal authorities.
Although the livelihood approach distinguishes these five types of resources,
the importance of “cultural resources” in livelihood studies should also be rec-
ognized. Such cultural aspects as language, taboos, cultural institutions, relig-
ion, etc, may have an important influence on an individual’s or a household’s
livelihood strategy.
Returning to the topic of this book, urban agriculture, many of the above
resources form a necessary condition for a household or individual to be able to
undertake urban farming.14 Natural resources refer to land (both quantity and
quality), water and energy, etc. Access to land is an important prerequisite
without which it is impossible to practise urban farming.15 Particularly for the
urban poor who often lack a compound, public space is a crucial resource for
farming in town (Brown & Lloyd-Jones 2002). Physical or productive re-
sources relate to farming tools, inputs for both crop cultivation and livestock
keeping, but also to, for example, food stocks (for animals). Financial resources
include money (either at home or in the bank), a loan or credit but also income-
generating activities, in order to be able to pay for inputs (including hired
labour) or to invest in e.g. livestock. Human resources concern not only the
household’s own labour as such, but also the quality of it in relation to farming.
Finally, social resources include, for instance, local networks between urban
farmers (e.g. cooperatives, women’s groups) and relations between sellers and
buyers.
Access to these resources is included in the various aspects of urban farming
dealt with in this book and briefly discussed in the previous section. Especially
the socio-economic situation of the household can be regarded as a major
condition for getting access to all kinds of resources, household income and
gender being particularly relevant (Kaag et al. 2004; Beall 2002). For instance,

14
It should be stressed that the book does not deal with the overall livelihood of house-
holds, of which urban agriculture is one element (as done, for instance, by Martin et
al. 2000 and, for some specific households in Nakuru, by Owuor & Foeken 2006).
Instead, the focus is on urban farming itself (being part of a household’s livelihood)
and the resources needed to engage in this activity.
15
Although from the literature there are examples of people growing crops or keeping
animals on the balcony, the roof or in a room in the house (Smit et al. 1996).
16 CHAPTER 1

poor households and women have less easy access to land and can less easily
obtain title deeds (‘legal and institutional setting’), while they are less inclined
to use modern farming techniques and/or inputs (‘farming systems and tech-
niques’). Moreover, they are less likely to have access to rural land, and if they
do, have greater difficulties in using it productively because of the higher costs
involved to get there.
In theory, the legal and institutional setting, including national policies, local
by-laws and local policies (see e.g. Foeken et al. 2004; Foeken 2005), could be
a major conditional factor for getting access to various resources as well. For
instance, local by-laws contain such regulations as to where urban farming is
allowed, the types of crops one may cultivate, as well as the number of certain
types of animals (if at all) allowed to keep and how to keep them. Moreover,
local authorities can at will decide to follow a policy line of repression, tole-
rance or promotion. However, in practice, a laissez-faire policy (‘toleration’)
has prevailed in sub-Saharan Africa during the last decades, even though there
are numerous examples of harassment and destruction of crops. In other words,
the relevance of the legal and institutional setting as a regulating force in
relation to getting access to resources for urban farming has mostly been more
of a paper than a practical matter.
The previous discussion implies that some people do not have access to
certain types of resources necessary to engage in urban agriculture (besides
those who simply do not want to farm in town). This brings us to the concept of
exclusion. As Kaag et al. (2004: 61) rightly observe, “not all members of a
given society have equal access to social security arrangements: particularly the
poorest tend to be excluded”. For households facing exclusion – or ‘denied
access’ – to such resources, farming in town as a coping strategy in order to
sustain one’s livelihood is no option. For those, access to rural land and/or
social resources might be another possibility to fulfil one’s needs.
The term exclusion comes close to the concept of ‘entitlement’ introduced
by Sen (see for instance Sen 1981). The main difference with exclusion is that
entitlement refers to the right of access, while exclusion and by definition also
‘inclusion’ concerns access itself, i.e. the question of whether the entitlement
can be effected into access to specific resources. The importance of Sen’s
concept lies particularly in the notion that the right of access is largely deter-
mined by factors belonging to broader social, cultural, economic, political and
natural spheres. For instance, occupying land belonging to someone else is
forbidden, as is usually growing maize in town (‘legal setting’). Hence, one has
no right to grow maize on a plot to which the cultivator has no right; in other
words, the cultivator violates the law in two ways. The fact that these practices
do occur, however, shows that people can have access to resources even without
the right to do so. This says something about the difficult situation many people
 THE ISSUE 17

find themselves and about the way the legal systems in many African countries
work. It also shows that if local authorities would see to compliance with the
law, people would be forced to look for alternative livelihood strategies.
Two more notions are important here. First, livelihood strategies are not
static but change (Hoon et al. 1997). This can be due to changes in the (access
to) resources at the disposal of the person(s) involved. It can also be because of
changes in the context in which these persons are living. Second, resources are
limited, so access to resources can be very competitive. This implies that access
to resources (such as urban land for farming) for the one (‘inclusion’) may mean
denied access for the other (‘exclusion’). Or in the words of De Haan (2000:
26), “the sustainable livelihood of one actor may result in the social exclusion
of another”.
At another level, it is increasingly being recognized that urban farming is an
element of the wider urban environment (and, hence, an aspect of urban
management and urban development). Households engaged in farming activities
within the town or city boundaries make use of urban resources such as land
and water, but sometimes in a detrimental way. In order to make urban devel-
opment ‘sustainable’, local authorities see it necessary to regulate and guide
farming practices in town. In practice, this can easily lead to curtailing the
possibilities for farming for the one, but also to more favourable conditions for
another, for instance increased access to extension services or credit for the
development of urban farming in designated zones. In other words, sustainable
development at town or city level may lead to exclusion of certain resources
(land, water) at household level. Not surprisingly, those with the least assets
(the poor) are most likely the ones to suffer most from such developments.

The present study

The uniqueness of the study

Although there exists a certain body of knowledge regarding urban farming in
sub-Saharan Africa (see Obudho & Foeken 1999), this knowledge is still very
fragmentary and incomplete, because most studies focus on one or two aspects
of urban farming only and mostly in one specific urban centre (usually the
national capital) or even a specific part or project within that centre. In the mid-
1990s, Mougeot (1994b) pointed out that particularly lacking are for instance
studies in which urban farmers and non-farmers are compared,16 studies in

16
The Nairobi study by Mwangi (1995) is one of the few exceptions.
18 CHAPTER 1

which different towns or cities are compared,17 and studies in which the various
aspects and effects of urban agriculture are analysed. Since then, very few
studies have been done along one or more of these lines. The present study tries
to some extent to fill this gap.
The study distinguishes itself from studies done so far because of the combi-
nation of three points of entry. First, different aspects of urban farming are
integrated. Up to now, studies on urban agriculture focused on one or perhaps
two aspects of the phenomenon. The present study covers to some extent the
various aspects discussed above, with particular emphasis to the socio-
economic and environmental aspects.18 Moreover, an institutional form of urban
agriculture, namely school farming in Nakuru town, is discussed in a separate
chapter. The advantages of this integrative approach are twofold: (a) a compre-
hensive picture of urban farming and the urban farmers emerges, so that (b) the
results of this study can be used for planning purposes.
Second, the study focuses on a medium-sized town: Nakuru. Studies so far
have almost without exception been done in the national capitals. However, a
national capital is in many respects not representative for the whole urban
population in a specific country. For instance Nairobi, being the national capital
and being so much larger than any other urban centre in the country, is domi-
nant in terms of economic, political and cultural aspects. As a result, the city
attracts a continuously large flow of migrants from all parts of the country. A
medium-sized town like Nakuru is much more common in sub-Saharan Africa
than the large national capitals.
Third, there is special attention for the urban poor. Although the study does
not focus solely on the poor, this category receives special attention. It is widely
recognised that it is the urban poor who suffer most from the economic reces-
sion that has been going on since the 1980s. Due to the increasing rates of
unemployment, they have to resort to the informal sector and/or fall back on
farming in the city. For this group, all aspects of urban farming mentioned
above come together in a negative way. They need it most, but at the same time
are most prone to all kinds of constraints. For them, urban cultivation can at
best be a temporary business in which it is too risky to invest. Hence, the bene-
fits in terms of raising income and more food security are uncertain and limited.
Yet, for many of them it is at the same time a way of survival.

17
A recent example is the study in Tanzania by Foeken et al. (2004) who compared
two towns, Morogoro and Mbeya, with different physical circumstances.
18
The legal aspects are more extensively described elsewhere (Foeken 2005), while
the urban-rural links formed a separate (PhD) study (see Owuor 2006).
 THE ISSUE 19

Set-up of the book

The book is the reflection of a whole range of studies carried out in the context
of the overall Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research Project (NUAP). The ‘foun-
dation’ of the project was a general survey in 1999 meant to get a good general
impression of the importance of urban farming in Nakuru town. The results of
this survey are presented in Chapters 3 (‘The farmers’), 4 (‘The crops’), 5 (‘The
animals’) and parts of Chapters 6 (‘The benefits’) and 7 (‘The support’). Most
of the poverty analysis in Chapter 10 (‘The poor’) is also based on this general
survey.
A second survey was done one year after the first one, primarily aiming at
the effect of urban farming for the food security situation of the households
involved and for the nutritional condition of the household members. The
results of this survey are mainly included in Chapters 6 (‘The benefits’) and 10
(‘The poor’). The two surveys also offered good comparison possibilities
between a ‘normal’ year in terms of rainfall and a dry year, which is used in
various chapters.
Four sub-studies at Masters level were also part of NUAP. Two of these –
one on the environmental impact of urban farming and the other on school
farming – are laid down in separate chapters in this book, namely Chapters 8
(‘The environment’) and 9 (‘The schools’). The results of a third study – on the
impact of NGO support for urban farmers – are included in Chapter 7 (‘The
support’). The fourth sub-study was of an anthropological nature focusing on
decision-making related to farming in town. The detailed findings of this study
have been used throughout the book, mostly in the form of illustrations (cita-
tions).
The final Chapter 11 (‘Summary and conclusions’) tries to bring together the
findings of the various studies, relating it to the theoretical considerations as
outlined in Chapter 1 and translating it into policy recommendations.
20 CHAPTER 1

Photo 1 Nakuru town seen from the lower slopes of the Menengai Crater.
Lake Nakuru is in the left background. Maize cultivation in the foreground
(peri-urban farming). (Dick Foeken, 1999)

Photo 2 Crop cultivation in the medium-density area of Bangla Desh.

(Dick Foeken, 1999)
 2
The setting

Nakuru town

Natural structure
Nakuru is located in the heart of the Great Rift Valley 160 km north-west of
o o o o
Nairobi between latitudes 0 10' and 0 20' South and longitudes 36 and 36 10'
East (see Map 2.1). The largest part of the town lies at an altitude of about 1700
metres above sea level. In the northern part, on the slopes of the Menengai
Crater, the altitude rises to about 1850 metres. Nakuru is located in the midst of
a concentration of geographical features that together make up the Lake Nakuru
catchment basin. These include the Menengai Crater to the north, the Bahati
Highlands to the northeast, the Eburu Hills and Lake Nakuru to the south and
the Mau Escarpment to the southwest. The lake water catchment is served by
several small, seasonal rivers, including the Enjoro and Ng’ossor which flow
through the town. Due to its location on the floor of the Rift Valley with its
volcanic soils, Nakuru is engulfed with whirlwinds of dust during the dry sea-
son, giving the town its name (nakuru means ‘a place of winds’ in the Maasai
language).
With a 1949-2002 average annual rainfall of about 940 mm, Nakuru has a
dry sub-humid equatorial climate. The ‘normal’ rainfall pattern throughout the
year is indicated by the line in Figure 2.1.1 The most important period of rain

1
The provision of the rainfall figures by Francis Mwaura and John Githaiga (Univer-
sity of Nairobi, Department of Geography) is gratefully acknowledged.
22 CHAPTER 2

Map 2.1 Kenya and location of Nakuru town

 THE SETTING 23

is the so-called ‘long rains’ during March-May, a period that coincides with the
start of the growing season. Two minor rainfall peaks occur in July-August and
around November. The latter period is called the ‘short rains’ during which
some people try to plant a second crop if the long rains have failed. Figure 2.1
also shows the rainfall distributions of 1998 and 1999, i.e. the two years that
were covered by the two surveys in this study (in 1999 and 2000, respectively;
see below). The year 1998 was quite good in terms of rainfall. The distinct
peaks in January and May account for the relatively high total rainfall in this
year. More importantly, the distribution was more or less ‘normal’, resulting in
‘normal’ harvests as well. The year 1999, however, was quite different: after a
promising start in March, the rest of the long rains largely failed, causing har-
vests to be relatively bad.

Figure 2.1 Monthly rainfall, selected years

mm
300

250

200
1998 (1135 mm)
150 1999 (753 mm)
average 1949-2002 (940 mm)
100

50

0
jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Historical development
Until the arrival of the railway at the beginning of the twentieth century, the
present-day Nakuru area was used as grazing land by pastoral communities,
mainly the Maasai (MCN 1999). Like Nairobi and Kisumu, Nakuru began (in
1904) as a railway station on the great East African Railway (or Uganda Rail-
way) between the city-port of Mombasa on the Indian Ocean coast and Port
Florence (today’s Kisumu) on Lake Victoria. Being located in the so-called
‘White Highlands’ (the area of large farms owned by European settlers), Nakuru
soon developed into an important regional trading centre and became the capital
24 CHAPTER 2

of the district with the same name and of Kenya’s largest province, Rift Valley
Province.
During the colonial period, Nakuru was a highly planned settlement, i.e. a
square grid cut in two by the railway (De Meulder 1998; MCN 1999). The rail-
way depots were north of the railway while the section south of the railway was
the actual settlement, with its administrative, commercial and residential zones.
The street pattern was as simple as it was efficient: streets with an east-west
direction were called ‘avenues’ (numbered from 1 to 6) and streets with a north-
south orientation were called ‘roads’. Already during the 1920s, the town began
to grow outside the original grid (Map 2.2). In the zoning plan of 1929 (the so-
called Ballenden plan), Nakuru’s further expansion was laid down, in accor-
dance with the then generally accepted principles of functional zoning, i.e. with
an industrial quarter, residential districts for the various social classes, a suitable
location for a hospital and cemetery, recreational facilities, a site for the airfield,
etc. One of the special residential quarters, to the southeast of the original grid,
was Bondeni, meant for the Asian community. After the Second World War,
and in particular after independence in 1963, public housing complexes were
built for the African population. Thus, Nakuru was transformed from a colonial
European town into an African town.
Since independence, Nakuru has known three major extensions of its boun-
daries, in 1963, in 1972 and the latest in 1992 (Map 2.2). The present built-up
area coincides largely with the 1972 boundary (see below). With the extension
of 1992, Lake Nakuru National Park fell within the municipal boundaries, as
well as a stretch of agricultural land to the northwest of the park (and a narrow
strip bordering the northeastern boundary of the park, which is also an agricul-
tural area). Due to the subdivision of former farms into small plots for residen-
tial use, this stretch is now a largely sub-urban area, albeit with a strong agricul-
tural character. Another sub-urban area extends to the north of the town, mainly
on the slopes of the crater. Although this area falls outside the municipal boun-
daries, it is part of the Nakuru planning area (or the Nakuru Metropolitan Area
as it is called). The total area of the municipality is about 300 km2, of which the
lake takes up 40 km2. Due to the fact that the town is squeezed between the
Menengai Crater to the north and Lake Nakuru National Park to the south, the
present expansion is mainly to the east and the west, giving the town its
elongated, east-westerly shape.

Population growth
Over the past 30 years, the population of Nakuru town has increased by a factor
five. In 1969, the population was 47,151 (Kenya 1970), increasing to 92,851 in
1979 (Kenya 1981) and 163,982 in 1989 (Kenya 1994). Today, Nakuru is the
 THE SETTING 25

Map 2.2 Evolution of the boundaries of Nakuru town

(From MCN 1999, Fig. 3.4, p. 31)

1923
26 CHAPTER 2

fourth largest town in Kenya (after Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu), with a
population of 239,000 in 1999 (Kenya 2000). Intercensal annual growth seems
to have continuously declined since 1969, namely from 7.8% between 1969 and
1979 to 6.5% between 1979 and 1989 and to 4.3% between 1989 and 1999. The
annual growth figure of 7.8% for the 1969-79 period may be misleading, how-
ever, due to the boundary extension of 1972 (see Map 2.2), so that the real
growth rate during this period may actually have been lower. In 1992, there was
another boundary extension, so the 4.3% growth rate during the 1989-99 period
may to some extent be an overestimation as well. The conclusion is that despite
the substantial growth of the absolute Nakuru population, the growth rate has
decreased quite rapidly during the last two or three decades.

Urban poverty
In 2001, the Kenyan government defined ‘poverty’ as inadequacy of income,
deprivation of basic needs and rights, and lack of access to productive assets as
well as to social infrastructure and markets. In quantitative terms, the ‘absolute
poverty line’ is the income needed to obtain basic food and non-food items. For
urban areas, this was Ksh. 2,648 per person per month in 1997 (Kenya 2001:
11), which was equal to the official minimum wage as set by the government at
that time.2 According to the Welfare Monitoring Survey that was held in 1997
(WMS III), 26,378 (or 41%) of the households in Nakuru Municipality were
living below the absolute poverty line (Kenya 2001). Since poorer households
tend to be larger than better-off households, the percentage of the Nakuru popu-
3
lation affected was even higher, almost 50%. Importantly, the 1997 figure im-
plied a substantial increase in the prevalence of urban poverty compared with
three years before when the number of households below the absolute poverty
line stood at 30% (Ibid). This is related to the fact that “only a fraction of the
[Nakuru] labour force is actually employed” (MCN 1999: 62). As a result,
“there is a high dependency ratio, increasing unemployment and increasing
urban poverty” (Ibid).

Economic structure
Nakuru’s economy is based on commerce, industry, tourism, agriculture and
tertiary services. Commercial activities are concentrated in the original Central

2
On 1 May 2002, the minimum wage was raised to Ksh. 3,500 (about US$ 50), so the
number of people below the poverty line increased automatically as these official
measures usually have little impact on the wages paid by employers to their employ-
ees.
3
Calculated as follows: according to WMS III, 113,674 individuals were affected,
which was 49.4% of an estimated total 1997 population of 230,000 (based on the
population figures of 1989 and 1999).
 THE SETTING 27

Business District (CBD), along various strips and in several smaller nodes (Map
2.3). Informal commercial activities have become an increasingly common
feature of the town. Small-scale business and hawking activities are mainly to
be found at major transport termini and on the reserves of busy internal roads
(MCN 1999).
Because of the rich agricultural hinterland, Nakuru is called the “farmers’
capital” of Kenya and is famous for its agro-based industries. There are over
100 agro-industrial establishments ranging from food processing to farm machi-
nery assembly (MCN 1999). The main industrial zone is located west of the
CBD (Map 2.3). More recently, a second industrial zone has developed to the
east, with all kinds of related urban development activities.
There are several tourist attractions in and around the town. Of these, Lake
Nakuru National Park is by far the most important, attracting visitors from all
over the world. Minor attractions include the Menengai Crater and two
archaeological sites. Furthermore, Nakuru offers a central point of departure to
other attractions in the Rift Valley region, such as Lake Bogoria and Lake
Baringo.
Besides being the “farmers’ capital”, there is large- and small-scale farming
within the boundaries of the municipality. Large farms can be found in the west
(Map 2.3), including the huge farm belonging to the Rift Valley Institute of
Science and Technology (RVIST). Small-scale farming activities are develop-
ing within the municipality (MCN 1999) and are mostly located in the peri-
urban areas. The former rural area south of the Enjoro River in the southwestern
part of the town, which became part of the municipality after the boundary
extension of 1992 (see Map 2.2), is one such area. Many farms have been sub-
divided into small-holder parcels and urban residential plots. Nevertheless,
farming is still the main activity there.4
In addition to these economic activities, Nakuru town is an important trans-
port and administrative centre. The ‘rail-road ribbon’ of both the Mombasa-
Nairobi-Kisumu/Uganda railway and the Mombasa-Nairobi-Eldoret/Kisumu/-
Uganda road runs through the centre of the town. This has attracted all kinds of
support facilities, such as petrol stations. The town is also an important admin-
istrative centre. Being the capital of Kenya’s most populous district – Nakuru
District with a population of 1.2 million in 1999 – and the country’s largest
province – Rift Valley Province with a 1999 population of 7 million (Kenya
2000) – the town has a wide range of offices offering employment in the
administrative sector to many people.

4
More detailed information on farming in Nakuru town is presented below in this
chapter.
28 CHAPTER 2

Map 2.3 Economic structure (from MCN 1999, Fig. 3.9, p. 45)
 THE SETTING 29

Land tenure and settlement structure

During pre-colonial times, land was communally owned. Nowadays, it is all in
public or private ownership. Public land is owned by either the municipal coun-
cil or the central government and is used for municipal and government pur-
poses or leased out for a specified period to individuals for pre-determined
urban land-use activities (MCN 1999). Public land constitutes the bulk of the
municipal area. Except for the above-mentioned area south of the Enjoro River,
which is private land, nearly all residential estates are leased public land.
Urban farming is highly dependent on the availability of space. In other
words, housing density more than population density determines whether farm-
ing in a certain residential estate is possible and to what extent. Most of the low-
density housing areas are located north of the rail-road ribbon, while south of
that line medium and high-density housing areas prevail (Map 2.4). To some
extent, housing densities coincide with income levels, in the sense that high-
income areas generally have low densities (such as Milimani in the north) while
low-income areas have high densities (for example Kwa Rhonda in the south-
west). However, low-income areas with quite low housing densities also exist,
examples being Ziwani, Flamingo and Kivumbini estates.

Environmental infrastructure
Sewage disposal in Nakuru town is by sewer reticulation, septic tanks and cess-
pools and pit latrines. There are two sewage treatment plants (indicated with an
‘S’ on Map A2.1, p. 176), the Old Town treatment plant within the boundaries
of Lake Nakuru National Park and the newer and bigger Njoro treatment plant
in the southwest, both using stabilization ponds as treatment mechanisms (MCN
1999). The capacity of the sewage system is under-utilized, mainly because of
the inadequate sewage network (less than 20% of the built-up area is served by
it). According to an informant from the Municipal Council, the under-utilization
of the Old Town treatment plant is partly caused by the fact that people living
just north of the park boundary use sewage water for irrigation purposes. This is
an area (Block 14) with a lot of open space that is intensively used for crop
cultivation.
In Nakuru, a lot of solid waste is generated from household, commercial and
industrial activities. However, waste collection and disposal services are totally
inadequate and are limited to the old town (MCN 1999). In many residential
areas, waste collection relies on private initiatives, including some non-govern-
mental and community-based organizations. There is one designated dumping
site, a natural ravine, in the northwest of the town where waste is dumped with-
out any form of separation. Where the ravine has been filled, the garbage has
been covered with a thin layer of soil in which food crops are now being culti-
vated.
30 CHAPTER 2

Map 2.4 Structure of housing (From MCN 1999, Fig. 3.6, p. 37)
 THE SETTING 31
5
Farming in Nakuru town
By the mid-1990s, farming practices within the town’s boundaries were –
reluctantly – tolerated by the Municipal Council. However, in cases of com-
plaints or nuisances, the Council did sometimes take measures, legally backed
by the Public Health Act. The problem for the municipality was that its enforce-
ment capacity has always been too small. Farming in town has consequently
become a common phenomenon and among all categories of the population.
Nowadays, the municipality allows crop cultivation as long as the crop is less
than one metre high, and although this excludes maize, the crop can be seen
everywhere. Most people cultivate common food crops for their own consump-
tion. Crops like kale, cow peas and spinach are also cultivated for commercial
purposes, as there is a ready market for these products.
Many people also keep one or more animals. According to information from
the local branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, there were about 160,000
chickens in the municipality by the end of the 20th century, 25,000 head of cattle
(of which 23,000 under free range and 2,000 in zero-grazing), 3,000 goats,
3,500 sheep and 1,500 pigs. In addition, there were five farmers who kept bees.
According to the Public Health Act, farming is prohibited if it causes a
nuisance. Fly breeding, mosquito breeding, disposal of dirty water, pollution of
wells, foul smells etc. are all considered nuisances, some of which can bring
disease, such as malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhoea etc. Pigs usually cause the
greatest nuisance.
One of the municipal officers distinguished three types of urban agriculture
in Nakuru. First, there is farming in privately owned compounds (on-plot farm-
ing). A wide variety of farming activities can be found here because there is
little control of such farming by the municipality. Second, there is farming in
the compounds of the municipal residential estates. These are rented houses, but
farming is very common either in the compounds of the individual tenants or
between the housing blocks. Finally, off-plot farming by poor people on land
that does not belong to them also occurs in Nakuru. According to an informant,
this type of farming is quite common too.

“Localising Agenda 21”

Nakuru is one of the three towns in the world where Localising Agenda 21:
Action Planning for Sustainable Urban Development is being implemented.6

5
The information in this section was collected before the 1999 survey and is largely
based on personal communication with representatives from the municipality, the
district, the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru, several community-based organizations and
some urban farmers. What is presented here reflects the perceptions of several key
informants on urban agriculture in the town at that time.
6
The others are Essaouira in Morocco and Vinh City in Vietnam (see Tuts 1998).
32 CHAPTER 2

This programme, launched by UNCHS (Habitat), is a direct result of the Earth

Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and is based on an awareness that urban
development and environmental protection have to be harmonized to make
urban development sustainable.
The programme’s objective is to provide training to develop a new approach
towards urban planning and management, focusing on environmentally aware
development of Nakuru (“People’s Green City”), with particular attention to
low-income groups. The first step was the organization of a Consultation Work-
shop in 1995 that brought together a wide range of stakeholders in Nakuru,
including councillors, officers of the Municipal Council, District and Province,
research and training institutions, parastatals, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), industrialists and others
(Mwangi 2001). The workshop reached a common understanding of the factors
that were promoting and hindering the sustainable development of Nakuru. The
result of the workshop was an Urban Pact, expressing a vision of desirable
development in Nakuru Municipality.
The plan envisaged Nakuru as an ‘eco-town’,7 integrating natural and human
imperatives. Inevitably, urban agriculture has to be an integral part of this vision
because it is a fact of life that cannot be ignored when the sustainable develop-
ment of a town is being planned. As Kulshreshtha (1998: 47) puts it:
The assimilation of agriculture as an integral urban function and the protection of the
agricultural lands from the threats of expansion of other urban land uses, have
become important development imperatives for Nakuru. In the face of slow indus-
trial growth and investment in Nakuru, urban agriculture reveals its potential as a
viable, eco-friendly and sustainable development option. This option calls for reori-
enting and harnessing its potential for urban employment, for economic growth and
even more importantly, for living in harmony with nature – a fact that is rooted in
the being of Nakuru.
However, during discussions with the municipal officers it was admitted
that, although they knew that urban agriculture was everywhere in the town,
there was no systematic knowledge of the phenomenon because no relevant
study had ever been done in the town.
Other decisions taken during the Consultation Workshop were to set up a
town planning unit, prepare the Strategic Structure Plan (see MCN 1999),
identify priority zones, strengthen local institutions and stimulate innovative
partnerships (Mwangi 2001). A number of local environmental action groups
were created to develop environmental action with the municipality. One such

7
The other visions being a railroad town, a center of eco-tourism, a regional capital
and a service centre, and a prototype town of the East African highlands (Mwangi
2001).
 THE SETTING 33

group was the NAROKA group, formed in 1997 and actively involved in solid
waste management and water supply initiatives.
During a second workshop, in September 1996, several priority zones were
identified requiring immediate planning interventions (Mwangi 2001), for
8
example the further expansion of the town on the eastern side. This rapidly
urbanizing peri-urban zone combines residential and agricultural land uses. It
was agreed that selective urbanization and the protection of agriculture should
receive high priority in the area. Other concrete action plans concerned such
topics as water management (water is a scarce commodity in this semi-arid
climate), solid waste management, the greening of the town (e.g. by means of
tree nurseries in primary schools), the promotion of ecotourism, and awareness
training.
The final Strategic Nakuru Structure Plan was approved in April 2001.
According to Mwangi (2001: 17), “it is the blueprint for urban sustainable
development for the town and is probably one of the most important achieve-
ments of the LA21 programme”. However, the role of urban agriculture is con-
spicuously absent in this document. The only time the activity is mentioned,
farming in town is considered as a temporary feature: “Economically, urban
agriculture is a transitory activity which eventually gives way to more tradi-
tional urban functions” (MCN 1999: 44). This seems to contradict the remarks
by Kulshreshtha’s cited above.
So far, a lot has been put on paper, but concrete results have been few.
Mwangi (2001) mentions a number of constraints, such as lack of funds, low
levels of education on the part of CBO members and County Councillors,
frequent personnel changes because of elections and/or transfers, the current
economic crisis and the unpredictable political situation. Another problem is the
exclusion of certain groups in the whole LA21 process, groups that were sup-
posed to be involved particularly because of their vulnerable position – women,
youth and the poor.

The study population

What exactly is meant by urban agriculture in Nakuru Municipality? This

question had become very relevant among the municipal authorities in the
context of the LA 21 programme, but besides the observation that the phenome-

8
Expansion on the western and southern sides is undesirable; in the west because the
area is geologically too unstable due to several fault lines, and in the south because
of the proximity of Lake Nakuru National Park and the danger of (further) pollution
of the lake. In the north, expansion is impossible because of the Menengai Crater.
34 CHAPTER 2

non is omnipresent in town, specific knowledge was lacking. It was therefore

decided to start the research project with a general survey (in 1999) of 600
households thought to be representative of the entire Nakuru population. How-
ever, the study was confined to the built-up area of the town. The area between
the built-up area and the municipal boundary, where farming is still a ‘common
way of life’, was not included in the study. The major objectives of the survey
were (1) to collect basic data on farming by the Nakuru townspeople, and (2) to
provide the municipal authorities of Nakuru with information on urban agricul-
ture. A second survey of a smaller sample was carried out one year later and
focused specifically on food consumption and nutrition.9
Some basic characteristics of the sampled households in the two surveys are
10
shown in Table 2.1. The average household size of the 1999 study population
was exactly four, which is somewhat higher than the average household size of
the whole Nakuru population which was 3.5 in the same year (Kenya 2000).
This could be an indication that lower income groups were slightly over-repre-
sented in the study population. The average household size of the 2000 study
population was much higher (5.7), which was due to the fact that the sample
had to consist of households with small children.

Table 2.1 Characteristics of the sampled households

1999 2000
(N=) (594) (136)
average household size (members) 4.0 5.7
% ‘low-income’ households* 81.8 55.9
% female-headed households 19.7 10.3
% household heads 30-49 years of age 55.1 64.7
* Monthly cash income less than Ksh. 10,000.
Source: Annex 2, Table A2.3.

The large majority (over 80%) of the 1999 households fell into the category
of low-income households (Table 2.1), at least in terms of monthly cash income
11
(<10,000 Kenyan shillings) at the time of the survey and according to the
respondents’ estimation and willingness to provide the right figure. Over half
(53%) of the households could be categorized as ‘very poor’ (<Ksh. 5,000 a
month; see Annex 2, Table A2.3). The better-off households (>Ksh. 20,000 a
month) formed a small minority (6%).

9
The sampling procedure for the two surveys is described in Annex 2.
10
For more details, see Annex 2, Table A2.3.
11
The exchange rate at the time was about 70 Kenyan shillings for one US dollar.
 THE SETTING 35

One fifth of the 1999 households were headed by a woman (Table 2.1). We
could add here that female-headed households were much more common
among low-income households than among better-off ones: 69% of female-
headed households appeared to be ‘very poor’, compared with 49% of male-
headed households.
The age distribution of the 1999 household heads shows the usual distribu-
tion, with over half being between thirty and fifty years of age (Table 2.1). The
largest single age group was the one between 30 and 39 years. Very few of the
household heads were either younger than twenty or older than sixty. The oldest
household head was 77 years of age.
Compared to the 1999 study population, the population in the 2000 survey
showed some distinct differences (Tables 2.1 and A2.3). This is firstly because
the 1999 study population was a representative selection of the total Nakuru
population, while the 2000 study population was not because of the focus on the
comparison between urban farmers and non-farmers; and secondly several
selection criterions were applied in 2000 to allow for a worthwhile comparison
between the two groups (see Annex 2). As a result, compared to the 1999 study
population, the households in the survey in 2000 were on average somewhat
larger, somewhat better-off, less often headed by a woman, and on average
somewhat older.
36 CHAPTER 2

Photo 3 Crop cultivator in Lanet uprooting seedlings.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)

Photo 4 Labourer feeding chickens in Rhonda Weavers.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)
 3
The farmers

Co-author: Samuel O. Owuor

Who are the farmers in Nakuru town? Two types of farmers can be distin-
guished, namely those urban residents who farm in town and those who farm in
the rural areas, denoted as urban farmers and rural farmers respectively. Two
comparisons are thus made in this chapter, the first between urban farmers and
those who do not, and the second between rural farmers and those who do not
farm in the rural areas. It should be remembered, however, that the focus of this
chapter – and indeed of the whole book – is urban farmers. But before embark-
ing on the said comparisons, a section dealing with the numbers as well as the
spatial distribution of the urban farmers in Nakuru town is presented.

Numbers and geographical distribution

Table 3.1 shows the numbers of households in Nakuru town doing some kind of
farming: the farmers of Nakuru town. A distinction has been made between area
(i.e. either in town or in the rural area, or both) and the type of farming (either
crop cultivation or livestock keeping). The ‘total’ column reveals that 447
households or 75% of the sampled population were performing farming activi-
ties in 1999 in one way or another. Almost all of these households cultivated
crops, many of them mixing crop cultivation with livestock keeping. Only a few
households (16) kept livestock without growing crops.
Table 3.1 shows that over one third of Nakuru’s population could be consid-
ered as urban farmers in the strict sense, i.e. they farmed within the municipal
38 CHAPTER 3
Table 3.1 Numbers of households practising farming in 1999 by area and type of
farming (N=594)
total urban rural
N % N % N %
farming 447 75.3 209 35.2 366 61.6
- crop cultivation 431 72.6 160 26.9 361 60.8
- livestock keeping 299 50.3 121 20.4 222 37.4
Source: 1999 survey.

boundaries. It is, however, possible that this is an underestimation. According to

1
Baba Esther in Kabachia,
Everybody is practising some urban agriculture. Especially with these retrench-
ments, you need something to fall back on.
And Mama Barbara, also living in Kabachia, stressed the logic of growing crops
2
if you have space:
If you have the space then you should use it. The houses in Kabachia come with a
big compound. Why should you leave the whole compound idle if you can grow
some small things with hardly any trouble? Almost all people around Kabachia are
growing something, only you don’t see it from the street!
Baba Christopher in Ziwani gave a possible explanation as to why the figure of
3
one third might be too low:
You know, I think everybody has a small plot somewhere in town. But not every-
body will tell you. Some people are afraid that since a lot of those plots are on rail-
way, government or municipal land, they will be forbidden to grow crops.
Forty-two per cent of urban farmers in Nakuru cultivated crops only, 23%
kept livestock only, while the remaining 35% did both. Table 3.1 also shows
that rural farming was more common than farming in town: almost two-thirds
of Nakuru households farmed in the rural areas. Nearly all of them cultivated
crops or practised mixed farming there and very few kept livestock only.
Based on the percentages under ‘urban’ in Table 3.1, it is possible to assess
the absolute numbers of households in Nakuru town who practised urban
farming, those who were cultivating crops and those who were keeping live-
stock. Table 3.2 shows that the 35% of the sampled population engaged in
urban agriculture constitute about 24,000 households. Even so, some 18,400

1
Versleijen 2002: 40. Baba Esther means ‘father of Esther’. It is common in Kenya to
address people in this way as soon as their first child has been born.
2
Ibid., p. 65. As in the previous footnote, Mama Barbara means ‘mother of Barbara’.
3
Ibid., p. 80.
 THE FARMERS 39

Nakuru households cultivated crops and about 14,000 kept livestock (all in the
built-up area).

Table 3.2 Percentages of households farming in town, 1998

percentage estimated number
in survey of households in
(N=594) Nakuru town*
farming in town 35.2 24,000
cultivating crops in town 26.9 18,400
keeping livestock in town 20.4 14,000
* Based on 68,436 households in 1999 (Kenya 2000).

From the 2000 survey, it is possible to assess the dynamics in the numbers of
4
urban farmers for three consecutive years (1998, 1999 and 2000). Overall there
appeared to be a fairly sharp decline, i.e. in 2000, the numbers of both crop
cultivators and livestock keepers were about 30% lower than in 1998. Interest-
ingly, crop cultivation saw the sharpest decline between 1998 and 1999 (20%),
but in livestock keeping this was between 1999 and 2000 (25%). Further analy-
sis shows that the picture was even more complicated. For instance, of the 35
urban farmers who only cultivated crops in 1998, 15 abandoned crop growing
(and thereby urban farming), while 8 turned to livestock keeping (either aban-
doning crop growing or adding livestock to their cropping activities). Of the 42
‘mixed farmers’ in 1998, some abandoned urban farming altogether, while
others dropped livestock keeping and remained with crop growing (the reverse
was rare). The group not engaged in urban farming was the most stable because
the large majority stayed that way; yet, one tried livestock keeping in 1999 and
another three started crop cultivation (of which two continued into 2000). The
most likely explanation for the overall decline in the number of urban farmers
was the drought in 1999 and 2000. As shown in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.1), 1999
was a bad year in terms of rainfall. The following year was even worse, with
only 600 mm of rainfall and hardly any rain during what was supposed to be the
long rains. Thus, there was little to plant for those who were dependent on rain-
fall for crop cultivation.5
Urban farmers can be found in all parts of the town. However, in some areas
they are more common than in others. Figure 3.1 presents the distribution of
4
Because of the sampling criteria for the households in the 2000 survey (see Annex
2), it was known whether they were cultivating crops and/or keeping livestock in
town during these three years.
5
This was over half of the Nakuru crop cultivators (see Table 4.2 in Chapter 4).
40 CHAPTER 3
6
farmers in town by housing density. In general, there were more urban farmers
when housing density was lower. Of the eight respondents in the only very-low-
density area of Milimani, seven were urban farmers and all except one were
both crop cultivators and livestock keepers. Medium-density areas like Kaba-
chia and London/Menengai also had high percentages of urban farmers, 82%
and 71% respectively. In the high-density areas of Rhonda Muslim and Rhonda
Kaptembwa, on the other hand, only about 15% of the households were en-
gaged in some kind of agriculture in town. However, this reverse relationship
between housing density and numbers of urban farmers applied particularly to
crop cultivation. Livestock were more evenly spread over the estates, not only
small livestock but also larger animals. Keeping one or a few animals requires
relatively little space, particularly if they are kept in zero-grazing or if the
animals roam freely in the streets.

Figure 3.1 Farmers in town by housing density (%)

% 100
90
80
70
60 urban farmers
50 urban crop cultivators
40 urban livestock keepers
30
20
10
0
high density medium density low density
(N=236) (N=350) (N=8)

Source: 1999 survey.

Urban farmers and non-farmers

For the purpose of comparison, urban crop cultivators and urban livestock
keepers have been combined to one group of 209 ’urban farmers’. The group of
urban ‘non-farmers’ consists of 385 households.

6
The percentages by research cluster are presented in Annex 3, Table A3.1.
 THE FARMERS 41

Household characteristics
Table 3.3 presents a summary of some of the major household characteristics of
7
the two groups. There is a difference in household size, with farming house-
holds being larger. Another important distinction between the two categories
concerns household income. Although one always has to consider income data
with great care, it is clear that the poorest households – i.e. with a monthly
income of less than Ksh. 5,000 – were under-represented among the urban farm-
ers. This is confirmed by the variable on house ownership: households owning
the house in which they lived were quite over-represented among the farmers
(although the category of households renting their house was by far the largest
in both groups; see Table A3.2). The fourth variable presented in Table 3.3 –
the housing density of the estate in which the household is located – is more of
a geographical variable than a household variable. Farmers were somewhat
over-represented in the less densely housed areas (Table A3.2), non-farmers in
the high-density estates. This is in line with the figures presented in Figure 3.1
and is undoubtedly related to the availability of space.

Table 3.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: summary of household characteristics (%)
urban non-
farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385)

household size (no. of members) 5 or more 57.4 22.9

household income (Ksh/month) up to 5,000 33.2 64.0

more than 10,000 30.8 11.4

house ownership own house 21.5 4.9

housing density of estate high 27.3 46.5

Source: Annex 3, Table A3.2.

Characteristics of household heads

Farmers and non-farmers were compared on a number of characteristics of the
8
household heads. On the whole, there were no major differences between the
heads of the farmers’ households and those of the non-farmers’ households. In
both groups, the majority were male, were permanently resident in the house-
hold, were married, had at least secondary school, and had either a steady job or

7
See Annex 3, Table A3.2 for details.
8
Age, sex, ethnic group, type of residence, marital status, educational level and occu-
pational status. Details are presented in Annex 3, Table A3.3.
42 CHAPTER 3

were self-employed. There was one important difference, however: the heads of
farming households were generally older than those of non-farmers. This can be
related to household size given in Table 3.3. Urban farmers generally have
larger households, i.e. more mouths to feed. Households in the early stages of
the ‘family life cycle’ – young and small – are clearly under-represented among
the farmers.
The household heads were also compared regarding their migration histo-
9
ries. In both groups, the large majority had not been born in Nakuru town.
They came from all over Kenya, but particularly from the central and western
parts. On average, the farmers had come to Nakuru before the non-farmers. Of
the latter, the majority had arrived in Nakuru over the last ten years, i.e. twice as
many as among the farmers. This difference should be seen in relation to the
age of the household head: the farmers were on average older. Finally, the
reasons for coming to Nakuru did not differ between the two groups. The large
majority came in order to work in Nakuru or to look for work.

Urban non-farmers
The non-farmers were asked why they had not cultivated crops or kept livestock
in town in 1998. A summary of the reasons mentioned is presented in Table
3.4.10 It is clear that although a wide variety of reasons were given, the land
issue was the dominant one, followed by a lack of other resources, legal consid-
erations and various other reasons.
The lack of access to land within the municipality is by far the most impor-
tant reason for non-farmers not being engaged in agricultural activity (Table
3.4). This applies more to crop cultivation than to livestock keeping because
more land is required for growing crops than for keeping (small) animals. Some
households do indeed keep their animals inside their houses. For some non-
farmers there was no need to farm in town because they had access to a plot in
the rural areas. However, for many others this is not a reason for not farming in
town as well (see below).
Lack of land is related to the town’s expansion. For instance, one respondent
said that her husband had acquired a piece of “idle open land” of about half an
acre in 1975. For twelve years, she cultivated maize and beans there, which was
enough to feed her household for about six months a year. However, in 1987,
the Municipal Council of Nakuru repossessed the land for expansion purposes
and the only plot left to them was the small shamba bordering their house.
Another respondent recalled that between 1963 and 1978 she sold vegetables
she had personally cultivated on open spaces not far from her estate.

9
For details, see Annex 3, Table A3.4.
10
For details, see Annex 3, Table A3.5.
 THE FARMERS 43
Nakuru was not developed as it is now. The only developments in most of these
areas were the Nakuru Municipal Council housing estates like Kaloleni, Abong’ Lo
Weya, Flamingo and others. Open spaces, which we used for farming, were many
and nobody bothered with us. Many of these open spaces were undeveloped Muni-
cipal Council land. I had three plots not far from each other. They were not very big.
I think less than half an acre each. It was not advisable to take a big plot because of
security and fear of losing the plot when the owner reclaims it. Three or four differ-
ent people could cultivate a plot of about one acre. Of course they had other smaller
plots elsewhere.
She added that there was no rent to be paid because the owners were “more than
happy that somebody was taking care of their plots”.

Table 3.4 Non-farmers: reasons for not farming in town by type of farming (%)
no crop cultivation no livestock keeping
(N=434) (N=473)
reasons main reasons main
(>100%) reason (>100%) reason

land issues no access to urban land 85.7 75.6 74.4 62.8

have access to rural land 8.1 2.3 5.7 1.9
lack of other no capital 28.6 9.4 24.1 10.6
resources lack of time 7.1 4.4 6.6 4.4
legal consider- harassment 1.8 0.2 4.7 1.7
ations myself/landlord disapproves 5.3 0.9 11.4 3.8
other reasons not worthwhile 5.3 2.5 7.2 5.1
had not thought of it 0.9 0.7 2.5 2.5
was not in Nakuru 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.7
Source: Annex 3, Table A3.5.

As a result of the increasing scarcity of farming land in town, it has become

increasingly expensive to rent land. Another respondent compared the situation
before 1990 with the present situation as follows:
It was very cheap to rent a plot in the municipality by then. With not more than five
shilling, you could get a sizeable plot to rent on a monthly basis. For those who liked
farming, renting a plot was a normal and common thing to do those days. Nowa-
days, to rent a plot within the municipality, that is if you are lucky, costs not less
than 6,000 shilling per year for an acre.
These developments could explain why lack of capital was the second most
important reason not to farm in town (Table 3.4). As one respondent said, “due
to lack of access to urban land and capital to rent a plot, I never engaged in
urban crop cultivation”. And yet another respondent explained that “I was
44 CHAPTER 3

forced to stop growing crops by 1993 because of not only a lack of plots but
also the high rents imposed on those available”. For some, however, lack of
other resources, such as time and/or labour, was a reason not to farm in town.
Lack of labour can be due to ill health, like the 56-year old woman who had to
stop growing crops because of poor health after an operation.
Legal considerations were more often mentioned as a reason not to keep
animals than not to grow crops (Table 3.4). This is probably due to the fact that
livestock keeping is generally considered more of a nuisance than crop cultiva-
tion. As Tables 3.4 and A3.5 show, the disapproval of farming in town can
come from various levels: the municipality, landlords, neighbours and, finally,
the people themselves. Harassment was not an important reason not to farm in
town, although several respondents mentioned this in passing. For instance, as
one recounted, “harassment by the local authority by way of slashing the crops
every now and then was a constant threat”, especially for the off-plot cultiva-
tors. And according to the same person, even her ducks were not safe:
I stopped with keeping ducks in 1996 when harassment intensified. In that year, the
local authority contaminated all the open drains in the estates with poison and when
the ducks fed on the dirt from the drainage, they all died.
And the respondent who refrained from farming because of lack of land and
lack of capital to rent a plot added that she did not want to be harassed by the
Municipal Council who “keep on destroying other people’s crops”.
The other reasons include people for whom farming in town was simply not
an option (Table 3.4). Particularly among non-livestock keepers, for 10% of
them it was either not seen as an activity which was worthwhile or the respon-
dent had never considered it. Finally, for a few people, the question was not
applicable because they did not live in Nakuru town in 1998.
Some of those households not practising urban farming in 1998 had actually
done so before: 34 had cultivated crops and 35 had kept livestock. A variety of
reasons were given why they had stopped farming, for instance theft of the
crops, the plot being used for another purpose, the plot having been repossessed
by the owner, a lack of rain, and insufficient profit. The reasons for stopping
with keeping livestock were much less diverse and focused on the problems of
pests and diseases, theft and insecurity.

Rural farmers and non-farmers

In what ways do those who farm in the rural area (rural farmers) differ from
those who do not (non-farmers)? Table 3.5 summarises some household char-
 THE FARMERS 45
11
acteristics of the two groups. The three household characteristics in Table 3.5
point to three possible reasons for urban households practising rural farming:
the number of mouths to fill (household size), the purchasing power of the
household (income class), and the amount of space in the (urban) residential
area (housing density of the estate). The figures show that none of these vari-
ables seem to determine whether or not people engage in rural farming. As
shown in Table 3.3, household size does seem to be an important determinant in
practising urban farming, but it is not so for rural farming. Poorer households
do not practise rural farming more often than richer households. And lack of
space for urban farming in the urban residential area seems not to be compen-
sated for by a higher frequency of rural farming.

Table 3.5 Rural farmers and non-farmers: summary of household characteristics (%)
rural non-
farmers farmers
(N=366) (N=228)

household size (no. of members) 5 or more 35.2 34.6

household income class up to 5,000 47.8 61.8

(Ksh./month) more than 10,000 20.1 15.1

housing density of estate high 45.6 40.4

Source: Annex 3, Table A3.7.

The question as to whether rural farming and urban farming are substitutes
of each other can also be reworded as follows: Do urban dwellers who practise
rural farming refrain from urban farming and vice versa? This appeared not to
be the case since the percentages of urban farmers among both rural farmers
and non-farmers appeared to be exactly the same, namely 35%. This applies to
crop cultivators (25% and 30% respectively) as well as to livestock keepers
(20% and 21% respectively). In other words, those urban dwellers in Nakuru
who do not have access to a rural plot are no more inclined to engage in urban
farming than those who do have access to a rural plot.
The household heads of the ‘rural farmers’ and ‘non-farmers’ showed no big
differences.12 The groups appeared to be very similar in terms of age, type of
residence, educational level and occupational status. However, regarding sex,
marital status and ethnic group, the situation is somewhat different. The per-

11
For details, see Annex 3, Table A3.6.
12
For details, see Annex 3, Table A3.7.
46 CHAPTER 3

centage of female-headed households among non-farmers was twice as high as

among farmers, while the same applied to the percentage of single/divorced/-
separated/widowed household heads. These two variables are to some extent
related because many of the ‘one-adult households’ (single, divorced, separated
or widowed) were female-headed households and one could imagine that for
these households it would be much more problematic to practise farming out-
side town than for households with a head and a spouse.
As far as ethnic background is concerned, it is conspicuous that the Kikuyu
(accounting for 44% of all household heads and by far the largest group in
Nakuru town) practised much less rural farming than the other major ethnic
groups. Of all the Kikuyu households in Nakuru, about half were farming in the
rural areas compared with about two-thirds to over three-quarters of the Luo,
Luhya, Kalenjin, Kisii and Kamba.
In sum, rural farmers and non-farmers show no major differences. Hence,
farming in rural areas seems to be more a matter of opportunity – i.e. whether
one happens to have access to a plot – than of necessity. For most urbanites,
access to a rural plot is first of all seen as a fall-back mechanism. This was
described by Baba Christopher as follows:13
At a certain moment, most people return to their rural home when they retire and go
farming again. I will go back there to practice farming and my children will go with
me. Our rural home is the place we came from and where we have our origins. You
know, we will never forget that we are farmers and that we can always fall back on
farming. The only problem is the land, like my father had to buy more land for his
wives and children, so do I have to buy more land for my children and my sons will
have to buy more land for their children. Because they will all be farmers, whatever
other occupation they will have. Growing crops, no matter how much, also gives us
some security. You know, your boss can delay your payments for half a year but
then at least you can eat from your own shamba.
14
And another respondent phrased it thus:
Having a homestead at home is very essential, especially for us Luos. It plays a very
important role because I can be retrenched from work at any time. That is the place I
will go back to. I cannot afford to stay in Nakuru. When anything happens to me or
my wife or my children, then we have a home to be buried instead of being thrown
in the public cemetery here in Nakuru. That is our home and never shall we stay in
Nakuru forever because these are just but rental houses.

In summary, this chapter has shown that the majority of the population of
Nakuru town were engaged in farming activities. Farming in the rural areas
(usually at the rural ‘home’ at some distance from Nakuru) appeared to be more

13
Versleijen 2002: 33
14
Owuor, field data, 2003.
 THE FARMERS 47

common than farming in town. Nevertheless, the latter could be found all over
town, although more so where housing density was lower. Not surprisingly
therefore, the main reason for most of those not farming in town was a lack of
access to space or insufficient money to rent a plot. Urban farming households
were generally larger (more mouths to feed) than non-farming households. The
low-income households appeared to be under-represented among urban farmers
but because the large majority of the Nakuru population belong to this income
category, in absolute terms the poor were still the largest group among the
urban farmers.
48 CHAPTER 3

Photo 5 Crop cultivation in Kabachia (maize, bananas).

(Sam Owuor, 1999)

Photo 6 Ziwani estate.

(Dick Foeken, 1999)
 4
The crops

Co-author: Samuel O. Owuor

Urban plots

Table 4.1 presents information about the various characteristics of the urban
shambas.1 Most of the 180 plots used for crop cultivation were located in the
farmers’ own compounds (61%). This is the category of ‘on-plot’ or ‘backyard’
farmers. The rest of the plots were located elsewhere (‘off-plot’ or ‘open space’
farming): in the respondent’s estate (17%), along a railway (8%), in another
estate (6%), along a road (4%), or in another location (5%) such as along a
river, under a power line, next to a cemetery, a park or a sewer or in a school
compound. The percentage of plots at one’s own compound is somewhat higher
in lower-density estates, Milimani having the highest percentage (100%).
Nevertheless, over half of the plots in the high-density areas were also in the
people’s compounds.
The ten plots of the households in medium-density Ziwani were all located
outside the estate itself, because the landlord (the railway company) does not
allow farming in the estate, even though there is space to do so (see Photo 6).
The plots are located along the railway line to Nairobi, a zone to which the
residents of this railway estate have easier access than others. Because the estate
lies at some distance south of the railway itself, Ziwani is also the only area
where the majority of the plots were located at a distance of more than half-an-
hour’s walk from the house. In most other areas, the large majority of the plots

1
For details, see Annex 4, Table A4.1.
50 CHAPTER 4

were within a ten-minutes walk (Table 4.1), except for Flamingo I (medium
density), where a third of the plots were located at a distance of more than an
hour’s walk. This has to do with the back-to-back construction of the houses
and the resulting absence of backyards.

Table 4.1 Summary of characteristics of urban plots by housing density (%)

high medium low
density density density total
(N=) (35) (138) (7) (180)

location on own compound 52.9 60.4 100.0 60.6

within estate 29.4 14.2 -.- 16.6

distance to plot <10-minute walk 65.7 69.6 100.0 70.0

plot size (m2) <100 22.9 44.9 16.7 34.1

1000+ 37.1 28.3 83.3 31.8

ownership own land 57.1 25.5 57.1 33.0

of plot (%) landlord 28.6 50.4 42.9 45.8
government 2.9 17.5 -.- 14.0
Source: Annex 4, Table A4.1.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, average plot size was 964 m2. The
smallest plots were a few of just one square metre. The largest one was a plot in
Lanet that measured 16,000 m2 (1.6 hectares). There is no clear relationship
between plot sizes on the one hand and housing density on the other, although it
is not surprising that six of the seven plots in Milimani measure more than
1,000 m2 (Table 4.1). The relatively high percentage of small plots (less than
100 m2) in the medium density areas may be explained by the fact that, com-
pared with the households in the high-density areas, more plots there are located
within the households’ own compounds.
Plot size can to some extent be determined by input factors. This is exempli-
fied by the case of Baba Christopher (as described by Versleijen 2002: 36) who
cultivated a plot of 50 m2:
Baba Christopher would not want a bigger plot than he has now because of, first, the
availability of labour, second, the needs of the family and, third, the amount of seeds
and seedlings they can afford to buy. By cultivating a plot of 50 m2, he is able to
feed his family from the shamba in such a way and for such a period that he can feed
them from his salary for the rest of the year and even educate them and meet other
expenses such as hospital bills. To cultivate a larger plot would mean that they have
to buy extra seeds. Right now, all the seeds they use are from last year’s harvest, so
they do not incur any expenses in the planting season.
 THE CROPS 51

One third of the plots used for crop cultivation were owned by the cultivators
themselves (Table 4.1). Another 46% of the plots were owned by a landlord,
while 14% of the plots were on government land. It is conspicuous that the
percentage of ‘own land’ in the high-density areas is much higher than in the
medium-density areas and that it is the other way around with plots owned by a
landlord or by the government. Nearly all residential land in the built-up area of
Nakuru town is government land that is leased out to the residents. It seems that
the inhabitants of the lower-density estates (with usually higher levels of educa-
tion) are more aware that they are not the actual owners of the land than those
living in the higher-density estates. The large majority of the plots are com-
pounds of rented houses, which is confirmed by the fact that hardly anybody
pays rent for the plot.

Crops and inputs

Choice of crops
A wide range of crops was cultivated in Nakuru in 1998. Table A4.2 (Annex 4)
offers a full list of all the crops cultivated on the 180 plots. Both from Annex 4
and from looking around the fields it is clear that mixed and inter-cropping were
common, though the majority of the plots (58%) had no more than three crops.
In eight cases, ten or more different crops were found on one single plot. On
about a dozen plots, only one crop was being cultivated.
The average number of crops cultivated per household in 1998 was 4.3. A
small minority (8%) cultivated just one crop. About two-thirds (64%) of the
crop cultivators had planted two to five crops, and another quarter (26%)
between six and ten crops. There is no relationship between plot size and the
number of crops per plot. For instance, on about two-thirds of both the smallest
plots (<10m2) and the largest plots (1,000+m2), one to three crops were being
cultivated. The largest variety of crops was found on plots measuring between
100 and 1,000 m2. On his plot of 30 m2, Baba David cultivated four crops,
namely maize, beans, potatoes and sukuma wiki (Versleijen 2002: 43).
The three crops that stood out as by far the most important in terms of the
number of households cultivating them were kale (sukuma wiki), maize and
beans. Kale and maize were grown by about two-thirds of the crop cultivators,
and beans by almost 60%. Onions, spinach, tomatoes and Irish potatoes were
cultivated by 20% to 30% of the cultivators and cowpeas, bananas and spider
plant (saget) by 10% to 20% (for exact figures, see Table A4.2).
Sukuma wiki is the local name for a green, leafy vegetable of the spinach
variety (Spinacea oleracea) and also called kale, literally meaning “to push the
week”. This refers to the importance of the crop for subsistence dwellers in their
52 CHAPTER 4

daily diet due to its high yield and low price. People with low incomes can
survive on it, especially during the last week of the month (“push the week”)
before salaries are paid. It is a fast-growing crop, especially in the red soil areas
in the town, and has a high nutritional value: its high calcium and phosphor
contents are almost comparable with that of whole milk (Sehmi 1993). For these
reasons, and because it is relatively cheap, sukuma wiki is a typical ingredient in
the diet of poor households and favoured as the usual supplement to the basic
ugali dish (stiff maize porridge). The importance of the crop is illustrated by
respondents’ statements quoted in Versleijen (2002):
When you grow kale you at least know you can eat. (p. 65)
We cultivated sukuma wiki on the whole compound and sold large amounts of it.
Although we would have got more money out of the chickens, the benefit of the
sukuma was that it was a low investment. (p. 63)
Sukuma wiki you can easily grow. It is cheap to grow, it hardly needs any care and it
is resistant to drought; although of course it would not survive a real drought, but it
can sustain longer than other crops. Almost everybody is growing sukuma, except
maybe just a few, but I think that it is hard to find someone around here [Kabachia;
DF] who is not growing some sukuma. (p. 79)
Actually, to keep sukuma is not really a decision, you just do it, like everybody does
it. (p. 70)
To some extent, the type of crops cultivated depends on the location of the
plot. The variety of crops cultivated in the homesteads was much larger than on
plots located elsewhere. Typical compound crops were kale and bananas and to
a lesser extent spinach, onions and tomatoes. Kale was grown on 80% of com-
pound plots and on 32% of the other plots. Bananas were almost exclusively
found in compounds. Maize and beans were found on about half of compound
plots and on 75% and 68%, respectively, of plots elsewhere. Versleijen (2002:
62) describes the compound of Mama Esther:
The area Mama Esther cultivated is split up into three pieces. The biggest piece is
about 15 m2, on which she grows sukuma wiki, kunde,2 saget3 and different types of
mchicha4. On the second one, which is about 4 m2, pumpkins are grown. The pump-
kins hardly bear any fruit but the main use of the plant is the stamped leaves. On the
third piece, of about 10 m2, there is mchicha as well. If one looks carefully, some
tomatoes can be found here. (…) A small part is grown with rosemary and the fence
to the neighbour’s compound is covered with passion fruit.
It is remarkable that even on the smallest plots (<10m2) all ten of the major
crops were represented. For instance, maize was found on more than half of

2
Peas.
3
Spider plant.
4
Wild spinach.
 THE CROPS 53

these tiny shambas. On the larger plots (1,000+m2), maize and beans were more
common (77% and 72% respectively), but most other crops were less exten-
sively cultivated. Kale, for instance, was found on only 32% of these larger
plots due to the fact that these plots are often somewhat further away from the
house: over half of the plots of 1,000 m2 or more were at least half-an-hour’s
walk away. On the 14 plots even further away (at least an hour’s walk), maize,
beans and Irish potatoes were over-represented while the other crops were either
under-represented (kale and cowpeas) or not found at all. In other words,
distance is a limiting factor regarding the choice of which crops to grow. This is
related to the perishability of the crop, the risk of theft and the use of inputs,
including labour.
Land ownership is another limiting factor. All crops could be found on plots
owned by either the cultivator or by a landlord because over 70% of these plots
were located in people’s own compounds. Growing crops on government land
or on land where the user does not know who it belongs to is much riskier.
Hence, mainly maize and beans and to a lesser extent kale and cowpeas could
be found on these plots.
The choice of what to grow is to some extent determined by the person
responsible for cultivation. Men were more inclined to grow staples like maize
and beans than women,5 while women more often cultivated vegetables such as
spinach, onions and saget.6 In other words, women are more inclined to grow a
wider variety of crops. This is related to their traditional function as the house-
hold’s food provider, and their attempts to achieve a more balanced diet.

Inputs for crop cultivation

Inputs in crop cultivation include such factors as labour, tools, material inputs
and information. In this section, the first three types of inputs will be discussed,
with an emphasis on material inputs. ‘Information’ is related to ‘support’ and is
dealt with in Chapter 7.
As far as labour is concerned, the 1999 survey did not contain a detailed
assessment of the exact amounts of labour input. However, we do know who
was responsible for the household’s crop cultivation. In the large majority of
crop-cultivating households, it was either the male head (on 27% of the plots) or
the spouse (49%) or the female head (13%). In the remaining cases it was
another household member (10%) or a paid labourer (2%). In most cases, the
one responsible is not the only household member working on the plot. For

5
Maize was cultivated by 73% of the male heads and 56% of the female heads and
spouses. The figures for beans were 71% and 49% respectively. See Annex 4, Table
A4.3.
6
Spinach: 10% of the men, 23% of the women; onions: 10% of the men, 30% of the
women; saget: 4% of the men, 12% of the women. See Annex 4, Table A4.3.
54 CHAPTER 4

instance, Charles (living in Ziwani) was the one responsible but his wife and
children worked on the shamba as well. Ann (female head, Kabachia) was
helped by her son. Monica (spouse, Lakeview) did it all on her own, on average
spending, according to her, about two hours per week on her plot of about 450
m2. At peak periods, such as planting and weeding, the shamba requires full-
time work, however. Weeding was normally done once or twice during the
growing season, except for kale because these “require constant weeding”, as
Monica remarked.
Crop cultivation was not usually a full-time job, though 14% of the crop
cultivators interviewed said it was. More than a quarter of the crop cultivators
had also used hired labour. This appeared to be more common on plots that had
been in use for longer and on plots owned by the cultivator him/herself. Richer
and bigger households were more inclined to hire additional labour, while
female heads rarely did so. If labour is hired, it is mostly for a few days only.
Charles hired somebody for just one day to help with the planting. Reuben
(Rhonda Kaptembwa) did the same, but for weeding only. James (Rhonda
Weavers) hired somebody for both activities, a week in all. Rachel (Mwariki)
used hired labour for planting, weeding and harvesting on her half-acre plot,
paying Ksh. 100/day for planting and harvesting and Ksh. 150/day for weed-
ing.7
As for tools, most of the plots were simply too small to allow any machinery
to be used. The tools used by nearly everybody were the hand-hoe and the
cutlass. Only in exceptional cases was a tractor used.
Table 4.2 shows the percentages of crop-cultivating households using certain
material inputs during the 1998 growing season. Ten respondents said they used
no inputs at all. Almost all crop cultivators used at least one type of fertilizer.
Most fertilizer was of the traditional (i.e. organic) type: manure, crop residues,
urban waste and (in two cases) ash. The manure came either from people’s own
farms (mixed farming in town) or from a neighbour who kept livestock. Crop
residues almost always came from the farmer’s own (urban) farm. Chemical
fertilizers were used by about one third of the crop cultivators. The use of
(chemical) pesticides and insecticides was not widespread – about 30% and
10% of the cultivators respectively. Most farmers used local (traditional) seeds
and seedlings, although more than half used improved materials as well.
Finally, irrigation was practised by almost half of the cultivators. All except two

7
Except for Rachel, none of the other crop cultivators hired anybody for harvesting.
This could largely be explained by the fact that these examples are from the in-depth
interviews that were held in 2000 covering the year 1999, i.e. the year when rainfall
was insufficient (see Figure 2.1) to allow for a reasonable harvest, if there was a
harvest at all. Only those able to irrigate their crops, like Rachel, were able to
harvest something.
 THE CROPS 55

obtained their water from a tap (even though the use of domestic water for irri-
gation purposes is illegal). One of the latter two used sewage water for irriga-
tion and the other applied cattle urine.

Table 4.2 Material inputs for crop cultivation in town (%; N=160 households)
type of input % type of input %

no inputs 6.3 chemical pesticides 29.4

chemical insecticides 8.8
chemical fertilizer 35.6
manure as fertilizer 53.1 local seeds/seedlings 70.6
crop residue as fertilizer 35.0 improved seeds/seedlings 57.5
urban waste as fertilizer 3.1
ash as fertilizer 1.3 irrigation 44.4
Source: 1999 survey.

Many farmers tried to economize on the use of inputs, which can be seen in
the example of Baba David, as described by Versleijen (2002: 44-45):
In the case of sukuma wiki he does not need to buy seeds or anything because he just
removes the smaller plants from in-between the larger plants and plants them on
open space. Also suckers can be used. As for maize, he buys seeds in case there are
not enough useful seeds from last year’s harvest. For beans, it is the same, although
those are usually all from last year’s harvest.
He does not always use fertilizers, he only buys fertilizers when he has some extra
money. Crop leftovers are left on the plot to serve as fertilizers. He does not use any
water (…) because there is no water source around.
Others, however, normally buy their inputs, such as Baba and Mama Joshua
(Versleijen 2002: 52):
The seeds they use for planting for the beans are bought at the market and for maize
Baba Joshua buys hybrids from the shops just within the town. For sukuma wiki
seedlings are bought at the market. It is easier to buy seedlings since they lack the
space for a nursery. And to keep a nursery at the plot is not safe because of theft, the
more so as everybody has free access to the plot [which was located along the rail-
way; DF]. Furthermore, a nursery needs more frequent and intensive care than they
can visit their plot.
Inputs can be classified in various ways. An initial division is between tradi-
tional and modern inputs. Manure, crop residues and local seeds can be consid-
ered as traditional inputs, while the three chemicals plus improved seeds can be
seen as modern inputs. The question behind this classification is whether the use
of modern inputs leads to higher yields. A second classification is between
chemical inputs and non-chemical inputs, which is important for environmental
56 CHAPTER 4

reasons. In this context, one can also distinguish so-called sustainable (or envi-
ronmentally friendly) inputs that are organic, can be recycled and may lead to
reasonable yields: manure, crop residues and improved seeds. Finally, irrigation
is an input that stands on its own: without sufficient water no cultivation is
possible. The relationship between these categories of inputs on the one hand
and crop yields on the other is dealt with in the next section.
Table 4.3 shows that most crop cultivators (86%) used at least one traditional
input, while over half used two or three. Modern inputs were less frequently
used and almost 30% of the cultivators used no modern inputs at all and another
third only one. Chemical inputs were used even less. Over half of all farmers
did not use these types of inputs, while only eight used all three types. The
picture of sustainable inputs resembles that of traditional inputs, as two of the
three types of inputs categorized under sustainable inputs are traditional. The
average number of inputs used in each category (Table 4.3, right-hand column)
confirms the general picture that crop cultivation in Nakuru town is quite tradi-
tional in nature.

Table 4.3 Number of inputs by input category (%; N=160 households)

average
number of inputs: number
category 0 1 2 3 4 total of inputs

traditional inputs 13.8 35.0 30.0 21.3 100 1.6

modern inputs 29.4 32.5 20.6 12.5 5.0 100 1.3
chemical inputs 51.9 27.5 15.6 5.0 100 0.7
sustainable inputs 16.3 37.5 30.0 16.3 100 1.5
irrigation 55.6 44.4 100 0.4
Source: 1999 survey.

It is hypothesized that the use of inputs varies with certain plot characteris-
tics (size, location, distance, ownership), household characteristics (income,
size) and the characteristics of the person responsible for crop cultivation (sex,
marital status, educational level, age). To simplify matters, three mutually
exclusive categories of material inputs are compared: chemical inputs, sustain-
able inputs and irrigation.
Since location, plot distance and size were interrelated, it is not surprising
that these characteristics showed the same tendencies as far as the use of inputs
was concerned. Chemical inputs were used more on plots located outside peo-
ple’s compounds, somewhat further away and relatively larger in size. How-
ever, for the use of sustainable inputs, these characteristics showed no differ-
 THE CROPS 57

ences. Sustainable inputs were more commonly used on plots owned by the
users themselves and had been in use longer. Irrigation was more often prac-
tised in compounds, which is not surprising as most of the water came from
people’s own taps.
Except for irrigation, there appeared to be very little difference between
lower-income and higher-income households regarding the use of certain in-
puts.8 As for household size, larger households used more chemical and sus-
tainable inputs than smaller ones. This could be expected since there are more
mouths to feed. Irrigation showed no relationship with household size, its use
being more dependent on the presence of a (functioning) tap than on anything
else.
One of the clearest differences regarding the use of inputs concerned the sex
of the person responsible. Men were more inclined to use chemical inputs than
women, though women irrigated their plots more often.9 A further differentia-
tion of the women into spouses and female heads shows that it was particularly
the latter category that practised a relatively input-poor type of crop cultivation.
Whatever category of inputs is considered, female heads used it less frequently.
However, this applies in particular to chemical inputs: only 10% of female
heads used any chemical input as opposed to 63% of male heads and 50% of
their spouses. This is likely to be due to the usually (very) low welfare level of
female-headed households. Other characteristics of the person responsible, such
as educational level, occupational status and age, showed few differences in the
use of inputs.

Yields

Crop yields are determined by various factors but by far the most important one
is the weather – in particular the amount of rainfall and its distribution over the
growing season(s). For instance, harvests were quite bad in 1999 and 2000
because of drought. Most of the data presented here concern the harvests of
1998, which was a fairly normal year in terms of rainfall (see Figure 2.1). Other
determinants include such factors as labour inputs, material inputs as defined
above, farming techniques, etc. The data available are mainly on the types of
inputs used, whether additional labour had been hired and any assistance had
been received.

8
See also Chapter 10.
9
Chemical fertilizers were used by 57% of men and 27% of women. The figures for
chemical pesticides were 48% and 25% respectively. Irrigation was practised by
51% of women, compared with 28% of men. See Annex 4, Table A4.3.
58 CHAPTER 4

Table 4.4 shows the average amounts harvested per crop-cultivating house-
hold and per crop type (i.e. the 10 most commonly cultivated crops). At first
sight, the harvests of the various crops (column 3, in kg) appear modest. Never-
theless, when looking at, for instance, maize, the 101 households cultivating this
crop harvested about 22,600 kg in 1998, which amounts to some 2.6 million kg
for the built-up area of Nakuru as a whole.10 Likewise, Nakuru crop cultivators
produced about 1 million kg of kale, 0.8 million kg of beans, 135 tons of
onions, 380 tons of spinach, 60 tons of tomatoes, 325 tons of Irish potatoes, 216
tons of cowpeas, 12 tons of bananas and 72 tons of spider plant. If the other 30
less important crops (Table A4.2) were also included, it is estimated that total
crop production in Nakuru town in a normal year would amount to some six
million kg. And if the peri-urban areas of Nakuru town were to be included, this
figure would be much higher.

Table 4.4 Harvests of major crops cultivated in town

(1) (2) (3)
% households aver. amount
cultivating harvested
crop type (N=160) N (in kg)*

kale (sukuma wiki) 68.1 109 84

maize 63.1 101 224
beans 58.8 94 75
onions 28.1 45 26
spinach 22.5 36 92
tomatoes 21.9 35 15
Irish potatoes 20.0 32 88
cowpeas 17.5 28 67
bananas 16.9 27 4
spider plant (saget) 11.9 19 33
* Only households cultivating that crop (see column 2). During the survey, harvests were given in many
different units. To make the figures easily comparable, all units have been converted into kg. As this method
implies an element of speculation, the presented average harvests have to be considered as indications only.
Source: 1999 survey.

The average harvest of all crops was almost 300 kg per plot (Table 4.5),
which means that with an average plot size of almost 1,000 m2, productivity, i.e.

10
This was calculated as follows. There were some 18,400 crop cultivators in the town
(see Table 3.2), of whom 63.1% cultivated maize, making 11,610 maize cultivators.
The average maize yield was 224 kg (Table 4.4), making a total of 11,610 times 224
= 2.6 million kg. The same procedure was followed for the other crops in Table 4.4.
 THE CROPS 59

the average amount harvested per m2, was a modest 0.3 kg.11 However, there are
important differences between the various plot size classes. In general, produc-
tivity was higher if plots were smaller. Of course, one could expect a relatively
higher output from smaller plots, as many were located in people’s own com-
pounds where one is inclined to pay more attention to them than to crops on
plots further away.12 But since many of the plots of the other size categories
were also located in the households’ compounds,13 the figures in Table 4.5 sug-
gest that plot size is an important determinant of crop yield.

Table 4.5 Mean harvest (all crops) by plot size

mean mean harvest
N harvest plot size per m2
plot size (m2) (plots) (kg) (m2) (kg)
all plots 168 301 964 0.31
plot size (m2): <10 18 121 6 20.17
10-99 47 175 37 4.73
100-999 50 191 373 0.51
1000+ 53 578 2670 0.22
Source: 1999 survey.

One explanation for the higher output as plots decrease in size could be the
use of material inputs. However, on the whole, the different types of inputs
mentioned in the previous section were not used more often on smaller plots
than on larger ones. Nevertheless, when comparing the productivity of plots
where a certain type of input was used with plots where that input was not used,
the use of inputs does seem to have a (modest) effect on crop yield. For in-
stance, on plots where chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides or improved
seeds were used, yields per m2 were higher. It is also possible that the quantities

11
In Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, eleven cases (plots) had to be deleted. Four of these were
outliers, i.e. unrealistically high yields on very tiny plots. In the other seven cases,
the respondent had indicated “no harvest”, either because s/he did not know or the
plot still had to be harvested or the plot had been left idle. Due to the way the data
were obtained (hindsight information), the figures should be seen as no more than
indications. What matters are the tendencies.
12
The average harvest from the plots in the households’ own compounds was twice as
high as from the plots elsewhere (0.49 and 0.24 kg/m2 respectively). This is in line
with the average plot sizes: 458 m2 on compounds and 1750 m2 elsewhere.
13
For instance, 87% of the plots in the 10-99 m2 category, 64% of those in the 100-999
m2 category and 38% of the 1,000+ m2 category were located in compounds.
60 CHAPTER 4

of each input used were higher on smaller plots, but this cannot be verified from
the data available.
Table 4.6 shows the relationship between the use of material inputs, on the
one hand, and land productivity, on the other. As above, inputs have been clas-
sified as ‘chemical’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘irrigation’. The table shows that the use
of more inputs in general seemed to lead to higher yields. The figures also indi-
cate that the use of one chemical input did not make a difference but that the use
of two or three did. The number of sustainable inputs had no direct influence on
productivity levels. Finally, and hardly surprisingly, irrigation had a positive
effect on crop yields. It should be noted that except for irrigation, the differ-
ences were not statistically significant.

Table 4.6 Mean harvest (all crops) by use of material inputs

mean mean harvest
N harvest plot size per m2
inputs (plots) (kg) (m2) (kg)
no. of inputs 0-2 52 96 466 0.21
3-4 68 292 1247 0.23
5-8 48 536 1103 0.46
no. of chemical 0 85 135 549 0.25
inputs1 1 45 248 1153 0.22
2-3 38 736 1669 0.44
no. of sustainable 0 28 123 426 0.29
inputs2 1 57 207 845 0.24
2-3 83 426 1227 0.35
irrigation no 92 253 1313 0.19
yes 76 359 541 0.66
Notes: 1. Chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, chemical insecticides.
2. Manure, crop residues, improved seeds/seedlings.
Source: 1999 survey.

Another factor that might account for the high yields of small plots concerns
labour. For instance, the smaller a plot, the more frequently the cultivator will
be inclined to weed it as it is not so time-consuming. Moreover, it was surpris-
ing to find that hired labour was used much more frequently on the smallest
plots and on the largest plots than on the plots with in-between sizes.14 The
average harvest from the plots where hired labour had been used was twice as

14
Namely 42% and 40% respectively, against 19% and 14% on the plots of the 10-99
and 100-999 m2 categories.
 THE CROPS 61

high as that from plots where no additional labour had been hired, even though
plots where hired labour was used were on average bigger.15
Farming techniques also determine how much is produced. No direct obser-
vations have been made but it was recorded who received technical assistance
and who did not. Although there were only ten crop cultivators who had re-
ceived assistance, it was clear that their productivity was almost three times
higher than all the other cultivators put together.16
Table 4.7 shows mean harvests and land productivity for two household
characteristics: household size and the person responsible for crop cultivation.
Although, again, differences are not statistically significant, some remarks can
be made. One could expect larger households to realize bigger harvests because,
in theory, they have more labour at their disposal. However, this is not con-
firmed by the figures in Table 4.7. The largest households (8+ category) had a
relatively low productivity but given the large average plot size in this group
and the fact that they realized about the same yields as the 5-7 members cate-
gory (with less than half the average plot size), their productivity can be viewed
from a different perspective. The relatively high yields of the seven single-
person households is notable, but is probably more related to the relatively
small plot size than to the labour factor.

Table 4.7 Mean harvest (all crops) by household characteristics

mean mean harvest
household N harvest plot size per m2
characteristic (plots) (kg) (m2) (kg)

household 1 member 7 137 179 0.77

size 2-4 members 55 257 1157 0.22
5-7 members 74 256 651 0.39
8+ members 32 516 1529 0.34
person male head 42 401 936 0.43
responsible female head 22 137 688 0.20
spouse 85 241 1071 0.23
other h’hold member 17 483 677 0.71
Source: 1999 survey.

15
Average harvests were 0.42 and 0.24 kg/m2 respectively. Average plot sizes were
1300 m2 and 836 m2 respectively.
16
Namely 0.76 and 0.28 kg/m2 respectively. This difference cannot be explained by
the plot size because the average sizes were almost identical: 960 m2 and 1040 m2
respectively.
62 CHAPTER 4

It seems to make a difference as to who is responsible for crop cultivation. In

general, men obtained higher yields than women.17 This is related to the men’s
greater use of inputs, especially chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides.
Female heads had particularly poor yields (Table 4.7), not only compared with
male heads but also with the spouses of male heads, because these spouses
tended to cultivate much larger plots. ‘Other household members’ include
children, a brother or sister of the head, or a parent. The fact that they obtained
quite high yields might be related to higher labour input.
Despite the finding that average yields were quite low, the perception of
most farmers was different. Of the 20 respondents in the crop-cultivating house-
holds in the in-depth survey, only two were not satisfied with their yields. Most
respondents did however admit that yields could be improved. Money is often
an important constraint. Several farmers indicated that if they had sufficient
money they would be able to irrigate their crops better or buy chemicals,
fertilizers and certified seeds or materials to fence their plot to keep out loose
animals. The government could come in here by providing credit facilities. One
respondent, saying she “could do better”, indicated that an alternative way of
obtaining credit was to join a farmers’ savings and credit group.18
Only three farmers said they would be able to improve their yields if they
had more space. Others stressed technical improvements on their existing plots,
such as crop rotation, the application of manure to increase soil fertility or the
use of more chemical inputs. One respondent, David in Lanet, came up with an
innovative idea showing his resourcefulness as well as his environmental
awareness. By keeping chickens on his plot, he said he could improve his crop
yields “by shifting the chicken house to various parts of the plot, so that I can
use that part as a seed bed because it has manure from the chicken droppings”.
It should be noted that when asked about possible improvements to their
urban farming practices, many respondents referred in their answers in first
instance to their livestock-keeping activities. Livestock generate more income
than crops, which are grown mainly for subsistence. Investing in livestock is
seen as more profitable than investing in crop cultivation.

17
Namely 0.46 and 0.24 kg/m2 respectively. Again, the difference cannot be explained
by the factor of plot size, being 936 m2 for the male heads and 992 m2 for female
heads and spouses together (see Table 4.7).
18
See also the section on ECLOF Kenya in Chapter 7.
 THE CROPS 63

Problems

Table 4.8 presents the most frequently mentioned problems related to crop culti-
vation in Nakuru town, as perceived by the cultivators.19 The respondents were
asked to mention any problems they had encountered in 1998 (middle column)
as well as their main problem (right-hand column). Although wide-ranging
problems were indeed mentioned (see Table A4.4), it is clear that 16% of the
cultivators said that they had had no problem. Many problems are not specific
to the urban setting in which crop cultivation takes place; for example pests/-
insects, destruction by animals, inadequate rainfall, diseases and poor soils.
However, the most frequently mentioned constraint is typically urban, namely
theft of crops. Mama and Baba Christopher described it as follows (Versleijen
2002: 37):
Because of the high risk of theft, people only grow crops like mahindi,20 sukuma and
maharague21 or kunde. Then people steal what they need for their own consumption,
to take more is useless. If you would start cultivating products like sugar cane, fruits
and so on, one would suffer even more from theft, because these can be sold for a
good price, so people will start stealing more and more. Therefore, everybody limits
his or her crops to those of which you hope that they would not be stolen.

Table 4.8 Most frequently mentioned problems with crop

cultivation in town (%; N=160)
mentioned mentioned
as a as the main
problem problem
no problem 16.3 16.3
theft of crops 36.6 24.4
inadequate rainfall 35.0 24.4
destruction by animals 23.8 10.0
pests/insects 22.5 8.8
lack of water for irrigation 12.5 9.4
diseases 9.4 2.5
lack of inputs/capital 6.9 1.9
Source: Annex 4, Table A4.4.

19
See Annex 4, Table A4.4 for a complete list of problems mentioned by crop cultiva-
tors.
20
Maize.
21
Beans.
64 CHAPTER 4

And Mama and Baba Joshua also complained that

Theft is a big problem. You know, people pass by and they just take what they want.
Or those parking boys come and they just take and destroy the crops. And you
cannot do anything about it. You know, it is Kenya Railways land so you cannot
fence it off and since it is far from home you cannot look after it properly (Ver-
sleijen 2002: 53).
As for maize, theft forces people to harvest it before it has fully dried.
Drying has to be done at the house, even though there is little space to do so.
Problems like a lack of inputs, a lack of capital and a lack of labour were
mentioned by only a few respondents. Three respondents mentioned a very
specific problem, namely poor seasonal timing, a sewage burst (that apparently
spoilt their crops) and too much rainfall (while, on the other hand, 56 others
complained of inadequate rainfall). The answers to the question about which of
the problems was seen as the major problem (right-hand column, Table 4.8) are
comparable to all the problems mentioned. All types of problems occur in all
estates, so there are no clear differences according to housing density. Theft is
the one exception. This occurred more often in medium- and high-density
areas.22 For instance, in the low-density area of Milimani theft was not men-
tioned at all as a problem and provided one has a well-enclosed compound, it is
not really a problem. In the words of one respondent living in Ngei Estate:
This place is very secure. It is enclosed and therefore there is no theft and no
harassment from the Municipal Council.
Harassment or destruction of crops by the local authorities is a typical con-
straint for urban farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, although the practice has
decreased over the last few decades as numerous authorities now recognize the
importance of the activity for many urban dwellers. According to Nakuru
municipal regulations, farming is forbidden within the town’s boundaries. The
problem for the municipality is that enforcing such rules is difficult and farming
in town has thus become a common phenomenon. The municipality allows crop
cultivation as long as the crop is less than one metre tall. Maize is thus forbid-
den, the argument being that thieves and other criminals can hide among the
plants. Nevertheless, maize can be seen everywhere and although crop slashing
has hardly ever occurred recently, cultivators cannot count on being spared.23
The figures presented in Table 4.8 refer to the agricultural season of 1998,
which was a fairly normal year in terms of rainfall. As mentioned earlier
(Figure 2.1), the situation was quite different in the following year when rainfall
– and its monthly distribution in particular – was inadequate. As a result, by far

22
For about a quarter of the crop cultivators in the medium- and high-density areas,
theft was the major problem.
23
See Box 8.1 in Chapter 8 for an example.
 THE CROPS 65

the most important problem faced by Nakuru crop cultivators – mentioned by

all respondents of the in-depth survey – was drought. That does not mean, how-
ever, that other problems were forgotten. Charles, for instance, also complained
of “theft, stray animals feeding on crops, and people cutting maize stalks for
their animals”.

In summary, this chapter has shown that the majority of the plots were located
in people’s compounds. The average plot measured 1,000 m2, though sizes
varied considerably. Although a wide variety of crops were cultivated, three
types dominated: kale, maize and beans. The types of crops grown depended to
some extent on the location of the plot and thus with the type of ownership. A
wide range of material inputs were used, including chemical inputs and manure
as fertilizer. Less than half cultivators irrigated their crops, mostly on plots in
their own compounds. Yields were very modest and varied with plot size, the
use of irrigation and the person responsible for crop cultivation. Female house-
hold heads in particular realized low yields due, among other factors, to their
low levels of input use. Finally, the most commonly mentioned problems were
theft and inadequate rainfall.
66 CHAPTER 4

Photo 7 Dairy cows in zero-grazing in Kabachia. Also kale in the foreground

and maize and bananas in the background.
(Sam Owuor, 2000)

Photo 8 Chickens kept in a house in Kabachia.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)
 5
The animals

Co-author: Samuel O. Owuor

Animal production

Among the Nakuru population, 20% kept livestock in 1998, not only cattle,
goats and sheep, but also smaller animals like chickens, ducks, rabbits, doves
and turkeys (Table 5.1). By far the most important were chickens, which were
kept by over 80% of livestock-keeping households. The percentages of house-
holds keeping larger animals like cattle, sheep, goats and pigs were lower, while
other smaller livestock besides chicken – like ducks, rabbits, doves and turkeys
– were generally even less common. Nevertheless, the numbers of livestock in
the built-up area of Nakuru town by the end of 1998 can roughly be estimated
at 11,600 head of cattle, 6,400 sheep, 6,500 goats, 350,000 chickens, 13,000
ducks, 3,000 rabbits, 1,400 doves and 580 turkeys.1 These figures are higher
than those provided by the local branch of the Ministry of Agriculture (see
Chapter 2), except for the number of cattle that were estimated at 25,000 head
by the Ministry. The latter can most likely be explained by the fact that the
Ministry figures are based on all farmers within town, i.e. including those in the
peri-urban zone. Nevertheless, it is surprising that all the Ministry’s other
figures are lower than the survey findings.

1
Based on the number of households keeping certain types of animals (column 1 in
Table 5.1), the average number of animals (column 2) and the total number of
68,436 households in Nakuru town in 1999 (Kenya 2000). So, for example, the
number of cattle is calculated as follows: 26 x 3.9 = 101 head of cattle, x 115
(68,436/594) = about 11,600.
68 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.1 Livestock in 1998: number of households and ‘demography’ (averages),

by type of animal
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
type of no. of households aver. no. at no. no. no. no.
animal abs. (=N) % end of 1998 born bought died sold

cattle 26 4.4 3.9 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3

sheep 8 1.3 7.0 0.8 1.8 0.4 0.3
goats 13 2.2 4.4 1.8 0.8 2.2 2.1
pigs 1 0.2 -.- -.- 3.0 -.- 3.0
chickens 102 17.2 30.1 11.7 38.3 11.8 28.0
ducks 10 1.7 11.4 20.3 0.1 14.8 3.0
rabbits 3 0.5 8.7 6.7 1.0 13.3 0.3
doves 2 0.3 6.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
turkeys 3 0.5 1.7 -.- -.- -.- -.-
Source: 1999 survey.

Columns 2 to 6 of Table 5.1 provide statistics on the livestock demography

for each type of animal. The table shows that although most animals are being
reared for both self-consumption and sale, some species are more important as
an income source than others (column 6). The other thing that stands out con-
cerns the high death rates (column 5), particularly among the smaller livestock
like chickens, ducks and rabbits. Two-thirds of the 121 livestock keepers in
Nakuru had experienced at least one death among his/her animals. This applies
particularly to chicken: many respondents mentioned typical chicken diseases.
How problematic the keeping of chickens can be is illustrated by the case of
Baba and Mama Esther (Versleijen 2002: 63-64). They started of to keeping
local chickens2 that spent the night in the kitchen and roamed around freely dur-
ing the day. However, as Mama Esther explained,
(…) they were all stolen. You know, this flat at the back of our house was not there
yet so the whole area was bare. What they used to do was to lie down at the fence,
put a thread with a needle and a grain of maize and then, when the chickens would
eat the maize, they pull it. Since both of us were frequently absent from home, they
could easily do that. This is how they stole all my chicken until I remained with one.
I ate that one. You know, I thought I can better eat that one than have it stolen as
well.

2
Local chickens are the chickens that can be seen roaming around in the streets. They
are bought at farms and not as young chickens from a company. Compared with
‘improved chickens’, local chickens have a lower egg production but are more
resistant to diseases.
 THE ANIMALS 69

This did not prevent them from starting a chicken business again, albeit more
professionally this time:
We started keeping chickens [again] as a way of giving us some extra security. With
chickens you can keep many in a small area if you build cages and keep them above
each other. So we bought some 200 young chickens [layers] and started feeding
them in order to raise them up to the point they would be old enough to lay eggs.
However, it was in that year that Nakuru was hit by a disease among the chickens
and all the chicken died before they laid any egg.
Still, Mama Esther remains hopeful that one day she will have more luck
with chickens:
One day I will start keeping chickens again, only this time I would not keep layers,
not even broilers, this time I will keep the local chickens. You know, they are
cheaper to buy as well as to keep since you do not have to buy much food for them.
They can feed on leftovers and find their own food during the day. You just let them
roam freely in the compound and in the evening you lock them in a small cage. They
are less vulnerable for diseases as well. (…) When I have them, I will train them to
stay near the house if we are not there. Hopefully, they will not be stolen then.
In the rest of the analysis a distinction is made between large livestock and
small livestock. Large livestock includes cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, and small
livestock are chickens, ducks, doves, turkeys and rabbits. It should be borne in
mind that 20 of the 121 households with livestock kept both large and small
livestock, so there is some overlap between the two categories. Thirteen kept
large animals only, while 87 had only small livestock.
Figure 5.1 shows that there is some relationship between the type of animals
households keep and the household’s income situation. Of the lower-income

Figure 5.1 Types of livestock by household income (N)

household income
(Kenyan shillings/month)
type of lower higher
livestock (<10,000) (>10,000)

large 5 8

small 67 20

both 11 9

Source: 1999 survey.

70 CHAPTER 5

households, only 19% kept one or more of the larger types of livestock. For the
higher income group, this figure was 46%. This difference is undoubtedly
related to the costs of buying a large animal, cattle in particular. Small livestock
are very common among all livestock-keeping households.
The type of livestock kept is not always only determined by a household’s
welfare level. In some cases, the owner of the land forbids the keeping of ani-
mals, an example being Kenya Railways. As Mama Joshua explains (Versleijen
2002: 54),
We cannot keep any cows, sheep or goats, for a simple reason: Kenya Railways does
not allow keeping cattle, sheep or goats in its quarters. So all the animals you see
roaming around here are of other people, not of people from Ziwani. If Kenya
Railways finds out you are keeping cattle, goats or sheep you might lose them, your
house and even your job!

Rearing systems

Data on the rearing systems of large and small livestock are presented in Table
5.2. Animals were either kept on the livestock keeper’s own compound or were
herded outside (‘free range’) or a combination of the two (‘both’). In one third
of the households with large livestock, the animals were only grazing freely in
the neighbourhood, while in six others they were partly kept within the com-
pound and partly outside. An example of the latter was Baba Josephine who
kept three cows and a calf (Versleijen 2002: 71):
This year we started herding the animals outside; before it was only zero-grazing.
We started herding them just to try, although the system is not as good as the zero-
grazing. The yield of the milk is a little bit lower, but zero-grazing is more expen-
sive because you have to buy the grass and it is also a lot of work since you have to
feed them and take care of them. Next year, what we will do will depend on the
weather. If there is plenty of rain, I will take them out because there is plenty of
grass [in Kabachia; DF]. You know, the yield is slightly lower, but the costs are
much lower. There may be a bigger chance of diseases, but you know, even with
zero-grazing, ticks are coming in with the grass because the grass is just collected
outside.
So, it is for purely economic reasons that Baba Josephine decided to practise
a mix of zero-grazing and free range. From an economic point of view, this is
understandable as feed (grass) is the major cost item in the zero-grazing sys-
tem.3

3
See Table A6.5 in Annex 6.
 THE ANIMALS 71

Table 5.2 Livestock rearing system by type of livestock (%)

large small
livestock livestock
(N=; animals) (48) (120)
on own compound 54.2 45.0
free range 33.3 53.3
both on own compound and free range 12.5 1.7
total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Compared to large livestock, small livestock (mainly chickens) were more

frequently left roaming freely (Table 5.2). But keeping chickens in free range is
risky, as one respondent explained (Versleijen 2002: 54):
You know, if you want to keep chickens, that is very risky. First of all, chickens are
very likely to die because of the polluted drainage canals from which they will
drink. Those canals are polluted by dirt. Second, the risk of theft is very high, since
you cannot keep an eye on your chickens each and every moment.
Hence, those who kept chickens as a commercial undertaking either built a
special structure for the animals or kept them in their house. It is less risky to
keep ducks in free range, at least according to another respondent explaining
that they are less vulnerable for diseases (Versleijen 2002: 39). It could be
added that the risk of ducks being stolen is also less because they are not gener-
ally eaten. But despite the advantages, this is precisely the reason for many peo-
ple not to keep ducks:
I will never start keeping ducks. You know, ducks are dirty animals and the meat is
not good. Actually, I will never eat duck meat. Even the eggs you cannot eat! I know
my husband and children would not eat any of them either, so there is no use keep-
ing ducks! (Versleijen 2002: 54)
The reasons why people reared large and small livestock differ. Small live-
stock were kept first of all for own consumption: almost 60% of those who kept
these animals ate most or all of them and another third consumed some of the
animals and sold the rest (Table 5.3). Again, this mainly concerned chickens.
Those who kept ducks did so for their own consumption, as there is only a small
market for these animals. Referring to a household in Ziwani, Versleijen (2002:
38) gives the example of Mama Christopher who kept eight ducks:
The ducks are used for consumption and sale, although selling is quite rare. There-
fore, the ducks can hardly be considered as a source of money. The ducks serve
primarily as a food source. The eggs are consumed by Mama Christopher and her
grandchildren. Duck eggs are not generally popular, so the main use of the eggs is
reproduction. The meat is consumed by the whole household. Overall, duck meat is
72 CHAPTER 5
not very much appreciated in Nakuru, so it is difficult to sell them in the market.
Whereas a hen (chicken) goes for Ksh. 300, a duck sells for ‘only’ Ksh. 150.

Table 5.3 Purpose of livestock keeping by type of livestock (%)

large small
livestock livestock
(N=; animals) (48) (120)
own consumption only 20.8 49.2
mostly own consumption 6.3 9.2
both own consumption and selling 52.1 31.7
mostly selling 16.7 7.5
selling only 4.2 0.8
hobby/custom -.- 1.7
total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Large livestock are not consumed very often by the keepers themselves:
almost three-quarters of them sold at least some of their animals. However,
keeping livestock, either large or small, solely for selling was quite rare in
Nakuru. One of the exceptions was the household of Baba and Mama Christo-
pher who kept dairy cows and chickens (broilers and layers) purely as a com-
mercial undertaking (Versleijen 2002).4

Inputs

Two-thirds of the large livestock keepers in Nakuru town kept their animals
partly or wholly in zero-grazing. This concerned cattle almost exclusively and
for all these animals grass had to be supplied. Depending on the breed, cows
consume 50 to 80 kgs of (green) grass daily.5 Most livestock keepers do not
fetch the grass themselves but purchase it, Baba Josephine is an example (Ver-
sleijen 2002: 70):
During the dry season, the cows are just inside here and I buy grass from the people
who sell it. You know, you can often see them passing on their bikes with those
piles of grass on the backs of the bikes. They know who has cattle so they go to
these people to sell the grass.

4
See also the section on ‘Income’ in Chapter 6.
5
William Keyah, personal communication, April 2004.
 THE ANIMALS 73

Large quantities of grass are involved, so it offers good business opportuni-

ties in Nakuru town. Baba Josephine’s grass supplier explained how the system
works (Versleijen 2002: 72):
I cut the grass starting from early morning just along the roadside or at school com-
pounds or areas like that. I have one fixed contract for a guy with cows who I bring
eight bags of grass a day.6 The rest is just loose. You know, I have been supplying
Baba Josephine for the past weeks with grass, but we do not have a contract. So if
someone else knocks on his gate before me with some bags of grass, Baba Josephine
will buy them. You know, he cannot wait for me because what if I have a funeral to
attend and will not show up? Then he had no grass to feed the cows. For Kabachia, I
know who is having cows and who will buy grass or only feed them outside, so you
just go and knock on those gates. Word spreads quick, so if someone buys a cow I
will know it the same day when I supply the others with grass, they will tell me.
Table 5.4 shows all other types of inputs the Nakuru livestock keepers used
for their animals in 1998. Thirteen (11%) of them had not used any of the inputs
listed in the table. These were all small-livestock keepers. In general, large live-
stock received more attention than small livestock. This applied to all types of
inputs, except ethno-veterinary medicines and kitchen remains/food leftovers.
Cattle in particular were relatively well taken care of: all cattle holders gave
their animals for instance veterinary drugs and feed supplements, while im-
proved breeds/artificial insemination and feeding with crop residues were also
very common (77% of the cattle holders).

Table 5.4 Inputs for livestock keeping by type of livestock (%)

large small
livestock livestock
(N=; households) (33) (108)
no inputs -.- 10.8
improved breeds/artificial insemination 41.7 5.8
health: veterinary drugs 87.5 33.3
ethno-veterinary medicines 8.3 18.3
feeds: feed supplements 68.8 42.5
urban waste 25.0 22.5
crop residues 64.6 37.5
kitchen remains/food leftovers -.- 22.5
Source: 1999 survey.

6
One bag of grass weighs between 25 and 30 kgs (William Keyah, personal commu-
nication, April 2004).
74 CHAPTER 5

As seen in Table 5.4, small livestock received fewer inputs than large live-
stock. This applied particularly to improved breeds and medicines. One of the
exceptions was Baba Josephine who kept 200 broilers and 150 layers at the time
of the interviews (Versleijen 2002: 75):
I bought my first chicks from a company called Kenchick. They have an agent here
where you can buy chicks. You have to place an order, then they give you the date
to come and collect them. You know, it’s an old company with a good name, so you
know you get good chickens, so I buy them as one-month old chicks. Also my
chicken feed I get in town. For the layers I get layer mash and for the broilers broiler
finisher or broiler starter. There is only one shop in town where you can buy this.
Also the medicine for the chickens I get in town. You know, the diseases are always
there but there is a prevention for that. There is always a recommended time you
have to give them a dose of a certain type of medicine. We give it to them through
the water they drink. We give them no water for some time and then you put the
medicine in the water and they start drinking very quick.
In most cases, it is either the head of the household (38%) or the spouse
(56%) who is responsible for rearing animals. For large livestock the head and
the spouse (both 42%) shared the responsibility equally, but regarding small
livestock the spouses formed the majority (57% vs. 37%). The person responsi-
ble was in most cases (69%) a woman (which is exactly the same percentage as
for crop cultivation). In a few households it was another household member
(like a brother or a child of the household head) who looked after the animals,
while in five households (4%) a person was employed to do this. In 16% of the
livestock-keeping households, taking care of animals was a full-time job for the
person involved. In some cases, children were involved as well. For instance, in
one household in Lanet, the children did the milking of the cows in both the
morning and the evening. In another household (Bangladesh), the children also
gave a hand, at least “when not in school”.
Moreover, in 22% of livestock-keeping households, additional labour was
hired. The large majority of these households kept cows, although there was
also an example of someone hiring a herdsboy to find grazing for four goats. In
some cases, somebody was hired to fetch grass, usually on a daily basis, as was
described above. Payments for these ‘grass boys’ varied from Ksh. 1,000-
1,500/month or Ksh. 20 per bag. One household with four cows in Shabaab
employed two labourers, one for milking and one for fetching grass. In another
household (Mwariki), the labourer had to keep the pen clean as well, for a
monthly payment of Ksh. 1,800. Finally, in a high-income household in Mili-
mani, the spouse was responsible for the animals and she hired somebody to
fetch grass, graze the animals, dig and look after the compound, all for a
monthly wage of Ksh. 1,500 plus housing, food and toiletries.
 THE ANIMALS 75

Problems

Table 5.5 lists the most frequently mentioned problems encountered by Nakuru
livestock keepers.7 Although 13 of them (11%) said they had not faced any
problems, it is clear from the table that animal health is by far the greatest con-
cern for farmers: 72% mentioned it as one of the problems and for 57% it was
the major problem. According to one respondent who kept broilers that he sold
to hotels in town:
The business is risky. Once in a while I am forced to clear my stock because of
chicken diseases.
Theft came second, mentioned by about 20% of livestock keepers. Given
that half of the livestock keepers practised the system of free range, one would
expect this percentage to be higher. The above-mentioned example of Mama
Esther’s chickens was illustrative in this respect. Another respondent, who also
kept a few chickens, saw the theft of her chickens not only as relating to the
rearing system but also as a form of envy (she also faced the problem of dis-
eases):
Because I was doing quite well and because of lack of security, one day three of my
chickens were stolen. And before I could recover from that loss, six of the chicks
died as a result of an outbreak of a disease. Some chicken survived. But because I
feared further loss, I started selling and eating the rest.

Table 5.5 Most frequently mentioned problems with livestock keeping by type of
livestock (%)
large small all
livestock livestock households
(N=; households) (33) (108) (121)

no problem 9.1 11.1 10.7

diseases 75.8 71.3 71.9
theft 24.2 20.4 21.5
lack of feed 27.3 12.0 14.9
lack of funds/capital 15.2 10.2 10.7
lack of safe drinking water 24.2 6.5 9.1
predators 3.0 10.2 9.1
lack of space 3.3 7.4 6.6
harassment 12.1 2.8 5.8
Source: Annex 5, Table A5.1.

7
Table A5.1 in Annex 5 details all the problems mentioned and the main problems.
76 CHAPTER 5

And even ducks, although generally not popular for eating, are not always safe,
as Mama Christopher testified (Versleijen 2002: 38):
The main problem with the ducks is theft. A lot of ducks are stolen by those children
on the street who take them home to eat.
Lack of feed and safe drinking water were constraints mentioned by 10% to
15% of the livestock-keeping population (Table A5.1). ‘Nuisance’, mentioned
by two respondents, differs from the other constraints in that it refers more to
the farmer’s neighbour(s) than to the livestock keeper him/herself. It probably
shows that the two farmers mentioning it had problems with their neighbour(s)
because of the latter’s problem with the farmer’s livestock.
Although, generally speaking, the keepers of large livestock and those of
small livestock were unanimous regarding the various problems, there are some
problems which are more specific to large than to small livestock and vice versa
(Table 5.5). Lack of feed and safe drinking water is much more of a problem for
large livestock keepers, simply because these animals eat and drink much more
than small animals. Harassment, though not frequently mentioned, is also a
constraint specific to large livestock. This may be related to regulations which
forbid large animals from roaming freely. One problem frequently mentioned
by small-livestock keepers was the threat of predators. This is logical, since a
chicken or a duck is much easier for some wild animal (or dog) to catch than a
goat or a pig.
The same can be said in relation to residential housing density. In general,
livestock keepers in the three density categories mentioned the same types of
constraints. However, the six livestock keepers in the lowest-density area of
Milimani attracted attention by hardly mentioning any problems, except ‘dis-
eases’ (like all other livestock keepers), ‘theft’ (one of them) and ‘predators’
(three). The latter problem is likely to be related to housing density because
predators are rarely seen in densely populated areas: only 8% of livestock keep-
ers in the medium-density areas and 5% in the high-density areas mentioned
this as a problem.
As with the problems related to crop cultivation in the previous chapter, the
problems presented in Table 5.5 refer to the year 1998. The drought of 1999
was not only a major problem for crop cultivators, but also for livestock keep-
ers, particularly those who kept cattle. Fetching grass became increasingly diffi-
cult, so either additional food had to be purchased or the animals had to do with
less food. This affected the health of the animals (more diseases and more
deaths) and milk production.
 THE ANIMALS 77

Waste disposal

Because the large majority of the larger animals are wholly or partly kept within
the compound (see Table 5.2), disposing of animal waste is a major concern in
town. How did Nakuru livestock keepers dispose of this waste? Table 5.6 shows
that one third of farmers said they dumped part or all of the waste in the street.
Most of them (92%) dumped the whole lot in fact. However, the table shows
that this practice was more common among small-livestock keepers than among
those with large animals. On the other hand, many more (62%) of the livestock
keepers – either themselves or their neighbours – were able to utilize some or
all of the waste productively for crop cultivation purposes. The dung of the
larger animals in particular appeared not to be wasted in Nakuru town.

Table 5.6 Disposal of animal waste by type of livestock (%)*

large small all
livestock livestock households
(N=; households) (33) (108) (121)
use some or all of it for own crop cultivation 78.8 44.4 47.9
give some or all of it to neighbours 18.2 12.0 14.3
dump some or all of it in the street 15.2 34.3 32.8
dump some or all of it in dustbins, pits, compound -.- 13.9 12.6
sell all of it -.- 0.9 0.8
* Totals exceed 100% due to combined answers.
Source: 1999 survey.

A comparison between a group of ‘pure’ livestock keepers (no crop cultiva-

tion) and a group of mixed farmers (livestock keeping and crop cultivation) in
the separate study by Nyandwaro (forthcoming) confirmed these findings. Most
of the mixed farmers used all their animals’ waste for their own crop cultiva-
tion, while those who had a surplus of waste gave it to crop-cultivating neigh-
bours or sold it. The majority of the ‘pure’ livestock keepers gave or sold the
waste to neighbours, though some also dumped waste in the street.
The re-use of animal waste by livestock keepers themselves or their neigh-
bours was less common in high-density areas (39%) as compared to medium-
density areas (69%). Again, the six Milimani livestock keepers stand out as they
used 100% of their animals’ waste for their own crop cultivation purposes.
Dumping waste in the street was equally common in the medium- and high-
density areas (35% and 32% respectively). A larger number of livestock keepers
78 CHAPTER 5

in the high-density areas (29%) therefore disposed of their animal waste in

dustbins, pits, etc. compared with those in medium-density areas (5%).

In summary, a fifth of Nakuru’s population kept either large or small livestock,

or both, in town. Large livestock were much more common among relatively
well-to-do households, as many of the lower-income households could only
afford small livestock (mainly chickens). Animals were either kept in zero-
grazing (mainly cattle) or were roaming around in the street (which is illegal).
Large livestock were better looked after than small livestock, as shown by the
much higher level of input use (especially improved breeds and veterinary
drugs). By far the most serious problem encountered by livestock keepers was
disease. Finally, as far as the (large amounts of) waste from the animals was
concerned, quite a number of the small-livestock keepers dumped it in the
street. However, most of the large-livestock keepers used their animals’ waste
for their own or their neighbours’ crop cultivation.

Photo 9 Animal waste disposal site in a compound in Lanet.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)
 6
The benefits

Co-author: Wijnand Klaver

In assessing the benefits of urban farming in Nakuru town, different levels and
aspects can be distinguished. How much does it contribute to the food supply of
Nakuru town as a whole? And how much to the food supply of the households
concerned? Does it lead to a better nutritional situation among household mem-
bers? How much does it contribute to household income? How many people
find employment in this sector? These questions are dealt with below.

Importance of urban farming as perceived by respondents

Before embarking on a quantitative analysis of the benefits of farming in town

for the people involved, this section starts with a general description of the
importance of the activity as perceived by the respondents themselves. First, the
crop cultivators and the livestock keepers were asked why they practised this
type of activity. For the large majority, the extra food produced was mentioned
not only as one of the reasons but also as the main reason (Table 6.1). The
household of Mama Esther was a case in point. After she and her husband had
suddenly both become unemployed, the vegetables from the compound had
become very important for them, as “products are taken from the shamba daily
for own consumption” (Versleijen 2002: 59). This was, in general, confirmed
by Baba Josephine (Ibid: 76):
80 CHAPTER 6

Nowadays a lot of people are unemployed. (…) Some small growing of crops or
keeping some chickens can be practised by everybody and as such you at least get
some food.
Moreover, according to Mama Esther, it not only provides food, it saves
money as well with which other food can be purchased (Ibid: 63):
You can better grow sukuma wiki yourself and then buy sugar from the money you
would normally spend on sukuma wiki.
However, the greens from the shamba in her compound could not sustain
them for a long period of time, especially not through the dry season.
Nevertheless, it was important for them because “as you can grow your own
food, then at least you have some security” (Ibid: 64).

Table 6.1 Reasons for growing crops and keeping livestock in town (%)
crop cultivation (N=160) livestock keeping (N=121)
reasons main reasons main
(total>100%) reason (total>100%) reason
food 97.5 90.0 92.6 73.6
income 15.0 3.8 32.2 14.9
to diversify income 9.4 3.8 23.1 10.7
hobby/custom 9.4 2.5 9.9 0.8
other reasons 2.5 -.- 0.8 -.-
total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

For a quarter of livestock keepers the additional income obtained from this
activity was said to be the main reason. A good example of this was (again)
provided by Mama Esther by referring to her neighbour (Versleijen 2002:
64-65):
My neighbour’s husband was unemployed and she got retrenched. With her re-
trenchment she got a retrenchment pay. From this money she bought a cow and
some hens. Now she can keep her children in school from selling the hens and eggs
and selling milk.
According to her, this example was not exceptional (Ibid.):
For most people around, small businesses like this are of extreme importance for the
income of the household and the education of the children.
But also in households with a higher income level, the income from livestock in
town can be an important means to sustain the household’s welfare level:
 THE BENEFITS 81
Baba Josephine’s household would not be able to sustain its livelihood without their
urban livestock. (…) They have to secure this income source in such a way that they
can sustain or improve their present livelihood. An example of this is that without
the practice of urban agriculture, Baba Josephine’s son would not make it to the
USA. (Versleijen 2002: 77)
Both crop cultivators and livestock keepers were asked about the general
importance of their respective activities (Table 6.2). Very few indicated that
they “could do without it”. For the large majority, urban farming formed at least
an additional food and/or income source. And for about a quarter it was a major
source. Some even stated that they could not survive without it. Crop cultivation
has more of a subsistence nature than livestock keeping. Only 11% of the crop
cultivators indicated that this activity was a major or additional income source,
against 37% of the livestock keepers. This was well illustrated by the case of
Mama and Baba Josephine’s household, summarised by Versleijen (2002: 68-
69) as follows:
The cattle provide mainly an income source in cash through the sales of milk and
calves, although a small amount of the milk is also consumed by the household. The
chickens form mainly an income source in cash as well, although a very small
amount is self-consumed. (…) The shamba is solely for own consumption and con-
tributes a small amount to the food consumption of the household.

Table 6.2 Importance of urban farming activities for crop cultivators

and livestock keepers (%)
urban crop urban live-
cultivators stock keepers
(N=160) (N=121)
could not survive without it 6.9 2.5
major food source 18.8 18.2
major income source 3.1 9.9
additional food source 68.1 59.5
additional income source 7.5 27.3
could do without it 3.1 3.3
Note: Totals add up to over 100% because of combined answers.
Source: 1999 survey.

The importance of farming in town for the people involved was well-phrased
by Baba Christopher (Versleijen 2002: 39-40):
People can have several reasons to keep livestock and grow crops in town. First of
all, of course it is very important for the food production. Many households here at
Ziwani would have severe difficulties if they did not grow their food or kept live-
82 CHAPTER 6
stock. (…) You know, for many people it is an important source of surviving. (…)
But it is also important because you save money because you do not have to buy
food. So that money can be used for other things or you can save.
However, besides these purely economic reasons, Baba Christopher men-
tioned another reason as well:
(…) especially here in Ziwani, most people are like me, they come from a rural
home. Farming is part of their identity. They have farmed at home and so they farm
here in Nakuru, simply because they are farmers. And farming gives them security
in a strange surrounding. At least you know for sure you can still provide food for
your family. (Ibid: 40)
You know, we are always farmers, wherever we go we will farm. That is because we
grew up with farming and with growing our own food. (…) You know, if you are a
farmer once and you are used to grow your own food, you will always look for a
way to keep on doing that. That is not only us, that are most of the people in Kenya,
simply because most of us are just farmers in their roots. (…) It was not a question
whether or not we would cultivate. That was logical. The question was where we
would cultivate (…). (Ibid: 32-34)
To relate the phenomenon of farming in town solely to economic circum-
stances would be too simple an explanation. Also in times of economic pros-
perity, many people indicated that they would grow crops and/or keep livestock.
That was confirmed by the answers on the question whether one would stop
with farming in town if they had sufficient other sources of income.1 Only one
respondent (out of 24) – who had had trouble with dying animals – said he
would stop. All the others would continue, and among them several would even
expand their businesses if they had more resources to invest. But despite the
‘identity’ aspect mentioned above, most respondents gave economic reasons for
their decision, such as the one in the low-income area of Rhonda Pondamali
who stated that “it helps my family a lot in subsidising our income”. Some,
however, gave non-economic reasons as well, such as a simple “I like it” or “to
cope with idleness”. One respondent mentioned the milk from his cow that he
would not like to give up.
Whatever the real motive behind farming in town may be, it is without doubt
that the importance of farming in town has increased considerably due to
economic recession, urban poverty and unemployment. Nineteen (out of 24)
respondents of the in-depth survey said that compared with when they started
farming in town, the activity had increased in importance, mainly because of the
food and income aspects. Of the five respondents who said that the importance
had not increased, four referred to the drought of the year in which the survey

1
In-depth survey 2000.
 THE BENEFITS 83

took place. The other one was the livestock keeper whose animals had died and
who lacked space to expand his activities.

Food supply

Food supply at town level

Based on the production figures in Table 4.4 (p. 58), it is possible to assess the
contribution of the food produced to the energy requirements of the producers
themselves and of the Nakuru population as a whole. It is evident that because
of various assumptions on which such estimates are based, these figures can be
no more than cautious indications. The calculations – based on the 1998 data –
are presented in Table A6.2 (Annex 6). More than six million kg of crops were
produced by Nakuru farmers living in the built-up area.2 If the producers had
consumed all of it themselves, it would have constituted almost 30% of their
energy requirements. However, an estimated 25% of the produce of the ten
main crops in Table 4.4 was not consumed in the producers’ households but
sold instead.3 In other words, the direct contribution to the producers’ energy
requirements would amount to about 22%. This also implies that an estimated
1.6 million kg of crops produced within the built-up area of the town were
marketed locally. Thus, many other households benefit from urban food pro-
duction for their food supply, and at prices that are likely to be lower than the
normal market prices. In all, the six million kg of crops constituted almost 8%
of the total energy requirements of the entire population of the town (Table
A6.2). It should be noted that these figures refer to a year that can be classified
as ‘normal’ in terms of rainfall. The following year, 1999, was a comparatively
bad year, so the contribution of urban crop cultivation to the town’s food supply
will have been much lower. Although the necessary data were not available to
quantify this for 1999, the qualitative measures in the following section make
this quite clear.

Household food security

In order to have a first indication of whether urban farmers were able to reach a
higher level of household food security than the non-farmers, two general

2
This was calculated as follows. The 160 crop cultivators produced 56,484 kg of
crops (see Table A6.2). For the whole sample (594 households), this is 95 kg per
household. For the whole Nakuru population (68,436 households), this is then 95
times 68,436 = 6.5 million kg.
3
For the calculation of the percentages ‘self-consumed’, see Annex 6, Table A6.1.
The estimated percentage of self-consumed ranges between 62% for bananas and
spinach and 82% for Irish potatoes.
84 CHAPTER 6

questions regarding this issue were asked to both groups and in both survey
years.4 The results are presented in Table 6.3.5 As far as 1998 was concerned,
the large majority in both groups answered positively (“yes, always”) to the
question: “Did your household usually have enough to eat during the past
year?” Nevertheless, if considered from the ‘negative’ side, one might also say
that among the non-farmers in Nakuru the number of households with food
problems in 1998 was twice as high as among farmers (15% versus 7%).
Whether this difference can be fully explained by the factor ‘urban farming’ is
doubtful, however. It is more likely to be a matter of differences in household
income, as the percentage of very-low-income households was much higher
among non-farmers compared to farmers (see Table 3.3 on p. 41).
The picture for 1999 was quite different. In both groups, a third of the
households had faced food shortages that year. As for urban farmers, this indi-
cates that their farming in town does make a difference: when harvests fail they
face food problems. For the non-farmers, the difference between 1998 and 1999
(-16%) must be due to other factors than urban farming. It may well be that
food was relatively expensive in 1999 due to the drought (which hit the whole
country), so many very-low-income households in this group could not afford to
buy all the food they needed. The urban farmers seemed to be more affected
(-30%), possibly by the accumulative effect of high food prices (-16%, as for
the non-farmers) and harvest failure in urban farming (the remaining -14%).

Table 6.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers:

summary of general food security issues (%)
1998 1999
urban non- urban non-
farmers farmers farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385) (N=71) N=62)

always food enough? yes, always 93.3 84.9 63.4 69.4

most important food urban production and/or
source last year other source 45.0 -.- 30.2 -.-
purchased 36.8 68.1 61.6 90.3
purchased and rural
production 17.7 29.9 8.2 9.7
Source: Annex 6, Table A6.3.

4
There is a methodological problem with this comparison. In both categories a group
of rural farmers are ‘hidden’. The true ‘non-farmers’ are those in the non-farmers
group in Table 6.3 who do not practice any farming, neither urban nor rural. It can
be expected that these are the most vulnerable households in terms of food security.
5
For more details regarding the answers, see Annex 6, Table A6.3.
 THE BENEFITS 85

The second question concerned the previous year’s most important food
source. For many respondents it was difficult to mention the most important
food source, so combined answers were common. The results in Tables 6.3 and
A6.3 (Annex 6) show that even in the ‘good year’ of 1998, the urban agricul-
tural produce of very few urban farmers in Nakuru town was their main food
source. However, almost half (45%) of them felt that urban farming combined
with rural production or with purchasing was one of their main food sources.
Consequently, fewer farmers depended on purchased food only than non-
farmers. Again, the situation in 1999 was worse. Dependency on purchased
food was much greater, for both groups.
Tables 6.3 and A6.3 also show that rural farming was a source of food as
well: 18% of urban farmers and 30% of non-farmers derived about half of their
food from their own rural agricultural production in 1998.6 Moreover, the fig-
ures also clearly show that the 1999 drought not only affected agricultural
production in Nakuru town but rural production as well. However, the impor-
tance of having access to a rural plot is well illustrated by the example of Baba
David (Versleijen 2002). His parents had a three-acre plot in Nyeri (185 km
from Nakuru), of which one acre was cultivated by his wife who lived there
with their four children. The plot was an important food source:
Baba David does not derive most of his food from the urban shamba but rather from
his rural shamba. The rural shamba does not only serve as a very important food
source for the moment but also as an important fall-back. If something goes wrong,
like an accident which would make it impossible for Baba David to work, or if he
gets fired, he knows he has something to sustain his livelihood.
Baba David’s rural plot was much more important than his urban plot. First,
the urban plot belonged to the railway company, while the rural plot was his
own. Second, the rural plot was bigger and produced much more food. Third,
because of his job with Kenya Railways, he could be transferred at any moment,
thereby losing his urban plot:
How can I rely on my urban plot when I might be transferred any moment? This is
just something small. However, my plot in Nyeri is not something small, we
couldn’t live without it. And you know, it is always good to have a place to go back
to. At least I am sure when something might go wrong, I can feed my family from
my shamba in Nyeri.
Yet, as Versleijen (p. 46) pointed out,
the current importance of the urban plot should not be underestimated. Baba David
saves a substantial amount of money throughout the year by cultivating a large part

6
For more details on rural farming activities by Nakuru town dwellers, see Foeken &
Owuor 2001, Owuor 2002 and Owuor 2006.
86 CHAPTER 6
of his own food.7 If he would not do this, he would have to take one or more of his
children from school, travel less frequently to Nyeri or stop other activities [such as]
drinking chang’aa8.

Food consumption and nutrition

Food consumption
The main purpose of the October 2000 survey was to assess to what extent
urban farmers were better off in terms of food consumption and nutritional
status, compared to urban non-farmers. Unfortunately, rainfall in 2000 was even
lower than in 1999,9 so there was very little harvest from urban crop cultivation.
This applied not only to those who relied on rain-fed farming but to some extent
also to those who normally practised irrigation because during droughts there is
an overall water shortage in Nakuru town.
The level and pattern of food intake as judged from the dietary recall10 was
very similar in both groups (see Table A6.4 in Annex 6). Cereal products
(mainly maize) constituted 57% of the total dietary energy in both groups and
the other staple foods (roots, tubers & starchy staples) added another 5%. The
contribution of grain legumes was limited (5% only in both groups). Vegetables
were consumed by all households, but fruits were not (only 1 household in 15).
Fruit consumption during the two days of recall was relatively more important
in the urban farming households (1 in 10 among the urban farmers and 1 in 30
among the non-farmers). There was a small difference in total energy intake:
urban farming households consumed about 75 kcal per consumer unit per day
more, which can be largely explained as 40 kcal more from grain legumes, 60
kcal more from foods from animal origin and 25 kcal less from oils and fats.
When compared to estimated requirements, energy adequacy stands at 96%
among urban farmers as compared to 93% in the non-farming group. These
figures point to a modest food deficit. The difference between the two groups is
too small to be significant.
At the time of the survey, both groups purchased most of their food (urban
farmers 94% and non-farmers 98% of their total energy intake). In those two

7
He was living alone in Nakuru.
8
A local (illegal) brew, usually made of maize.
9
Total rainfall was 601 mm (compared with a long-term average of 940 mm) and the
‘long rains’ failed completely.
10
A dietary recall interview was held covering the 48 hours immediately preceding the
start of the interview, thus capturing two days’ worth of consumption. For further
details, see ”Note on consumer units and calculations” following Table A6.4 in
Annex 6.
 THE BENEFITS 87

days own rural production contributed some small amounts, which were more
diversified for urban farmers (0.4% of energy from beans, vegetables, milk and
eggs) than for urban non-farmers (0.2% of energy by way of beans only). How-
ever, urban farmers derived on average 100 kcal per consumer unit per day from
their own urban production (3.5% of total energy), namely 40 kcal per con-
sumer unit from products of animal origin (milk, chicken, duck and eggs), 23
kcal from cereal products (dry maize and fresh maize), 23 kcal from vegetables
(mainly kale, as well as spinach, tomatoes, spider flower and onions), 8 kcal
from dry beans, 2 kcal from fruits11 (papaya and avocado), 1 kcal from Irish
potato and 2 kcal from sugar cane.
Although urban farmers purchased most of their food (94% of total energy),
it was a bit less than for urban non-farmers (98%).12 In the pattern of food pur-
chases one can see that urban farming saved buying maize, kale and spinach,
milk and potatoes. Urban farmers both produced and purchased more poultry,
meat and eggs, legumes and fruits. This resulted in a slightly more diversified
diet. On the other hand, urban non-farmers consumed more fish, which may be
related to the differences in household income mentioned above (the percentage
of very-low-income households being much higher among the non-farmers
compared to the farmers). Fish is the cheapest source of animal protein.

Nutritional status
The nutritional status of children aged between 6 months and 5 years was
determined by measuring their weight, height and age. As Table 6.4(a) shows,
the two groups were affected by under-nutrition, both of a chronic nature
(stunted growth) and of recent onset (being thin, referred to as “wasting”). The
differences between the two groups show, on average, better height and weight
growth among the children of urban farmers. Yet, this is not so clearly reflected
in the percentages of children with too low values The results become more
meaningful when the youngest age group is singled out (see Table 6.4(b)). Then
the advantages of children in urban farming households appear to apply to the

11
Note: The quantitative importance of fruits in the diet is somewhat higher than
reflected in the figures on dietary energy derived from them because fruits are low in
energy content per 100 g compared to dry products such as cereals and legume
grains.
12
During the two days of the survey, the following differences appeared: urban
farming households consumed less maize (275 g versus 300 g among urban non-
farmers), more rice and wheat (80 g versus 60 g), more green grams and dry peas
(13 g versus 3 g), more cabbage and spider flower (53 g versus 35 g), less kale and
spinach (115 g versus 167 g), fewer potatoes (163 g versus 173 g) and more fruits
(10 g pineapple, bananas and papaya versus 1.5 g), more chicken and meat (58 g
versus 31 g), more eggs (11g versus 6 g), less fish (6 g versus 12 g) and less milk
(160 versus 200 g).
88 CHAPTER 6

older under-fives (24-59 months). Their median length growth is less retarded
in urban farming households than in non-farming households; this results in a
somewhat higher median weight-for-age. The same is reflected in the preva-
lence rates of stunting (moderate), wasting (moderate) and underweight (moder-
ate and severe), which are lower in urban farming households. Among the
younger under-fives (6-23 months), the results are the reverse: median height

Table 6.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: nutritional status of pre-school children*
children of children of
urban farmers non-farmers
(a) ALL CHILDREN (N=22) (N=33)
In terms of median z-score**
height-for-age (HAZ: linear growth) -1.00 -1.29
weight-for-height (WHZ: thickness) -0.67 -0.59
weight-for-age (WAZ) -1.13 -1.28
In terms of percentages of children with too low values
stunted growth (HAZ<-2) 27.3 27.3
wasting (WHZ<-2) 13.6 18.2
underweight (WAZ<-2) 27.3 21.2
In terms of percentages of children with much too low values
stunted growth (HAZ<-3) 9.1 9.1
wasting (WHZ<-3) 4.5 3.0
underweight (WAZ<-3) 9.1 12.1

(b) BY AGE GROUP 6-23m 24-59m 6-23m 24-59m

(N=5) (n=17) (N=9) (N=24)
In terms of median z-score**
height-for-age (HAZ: linear growth) -2.35 -0.90 0.26 -1.64
weight-for-height (WHZ: thickness) -1.47 -0.63 -1.00 -0.50
weight-for-age (WAZ) -2.55 -0.97 -0.83 -1.41
In terms of percentages of children with too low values
stunted growth (HAZ<-2) 60.0 17.6 11.1 33.3
wasting (WHZ<-2) 20.0 11.8 22.2 16.7
underweight (WAZ<-2) 60.0 17.6 22.2 20.8
In terms of percentages of children with much too low values
stunted growth (HAZ<-3) 0.0 11.8 0.0 12.5
wasting (WHZ<-3) 0.0 5.9 0.0 4.2
underweight (WAZ<-3) 20.0 5.9 11.1 12.5
* Children between 6 months and 5 years of age.
** Legend for z-scores: - average reference value = 0;
- normal range for individuals is between -2 and +2; below -3 is considered to be
severe;
- as the group average drops below 0, the percentage of children below the lower
limit of -2 standard deviations increases.
Source: 2000 survey.
 THE BENEFITS 89

growth is much more retarded and median weight for height somewhat lower in
urban farming households than in non-farming households. This results in a
lower median weight-for-age. The same is reflected in the prevalence rates of
stunting (moderate) and underweight (moderate and severe), which are higher
among urban farming households, while the rates of wasting (moderate) are
similar. The results thus point to the long-term benefits of urban food
production, urban farming in past years having had the effect of preventing
malnutrition, especially the chronic variety (stunting) among older children.
This is all the more remarkable if one considers that the average household
income is lower among urban farmers. The lower weight and height values
found among younger children in urban farming households, who are
nutritionally at the most vulnerable age, may be the consequence of the bad
harvest of 2000 (which was an even drier year than 1999) and could be related
to the fact that this could not be compensated for by purchasing more food due
to the same households’ low incomes.
These results need to be interpreted with caution: (i) the sample sizes are
very small (and even smaller for the 6-23 months age group): none of the dif-
ferences were statistically significant; (ii) no information was collected on chil-
dren’s food intake and the link with family intake is not direct due to distribu-
tion of food within the household and other factors that influence nutritional
status. The survey was carried out in the period of the year when, according to
statistics from five clinics in Nakuru town for the previous year 1999, the
percentage of malnourished children is at its lowest (in 1999 malnutrition
peaked in the period between March and May).

Income
Charles and Rose came to Nakuru in 1965 and have cultivated crops ever since on a
half-acre plot in Lanet. They started with kale, but nowadays they cultivate toma-
toes, dhania (parsley), beans, spinach and kale. They plant twice a year, use chemi-
cals for weeding and irrigate with tap water. The tomatoes and the dhania are main-
ly sold to local middlemen. When the tomatoes are ripe, they harvest about eight
crates a week. The dhania gave them an income of about Ksh. 18,000 in 1999. In
addition, six bags of beans can be harvested each year, of which four are sold. Some
of the crops are given away. The remaining beans, as well as the spinach and the
kale, are mainly for home consumption. The income from sales is being used to
build a house. Charles and Rose are jointly responsible for their farming activities
but have to hire labour for planting and picking. The crop residues are used as
fodder for the livestock they keep in the same compound (cows, goats, sheep and
rabbits, partly for milk, partly for income, and partly as insurance in case they need
money) and the animal dung fertilizes the shamba. Their farming activities are bene-
ficial throughout the year as they can sell crops and milk all year round. Over the
90 CHAPTER 6
years, urban farming has become increasingly important to them, so they would
never stop it. On the contrary, they would like to expand.
Charles and Rose offer an example of a successful urban-farming household
who are making a reasonable income out of it, directly by selling crops and
livestock products, and indirectly by consuming self-produced agricultural
products, thus saving money for other expenditures (fungible income). Since
most households in Nakuru performed urban agriculture first of all for the food
(see Table 6.1), the indirect income was generally more important than the
direct income. Baba David, for instance, said he was able to save about Ksh.
1,000 per month by producing part of his food on his urban plot (Versleijen
2002: 44):
It is better to grow your own food and get something to eat and use your money to
send your children to school than to eat your money.
Similarly Mama and Baba Joshua saved about Ksh. 800 per month (Ibid:
52), while Baba and Mama Esther saved from Ksh. 1,000 up to Ksh. 1,500 per
month depending on how much they cultivated (Ibid: 59). However, these are
savings made in a certain period of the year only. Baba David produced enough
to cover six months. In 2000, Mama and Baba Joshua harvested beans sufficient
for 3-4 months (1½ debes13), maize for 2-3 months (2½ bags14) and sukuma wiki
for more than six months. And the same applied to Baba and Mama Esther.
Moreover, in years with insufficient rainfall, such as 1999, there may be little or
no harvest at all, and hence no fungible income. The loss of (or ‘denied access’
to) an urban plot may have equally serious consequences, as Baba Christopher
explained (Ibid: 35):
Because I normally grow my own food (…) I can save some money. (…) Now
however, because I’m not growing anything in town, I have to use the money. You
know, I could get 1½ bag of beans and 3-5 bags of maize from my garden. Say we
consume about 2½ kg per meal, that is 5 kg a day and 150 kg a month, so we can
live about three months from the garden. Now I have to buy food in those three
months. I could have saved a lot of money!
And Owuor15 gives the following description of Rita’s garden:
In front of Rita’s house is a well-tended sukuma wiki garden that supplies her house-
hold with sukuma wiki throughout the year. The sukuma wiki is harvested for about
four months before planting new ones. During the dry periods, the sukuma wiki is
watered using tap water. By getting her sukuma wiki from this small plot, she saves
about Ksh. 25 daily from May to July when there is plenty of rainfall and twice the
amount from January to April when it is dry and sukuma wiki is expensive. She also

13
A debe is a measurement comparable with a bucket of about 20 litres.
14
A bag contains about 90 kg of dry maize grains.
15
Samuel O. Owuor, field data, 2003.
 THE BENEFITS 91
plants kunde (cowpea) that she uses for consumption in the house, again almost
throughout the year. Like sukuma wiki, the kunde leaves are harvested straight from
the shamba when needed for consumption.
The direct income aspect was more important for livestock keepers than for
crop cultivators. Of the latter, one-quarter said it to be a source of income,
against more than half of the livestock keepers (see Table 6.1). For 10% of the
livestock keepers, it was even a major income source. Most of these were
people selling milk. However, milk production appeared to differ substantially
between the various dairy cow owners, ranging from just a few litres to 15 litres
per day per animal. Factors determining milk output were, amongst others, the
type of animal, the quantity and quality of the feed, as well as the overall health
and care of the animals. If well managed, keeping dairy cows could be very
rewarding financially.
Baba Josephine may serve as an example of a successful dairy farmer in
Nakuru town.16 An estimate of the profitability of his business is given in Table
A6.5 (Annex 6). He had two good dairy cows that provided him with an annual
income from milk sales of about Ksh. 180,000. The variable costs – grass,
supplementary feeds, veterinary drugs and hired labour – came to about Ksh.
100,000. He therefore made a profit of some Ksh. 80,000 gross. Compared with
a total initial investment of Ksh. 75,000 (two cows, a shed and milking uten-
sils), Baba Josephine had good reason to be content with his business:
Cows are expensive animals to keep, because of the veterinary drugs and check-ups
they require. However, they also bring in a lot of money! (Versleijen 2002: 74)
He was even trying to make it more profitable by letting the animals be
herded outside by his labourer during periods when there was abundant grass,
thus saving substantially on the purchase of grass, which formed the bulk of his
variable costs. He even tried to save on veterinary costs:
The cows I give medicines through injections. I do it myself. Before, we asked the
doctor to come, but through experience, through seeing it, I now do it myself. So
now I only go and enquire, I tell him the symptoms of the disease and he recom-
mends you a type of medicine. (Ibid: 71)
Milk sales do not provide a constant income throughout the year. Cows
produce best during the lactation period, i.e. for about 210 days per year. How
much they produce during the rest of the year depends largely on how well fed
they are. Particularly in a dry year like 1999, milk production could go down
substantially; an extreme example being a household whose yield dropped from
22 litres per day during the lactation period to just one litre during the dry
season.

16
See Versleijen 2002: 70-74.
92 CHAPTER 6

Chickens can be another rewarding business. Broilers are easy to raise from
young chickens. It only takes seven to eight weeks for them to be fully grown
and then they can be sold at a good profit. Layers can be equally rewarding.
One respondent living in an estate called Shabaab kept chickens that produced
on average 60 eggs per day. She sold these for Ksh. 5 each. On an annual basis,
that comes to over Ksh. 100,000. Her costs were about Ksh. 50,000 for com-
mercial feed, vaccinations etc., so she was able to make a reasonable profit. Her
main difficulties were diseases and drought (in 1999). Two other respondents
mentioned the same problems. One of them had to eliminate the whole flock to
avoid the disease spreading. The other was able to sell the dead animals, albeit
for a price about half of that for a healthy chicken.
Marketing was usually a very simple affair. In most cases the milk and/or
eggs were sold to people in the neighbourhood. Some producers had built a
small kiosk on the fringe of the compound facing the street, where they sold
their products. However, there were also farmers who sold to retailers and/or
wholesalers. Baba Josephine, whose two cows produced almost 30 litres of milk
per day during the lactation period, sold to both types of traders (Versleijen
2002: 73):
I’m selling to the duka17 who then sells it to people, or I sell it to Asians who then
sell it to retailers. I might make more money to sell directly to consumers myself but
then I have to stay at home the whole day and store the milk during the day. Now I
sell everything in the morning and I am through. And I am also sure I can sell all my
milk before noon so it doesn’t get spoiled.
In some cases, chickens and eggs were sold to traders too. Again, Baba
Josephine offers a good example. At the time of the study, he had 200 broilers.
Selling them from the house was not feasible because
The supply of chickens is high, there are many people selling them. So, what you
have to do is go to the restaurants and look for orders. (Versleijen 2002: 74)
After a hotel or restaurant had placed an order, the chickens were slaugh-
tered at Baba Josephine’s house. The eggs from his 150 layers were sold to a
wholesaler in town (see below).

Employment

It is not easy to assess the importance of urban agriculture in Nakuru town in

terms of employment. However, with the data available from the 1999 survey, a
cautious estimate can be made of the number of people working in the sector.

17
Kiosk.
 THE BENEFITS 93

These figures are presented in Table 6.5. Based on a total number of 68,436
households in Nakuru at the time of the survey (Kenya 2000), some 24,000
were involved in urban agriculture. Of these, about 18,400 could be labelled as
crop cultivators and 13,700 as livestock keepers (see Table 3.2). More impor-
tant, however, is the figure of about 4,900 people who reported their farming in
town to be a full-time job. In addition, in about a quarter of both the crop-culti-
vating and the livestock-keeping households, hired labour was used. In other
words, for about 8,400 persons urban farming constituted a form of paid labour.
For these people, working in urban crop cultivation was an income-generating
activity, albeit of an irregular and seasonal nature.
In all, an estimated 13,000 persons in Nakuru found employment in the
sector in 1998, either full-time or part-time. Compared with the total Nakuru
labour force of 141,181 in the same year (MCN 1999: 62), one can only con-
clude that in terms of employment, urban agriculture constitutes an important
sector.

Table 6.5 Employment in the urban agricultural sectora

crop cultivation livestock keeping total
% N % N N
households involved (% of total sample) 27b 18,900 20b 14,000 24,650c
- full-time job 14d 2,650 16e 2,250 4,900
- hired additional labour 28d 5,300 22e 3,100 8,400
Notes: a) The percentages have been extrapolated to Nakuru town as a whole based on a total number of
68,436 households in 1999 (Kenya 2000). Because of the speculative nature of these estimates,
figures have been rounded off.
b) Percentage of total sample.
c) Since a number of households are involved in both crop cultivation and livestock keeping, the
total is lower than the sum of the previous columns (see also Table 3.1).
d) Percentage of urban crop-cultivating households.
e) Percentage of urban livestock-keeping households.
Source: 1999 survey.

Other people benefit indirectly from the sector as well, namely suppliers of
inputs and buyers of the produce. As for the supply sector, the earlier-men-
tioned ‘grass boys’ were a case in point. It is impossible, however, to assess
how many were active at the time of the study. Other suppliers were those who
sold supplementary feeds and medicines related to livestock keeping, and seeds,
chemical inputs and tools in the case of crop cultivation. No data are available
on the numbers of such suppliers, but it can be assumed that there were only a
few. As mentioned in Chapter 5, according to Baba Josephine, there was only
one shop in town where he could buy his chicken feed.
94 CHAPTER 6

As for the buyers of farm produce, this usually involved milk and eggs. An
example of a milk trader was a man called Mkamba who bought (some of) Baba
Josephine’s milk:
Each morning I go to Kabachia by bike to collect five litres of milk. I pay Baba
Josephine immediately. The reason I buy from him is that he sells me milk that is of
high quality, which means that he never adds any water, Blueband or wheat flour to
the milk. You know, if you have good milk, you can make much more tea out of it
than when you have a lower quality of milk. Right now, customers start coming to
my duka because they know my milk is of good quality. You know, like that I can
attract many customers. (Versleijen 2002: 72)
And the possible success of the egg business is shown by a lady called
Murugi, who bought Baba Josephine’s eggs:
I started buying and selling eggs as a small business when I got retrenched. By that
time, I went to look for people who had eggs, bought them and sold them. However,
the business has grown and these days I have a name and people come to me to sell
the eggs, so now I can regulate everything from my little office here. Eggs are
brought by the farmers on a weekly basis. It does not matter how many a farmer
brings, I will buy any number. This is a relationship you build up with your suppli-
ers; they can rely on me that I will always buy. Only if the supply is higher than the
demand I have to turn people down; then I only buy from the suppliers that are
already there for a long time, like Baba Josephine. Eggs from Nakuru are cheap
compared to other areas and the quality is good. They are sold all over Kenya and
also to Tanzania and Uganda. (Ibid: 75)

In summary, the benefits of urban farming for the people involved are manifold.
It provides households with food that would otherwise have to be bought
(indirect income). Its importance as a food source was for instance shown by
the better nutritional condition of children (compared to children of the non-
farmers) and the food problems faced by these households when harvests fail
due to drought. For many households, urban farming is an income source as
well. Livestock keeping can be quite rewarding, as some examples in this
chapter have shown. Finally, farming appeared to be an important sector in
terms of urban employment.
 7
The support

Co-authors: Samuel O. Owuor & Peter W. King’ori

This chapter consists of three parts. The first part deals with some general
notions on assistance for crop cultivators and livestock keepers in Nakuru town.
These findings are based on the general survey of 1999. The second part pre-
sents the main results of a study in which a group of urban farmers supported by
the Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (ARDP) of the Catholic
Diocese of Nakuru is compared with a group of unsupported urban farmers in
terms of agricultural and economic issues. The third section deals with the
recently launched Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF Kenya) and presents
examples of successful micro-credit assistance for low-income urban farmers.

Assistance for crop cultivators and livestock keepers

Crop cultivators
Only ten (6.3%) of the 160 crop cultivators received technical assistance in
1998. Three had been visited by an extension officer and one by an officer from
the Agricultural and Rural Development Programme. The others had received
assistance from neighbours and/or relatives. It is notable that these ten crop cul-
tivators realised a much higher productivity on average than those receiving no
assistance at all (see Chapter 6).
Receiving assistance occurred somewhat more frequently on larger plots
(perhaps they were more visible to the extension officers) and on plots only
recently given over to cultivation. The latter might be related to the finding that
96 CHAPTER 7

younger crop cultivators as well as more educated ones received more assis-
tance than older cultivators and less-educated farmers. Perhaps the young and
relatively well-educated are better able to find ways of gaining assistance than
the older and the less educated.

Livestock keepers
Technical assistance among livestock keepers was more widespread than among
crop cultivators: 30% of the former had received some assistance in 1998.
Assistance for keepers of large livestock was much more common (55%) than
for those with small livestock (25%). Assistance was mostly provided by a
professional officer (39%), a neighbour (25%) or a combination of an officer,
neighbour and/or relative (17%). Of those households who did receive assis-
tance, over half (53%) had been visited by an extension officer. On the other
hand, if taking all livestock keepers into account, only 19 (16%) had received
any assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture. One farmer had received
assistance from the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru’s urban agriculture programme.
There appeared to be no relationship between receiving technical assistance,
on the one hand, and the number of animal deaths, on the other. Among those
urban livestock keepers who received assistance and those who did not, the
percentage of farmers who experienced one or more deaths was equally high
(67% and 64%, respectively). This may be due to the fact that the vaccination of
animals was usually only done after the outbreak of a disease. Preventive meas-
ures were not practised.
The data presented in Table 7.1 show that it not only made a difference as to
whether an urban livestock keeper received assistance or not, but also from
whom he/she got support. A distinction was made between professional officers
(extension workers from the Ministry of Agriculture, programme officers and
veterinary officers) on the one hand, and neighbours and/or relatives on the
other.1 As far as rearing system was concerned, there were no big differences
between the three groups (Table 7.1). Nevertheless, zero-grazing (‘within com-
pound’) was more common among those who received professional support
than in the other two groups. Consequently, leaving one’s animals to roam
freely around outside one’s compound was less common in this group.
Nearly all livestock keepers used some kinds of input. However, those who
did not use any input were to be found in the group without support. In general,
the percentage of livestock keepers using certain specific inputs was highest
among the professionally-supported farmers, somewhat lower among those who
received assistance from relatives or neighbours and much lower in the non-
supported group (see Table A7.1). This shows first of all that supported live-

1
More detailed figures are presented in Annex 7, Tables A7.1 and A7.2.
 THE SUPPORT 97

stock keepers used more different types of inputs than the other groups. For
some types of inputs, the differences were remarkable (Table 7.1). The use of
improved breeds and veterinary drugs was common among the professionally
supported livestock keepers, but clearly less so in the two other groups. Feed
supplements were very commonly given to the livestock of the two supported
groups, but less often in the non-supported group. To a lesser extent, this ap-
plied to the use of crop residues as feed as well.

Table 7.1 Summary of livestock-keeping characteristics by type of assistance (%*)

received assistance?
yes, from yes, from
professional neighbour or
officer** relative no
(N=) (25) (11) (85)
rearing within compound 52.0 36.4 38.8
system free range 32.0 45.5 55.3

types of improved breeds 68.0 18.2 8.2

inputs: veterinary drugs 96.0 45.5 36.5
% yes feed supplements 92.0 81.8 47.1
crop residues as feed 68.0 63.6 48.2

disposal of use part or all for own

animal crop cultivation 68.0 36.4 43.4
waste dump part or all in
the street 20.0 27.3 37.3

types of diseases 76.0 81.8 69.4

problems: theft 12.0 9.1 25.9
% yes lack of feed 36.0 9.1 9.4
lack of funds/capital 12.0 9.1 10.6
lack of safe drinking water 20.0 18.2 4.7
harassment 12.0 9.1 9.4
* Percentages are from 25, 11 and 85 cases, respectively.
** Includes extension officers, programme officers and veterinary officers.
Source: Annex 7, Tables A7.1 and A7.2.

Receiving assistance from professional advisers also seemed to have a posi-

tive effect on the ways livestock keepers disposed of the waste from their
animals. In general, this is one of the major environmental problems related to
keeping animals in town. As shown in Table 7.1, the professionally supported
livestock keepers were more inclined to use their animals’ manure for their own
crop production. At the same time, they dumped the waste in the street less
frequently. However, one in five of them still practised this unhealthy habit.
98 CHAPTER 7

Table 7.1 also shows the most frequently mentioned problems related to
livestock keepers’ activities.2 Although the three groups did not differ substan-
tially in this respect, some differences can be noted. For instance, supported
farmers had relatively fewer problems with theft of their animals. This is likely
to be related to the rearing system, since zero-grazing was more common
among them – and particularly among the professionally supported farmers –
than among the non-supported farmers. The professionally supported livestock
keepers complained relatively more often of a lack of feed. It is not totally clear
why this was so, but it might again have to do with the rearing system because
zero-grazing implies that feed has to be collected daily from elsewhere. Finally,
a lack of safe drinking water seemed to present no problem at all for the non-
supported livestock keepers, but for a fifth of the supported ones it did. Again,
why this should be so is not entirely clear. An explanation might be that sup-
ported farmers were more aware of the quality of the water their animals drank,
which in turn might be a result of the support officers’ advice.

The Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (ARDP)

The Catholic Diocese of Nakuru (CDN) has been involved in agricultural devel-
opment since 1974. The current Agriculture and Rural Development Program-
me (ARDP),3 which emerged from the Drought Rehabilitation Programme set
up in 1985, came into existence in 1992 and had the following objectives:4
Ɣ to encourage rural communities to be in charge of their own development
(self-reliance);
Ɣ to provide the necessary support to such communities to attain their own
development; and
Ɣ to increase the sustainability of community/group initiatives or projects.
To achieve these objectives, the programme emphasizes “the mobilization
and organization of homogeneous farmers’ groups/communities, which will be
able to identify and analyse their own problems and needs and consequently
seek solutions which can be reached primarily through self-help and in case of
outside help, this should only be to facilitate this self-help local initiative in
realizing their mission” (ARDP 1998: 2). More concretely, the programme’s
activities include: training and education; soil and water conservation; crop
production and management (food security); and livestock production and

2
See Table A7.2 for all mentioned problems.
3
In 2004, the programme faced problems causing the programme coordinator to
resign. It is not clear whether activities have meanwhile been resumed.
4
The general information on ARDP is obtained from the programme’s Quarterly
Report 2, 1998.
 THE SUPPORT 99

development. The programme covered five districts,5 with the target population
being small-scale farmers including some urban farmers in Nakuru town.
A special Masters-level study was carried out to assess how far urban farm-
ers in Nakuru benefited from the programme in terms of socio-economic status,
food consumption and the nutritional condition of the children and their mothers
(see King’ori forthcoming).6 A group of ARDP farmers was compared with a
group of non-participating (or non-ARDP) farmers.7 The group of ARDP farm-
ers consisted of 29 households, 14 of whom were ‘true’ urban farmers, i.e.
living and farming within the municipal boundary of Nakuru town, while the
other 15 were located just outside the municipal boundary (but within the
Nakuru Planning Zone). The group of non-ARDP farmers consisted of 48
households, selected for being close neighbours of the ARDP farmers.
The 29 ARDP farmers received various kinds of support (Table 7.2). Train-
ing – or indirect support – was the most common type of support provided to
the Nakuru farmers. This included sustainable agriculture, agro-forestry, crops
and livestock management, community organisation, leadership skills and plan-
ning and monitoring skills. Regarding direct support, six (20%) of the ARDP
farmers received help in the construction of a water tank, allowing them to
practise some form of irrigation in their small vegetable gardens during the dry
season. Five farmers received assistance with the construction of a zero-grazing

Table 7.2 Forms of support for the ARDP

farmers (N=29)
Training 21
Water tank 6
Zero-grazing unit 5
Loan for livestock keeping* 5
Beehive 4
Loan for crop cultivation** 3
Provision of dairy cow 2
* To buy chicken/rabbits, drugs, feed.
** For cereal marketing, fertilizer, seeds.
Source: ARDP study, 2000.

5
Nakuru, Kericho, Bomet, Koibatek and Baringo.
6
Here, however, mainly agricultural and economic issues are dealt with.
7
Obviously, the more appropriate way to assess to what extent ARDP farmers bene-
fited from the project would be to do a longitudinal study to compare the ARDP
farmers’ situation before the start of their participation in the project and how they
did afterwards. However, this was not possible within the context of a Masters
study.
100 CHAPTER 7

unit and another five received a loan to buy livestock and/or livestock-related
inputs. Four farmers were supplied with a beehive on credit, while two received
a dairy cow as an investment in commercial milk production as well as for self-
consumption. Finally, three farmers received a loan related to crop cultivation,
for instance to buy inputs or for maize marketing. In general, support for live-
stock-keeping activities was more common than for crop cultivation.
Both groups were predominantly mixed farmers, combining crop cultivation
and livestock keeping. The average plot size for crop cultivation among the two
groups was about the same (6,800 m2 and 7,400 m2, respectively). Cultivation
methods were also the same among the two groups, which is, for instance,
shown by the use of material inputs.8 The use of improved seeds/seedlings and
chemicals for crop cultivation was very common in both groups. The same
applied to the use of manure as fertiliser, which is obviously related to the fact
that most of these farmers kept livestock as well. Irrigation was not common.
The only difference between the two groups concerned extension services for
crop cultivation, which were more common among ARDP farmers. As for
inputs for livestock, ARDP farmers used ‘modern’ inputs/techniques such as
artificial insemination and veterinary drugs somewhat more frequently, which
can be related to their participation in ARDP.
There were differences between the two groups as far as problems with crop
cultivation and livestock keeping were concerned.9 The supported farmers com-
plained less about ‘lack of water’ and ‘crop pests and diseases’, but somewhat
more about the ‘poor market’ for their crops. As for livestock keeping, ARDP
farmers had more frequent problems with obtaining enough fodder for their
animals. They also complained somewhat more frequently of ‘lack of space’
and ‘high prices of inputs’. The latter can be related to the higher use of
‘modern’ inputs. Yet, they did not complain of a ‘lack of capital’, as quite a
number of the non-ARDP farmers did.
To get a crude picture of the welfare level of the two groups, two indices
were constructed. The welfare index consists of the ownership of such items as
a television, radio, sofa and bicycle (and in a few cases even a vehicle). The
house quality index is a measure of the quality of the materials used for the
floor, walls and roof. The aggregate average scores are presented in Table 7.3.
The figures show that there were few differences between the scores of the
ARDP farmers and those of the non-ARDP farmers.

8
Figures on the use of inputs for both crop cultivation and livestock keeping are
presented in Annex 7, Table A7.3. Note that the use of inputs for crop cultivation
was much more common among these peri-urban farmers than among the farmers in
the built-up area of Nakuru town (see Chapter 4, Table 4.2).
9
The figures regarding the most frequently mentioned problems are given in Annex
7, Table A7.4.
 THE SUPPORT 101

Table 7.3 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: material welfare levels
ARDP non-ARDP
farmers farmers
(N=29) (N=48)
welfare index* 40.5 43.9
house quality index** 5.5 5.2
* Vehicle = 100; television = 15; radio = 6; sofa set = 5; bicycle = 4. Maximum score is 130.
** Construction materials of floor, walls and roof. Maximum score is 9.
Source: ARDP study, 2000.

As mentioned above, the focus of the programme was more on livestock

than on crop cultivation and more particularly on cattle and milk production.
For that reason, Table 7.4 presents figures concerning the sale of cattle and
milk.10 First of all, the percentages of households selling cattle and milk were
higher in the project group. The average number of cattle and the average
amount of milk sold were also higher in the ARDP group. As a result, the aver-
age gross income from sales of cattle and milk was much higher among ARDP-
supported farmers.11
Gross income from crop sales was about the same in both groups.12 Hence,
in sum and in agricultural terms, the ARDP farmers as a group seemed to fare
better than the non-ARDP farmers (i.e. when outliers are excluded). In terms of
farm management, the project group seemed to perform better as well, indicated
for instance by the higher use of modern inputs in this group. This can likely be
related to training and education, which was by far the most common type of
assistance provided to the participating farmers.

10
Sales of other types of livestock (sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and rabbits) are
omitted here because in all cases (except sheep) only a few households were con-
cerned, while just one household accounted for nearly all the animals sold. For in-
stance, two households sold a total of 14 pigs, of which 13 were from one house-
hold. In the non-ARDP group, four households sold a total of 405 chickens, of
which 400 were from one household. As for sheep, these were sold by seven and
four households in the ARDP and non-ARDP group, respectively, with an estimated
average gross income (at group level) of Ksh. 1,618 and Ksh. 340, respectively. As
for eggs, none of the ARDP farmers sold any, but six of the non-ARDP farmers did.
Two of the latter were egg ‘giants’ who sold an estimated 12,700 and 53,100 eggs in
the year preceding the survey.
11
At least when the two ‘outliers’ regarding milk sales in the non-ARDP group are
excluded (see footnote in Table 7.4). If included, the average gross income from the
sales of cattle and milk would be about the same in the two groups.
12
Namely Ksh. 4,530 and Ksh. 4,630, respectively.
102 CHAPTER 7
Table 7.4 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: cattle and milk sales
ARDP non-ARDP
farmers farmers
Cattle (N=29) (N=48)
- % households selling cattle 24% 13%
- average number of cattle sold 0.4 0.2
- average gross* income from cattle sales (Ksh.) 4,508 1,816

Milk (N=29) (N=46**)

- % households selling milk 41% 31%
- average amount of milk sold (litres) 371 261
- average gross* income from milk sales (Ksh.) 8,422 5,918
* Without deducting production costs.
** Two households selling disproportionately large amounts of milk (5,250 and 7,500 kgs) have been left
out here. If included, average gross income from milk sales for the non-ARDP group would be
Ksh. 11,752.
Source: ARDP study, 2000.

The Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF Kenya)

The Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF) is a global initiative that has its
headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The Kenyan branch – ECLOF Kenya –
was launched in 1994. Besides the country’s head office in Nairobi, ECLOF
Kenya has offices in six other towns, Nakuru being one of them. ECLOF Kenya
supports the building of sustainable communities by providing fair credit ser-
vices for human development in both rural and urban areas. One of its main
objectives is “to increase accessibility to credit by the economically active and
marginalized micro/small business and farming people of Kenya”.
Set up in 2001, the Nakuru town office served about 600 members (clients)
three years later, most of whom were small-scale traders.13 Only a small propor-
tion (5%) of the members were farmers, benefiting from ECLOF’s financial
assistance for expanding or improving their farming activities. The large major-
ity of these farmers engaged in dairy farming (zero-grazing) and poultry keep-
ing in the rural areas. Five of the farmers could be classified as urban farmers,
i.e. living and farming within the municipal boundary or, more precisely, in the
peri-urban areas of Nakuru town. Due to the requirement that the activity must
be income generating (see below), all five urban farmers engaged in livestock
keeping: three in dairy farming (zero-grazing), one in pig keeping and one in
poultry keeping. Four of these cases were interviewed and are described below.

13
Second-hand clothes, retail shops, matatu businesses, chemists, tailoring, green-
grocers, hawking, etc.
 THE SUPPORT 103

Membership to ECLOF Kenya is open for anyone, provided that the individ-
ual members go through the pre-designed registration procedures and require-
ments. There are no special conditions for members who want to improve or
expand their farming activities. First and foremost, potential members must be
engaged in an income-generating activity (business or farming) and at the same
time belong to a registered group. This is usually a group of friends or neigh-
bours with a common interest. Members of a group who are well known to each
other are, therefore, able to co-guarantee one another when applying for a
loan.14 While ECLOF Kenya encourages already-existing groups, a large major-
ity of their members came together after learning about ECLOF’s activities.15
Once prospective members have formed a group and registered it with the
local Department of Social Services, each will pay a non-refundable registration
fee. The registration fee is part of the 3% loan-processing fee members are
charged. Thereafter, all the members of the group must attend (together) weekly
training sessions for a period of eight weeks. The course aims at counselling the
members and passing on the necessary business and savings skills. It also serves
as a platform for the members to know each other well, to develop a sense of
trust and to make the group more cohesive. During this period, each member is
required to save, in the group account, 20% of the money s/he has applied for.16
Ascertaining and valuing applicants’ securities is also done during this period.
Securities are in the form of a list of items the applicant gives and their equiva-
lent values, i.e. land title deeds, a radio, television set, etc.
ECLOF Kenya’s Ordinary Jiwezeshe Credit Scheme17 for registered groups
with at least 10 but no more than 30 members is popular with farmers in
Nakuru.18 In this category, the members can access loans of between Ksh. 5,000
and Ksh. 150,000 each, depending on the loan cycle. However, it is very rare
for members to apply for over Ksh. 50,000 because of the one-year repayment
period, at least for the first two loans. The aim of the loan is to expand or im-

14
An example from yet another loan scheme, Pride Kenya, was the Baraka women’s
group, consisting of 36 members. Each member contributed Ksh. 500 per month,
with which members facing a crisis situation – such as death, sickness or the in-
ability to repay the Pride Kenya loan – could be assisted (Samuel O. Owuor, field
notes 2003).
15
ECLOF Kenya occasionally carries out outreach and promotional activities in its
regions of operation.
16
ECLOF Kenya is a mandatory signatory to all the group accounts.
17
Jiwezeshe is a Kiswahili word literally translated as “enable yourself”.
18
There are other loan schemes that fall outside the scope of this discussion. For
example, loans for school fees (for all the members), small group loans (for four to
five individuals with a credit or loan history and common-bond activities) and insti-
tutional loans (church, schools, etc).
104 CHAPTER 7

prove on an existing income-generating activity, i.e. meeting working capital,

farm inputs and moveable assets needs.
After the loan is granted, ECLOF Kenya maintains monthly follow-up
meetings with their members to evaluate or re-evaluate the income-generating
activity and repayment progress. If a member is unable to repay his/her loan, the
group holds a meeting to discuss the problem. Normally, there are two options:
(1) to talk to the member about continued repayments and/or (2) to help him/her
pay. It is only as a last resort that the securities are sold.

Case 1: Baba and Mama Fred – diversifying sources of income

Baba and Mama Fred19 lived in a one-room mud house in Mwariki with their
three children. Mwariki is a large, low-income neighbourhood in the south-
western part of Nakuru municipality. Their house was built on a half acre plot
Baba Fred purchased in 1995. Mama Fred cultivated sukuma wiki (kale), spin-
ach, tomatoes and onions on the intensively utilized plot. Besides the crops,
both Baba and Mama Fred kept chickens. At the time of the interview, they had
about 10 kienyeji (local) chickens.
Baba Fred came to know about ECLOF Kenya through a friend and later
discussed it with his wife. The only information he was given by his friend was
that “there is an organization in town giving financial assistance to small-scale
businessmen and farmers”. After discussing it with his wife they decided to “try
their luck” and after he got the courage required, he went to ECLOF’s office in
Nakuru town. He was encouraged by what he was told and immediately started
to mobilize other people in the neighbourhood, so as to form a group and be
able to apply for loans from ECLOF. In less than a month, Baba Fred had
formed a self-help group with 20 members.20 This was in the first quarter of
2002. Given that only one household member can apply for a loan, there was no
need for Mama Fred to join the group. After undergoing the ECLOF’s training
programme Baba Fred received the Ksh. 40,000 he had applied for.
Baba Fred said that he applied for the loan to buy a “grade”21 cow so that he
could start selling milk while at the same time continuing with poultry keeping.
True to his dream, he bought a Friesian from another farmer in Kiamunyi, just
beyond the municipal boundary. Out of the loan, he paid Ksh. 35,000 for the
cow while the rest was used to transport the cow from Kiamunyi to his plot in
Mwariki. The cow, which gave birth in 2003, produced on average about 12

19
As explained earlier, Baba and Mama Fred means father and mother of Fred, the
first-born.
20
Not all of these members were farmers like Baba Fred. That applies to the other
three cases as well.
21
This is a crude translation for a “high breed” cow.
 THE SUPPORT 105

litres of milk per day for a period of up to eight months in a year albeit with
fluctuations depending on how the animal was fed. Out of the daily production
of 12 litres, they sold 10 litres of milk at Ksh. 20/litre and consumed the rest
themselves. After buying the cow, Baba and Mama Fred earned an extra, gross
income of about Ksh. 6,000 per month from sales of milk. Baba Fred estimated
his total production costs at about Ksh. 2,000 per month, which included
spraying, vaccinations, buying Maclick, water and sometimes Napier grass.
Hence, Baba Fred was glad to “end up with something every month”. To reduce
production costs, they planted a small stretch of Napier grass outside the gate.
Mama Fred admitted that with the income from the sale of milk they were
comfortably able to take care of their school-aged children, buy other food
items and even help their parents at the rural home once in a while. Mama Fred
concentrated on farming the plot while Baba Fred found a job as a shop atten-
dant in town after a period of unemployment. Before coming to Nakuru with his
family in 1991, Baba Fred was a businessman in Nairobi. He had a shop in
Nakuru until 1996 when he stopped to concentrate on poultry keeping. Baba
Fred confirmed that life was not all that easy before he bought the cow because
the profits from the shop and later from his poultry were not that good. His
major problem was poultry disease that occasionally hit his flock. However, he
consoled himself with the fact that they were lucky because they had access to a
plot that gave them food most of the time, i.e. daily sukuma wiki or spinach.
Baba Fred considered the profit from the milk as the household’s main
source of income because (1) with good animal husbandry he was always
assured of a profit and (2) he was not sure about staying in his present casual
job. In addition, they continued to receive additional income from the sale of
chickens and eggs. Baba Fred said that he was gradually improving his skills in
poultry keeping.
They both had a very high regard for ECLOF Kenya and the staff in Nakuru
who “visit them every now and then”. Baba Fred had finished repaying his loan
and was considering taking out another. Though he never had a problem with
his repayments, he admitted that during the first twelve months most of the
profit went into his repayments. He was next planning to plaster the floor and
walls of his house. Even with all this happiness, Baba and Mama Fred were not
happy with the Municipal Council of Nakuru which constantly harassed them
for keeping animals in town and “yet they do not understand how it helps the
people involved”.

Case 2: James Mwangi – improving and expanding pig farming

James Mwangi first heard about ECLOF Kenya in 2002, a few months after he
started keeping pigs in Langa Langa estate in Nakuru municipality where he
106 CHAPTER 7

had access to about an acre of land. Besides the pigs, James had two cows that
provided him with milk to sell and for home consumption. He recalled that he
was particularly impressed by ECLOF’s loan system with its monthly repay-
ments, unlike other micro-finance institutions in Nakuru where this was de-
manded on a weekly basis. Following advice from ECLOF Kenya, James and
his friends registered a group of 19 members and applied for loans. James
applied for Ksh. 30,000 to improve and expand his pig-farming activities. The
loan was granted in 2002 after he had attended the mandatory training sessions.
The first step for James was to “increase his herd of pigs”. In addition, he
also renovated one of his buildings and turned it into a butchery where he could
sell pork. The pork was from his stock but sometimes he bought from other
farmers the same way he sold his to others. By the time of the interview, he had
about 20 pigs in his sty. James said that the number was higher than what it was
because of their high reproduction rate. Due to a lack of food, he was forced to
sell some of them. He explained that reducing the number of pigs was good
practice “because it can be very expensive to feed a large stock.” According to
James, the price of a pig ranged from Ksh. 3,000 to Ksh. 5,000.

Photo 10 James Mwangi’s butchery.

(Sam Owuor, 2004)
 THE SUPPORT 107

The business-minded James was glad to be making between Ksh. 10,000 and
Ksh. 15,000 per month in profit from his pig business. After repaying his loan
without a problem, James was planning to take out a “bigger” loan to expand
his business further by making bacon and sausages. Because of his success, he
was nominated as a representative of the small businessmen at ECLOF Kenya’s
quarterly meetings. In that capacity, he advocated (1) a lower interest rate and a
more flexible way of repayment for those whose businesses do not pick up as
fast as they imagined they would and (2) trust, maturity and understanding
between group members as they co-guarantee one another.

Case 3: Grace Wanjiru – improving the household’s income situation

Grace Wanjiru was a female household head living with her children in the Free
Area region of Nakuru Municipality. As a source of livelihood for herself and
her children, Grace started keeping kienyeji (local) chickens. And as a survival
strategy, Grace joined an all-women “merry-go-round” group in the neighbour-
hood. The group members – mainly women of the same socio-economic status
– contributed money on a weekly basis. The total weekly contribution was
given to each member on a rotating basis. This was how Grace started and
managed to sustain her “small poultry-keeping venture”, as she called it.
Grace heard about ECLOF Kenya in 2002 from a friend and later shared the
idea with the members of her merry-go-round group. Despite a lack of enthusi-
asm among some members, Grace and a few others managed to recruit some
women outside their group and then registered as a self-help group. They did
not, however, disband their merry-go-round group, which was still active at the
time of the interview. Together, they attended ECLOF’s training programme,
which Grace described as “educative”.
Grace, like many of her self-help group members, was given the Ksh. 20,000
she had applied for and that she used “to buy layers”. She actually used half of
the amount to buy 200 layers. The other half was used to buy chicken feed, as
well as to erect a wooden enclosure for them. She had meanwhile re-paid her
loan, although initially with difficulty. In addition to the profit she got from the
sale of eggs, the money she received from the merry-go-round assisted her a
great deal in repaying the loan. With the loan from ECLOF, Grace counted
herself lucky as “a promising urban farmer who supplies eggs to various outlets
in town”.
At the time of the interview, Grace was collecting an average of three crates
of eggs per day and selling them at Ksh. 150 per crate. Even though some of the
layers died of disease, her monthly income had increased from less than Ksh.
3,000 to about Ksh. 10,000. Thanks to the loan, Grace had been able to (1)
increase her chicken stock from fewer than 20 local chickens to over 100 layers,
(2) put up a structure for them, (3) increase her monthly income threefold, (4)
108 CHAPTER 7

easily purchase feed for the layers, (5) take care of her children, and (6) improve
her household’s income situation and, in the long run, the family’s standard of
living.

Case 4: Jane Njeri – increasing milk production

Jane Njeri learned about ECLOF Kenya in 2003 during an outreach and promo-
tion programme conducted by the credit officers in ECLOF’s Nakuru office.
Together with some like-minded friends and neighbours, they formed a self-
help group as required by ECLOF. This group acted at the same time as a
merry-go-round group, meeting weekly to discuss issues affecting them and
presenting the total weekly contribution to one member on a rotating basis.
Jane, who already kept a cow for milk (zero-grazing), applied for a Ksh.
30,000 loan to buy another cow. However, after being granted the loan, she
instead bought two heifers. The heifers matured into milk-producing cows and
gave birth. Jane was proud that her milk production had more than tripled from
about 5 litres to over 15 litres per day, raising her monthly income from Ksh.
3,000 to about Ksh. 10,000.
Jane said that before joining ECLOF, she could not raise the capital to buy
another cow, while her husband, who was very supportive of this project, was
not able to help her because of his meagre earnings. The profits from milk sales
had gone a long way to improve the household’s income and food security
situation: they no longer struggled to put food on the table, to educate their chil-
dren or to take care of their elderly parents at home. The husband was now able
to concentrate fully on his business without regularly eating into his profits as
before. Jane admitted that she initially had difficulties in repaying her loan but,
with the support of her husband, she had managed. By the time of the interview,
she had finished repaying it. In addition, she had planted Napier grass for her
cows and had erected a good shelter for them using the profits from her milk
sales.

In summary, this chapter showed that support, be it technical or financial, does

make a difference for those involved. This applies particularly to urban live-
stock keepers, as very few crop cultivators appeared to have received any as-
sistance at all. Livestock keepers who were supported by professional officers
showed better rearing practices and better waste management. ARDP-supported
farmers realized a higher income from their sales of livestock products than
their non-supported neighbours. And those urban farmers participating in the
ECLOF Kenya (micro credit) programme managed to raise their income levels
considerably.
 8
The environment

Co-author: Ernest O. Nyandwaro

Introduction

Urban farming and the urban environment are closely related. It is therefore sur-
prising that only a few studies have been done on the impact of urban farming
on the urban environment – mainly technical studies measuring pollution,
erosion, etc. – due to agricultural practices in town. The use of chemical inputs
for crop cultivation is usually seen as a threat to the urban environment. Studies
in Tanzania (Foeken et al. 2004; Yachkaschi 1997) showed widespread use of
chemicals, some highly toxic. In Nakuru too, quite a number of crop cultivators
were found to use chemical inputs (see Chapter 4).
Another matter of concern is the use of untreated sewage water for irrigating
crops. This appeared to be very common among spinach growers in Dar es
Salaam (Mlozi 1999), although it did not necessarily affect the quality of the
vegetables or soil (Muster 1997). Over time, the use of sewage water for irriga-
tion can be harmful to the soil, as a crust consisting of particles sediment
appears over the soil, causing an increase of compaction and making the soil
more acidic. Eventually, some crops cannot grow anymore (Dennery 1995). In
the Nakuru survey of 1999, only one crop cultivator was found to use sewage
water for irrigation (see Chapter 4). That does not mean, however, that the
practice was rare. On the contrary, in certain areas, for instance in the area
known as Block 14 (just north of the old sewage treatment plant), untreated
sewage water was widely used. How harmful this practice is was a matter of
dispute in 2001, even leading to a court case (see Box 8.1).
110 CHAPTER 8

Box 8.1: Safety of “sewage crops”

A dispute regarding the safety of crops irrigated with raw sewage water in
Nakuru town reached the national press in an article entitled “Sewage crops’
safety war may end up in court” that appeared in Horizon, a supplement to
Kenya’s biggest newspaper, the Daily Nation (8 November 2001). In June 2001,
Ms Mary Muthoni threatened to go to court to get compensation for the loss of
her sukuma wiki, after Nakuru Municipal Council had repeatedly raided her plot
near the Kivumbini sewage treatment plant. According to the Municipal Chief
Public Health Officer, Ms Muthoni’s vegetables were the cause of a typhoid out-
break in May because of her use of sewage water to irrigate her crops. But Ms
Muthoni claimed that her crops were not contaminated, a claim backed up by a
laboratory report. Moreover, according to at least two microbiologists, getting
typhoid from plants irrigated with sewage water was simply not possible. It was
the same report that caused 13 other farmers, who admitted irrigating their
gardens with sewage water, of going to court seeking an order preventing the
Council from destroying their vegetables.
There was more agreement on the danger of tapeworms and roundworms
that lay their eggs on vegetable leaves. Tapeworms thrive on human waste,
which is an important component of the sewage water. The threat of infection is
real, especially if the vegetables are eaten raw, as one microbiologist said. How-
ever, that can be prevented by properly washing vegetables before using them.
According to the Public Health Officer (PHO), another risk involved heavy
metals, such as mercury, which has a cumulative effect when it gets into the
human body. “The industrial waste water which enters into the Council’s main
sewage system contains mercury that is absorbed by the plants which are thus
not suitable for human consumption”, he said. In this, he was contradicted by the
head of the Department of Environmental Health of the Ministry of Health, who
said that “there is no evidence that the vegetables contain any significant levels
of heavy metals”, adding that “sewage water will rarely contain mercury”. He did
warn, however, that vegetables grown along major highways could absorb lead
from car fumes.
Despite all this, the PHO’s viewpoint was very clear. “The Council will con-
tinue destroying the vegetables until the farmers realise the dangers they pose to
the public.” He also called on members of the public to stop eating sukuma wiki
irrigated with raw sewage water because of adverse effects on health. The
Nakuru District Commissioner added to this that he would “mobilise local leaders
to sensitise the public to the dangers of consuming sukuma wiki”.
 THE ENVIRONMENT 111

The soil in which a crop is being cultivated can be polluted by other sources
as well, such as river water, industrial dumping or exhaust fumes. Along main
roads and rivers in Dar es Salaam, fairly high heavy-metal concentrations have
been recorded (Amend & Mwaisango 1998; Sawio 1996). Too intensive land
use may exhaust soil fertility and even increase erosion, which was a matter of
concern in Harare (Bowyer-Bower & Drakakis-Smith 1996; Bowyer-Bower
2002; Drakakis-Smith et al. 1995).
Livestock keeping in town can be harmful to the urban environment in a
number of ways, as was for instance shown in some Tanzanian studies (Mlozi
1997, 1999; Mosha 1991). Firstly, livestock freely roaming around cause soil
erosion and sometimes traffic accidents and can also destroy ornamental plants,
lawns, water pipes, telephone lines, fences, etc. Secondly, domestic animals
transmit diseases that can afflict humans and circulate among other animals.
Thirdly, animal dung left to decompose in the compounds or along roads pro-
duces an odour (e.g. ammonia) and is a breeding ground for harmful bacteria
and flies. Animal dung is also a source of tetanus. Slurry containing dung, urine
and water, as seen in many compounds with cattle, chicken and pigs, attracts
disease-causing vectors such as mosquitoes. Shauri (1988) found that the
majority of a group of livestock keepers in Dar es Salaam dumped the dung
along road verges. These dumping practices cause pollution of the ground and
of drinking water. The situation in Nakuru was better (see Chapter 5), as ‘only’
a third of the livestock keepers dumped animal waste in the street. Most of this
waste came from small livestock.
Crop cultivation and livestock keeping offer the possibility of recycling
nutrients. For instance, among a group of crop cultivators in low-density areas
in Dar es Salaam, 90% said they used organic matter in their gardens, be it
chicken droppings, cattle manure or both (Mlozi 1998). In Nakuru, over half of
the crop cultivators used manure as fertiliser.1 The reverse, i.e. feeding livestock
with crop residues, appeared to be common as well, particularly for large live-
stock.2 On a larger scale, composting urban solid waste can serve both the urban
environment and the production of crops in town. Extension workers could play
an important role in the promotion of organic farming but, as Nkonya (1997)
observed in Morogoro town, Tanzania, urban farmers do not receive adequate
extension advice because the extension workers are not adequately trained in
environmental issues. In Nakuru, however, there are indications that extension
did have a positive impact on farming practices, as was shown in Chapter 7
(Table 7.1). For instance, those livestock keepers receiving (professional)

1
See Chapter 4, Table 4.2.
2
See Chapter 5, Table 5.4.
112 CHAPTER 8

assistance were more inclined to feed their animals with crop residues and were
less inclined to dump animal waste in the street.
The remainder of this chapter deals with three questions regarding the rela-
tionship between urban farming and the urban environment in Nakuru town. (1)
To what extent are Nakuru farmers aware of the environmental impact of their
activities? (2) What are the perceptions and attitudes among non-farmers and
officials regarding farming in Nakuru town? (3) How polluted are the soil,
water sources and crops?3 The data were collected in the context of a separate
study of NUAP that resulted in a Masters thesis (Nyandwaro, forthcoming).4

Urban farmers’ environmental awareness

For the ‘awareness’ part of the study, 60 from the 209 urban farmers of the
main survey (1999) were selected as a sub-sample. The 209 were divided into
three groups – crop cultivators, livestock keepers and mixed farmers – and from
each group 20 cases were randomly selected. As a result, the 60 cases included
40 crop cultivators and 40 livestock keepers.5
Almost 60% of the crop cultivators said they were aware of the pollution that
could be caused by inputs (Table 8.1). Those aware of the problem mentioned
soil pollution, water pollution, crop pollution or a combination of these. Asked
whether they were planning to do something about it, over half of them said
they would, indicating such measures as stopping the use of chemical inputs,
using alternative inputs and/or avoiding the overuse of inputs.
Less than half of the livestock keepers were aware that their animals could
be a menace to the neighbours or the urban environment (Table 8.1), mention-
ing bad smells, soil and/or water pollution, soil erosion, the transmission of dis-
ease, noise and traffic accidents. Various ways of dealing with these problems
were mentioned, such as (in order of frequency) restraining animals from going
into their neighbour’s compound, seeking veterinary services to keep diseases at

3
It should be noted that the chapter does not deal with the impact of the urban
environment on urban farming.
4
We gratefully acknowledge the funding of this study by Agropolis (IDRC).
5
In strictly methodological terms, this selection procedure may not be the most ele-
gant one, but for the restricted purpose of this section it is acceptable. It was done
because of the limited funds and time available in a Kenyan Masters study (consist-
ing of a ‘social’ part – awareness, perceptions, attitudes – and a technical part, i.e.
heavy metal concentrations). Some basic comparisons of the three groups of 20 are
made in the Masters thesis (Nyandwaro forthcoming). In the present book, two of
the groups are compared in the section on disposal of waste from livestock (Chap-
ter 5).
 THE ENVIRONMENT 113

bay, feeding their animals well to limit noise, ensuring proper waste disposal,
cleaning the sheds daily, and reducing the number of livestock they had. Two
respondents indicated that they wanted to start zero-grazing units as a means of
reducing the menace their animals presented.
The large majority of livestock keepers were satisfied with the way they
disposed of their animals’ waste. Some were not, however. Asked what they
intended to do about it, some planned to turn the waste into manure, while
another wanted to use the waste for biogas production.

Table 8.1 Urban farmers’ awareness of the environmental impact of their activities
(% “yes”)
crop livestock
cultivators keepers
(N=) (40) (40)
Are you aware of the pollution caused by crop inputs? 58
Are you aware that livestock can be a menace? 43
Are you satisfied with the way you dispose of your animals’ waste? 85
Do neighbours ever complain about your farming activities? 15 18
Is anyone giving you information about environmental pollution? 20 30
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).

Both crop cultivators and livestock keepers were asked whether neighbours
ever complained about their farming activities. As can be seen in Table 8.1, the
majority of neighbours never complained (at least, according to the farmers).
Those who had complained about crop cultivation did so because of chemicals
ending up in their water sources. Complaints regarding livestock keeping re-
ferred to the destruction of crops and to the dirty conditions in compounds due
to animal waste.
A minority of both crop cultivators and livestock keepers said that they had
been or were being made aware of the environmental consequences of their
activities by others (which seems to contrast with the above-mentioned indica-
tion that extension did have a positive impact on farming practices). Asked who
those ‘others’ were, the livestock keepers mentioned veterinary officers, Muni-
cipal Council officers and also their own children telling them what they had
learned at school about this particular issue. Their advice was to maintain
general cleanliness (i.e. proper waste disposal) and keep large animals in zero-
grazing. Crop cultivators mentioned agricultural officers, the electronic media
and also “what was learned at school”. Awareness creation consisted mainly of
warnings about chemicals affecting crops and consumers; and information
114 CHAPTER 8

about environmental methods of disease control and the correct application of

chemicals.

Perceptions and attitudes

Questions on perceptions and attitudes about relationships between urban farm-

ing and the urban environment in Nakuru town were put to a group of 20 non-
farmers and 18 officials. The non-farmers were selected as the nearest non-
farming neighbours of 10 crop cultivators and 10 livestock keepers. The offi-
cials consisted of ten municipal officers and eight representatives from other
organizations, such as NGOs and CBOs.
According to most non-farmers, urban farming and urban pollution have
been increasing in Nakuru town (Table 8.2). Interestingly, most officials had the
opposite view. This may be due to the fact that officials tend to be transferred
quite regularly, so they may have a much shorter time frame in mind than the
non-farmers. In both groups, however, many think that farming in town causes
pollution and in both groups “dirtying the environment” was mentioned in the
first place, apparently referring to livestock keeping in particular. That was also
the case with another common example, namely “the destruction of flower

Table 8.2 Urban non-farmers’ and officials’ perceptions regarding the environmental
impact of farming in Nakuru town
non-
farmers officials
(n=20) (n=18)
ƒ Has urban farming increased since you came here? % yes 80 17
ƒ Has pollution in Nakuru town increased? % yes 70 22
ƒ Does farming in town cause pollution? % yes ?* 50
ƒ Is farming in town a hygienic activity? % no 70 67
ƒ What is the quality of the crops cultivated in town
compared with crops cultivated in rural areas? % worse 70 61
ƒ Are the crops growing at the dump polluted? % yes 90 72
ƒ Are crops grown near large industrial sites polluted? % yes 50 61
ƒ Are crops grown along roads contaminated? % yes 50 72
ƒ Do you know that some people use sewage
water to irrigate crops? % yes 100 89
ƒ Do you think those crops are contaminated? % yes 100 78
* Majority, but exact figure is not given in the source.
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).
 THE ENVIRONMENT 115

beds”, to which some of the non-farmers added “bad smells” and some of the
officials added “diseases” as well. A few complained about “increased crime
due to maize” (as a hiding place for thugs), thereby referring to crop cultivation.
A ‘typical’ problem for officials, also related to crop cultivation, was that farm-
ing in town “takes up space for urban development”.
When asked how the negative effects of farming in town could be tackled, it
was interesting to see that the non-farmers pointed solely to the government that
should, for instance, “impose strict laws regarding waste disposal”, “reduce the
numbers of farmers”, “ban farming in town altogether”, and/or “support farmers
in improving hygiene”. To some extent, the officials also pointed at themselves,
for instance by stating that “veterinary services should be provided”, “waste
should be collected regularly by the Municipal Council” and/or “keeping ani-
mals near residential areas should not be allowed”. On the other hand, they also
saw a responsibility on the farmers’ side and for livestock keepers in particular.
Some of the officials stated that they “should clean the animal sheds regularly”,
thereby suggesting that standards of cleanliness were often not up to standard.
Two-thirds of both non-farmers and officials perceived farming in town as
an unhygienic activity (Table 8.2). It is not surprising, then, that they also
perceived the quality of the crops cultivated in town as being lower than those
from the rural areas. Crops cultivated at certain locations – the dump, near large
industrial companies, along roads – are perceived by many as being polluted.
This applies particularly to the dump (which is confirmed by the measurements
presented in the next section). All non-farmers and most (but not all!) of the
officials indicated that they knew about the use of sewage water for irrigating
crops in certain areas. There was a common view regarding the contamination
of such crops, although apparently some of the officials had a different view on
that. Since the fieldwork took place before the court case presented in Box 8.1,
it is possible that these officials have since changed their minds.
To assess the attitudes of non-farming neighbours and officials regarding
farming in town, they were asked to give their opinions on a number of state-
ments on cultivating crops, the keeping of large livestock and the keeping of
small livestock in Nakuru town. The results are presented in Table 8.3. Note
that the statements are either unfavourable, indicated by (-), or favourable, indi-
cated by (+). Moreover, the statements are presented in a rough sequence from
‘most unfavourable’ to ‘most favourable’. Note also that the absolute numbers
in the two groups are small and the percentages should therefore at best be seen
as indications.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the table. First, there was a
fairly general conviction among both non-farmers and officials that urban
farming is important for the urban food supply. However at the same time,
farming in its present form was considered negatively by many because “it is
116 CHAPTER 8

bad for the environment”. This applied in particular to growing crops and
keeping large livestock. Attitudes regarding the keeping of small livestock in
relation to the urban environment were somewhat more favourable among both
groups.
Second, opinions became more favourable if farming was better kept under
control. As for crop cultivation, the majority of the respondents in both groups
agreed with the statement “acceptable in designated areas only”. Regarding
keeping large livestock, it is interesting to see that whereas in the first instance
almost a half of the officials agreed with the strong statement that it “should be
forbidden”, a few statements later (literally), quite a number of them apparently

Table 8.3 Urban non-farmers’ and officials’ attitudes regarding urban farming (%)
20 non-farmers 18 officials
dis- dis-
agree agree agree agree
Growing crops in town …
… should be forbidden 20 35 22 33
… is a bad thing 65 10 28 61
… is bad for the environment 70 10 67 11
… should be allowed in designated areas only 70 10 78 0
… is important for the urban food supply 80 10 61 28
… contributes to a better environment in town 0 100 0 94
… can solve urban environmental problems 10 30 0 67
… should be stimulated by the government 35 30 33 17

Keeping large livestock in town …

… should be forbidden 20 30 47 22
… is a bad thing 20 10 33 22
… is bad for the environment 60 10 56 22
… is acceptable if controlled by the government 60 20 11 78
… is acceptable if waste disposal is controlled 90 0 78 6
… is important for the urban food supply 80 5 89 6
… should be stimulated by the government 55 10 47 11

Keeping small livestock in town …

… should be forbidden 35 20 11 44
… is a bad thing 25 35 11 44
… is bad for the environment 35 15 39 22
… is acceptable if controlled by the government 50 20 61 22
… is acceptable if waste disposal is controlled 65 20 33 44
… is important for the urban food supply 80 10 78 6
… should be stimulated by the government 45 35 61 11
Notes: Agree includes ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’.
Disagree includes ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’.
The answer ‘no yes, no no’ is not included in the table; hence, the totals do not add up to 100%.
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).
 THE ENVIRONMENT 117

changed their minds (“should be accepted if waste disposal is controlled”). All

the non-farmers but one held the same opinion. This is an indication of the
seriousness of the problem of waste from livestock in town. More generally, it
also shows how much farming in town is related to the urban environment in
the people’s minds. Very few, however, thought that crop cultivation is or might
be beneficial to the urban environment. All respondents except one disagreed
with the statement that crop cultivation “contributes to a better environment in
town”. Moreover, only two (out of 38) respondents thought that growing crops
“can solve urban environmental problems”, though it should be noted that the
majority of the non-farmers and a third of the officials had no opinion about
this.
Third, the non-farmers and the officials appeared to have quite similar atti-
tudes regarding urban farming in Nakuru town. One difference concerns the
general attitude to crop cultivation in town. Whereas most non-farmers consid-
ered this as “a bad thing”, the majority of the officials did not agree, even
though most felt that it was bad for the urban environment. Another difference
has to do with the role of the government in relation to the keeping of large
livestock. Many non-farmers saw a role for the government (“acceptable if
controlled by the government”) but the officials did not share that opinion.
Although this is in line with the findings regarding the perceptions presented
above, it is surprising that many officials saw a controlling role for the govern-
ment concerning small livestock. Like the non-farmers, about half of them
agreed with the statement that keeping livestock, either large or small, “should
be stimulated by the government”. Very few respondents actually disagreed
with this. It is also interesting to see that this promoting and encouraging role by
the authorities was more popular regarding livestock keeping than crop cultiva-
tion. Although we have no ready explanation for this, it might be related to the
fact that rearing livestock is a more commercial activity compared to crop culti-
vation.

Heavy metal concentrations

To ascertain the extent to which the environment in Nakuru town was polluted
in areas where urban farming was taking place, heavy metal concentrations
were measured in soils, water used for irrigation and crops grown. Specific
variables were distance from the main road, age of the crops grown, and site.
Samples of soil, water – both sewage water and tap water – and crops were
collected and analysed in a laboratory for four types of heavy metals:, namely
zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg). Twelve sampling sites
were selected, in such a way that together they could be considered representa-
118 CHAPTER 8

tive of the whole of Nakuru town. Most of them were located in the ‘clusters’
used for the general survey. Specific sites included the dump in the northwest of
the town (where there is a lot of farming), areas near roadsides and places where
sewage water was used for irrigation. A brief characterization of the twelve sites
is presented in Table 8.4. Site 6 (Lanet) was considered the ‘control area’ and
was thought to be unpolluted.6

Table 8.4 Characteristics of the sampling sites

Sampling site Observable characteristics
1 Mwariki Sloping plot near the sewage plant but no irrigation water used for
farming.
2 Rhonda Sewage Near the sewage plant, with extensive use of sewage water.
3 London (dump) The dump with a lot of non-biodegradable, synthetic materials.
A large part of the site is covered with a thin layer of soil for crop-
cultivation purposes.
4 Lanet Free Area Use of tap water for irrigation.
5 Rhonda Pondamali Near the market place, very sandy and neglected farming area.
Plots were not weeded.
6 Lanet Relatively big farm with no water for irrigation and located a long
way from the urban set-up.
7 Kivumbini Occasional use of sewage water for irrigation, especially during
the dry season.
8 Rhonda Kaptembwa Extensive use of organic manure from the animals kept on the
farm.
9 Kabachia Area next to the road with backyard farming, plots covered with
ashes of burnt tins and tyres.
10 Rhonda Muslim Area with high use of organic manure but regularly cleaned.
11 Kaloleni Next to the sewage plant, with extensive use of sewage water.
12 Milimani Staff residential area with backyard farming.
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).

Soils
The soils at all the sampling sites consist of haphic phaezems. The area is terti-
ary volcanic with flood plains. It has flat to gently undulating plough ridges that
are good for agricultural activities. There is a considerable percentage of gravel,
silt and clay in the soil, which may be responsible for an increased capacity of
adsorption of heavy metals from the topsoil. Such finer textured soils are less
permeable, so plants have a longer time to absorb trace elements. Soil-profile

6
See Nyandwaro (forthcoming) for a description of the research methods, the labora-
tory analysis and a detailed description of the sampling sites.
 THE ENVIRONMENT 119

analysis showed that the water level is deep, which indicates that the area ex-
posed to water is low with slow leaching water velocity.
Annex 8, Table A8.1 summarizes the measured concentration levels of
heavy metals in the soil, while Table 8.5 presents the sampling sites with the
highest concentrations. Relatively high levels of heavy metals were found at
three sampling sites, namely Rhonda Sewage, London (dump), and to a lesser
extent Kaloleni. In Rhonda Sewage, zinc (Zn) levels in particular were substan-
tially higher than the limits allowed by the WHO (50-150mg/l). Compared with
other sites, levels of most elements were also found to be relatively high at
Rhonda Sewage and the dump. These high levels can likely be attributed to the
use of sewage water for irrigation (Rhonda Sewage, Kaloleni) and the presence
of synthetic and domestic solid wastes at the dump.

Table 8.5 Sites with relatively high heavy metal concentrations in the soils (mg/l)
Sampling siteĻ Zn Pb Cd Hg
WHO standardsĺ 50-150 5-10 0.05-0.2 <1
Rhonda Sewage 241.0 4.5 0.21 0.10
London (dump) 135.6 4.5 0.51 0.61
Kaloleni 53.5 1.4 0.08 0.14
Source: Annex 8, Table A8.1.

As for the relationship between the concentration levels, on the one hand,
and distance from the main road, on the other, zinc (Zn) and lead (Pb) levels
were found to be higher at sites nearer to the roadside. But for cadmium (Cd)
and mercury (Hg), it was the other way around, namely levels were higher
further away from the roadside. However, the relationship was statistically not
significant (p>0.05) and the sample was too small to permit any generalization.

Water
Table 8.6 shows the measured concentration levels of the four trace elements as
found in tap water and in sewage water, both used for irrigation of the cultivated

Table 8.6 Heavy metal concentrations in water, by type of water source (ppm*)
Water source Zn Pb Cd Hg
Tap water 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.08
Sewage water 0.24 0.11 0.90 0.11
* Parts per million. Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).
120 CHAPTER 8

crops. For all four heavy metals, cadmium in particular, concentration levels
were found to be higher in sewage water than in tap water.

Crops
It was decided to use African spinach (amaranthus spp) to measure heavy metal
concentrations in crops. This was for three reasons: first, it was available at all
sampling sites all year round; second, it tolerates environmental stress so the
age of the plant could be used as a variable; and third, the crop is popular in the
Nakuru households and consumed regularly.
Table A8.2 in Annex 8 shows the heavy metal concentrations in the leaves
of this crop at the twelve sampling sites, while Table 8.7 shows the sites with
the highest concentrations. Again, Rhonda Sewage and the dump stand out
because of the comparatively high levels of zinc (Zn). In Kaloleni, however,
where sewage water is used too, zinc levels were relatively low. This is likely to
be due to the fact that, compared to Rhonda Sewage, irrigation was less inten-
sive and the area has a steeper gradient.

Table 8.7 Sites with relatively high heavy metal concentrations in Amaranthus (mg/l)
Sampling siteĻ Zn Pb Cd Hg
WHO standardsĺ 50-150 5-10 0.05-0.2 <1
Rhonda Sewage 210.0 10.0 0.10 0.21
London (dump) 130.0 4.6 0.09 0.50
Mwariki 26.8 10.3 0.02 0.10
Kabachia 4.7 7.8 0.11 0.09
Source: Annex 8, Table A8.1.

Concentration levels of lead (Pb) were comparatively high in Mwariki,

Rhonda Sewage and Kabachia. In Mwariki, this is mainly because of its prox-
imity to the sewage plant, and in Rhonda Sewage (again) to the intensive use of
sewage water for irrigation. The high levels of lead in Kabachia can be ex-
plained by its proximity to the road and by the fact that shortly before the plant
samples were collected, some tires had been burnt there. For the same reasons,
cadmium (Cd) levels were comparatively high at the same sampling sites
(Rhonda Sewage and Kabachia). In Rhonda Muslim, a comparatively high
cadmium level was found as well due to the use of raw industrial effluents from
the industrial area for irrigation, in combination with its proximity to the road
and the use of inorganic manure. The cadmium levels in the plants cultivated in
areas where sewage water was used for irrigation were much lower than the
cadmium levels in the sewage water itself. This is due to a high degree of
 THE ENVIRONMENT 121

leaching of the soils and because the uptake levels of the metal from the soils is
‘shared’ by the crops and the weeds on the farmland. Finally, levels of mercury
(Hg) were generally low. The only exception was the dump, although there the
level still appeared to be below the WHO’s permitted limits.
As for the distance to the main roads, apart from zinc, concentrations of
heavy metals were found to be higher in plants closer to the roads. In terms of
the age of the plants, younger plants appeared to contain (statistically signifi-
cant: p<0.05) higher levels of zinc, cadmium and mercury than mature plants.
With lead, it appeared to be the other way around, due to long-term accumula-
tions, although this relationship was statistically not significant (p=0.0990).

In summary, the chapter has shown that quite a number of urban farmers in
Nakuru were not aware that their activities could have a negative impact on the
urban environment. Therefore, it is not surprising that the farmers’ neighbours
and officials generally held the view that farming in town is bad for the envi-
ronment. Their view became more favourable, however, if farming in town was
better controlled. An important aspect in this regard concerns the comparatively
high levels of heavy metals in soils and plants irrigated with sewage water, in
plants cultivated at the dump, and in plants growing close to roads. This indi-
cates that the Public Health Officer (see Box 8.1) did have a point about the
heavy metals in the raw sewage water used to irrigate crops. Yet, it must also be
noted that the present study found that the concentrations at these sites were
high in comparison with other sites, which is not the same as saying that they
pose a serious health threat for the people consuming these plants (although
some concentrations were indeed higher than the limits set by the WHO). An-
other conclusion is that the Council should not only focus on areas where
sewage water is used but on the dump as well.
122 CHAPTER 8

Photo 11 Nakuru’s dump. Unseparated waste on the left, maize cultivation on

earth-covered waste on the right. (Dick Foeken, 1999)

Photo 12 Dairy cattle roaming in the street feeding on household waste in

Stadium area. (Sam Owuor, 2004)
 9
The schools

Co-author: Correta E. Odera

Institutional farming

Besides farming by individual households, farming by institutions is also com-

mon in African towns and cities. However, farming by urban institutions has
been largely overlooked or neglected by both researchers and policy-makers.
Besides state farms located within the boundaries of urban centres, institutions
that perform agriculture in town include monasteries and convents, factories,
prisons, schools, hospitals and the army. For instance, a large factory in Moro-
goro, Tanzania (Tanzania Tobacco Processors Ltd.) exploits vegetable and fruit
fields, partly for consumption in the firm’s canteen and partly to sell to individ-
ual buyers.1 In East Africa, most prisons have farms, an example being Nakuru
Prison Farm (see Box 9.1).
Probably the most important type of institutional urban agriculture is school
farming. Data available from Dar es Salaam are based on an aerial survey
carried out in 1999 (Dongus 2000) when 33 schools were engaged in vegetable
production. Of these, 30 were primary schools and the others were secondary
schools. The majority of the schools (23) practised rain-fed farming, the others
irrigated their crops. A total of about 62 acres were under cultivation, i.e. an
average of 1.9 acres per school. Comparing these data with those from aerial
maps of 1992 showed that six of the 33 schools did not grow vegetables in
1992, but started doing so afterwards. However, another 16 schools stopped

1
Personal communication at the site, 1999.
124 CHAPTER 9

Box 9.1: Nakuru Prison Farm

All prison departments in every province of Kenya farms. Nakuru Prison Farm
covers 1000 acres, with citrus trees being grown on 10 acres, 300 acres is for
pasture and the rest is for cultivation. The crops grown include maize, beans,
peas and a wide range of vegetables (spinach, green peppers, egg plants, cab-
bages, carrots, sweet potatoes, sugar cane, and a variety of local vegetables
such as kunde, managu, terere and saget). Horticultural crops include oranges,
lemons, tangerines, grape fruits, limes, avocadoes, mangoes, custard apple,
passion fruits, paw paws, tomatoes, apples, pears, plums, water melons, apricots
and bananas. The livestock kept include cows, goats, sheep, chicken and bees.
Goats and sheep are reared in an open free-range system in and around the
prison. In September 2000 there were 80 cows, 70 goats, 45 sheep and 100
local (kienyeji) chickens.
All the produce – vegetables, fruit, seedlings, milk, eggs, animals and honey
– is sold. The prison authorities buy food from the farm at subsidised rates to
indirectly generate income to help covering operational costs. The rest is sold to
the prison’s staff (at low rates) and to people from outside (at commercial rates).
Inmates working in the fields can only benefit through eating overripe fruits.
Some inmates, such as young children who are living with their imprisoned
mothers, are supplied with milk, albeit only after the recommendation from the
prison’s doctor.
The prison inmates carry out the farming activities, not necessarily as a
punishment but to learn basic farming skills. It is a means of rehabilitation and
keeping the inmates busy. There are even stories of former inmates who have
become farmers after this kind of training.
The prison’s farm is like a farm demonstration centre where anybody is wel-
come and advice is given on various aspects of farming. Sometimes a minimum
fee is charged depending on the nature of the consultation. On-plot demonstra-
tions as well as on-plot scientific research on various types of breeds of crops
and fruit trees are also done (an example being research into the cultivation of
pears in a tropical climate like that in Nakuru). Most of the results of these re-
search activities are disseminated through the Agricultural Society of Kenya’s
annual shows.

Source: Mureithi 2000.

cultivating between 1992 and 1999, mostly because of a shortage of rains, new
school buildings, the planting of trees and/or flowers, or a combination of these
reasons.
We know of only one in-depth study on school farming that was carried out
in city of Cagayan de Oro in the Philippines (Potutan et al. 1999). Nearly all
public primary schools there have gardens, which are tilled by the pupils
(assisted by their mothers) under the supervision of teachers. The study in
Cagayan de Oro reported that the activity was beneficial in various ways,
contributing to the children’s household economy and food security, the pro-
 THE SCHOOLS 125

duction of cheap and nutritious foods, the consumption of healthy food, the
urban environment, and communalism and cooperation in the local community.

School farming in Kenya

School farming is normal in Kenya, particularly in the rural areas where it dates
back to the colonial period. Since 1988, practical subjects like agriculture are on
the curriculum at secondary school and for those students who choose agricul-
ture as a practical subject, farming is compulsory. It is, therefore, to be in all
(rural) secondary schools in Kenya (Mwago 2000).
Farming in urban schools started mainly for aesthetic reasons, with the
planting of flowers and trees. There was no need in the past to grow food
because the government subsidised school feeding programmes and the pupils
needed to pay very little. But in 1978 government food subsidies stopped and
schools started to feel the need to grow food crops instead of flowers and trees.
Some schools had already started to grow crops, for example the first school in
Nakuru to do so was Bahati Secondary School, which started in 1970 (Mwago
2000).
Farming in primary schools was promoted by the government through the
so-called 4-K clubs, an acronym for Kuungana, Kufanya, Kusaidia, Kenya,
which means “get together, act and help Kenya”. The major goals of the pro-
gramme were: (1) to teach the youth improved methods of agriculture; (2) to
teach the youth to appreciate agriculture and the dignity of labour with respect
for agriculture as a profession; (3) to help the youth produce food for their
families and to sell; (4) to develop leadership skills among the youth and adults
through voluntary participation in agricultural programmes; and (5) to change
adult farmers’ attitudes and practices (Odera forthcoming).
Today, the farming activities in schools are carried out by either these 4-K
clubs or by Young Farmers’ Clubs, the agriculture class or the school itself. The
4-K clubs are supervised by a teacher, usually the agriculture teacher, who also
acts as patron of the club. However, most decisions are taken by the club mem-
bers themselves, including the decision about which crop(s) to grow and what
will be done with the produce. In schools with an agriculture class, the choice of
crops is determined by the syllabus and farming is a practical session of what
has been taught in class. Each student has his/her individual plot and the crops
they grow are assessed for examination purposes (Odera forthcoming).
Decisions about production depend on the way farming is organised, on the
type of school, and on the persons in charge. Pupils organized in 4-K clubs have
a say in the way the produce is used: crops may be sold or taken home for
consumption. In boarding schools, the produce is often used for school meals.
126 CHAPTER 9

In schools with a large area of land, the administration is more likely to have a
say in the crop’s destination because larger sums of money may be involved
(Mwago 2000).

School farming in Nakuru town2

In 2000, there were about 80 primary and secondary schools in Nakuru town.
The schools can be distinguished in three different ways: by category (primary/-
secondary), by type (day/boarding) and by management (government/private).
The majority (71%) were primary schools. Another 26% were secondary
schools, while there were two schools with both a primary and a secondary
department. Most schools (81%) were day schools. The others were either
boarding schools or a mixture with day pupils and boarders. Finally, most
schools (75%) were government schools. The other 25% were run by religious
institutions, mainly churches.

Frequency of farming
Fifty of the 80 schools in Nakuru town appeared to perform some kind of
farming activity (Table 9.1). Farming is much more common among secondary
schools (90%) than among primary schools. The higher percentage of farming
among boarding schools is related to the fact that most boarding schools are
secondary schools. Finally, it makes no difference whether a school is run by
the government or a private institution as to whether farming takes place.
Among the 30 schools without any farming activity, several reasons were
mentioned for them not doing so, such as a lack of land, destruction of crops by
animals (both livestock and wild animals from the nearby Lake Nakuru
National Park), lack of rain, and “new school” (i.e. no time to set up a farm).
However, most of the non-farming schools were aware of the farming activities
of the other schools and of these, the majority showed at least an interest in
starting some kind of agricultural activity.
Three-quarters (74%) of the farming schools only cultivated crops. Another
22% grew crops and kept livestock, while the remaining two schools only kept
livestock. Hence, the overwhelming majority (48) of the 50 farming schools

2
The findings presented in this section are based on data collected in September-
October 2000 by Correta Odera in the context of a study for her MSc thesis (Odera
forthcoming). What is presented in this chapter is based on a general survey among
(almost all) 80 primary and secondary schools in Nakuru town. Respondents were
either somebody from the school management (usually the headmaster) or the agri-
culture teacher or both.
 THE SCHOOLS 127

Table 9.1 Frequency of school farming by school characteristics (%)

(N=) absolute %

all schools (80) 50 62.5

school category* primary (57) 30 52.6

secondary (21) 19 90.5
school type day (65) 38 58.5
boarding/mixed (15) 12 80.0
school management government (60) 37 61.7
private (20) 13 65.0
* The two schools with both primary and secondary departments have been omitted here.
One appeared to farm.
Source: School survey 2000.

cultivated crops, while 13 kept livestock. The popularity of crops over livestock
may partly be explained by the fact that growing crops is not only cheaper but
also easier than keeping animals, for instance in terms of disease management
and feeding. Considering that the students do most of the farming labour, the
day-to-day care of animals can be problematic, especially during holiday peri-
ods. Finally, the government, in assessing agricultural practical work, has al-
ways laid more emphasis on crop production than on rearing animals.
Table 9.2 shows the persons responsible for farming in school. In most
schools – and particularly in secondary schools – the students of the agriculture
class are the ones who do the farming, for educational purposes. In about one
third of the schools, the school management is either wholly responsible for the
farming activities or does so with the pupils. Such ‘combined’ responsibility is
more common in primary than in secondary schools. In only four schools were

Table 9.2 Persons responsible for farming by school category (%)*

primary secondary all
schools schools schools
(N=30) (N=19) (N=50)

school management 40.0 21.1 32.0

Young Farmers’ Club 3.3 15.8 8.0
4-K Club 26.7 -.- 18.0
agriculture class 43.3 84.2 58.0
students 6.7 5.3 6.0
* Totals exceed 100% due to combinations.
Source: School survey 2000.
128 CHAPTER 9

there Young Farmers Clubs, while in nine primary schools farming was done as
4-K Club projects.
Few schools (seven) received any form of external support for their farming
activities, either from an extension officer employed by the government or from
an NGO. The types of support included training, demonstrations, financial
assistance, equipment and veterinary services. All schools that received external
support were primary schools. Why none of the secondary schools reported
receiving support is not clear.

Crop cultivation
The average school plot for crop cultivation was 1.7 acres.3 On these plots, thir-
teen different types of crops were cultivated in 1999 and 2000. The most com-
mon were kale, cabbage, spinach, beans, maize and Irish potatoes. Among the
less important crops were cowpeas, carrots, onions and tomatoes. In general,
crops cultivated by schools did not differ from those cultivated by individual
households. However, harvests were very bad in both years, due to insufficient
rainfall.
Farming techniques were generally very simple. The jembe (hoe) and panga
(cutlass) were the most common tools used for crop cultivation. In only six
schools was a tractor used as well.
The types of inputs used are shown in Table 9.3. The use of inorganic fertil-
isers and improved seeds and seedlings was widespread among the Nakuru
schools, especially the secondary schools. This shows the seriousness with
which the schools undertook farming activities. Six schools – all primary
schools – did not use any inputs, not even fertilizer. This might be due to the
relatively high costs involved. In general, chemical inputs were very commonly
used in secondary-school crop cultivation. More traditional and more environ-
mentally friendly inputs such as manure were used in a minority of the primary
schools only. Crop residues were used by only one school and urban waste not
at all.
Despite the unpredictable climate, irrigation was not very common (Table
9.3) and almost all schools depended largely on rainfall. Although several
schools – especially secondary schools – also used water obtained “from the
municipal council” (i.e. tap water), this was not sufficient. In general, water is
quite scarce in Nakuru. Not surprisingly, therefore, all schools mentioned “lack
of rain” as the major constraint.

3
Two extreme values are excluded here – one of 25 acres and one of 192 acres. The
latter plot belongs to Nakuru High School and is solely used for growing Napier
grass for the 60 head of cattle the school owns.
 THE SCHOOLS 129

Table 9.3 Inputs used for crop cultivation by school category (%)
primary secondary all
schools schools schools
(N=28) (N=18) (N=47)

no inputs used 21.4 -.- 12.8

farmyard manure 42.9 5.6 27.7
composite manure 21.4 5.6 17.0
chemical fertiliser 42.9 100.0 66.0
chemical pesticides 21.4 77.8 44.7
chemical insecticides 25.0 50.0 34.0
improved seeds/seedlings 39.3 61.1 48.9
irrigation 21.4 33.3 27.7
Source: School survey 2000.

Most of the labour needed for land preparation, planting, weeding, watering
and harvesting was provided by the students. In some schools, however, others
from the school community, like teachers and school workers, also gave a hand.
In eleven schools, additional labour was hired, particularly for the heavy work
of land preparation. Finally, one school located in a high-income area not far
from the prison had the privilege of free labour by prison inmates. With the
major contribution of labour for crop cultivation coming from the students,
farming can be made a fairly cheap venture for schools. Moreover, students are
supposed to gain in educational terms as well as acquiring practical skills that
they can use outside school or apply later in life.

Livestock keeping
As mentioned above, livestock keeping was not common among the schools in
Nakuru, as only 13 schools practised this kind of farming. Seven of these
schools were secondary schools, five were primary schools and one was a
school with both primary and secondary departments. This means that a third of
the secondary schools in Nakuru kept some livestock, against less than 10% of
the primary schools.
Cattle was the most common type of animal (in eight schools), followed by
rabbits (five schools), chickens (four schools) and sheep and goats (both one
school). The cows were kept for their milk, which was used for making tea at 10
am and at 4 pm for both students and teachers. The rabbits were used in the
students’ meals and the chickens in teachers’ meals. Small livestock was also
used for special school activities, for instance in biology lessons.
130 CHAPTER 9

Except for the earlier mentioned Nakuru High School, the number of cattle
in 2000 was modest, ranging from two to seven. The number of rabbits ranged
from four to forty and chickens from two to twenty. The majority of the nine
livestock-keeping schools kept only one type of animal; three schools had two
types. One primary school in Kimathi Estate was exceptional in having two
cows, one goat, 15 rabbits and five chickens. The numbers of animals change
every year due to births, sales, deaths and thefts. This applies particularly to
small livestock like rabbits and chickens. For instance, in the five schools with
rabbits some 50 animals were sold in 1999, while 29 died the following year.
The total number of chickens in 2000 was much lower than the previous year
because about 100 were stolen.
The most common rearing systems were zero-grazing for the cattle and
caging for the rabbits and chickens. Only one school had sufficient space in the
compound to let their cattle graze.
Grass was the most common type of fodder for the animals, mainly for
cattle. This was either obtained free of charge or bought at particular points in
town (partly due to the drought). In some schools, cattle were (also) fed with
Napier grass, which was grown by the school itself. The use of crop residues
was practised in five schools and urban waste in three schools, mainly for
rabbits and chickens. Rabbits were also fed with weeds from the school garden
(two schools) and with kitchen leftovers (one school).
In terms of ‘modern’ inputs, cattle were better looked after than other types
of livestock. For instance, veterinary drugs were given to the animals in eight
schools, but only in those where there were cattle. In four schools, artificial
insemination was done (though not in Nakuru High School where natural
breeding was practised). Feed supplements for cattle were given in two schools.
In six schools, students were responsible for taking care of the animals,
usually the agriculture class (five schools). In one school, the 4-K Club looked
after the animals. All these cases concerned rabbits. Cattle and, to a lesser
extent, chickens were taken care of by either school workers (five schools) or
hired help (two schools). In one secondary school, however, the agriculture
class was involved in looking after the five cows as well.

Destination of the produce

The produce (crops, milk and sometimes animals) from the school farms had
three destinations: (a) the schools’ feeding programme, (b) it was sold, and/or
(c) it was taken home by pupils. As shown in Table 9.4, the school’s feeding
programme was the most common destination. This applied especially in
 THE SCHOOLS 131

Table 9.4 Destination of farm produce by school category (%)*

primary secondary all
schools schools schools
(N=25) (N=17) (N=43**)

- school feeding programme 44.0 88.2 60.5

- sold 52.0 23.5 41.9
- taken home 24.0 17.6 20.9
* Totals exceed 100% due to combinations.
** Includes one school with both primary and secondary education. For seven of the fifty
farming schools, the destination of the produce was unknown.
Source: School survey 2000.

secondary schools.4 By producing some of the food they needed for the feeding
programme, a school saved money with which it could buy what the school did
not produce itself.
Selling produce was more common in primary schools than in secondary
schools. Produce could be sold to students and teachers (usually at reduced
prices) or to the public. The way the money earned from produce sales was
spent depended on who the seller was: the school or the students involved. If the
school sold the produce, the extra income was mostly used to meet some of the
school’s financial obligations, such as paying bills for water and electricity and
buying stationary. This could have been due to reductions in monetary support
from the government. The government provides teachers and pays them but
expects the schools to raise their own funds to run the schools (cost sharing).
The schools get this money from the fees paid by students but it may not be
enough, so selling farm produce is a way to raise the school’s income. If it was
left to the students to decide what was sold, they could normally decide how to
use the income. The common choices were to organise a party for club mem-
bers and/or to re-invest money in the next farming project.
In nine of the fifty farming schools, all or part of the produce was taken
home by either students (eight schools) or teachers (one school). This occurred
only when students were involved in farming. Whenever the school itself was
involved, the produce was either used in the school’s feeding programme or
sold. It was therefore notable that at the one (primary) school where the teachers
took the produce home with them, it was the agriculture class who did the
farming (although some of the teachers did some of the work as well).

4
The same differences were found for school type (day versus boarding) and school
management (government versus private): in nine of the ten farming boarding
schools and in ten of the eleven farming private schools, farm produce was intended
for feeding programmes.
132 CHAPTER 9

School feeding programmes

In 1967, a school feeding programme was launched in Kenya by the National
School Feeding Council of Kenya (NSFCK). By 1986 it had reached its peak,
covering 60,000 pre-primary and primary-school children in 15 districts. Mainly
due to financial constraints, the programme had to reduce its activities and by
1996 only 13,000 children were being reached in four districts, Nakuru District
not being one of them. Currently, no subsidized school feeding programmes
exist in Nakuru town. The administration of those feeding programmes that do
exist rests with the head teacher or with private caterers who bring previously
cooked food to the schools. Two studies, one in Kirinyaga District (Pieters et al.
1977) and one in Nyambene District (Meme 1996), showed that children parti-
cipating in the NFSCK programme were better off in terms of nutritional status
and school performance than those children not in the programme.
Over 60% of the schools in Nakuru had a school feeding programme in 2000
(Table 9.5). Feeding programmes appeared to be particularly common among
secondary schools, boarding schools (obviously) and private schools. Feeding
programmes were also more common in schools that farmed. Although not all
farming schools had a feeding programme and not all schools with a feeding
programme farmed, there was a significant positive correlation (p=.000) be-
tween the two. Finally, all schools that kept livestock appeared to have a feed-
ing programme too, suggesting that animals were kept primarily because of the
feeding programme (milk and meat).

Table 9.5 Frequency of school feeding programme by school characteristics (%)

(N=) absolute %

all schools (80) 50 62.5

school category* primary (57) 29 50.9

secondary (21) 20 95.2
school type day (65) 35 53.8
boarding/mixed (15) 15 100.0
school management government (60) 32 53.3
private (20) 18 90.0
school farming? yes (50) 39 78.0
no (30) 11 36.7
type of farming crops (48) 37 77.1
livestock (13) 13 100.0
* The two schools offering both primary and secondary education have been omitted here.
Source: School survey 2000.
 THE SCHOOLS 133

Despite the fact that school feeding programmes have a relatively long his-
tory in Kenya, those in Nakuru town at the time of the study were mostly more
recent. In over 70% of the schools with a feeding programme, the programme
had started in 1995 or later. In almost half of the schools, the programme started
in one of the three years preceding the survey and in almost a quarter of the
schools even in the same year (2000). In only six schools had the programme
been in operation before 1990. Although the reason behind this recent start of
the feeding programmes in most schools was not requested, it may indicate that
schools are feeling increasingly responsible for the well-being of their pupils in
these times of economic stress. Children perform better at school with a decent
lunch in their stomachs. Moreover, in schools where children have afternoon
classes, it is often considered better to keep them at school at lunchtime to have
some control over the time spent over lunch. Serving lunch also acts as a time-
saving strategy for the school.
The meals offered by schools could be breakfast, morning-break tea, lunch,
tea or supper. In three schools, all these meals were provided. In fourteen board-
ing schools, the three main meals (breakfast, lunch and supper) were served.
Lunch was by far the most common meal served in schools.
Schools also differed regarding the persons eligible for the feeding pro-
gramme. With the exception of one school, students always belonged to the
target population but in some schools only the students in examination classes
(standard 8 or form 4) were eligible, usually for lunch, to encourage them to
spend the whole day at school to use their time to the best possible advantage.
This was done in a bid to improve school performance (i.e. raise the average
grade of the examination class). The charge students had to pay was usually
included in their school fees as many parents failed to pay if it was charged
separately. In half of the schools, school staff – be it teachers, other staff or all
of them – could also benefit from the meals provided. Finally, in seven schools
the feeding programme was only open for those students or staff “willing to pay
for it”. In these cases, it was usually a business venture organized by either a
private caterer or a school teacher who cooked the food at home, brought it to
school and sold it. Where this was the practice, the parents gave the children
money for lunch and did not pay anything directly to the school.
The main source of the food served in the context of the programme was the
local market. Forty-three per cent of the schools depended solely on purchased
food and another 55% partly. For half of the schools (24)5, their own farm pro-

5
This is fewer than the 26 schools where the destination of the school’s farm produce
was said to be the school feeding programme (see Table 9.4). It is possible that in
answering the question about the source of food for the feeding programme, the
134 CHAPTER 9

duce was one of the sources of the food, but never more than an additional
source. A few schools had also received donations for this purpose.
It would be interesting to know whether schools that farmed and had a feed-
ing programme as well put more energy into their farming activities than
schools that also farmed but did not have a feeding programme. This question is
difficult to answer, partly because no data had been collected specifically for
this purpose, and partly because the second group (farming yes, feeding pro-
gramme no) consisted of only eleven cases. However, given these limitations,
on such variables as plot size, type of inputs, number of inputs and water
source, no differences could be seen between the two groups. Hence, based on
the data available, the question cannot be confirmed.

Perceived benefits of school farming

Schools can benefit from farming in several ways. The most frequently men-
tioned benefit (42%) was the money saved and that was spent on buying food
for the school feeding programme. The second most frequently mentioned bene-
fit (32%) was farming as a source of income, to help alleviate the financial
burden placed on schools. A benefit of a very different kind, which was men-
tioned by a quarter of the respondents, was farming as a method of teaching
agriculture as a subject. On the other hand, there were three respondents who
did not understand how schools were gaining from farming in any way.
Students can also benefit from school farming in different ways. Over three-
quarters of the respondents saw the learning experience as the major benefit for
the students involved. About half of the respondents mentioned the source of
food for them, either provided free or sold to them cheaply. Another benefit for
at least some students was that by working at the school farm they were able to
pay their school fees indirectly. Students who had problems paying school fees
were used to doing all kinds of odd jobs on the farm, such as weeding. The
money that would otherwise have been paid to hired staff was credited to the
students’ school account allowing him/her to stay at school instead of being sent
away for not paying school fees.
One school kept rabbits not for agricultural purposes or for the school feed-
ing programme but for biology practicals. The rabbits were used in lessons on
the various body systems (respiratory system, excretory system, etc.) and were
thus dissected to illustrate how the various systems work in the body. Yet
another school used the animals they had (cows and chickens) as teaching aids
for the few blind children in their student population. The students were taken
to touch and feel the animals to get an idea of how they ‘looked’.

school’s own farm was overlooked either because there was very little harvested in
2000 due to the drought or the crop had not yet been harvested due to late planting.
 THE SCHOOLS 135

The respondents at the fifty farming schools were also asked about future
plans concerning their farming activities. Although about a quarter had no plans
at all, the majority did. Fourteen schools (28%) wanted to go into livestock
keeping, ten intended to increase the land they had under cultivation, while
another five schools wanted to start an irrigation project. The remaining schools
simply indicated that they intended to continue with crop cultivation and live-
stock keeping.

In summary, this chapter has shown that farming in town is not only common
among individual households but at schools as well. This applies especially to
secondary schools, as they undertook farming almost without exception. Crop
cultivation appeared to be the dominant activity; very few schools kept live-
stock. The labour was usually provided by the students (the agricultural class).
The use of inputs was very common and the most conspicuous finding in this
respect was that chemicals were applied by all secondary schools and by over
half of the primary schools. The produce was in most cases used for the
school’s feeding programme (lunch), although in some schools the harvest was
either sold or taken home by the pupils.
136 CHAPTER 9

Photo 13 Back-to-back constructed houses in Rhonda Weavers leaving no

space for farming.
(Dick Foeken, 1999)

Photo 14 Crop cultivation in a more spacious part of Kwa Rhonda.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)
 10
The poor

Introduction
The growth of urban agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa is generally seen as a
response to urban poverty. Due to the prolonged economic recession, it has
become increasingly difficult for many urban dwellers to find (or indeed keep) a
steady job. Meanwhile, people are also faced with steadily decreasing purchas-
ing power. For many urbanites, poor and non-poor alike, the answer lies in
diversifying one’s livelihood sources. For the large majority, this is only possi-
ble in the informal sector. One of these additional livelihood sources is urban
farming, which, in a town like Nakuru, is almost exclusively an informal-sector
activity. This is not to say that people started farming only because of problems
with their livelihoods. Urban farming did already exist because “farming is part
of our life”, as many urban farmers say. But from a primarily cultural phenome-
non, urban farming has developed into an economic necessity without which
many urban households could not maintain the standard of living they have
been used to, or not even survive. The latter applies especially to the urban
poor. It is the same poor, however, who may lack the resources to farm, be it
access to land or funds for necessary investments. And if they do farm, they
may do so on smaller plots, use fewer inputs, receive less assistance and realize
less produce than better-off households.
This chapter attempts to analyse how far poverty, on the one hand, and urban
farming, on the other, are related in Nakuru town. This has been done by com-
paring two income categories on a number of issues, as discussed in the previ-
ous chapters. A practical definition of ‘poor’ is used here, namely households
138 CHAPTER 10

with a monthly cash income of Ksh. 5,000 or less.1 However, since no detailed
calculation of household income has been made during the study, it is obvious
that this can be no more than a rough indication of ‘poverty’. The same applies
to the group of households with a monthly cash income of at least Ksh. 10,000,
i.e. the medium-to-high income category that is used for purposes of compari-
son. In the sections that follow, the two income categories are denoted as the
poor (310 households) and the non-poor (106 households), respectively. The
basic data are presented in Annex 10, while below it is mainly the differences
between the two groups that are highlighted.

Farming

In Chapter 3 (Table 3.3, p. 41) it was seen that the poor were under-represented
among urban farmers in Nakuru. This is confirmed by the figures in Table 10.1:
among the non-poor, farming in town appeared to be almost three times as
common as among the poor. Moreover, this applied to both crop cultivation and
livestock keeping. This may to some extent be related to the fact that house-
holds were generally larger among the non-poor.2 It also indicates that the poor
faced more serious obstacles to starting farming than the non-poor. Surpris-
ingly, it was not the lack of access to land as such that can explain the differ-
ence between the two income groups regarding not-farming because this

Table 10.1 Farming by income class

poor non-poor
abs. % abs. %
- engaged in urban farming 68 21.9 63 59.4
- engaged in urban crop cultivation 43 13.9 56 52.8
- engaged in urban livestock keeping 43 13.9 37 34.9
- engaged in rural farming 172 55.5 72 67.9
- engaged in rural crop cultivation 172 55.5 71 67.0
- engaged in rural livestock keeping 97 31.3 47 44.3
Source: 1999 survey.

1
With an exchange rate of Ksh. 70 for US$ 1 at the end of 1999, this equals almost
US$ 70 per month. With an estimated household size of about 3.5 for the whole
study population, this works out at about US$ 20 per person per month, i.e. less than
the often used definition of poverty of US$ 1 per person per day. However, this is
cash income, excluding ‘indirect income sources’, such as for instance the monetary
value of self-produced food items.
2
See Annex 10, Table A10.1.
 THE POOR 139

obstacle was equally often mentioned by the poor as by the non-poor and re-
garding both crop cultivation and livestock keeping.3 Instead, it was to some
extent the combination of lack of access to land and lack of capital that seemed
to explain the poor’s under-representation among urban farmers in Nakuru
town.
At first sight (Table 10.1), it seems as if the poor were able to compensate
for their lack of access to urban land with farming in the rural area, as over half
of them indicated having access to rural land. However, a closer look4 reveals
that the rural plots of the poor were on average smaller (3.0 acres) than those of
the non-poor (6.2 acres). About half of the poor did not use their rural plot
themselves, compared to about 30% of the non-poor. Nevertheless, for the large
majority of the poor, their rural plot did constitute a food and/or income source
and in this they did not differ from the non-poor.
As shown in Chapter 3 (p. 39), there was a substantial decline in the num-
bers of urban farmers between 1998 and 2000. This tendency appeared to be
stronger in the low-income neighbourhoods than in the medium-to-high-income
ones. In the former neighbourhoods, the number of crop cultivators declined by
almost 40% and the number of livestock keepers by a third. In the medium-to-
high-income neighbourhoods, these figures were 15% and 20% respectively. As
indicated in Chapter 3, the most likely explanation for this decline was the
drought in 1999 and 2000. This is illustrated by responses during the in-depth
survey of 2000 to the question of how people had coped with the drought of
1999. From the answers it becomes clear that the availability of water for both
crops and animals played a crucial role. Those who practised crop cultivation
without irrigation had no, or hardly any, harvest. As one respondent remarked:
Mostly when there are droughts, the crops are affected and the harvest is small, like
the end of last year [1999] and the beginning of this year [2000]. All the kales dried
up this year and now we have to buy the food from the market. This has made it
difficult for us.
Households that usually irrigated their crops were also confronted with an
acute water shortage due to the fact that “the taps dried up”, an indication of the
widespread water problems Nakuru town faced:
Because of the lack of constant water supply, I stopped farming, because I was not
able to buy water for crop irrigation and household use at the same time.
After the failure of the long rains, some crop cultivators tried to plant again,
something that is usually not done in ‘normal’ years because the second [or
short] rains are very unreliable:

3
See Annex 10, Table A10.2.
4
See Annex 10, Table A10.3.
140 CHAPTER 10
I planted twice during the year because the crop that I planted at the start of the long
rains dried so I planted again at the start of the short rains. From this second planting
I was able to harvest about one bag of maize but the beans dried once again.
Another respondent also mentioned having planted twice, but the second
planting failed as well. Some who did manage a harvest without irrigation were
forced to harvest the crop very early to prevent it from completely drying up:
To avoid losing the whole crop due to the drought we harvested the maize while it
was still green.
Still another household harvested both maize and beans while they were still
green, which forced them to sell some of it at a low price because green maize
has a much lower nutritional value than mature maize and is only fit for roast-
ing.
The drought had an impact on livestock keeping as well. Some respondents
blamed the lack of water, and hence the lack of feed, for the loss of some of
their animals:
The drought had very bad effects. Last year’s [1999] drought cost me two heifers
because of the lack of soft green grass. Moreover, the livestock became so emaci-
ated that they took a longer period to recover and by the time they were recovering,
this year’s [2000] drought started.
Faced with a lack of easily available grass, many cattle keepers had to buy
feed at very high prices because of the general shortage of good feed. At the
same time, the animals produced less milk because of their poor condition, so
incomes decreased as well:
Drought made some of my animals to die. Milk production was low and this meant
that I sold fewer litres than usual and the animals have not recovered from the
effects of the droughts.
Not only large animals like cattle were affected but also small animals like
chickens, as a few chicken raisers mentioned:
When there are droughts, the chickens die from unknown diseases and also from
lack of feed. The effects are that we are not able to obtain enough eggs and that we
have a reduced stock number.
Because of the lack of water, my chickens got infected. There was nothing I could
do about it but to dispose of the whole flock.
Some tried to obtain water and feed from far away, but not always with the
envisaged effect:
The major difficulty was water and lack of feeds. This forced us to go and draw
water and also to get feeds from as far as 30 km away. Yet, to cope with the
droughts, we had to sell most of the livestock.
 THE POOR 141

Droughts frequently occur in Nakuru and this makes farming in town a risky
business, especially for the poor who usually have no constant water supply at
their disposal. As a result, many of the poor do not invest very much in their
farming activities. This dilemma was summarized by a respondent from Ziwani
who lacked water near his plot and who used no fertilizer besides the crop
residues left on the land:5
You can start buying things to use on the shamba but you know whatever is a key
thing? Why use more money if the main thing, water, is lacking? We fully depend
on rain and then, if there are no rains, there is a low or no harvest. In such a case
when you have used fertilizers or whatever, you make a loss!

Crop cultivation
Table 10.2 shows some characteristics of the plots used for crop cultivation by
the two income groups. Although the very small plots (i.e. less than 50 m2) were
somewhat more common among the poor, on the whole, the plot size distribu-
tion hardly differed between the two groups. This is related to the fact that over
half of the poor crop-cultivating households had a plot outside their own com-
pound, where there is more space than in the compound (if there is a compound
at all). Quite a number of them grew their crops along a road, along the railroad
or under a power line. Among the non-poor, the majority had their shamba
within the compound. Hence, the large majority of the non-poor had the advan-
tage of the plot being nearby. Of the poor, 16% had to walk at least half an hour
to reach their shamba. Related to the location of the plot is its ownership. Only
20% of the poor said they owned the land, half farmed their landlord’s land
(which often means the compound around the house they rent), while almost a
third grew their crops on land belonging to someone else – the government,

Table 10.2 Summary of urban plot characteristics by income class (%; plots)
poor non-poor
(N=46) (N=61)
plot size (m2) <50 38.0 26.2
1000+ 30.0 31.1
location in own compound 45.7 68.9
distance to plot <10 minutes walking 58.0 83.6
ownership of plot own land 20.4 47.5
landlord 49.0 41.0
someone else 30.6 11.5
Source: Annex 10, Table A10.4.

5
Versleijen 2002, p. 52.
142 CHAPTER 10

a friend or even an unknown landowner. For the large majority of the non-poor,
it was either they themselves or their landlord who owned the land.
On average, the poor cultivated a slightly smaller variety of crops than the
non-poor: 4.1 and 4.6 crops, respectively. In both groups, maize, beans and kale
were by far the most popular crops, the former two especially among the poor
and the latter among the non-poor.6 This suggests that the poor were more in-
clined to grow basic staple foods than the non-poor. As for the other crops,
there were no clear differences between the two groups, although tomatoes and
bananas were somewhat more common among the non-poor.
The large majority in the poor as well as the non-poor crop-cultivating
households used material inputs.7 In general, poor and non-poor households
showed very little difference regarding their use of certain types of inputs, with
the exception of irrigation. The number of households irrigating their crops was
more than twice as high among the non-poor as the poor. Tap water is the most
common source of irrigation water in Nakuru and, as mentioned above, most
poor households lack this provision. Manure and crop residues serving as ferti-
lizers were also somewhat more frequently used by the non-poor. This may be
related to the fact that livestock keeping – and cattle in particular – was more
common among the non-poor (supply of manure) and that they also had a some-
what larger average plot size (crop residues). Rather surprisingly, chemical in-
puts were not used any more often by the non-poor, although it is not clear
whether they used larger quantities. Finally, the use of improved seedlings was
slightly higher among the non-poor.
Yields did not differ between the poor and the non-poor. In absolute figures,
the mean harvest was about 350 kg in both groups. Land productivity was also
equal, namely 0.37 kg/m2, which was about the same as the overall average for
the whole crop-cultivating population. These findings are in line with findings
concerning the use of material inputs. Only irrigation was practised more often
among the non-poor, but since 1998 was a fairly ‘normal’ year in terms of rain-
fall, this played a minor role. The situation was different in the following two
years, as seen earlier in this chapter. If measured in that year, average crop
yields of the poor would undoubtedly have been much lower than those of the
non-poor.
Although there were no substantial differences between the income catego-
ries concerning problems with crop cultivation, two things can be mentioned.8
The non-poor suffered somewhat less from theft than the poor (34% vs. 44%).
This can likely be related to the fact that the non-poor were more often able to

6
See Annex 10, Table A10.5.
7
See Annex 10, Table A10.5.
8
See Annex 10, Table A10.6.
 THE POOR 143

grow crops within their own compounds. On the other hand, the poor
complained a bit less of lack of water for irrigation (5% vs. 18%), despite only a
few of them using it. Again, the following years would have seen different ans-
wers as far as water availability was concerned.

Livestock keeping
Chapter 5 showed that there is a relationship between household income level,
on the one hand, and the types of livestock kept, on the other. This is confirmed
by the figures in Table 10.3: only a quarter of the poor kept large livestock,
against 70% of the non-poor. Very few of the poor could afford to keep cattle,
the most expensive but at the same time the most financially rewarding type of
animal. Hence, for most of the poor, small livestock were the only option, usu-
ally chickens, while most of the non-poor livestock keepers kept both large and
small animals.
There were no clear differences between the poor and the non-poor as far as
rearing system was concerned, although the latter kept their animals more often
within their own compounds than the former (Table 10.3). Many of the poor
had no compound or only a very small one, so free range was the dominant
rearing type by necessity. Many of the non-poor, however, and the rich in
particular, did have a compound of some size but there was also space outside
where the animals could roam around freely.
As for the person responsible, in poor households this was equally divided
among the household head and his wife (Table 10.3). In non-poor households,
however, it was mainly the spouse, undoubtedly due to the household head

Table 10.3 Summary of livestock-keeping characteristics by income class (%)

poor non-poor
(N=43) (N=37)
% households keeping large livestock 23.3 70.3
small livestock 100.0 86.5
rearing system within compound 35.9 48.3
free range 64.1 44.8
person responsible household head 48.8 27.0
spouse 48.8 67.0
used hired labour? yes 14.0 43.2
material inputs improved breeds/AI 9.3 40.5
veterinary drugs 23.3 81.1
feed supplements 39.5 86.5
disposal of animal waste for own crop cultivation 25.6 70.3
dumped in the street 48.8 16.2
Source: Annex 10, Table A10.7.
144 CHAPTER 10

having a job somewhere else. As a result, hiring labour was more common
among the non-poor, partly because of a lack of time for the household head in
non-poor households and partly because of a lack of money in poor households.
The latter is also shown by the use of material inputs. ‘Modern’ inputs like im-
proved breeds, veterinary drugs and feed supplements were commonly used by
the non-poor, while few of the poor could apparently afford them.
There appeared to be a clear difference between the two groups regarding
the disposal of their animals’ waste (Table 10.3). While a majority of the non-
poor used all or part of it for their own crop cultivation, this was done by only a
quarter of the poor. At the same time, about half of the poor dumped some or all
of their animals’ waste in the street, i.e. three times as many as in the non-poor
group. These figures reflect to some extent the types of animals kept (non-poor:
large livestock that produced large quantities of valuable dung) and the problem
of space (poor: no or only small compounds).
Poor and non-poor households showed hardly any difference as far as the
various types of problems with livestock keeping are concerned.9 In both
groups, diseases were mentioned by far the most often, particularly in the non-
poor group. In general, all problems but one were mentioned more frequently
by the non-poor, which could indicate a higher degree of awareness of potential
problems in this group, possibly due to the higher value of their animals. The
exception is ‘lack of space’, mentioned by several of the poor but by none of the
non-poor, which is not surprising.

Benefits

Food security
The overwhelming majority of both the poor and the non-poor urban farmers
said they farmed in town for the food.10 As for urban crop cultivation, this was
considered to be a major food source for a fifth of the poor, which was a slightly
higher percentage than for the non-poor. For the latter, cultivating crops in town
was more of an additional food source. For some, crop cultivation in town was
so important that they “could not survive without it”. Not surprisingly, this was
more common among the poor than among the non-poor. The importance of
urban livestock keeping as a food source was equal in both income groups: for
about half, the practice was an additional food source, while 16% of the respon-
dents mentioned it to be a major food source.

9
See Annex 10, Table A10.8.
10
See Annex 10, Table A10.9.
 THE POOR 145

During 1998, there were no serious food problems in the two groups, be-
cause the large majority had “always had enough to eat” (Table 10.4). However,
those who did face food problems were mainly found among the poor. Although
generally speaking, purchased food was the most important food source for the
majority among both the poor and non-poor urban farmers, for many, one’s own
urban production was also among the “most important food sources”, while
quite a number relied on their rural produce as well. In general, own food
production, be it urban or rural, was more important for the non-poor. However,
the importance of urban crop cultivation for the poor is shown by the fact that
for a majority (60%) their own urban food production constituted at least half of
their household’s food consumption – a figure twice as high as that among non-
poor urban crop cultivators.

Table 10.4 Urban farmers: summary of general food security issues by year and
income class (%)
1998 1999
poor non-poor poor non-poor
(N=68) (N=63) (N=13) N=31)
always enough to eat? yes, always 88.2 96.8 23.1 75.9
(N=13) (N=27)
most important urban production 41.2 50.8 15.4 35.5
food source(s)* purchased 85.3 74.6 100.0 96.8
rural production 25.0 35.0 -.- 16.1
contribution of urban crop cultivation (N=43) (N=56) (N=10) (N=26)
to household at least half of the food 60.4 32.2 20.0 23.1
food consumption small proportion or less 25.6 43.6 60.0 53.8
* Total exceeds 100%.
Source: Annex 10, Table A10.10.

The two right-hand columns of Table 10.4 give an indication of the serious
effect of drought on the food security situation of the households in Nakuru
town, for the poor in particular. Even though (1) the figures can only be seen as
rough approximations (in qualitative terms) of the households’ food security,
and (2) the 1999 numbers of the poor urban farmers are small, the 1999 figures
show notable differences with those for 1998. The percentage of poor house-
holds indicating that they had “always enough to eat” had dropped from almost
90% in 1998 to only 23% in 1999. The figures show that this was to a large
extent caused by the failure of the urban as well as rural harvest, as the percent-
ages of poor households for whom these were important food sources, declined
equally. And although all these percentages in 1999 were lower among the non-
146 CHAPTER 10

poor households as well, these drops were far less dramatic than among the
poor. As a result, dependence on purchased food increased considerably. How-
ever, the figures also indicate that even though 100% of poor households relied
on purchased food, they could not afford to purchase all they needed, witness
the fact that only a quarter of them always had enough to eat. In other words,
the remark that they “could not survive” without urban (and rural) farming,
would appear to be no exaggeration.

Income
From a commercial point of view, livestock keeping was more important than
crop cultivation, and this applied to both income groups.11 Moreover, the per-
centage of respondents indicating whether urban livestock keeping was an
income source – either a major or an additional source – was about the same in
the two groups. With urban crop cultivation, the situation was somewhat differ-
ent, however. Growing crops in town not only for food but also for income was
more common among the poor than among the non-poor.12 For many of the
poor, livestock keeping to obtain an income is beyond their reach because of the
investment costs involved, so they try to earn extra income from crop cultiva-
tion.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, urban farming not only provides the household
with a direct income from sales but also with an indirect income by saving on
the cost for buying food. How important this indirect income – and hence the
urban plot – is for a poor household can be illustrated by the case of Baba and
Mama Christopher.13 They cultivated a plot of 50 m2 along the railway line and
belonging to Kenya Railways, but suddenly the “railway boss” forbade them to
use the plot any longer because of a fuel tank nearby. The plot was very impor-
tant to them because:
You know if you manage to grow your own food for several months per year, then
you can educate your children from your salary.
Things worsened because around the same time, both Baba and Mama
Christopher became ill, putting an extra burden on the household, as Baba
Christopher explained:

11
See Annex 10, Table A10.9.
12
This is shown in Table A10.9 by the percentages of respondents indicating ‘needed
income’ and/or ‘to diversify income’ under ‘reasons to farm in town’, as well as the
percentages ‘could not survive without it’, ‘major income source’ and ‘additional
income source’ under “importance of urban farming”.
13
See Versleijen 2002: 36-37.
 THE POOR 147
My children will have to drop out of school since I cannot pay the school fees.14 You
know, right now all the money goes to food and medical bills (…). So what will we
do? I cannot educate my children anymore. At least when I have a small shamba, I
can get most of the food from there and then I can put my children back in school
again.
To get at least some ‘free’ food, Mama Christopher used to collect ‘wild’
vegetables (mchicha, managu, saget, etc.) from a small field. This field was
used by a few other women as well who, like Baba and Mama Christopher,
lacked a shamba on their own. According to Versleijen (2002: 37), the “gath-
ering of ‘wild plants’15 is a practice done by more women in low-income house-
holds”. Mama Christopher also used other spots to collect them:
You know, things become difficult now. Each day I’m looking for vegetables to eat
(…). I look for vegetables everywhere these days. You know, the place I used to
pick them, they are not there anymore, because it was only a small place and I went
there frequently. So now I just go looking at the side of the road or wherever I think
I might find them. But you know, it’s a lot of work, I’m spending a lot of time on it.
But what else can we do? There is nothing else we can do than pray to God.

Support

As indicated in Chapter 7, very few of the crop cultivators in Nakuru town

received technical support, but quite a number of the livestock keepers did. This
was mainly the non-poor (Table 10.5). Very few of the poor received assistance
and only two of these received assistance from a professional. The difference
between the two groups is indirectly related to the differences in welfare level.
The poor can generally not afford to buy large livestock and it was mainly for
these animals – cattle in particular – that assistance was provided or called for.

Table 10.5 Assistance with livestock keeping by income class (%)

poor non-poor
(N=43) (N=37)

households receiving assistance with livestock keeping 14.0 54.1

idem, from professionals 4.7 43.2
Source: 1999 survey.

14
Actually, the school-aged children were sent home several times and two of them
were told not to return for the rest of the term.
15
Wild plants include various types of mchicha and other greens that can be found
along roadsides or in small open areas.
148 CHAPTER 10

A positive development in this respect is the credit programme run by

ECLOF Kenya, because it specifically focuses on the poor and the marginal-
ized. As described in Chapter 7, some people did benefit substantially from par-
ticipation in the programme. However, according to Theresa Moyo,16 micro-
finance systems like this are under threat due to HIV/Aids. Sick people cannot
work and the borrowed money is quickly spent on medicines or a funeral. The
result is that loans cannot be paid off.

Environment

Generally speaking, the poor live in more seriously polluted parts of Nakuru
town than the non-poor. This is illustrated by the numerous garbage dumps that
can be observed in the streets of the low-income neighbourhoods. It is also indi-
cated by the heavy metal concentrations as presented in Tables A8.1 and A8.2
(Annex 8). Among the twelve sampling sites, there was one in a high-income
area (Milimani) and there were three in medium-income areas (Lanet Free Area,
Lanet and Kabachia). All other sites were located in low-income areas, with the
exception of the dump, although the ones who were farming there came from
low-income households in the immediate vicinity. Overall, the soils as well as
the plants in the low-income sites and at the dump appeared to contain higher
concentrations of heavy metals than in the sites in the medium-income and
high-income areas. To some extent, Kabachia is an exception, but the compara-
tively high concentrations of zinc in the soil and lead in the plants were due to
the burning of some tires close to the selected site.

Schools

Although in many ways the poor are in a disadvantaged position, in theory, they
might benefit from school farming and/or school meals. School farming pro-
vides produce that can either be used for feeding programmes at school or that
can be taken home by the children involved, thus providing additional food for
their households. In schools where a decent lunch is provided, children can
benefit as well, especially those from poor households. Hence, in terms of
‘poverty alleviation’, school farming and school feeding are particularly im-
portant in low-income neighbourhoods. Although the school survey done by
Odera did not focus on that particular aspect, it is nevertheless possible to get at

16
SAMCAF, a network of micro-finance organizations in Southern Africa. See inter-
view with Ms Moyo in Trouw, 17 April 2004.
 THE POOR 149

least some idea as to how far school farming and feeding are related to the
income level of the neighbourhood in which the schools are located. Table 10.6
provides some figures.

Table 10.6 School farming and feeding by income level of neighbourhood (%)
‘lower’* ‘higher’*
(N=23) (N=21)
% of schools engaged in farming 47.8 66.7
plot size** smaller than 0.5 acre 63.6 8.3
bigger than 1.0 acre 18.2 75.0
% of schools providing lunch 43.5 66.7
* ‘Lower’ consists of “area income level” categories ‘low’ and ‘low to medium’ in Table A9.1
‘Higher’ consists of “area income level” categories ‘medium to high’ and ‘high’ in Table A9.1.
The classification is made with the aid of MCN (1999) and the map of Nakuru Municipality
(Nairobi: Survey of Kenya, 1998).
** Only schools performing crop cultivation: 11 in the ‘lower income’ and 12 in the ‘higher income’
category.
Source: 1999 survey.

School farming appeared to be somewhat less common in lower-income than

in higher-income neighbourhoods. Perhaps more importantly, the plots used for
crop cultivation by schools in lower-income neighbourhoods were on average
(much) smaller than those in higher-income neighbourhoods. That is, however,
not simply because school compounds are always (much) smaller in lower-
income neighbourhoods. For instance, three of the eleven crop cultivating
schools in the lower-income neighbourhoods had a ‘surplus’ of more than five
acres of land within their compound (including the school buildings), indicating
the potential to expand their farming activities.
Finally, the picture regarding school feeding appears to be the same as with
school farming (Table 10.6). In schools located in the lower-income neighbour-
hoods, the provision of lunch for the children was somewhat less common than
in schools in the higher-income neighbourhoods. Based on these crude data, one
can conclude that in neighbourhoods where school farming and school feeding
were most needed, it was less practiced.

Gender

So far, this chapter has focused entirely on the poor in relation to urban farming.
However, in the livelihoods approach, another important social variable is con-
150 CHAPTER 10

sidered to be of particular importance: gender.17 Although the study did not

focus especially on the gender aspects of urban agriculture, from the collected
data it is possible to present some findings on differences between male- and
female-headed households. Moreover, some findings related to the ‘person
responsible for crop cultivation’ – i.e. the male head, the wife of the male head
and the female head – were already presented in Chapter 4.
The reason to include the section on gender in the present chapter is largely
because 94% of the female-headed households belonged to the “low-income”
and “very-low-income” categories (25% and 69%, respectively). Even so, 84%
of the female-headed households practising urban farming belonged to these
low-income groups. The comparative percentages for the male-headed house-
holds were 79% and 67% respectively. In other words, both among the whole
study population and among the urban farmers, the female-headed households
were on average somewhat poorer than the male-headed households.
Twenty-seven per cent of the female-headed households could be classified
as urban farmers, which was a lower percentage than for male-headed house-
holds (37%). The same trend applied to the two components of urban farming:
urban crop cultivation (20% and 29%, respectively) and urban livestock keeping
(13% and 22%, respectively). Put differently, female-headed households were
somewhat underrepresented among urban farmers.
The 23 female-headed households cultivating crops in Nakuru town did so
on a plot averaging 688 m2, which was considerably smaller than the average
plot of their male-headed counterparts (1026 m2). Almost half of the plots
belonging to female-headed households were smaller than 100 m2.18 Almost
90% of the plots were located in their own compounds or within the estate
where the farmers were living, which was on the whole a slightly higher per-
centage than the plots of the male-headed households (75%). Hence, 85% of the
plots were owned by either the female head herself or a landlord. Only one
female head (4%) cultivated crops on a piece of government land. Among the
male heads, farming on government land was somewhat more common (16%).
As shown in Chapter 4, compared to women, men were more inclined to
cultivate traditional staple crops such as maize and beans. For vegetables, it was
the other way around. In general, women cultivated a larger variety of crops.
Perhaps the most conspicuous differences between men and women concerned
the use of inputs for crop cultivation (as was shown in Annex 4, Table A4.3).
Men not only used more inputs, but also more ‘modern’ inputs (chemicals and
improved seeds). While over half of female heads used no modern inputs at all,
this applied to less than a quarter of the male heads, while of the latter, almost

17
See the section “Theoretical considerations” in Chapter 1.
18
See Annex 10, Table A10.11.
 THE POOR 151

half used at least two modern inputs, against only one female head. For chemi-
cals alone, the differences are even more striking, as 90% of the female heads
used no chemicals at all. Irrigation, on the other hand, was much more common
among the female heads and also among the wives of the male heads. As for
hiring additional labour, few female heads (17%) did so, at least fewer than the
in the male-headed households (29%). All this helps to explain the very low
total yields in the female-headed households in comparison with the male-
headed households, not only in absolute terms (almost 140 kg in the female-
headed households and almost 300 kg in the male-headed households) but also
when measured in terms of land productivity (0.20 kg/m2 and 0.30 kg/m2, res-
pectively). The latter is the more remarkable as the average plot size of the
female household heads was much smaller than that of male heads.19

In summary, this chapter shows that the poor are in various ways disadvantaged
when it comes to urban farming. Compared to the non-poor, they were quite
under-represented among urban farmers, few of them used irrigation for their
crops, very few kept large livestock and equally few received technical assis-
tance. Female-headed households – a special category among the poor – were
even worse off because they had smaller plots, used fewer inputs and had much
smaller harvests than male-headed households. In terms of food security, the
poor are much more vulnerable than the non-poor, which was dramatically
shown in 1999 when there was a very bad harvest due to a lack of rainfall. An
additional disadvantage is that the poor tend to live in the more polluted areas of
town. Even school farming and school feeding – which is potentially beneficial
for children from poor households – appeared to be less common in low-income
neighbourhoods compared to higher-income areas.

19
See Table 4.5 (p. 59) for the relationship between plot size and harvest per m2.
152 CHAPTER 10

Photo 15 Dairy cow in zero-grazing in Rhonda Weavers.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)

Photo 16 Rabbit keeping in Lanet.

(Sam Owuor, 2000)
 11
Summary and conclusions

Introduction
Samuel and Pauline came from Bomet to Nakuru in 1987 and settled in
Rhonda Kaptembwa, where they still live today.1 They have always culti-
vated crops and kept cows in their compound on a plot of about 60x30
metres. In 1999 they grew maize and beans solely for self-consumption and
Napier grass for their cows. They weeded twice and used chemical pesti-
cides. Due to the drought and because they did not irrigate their crops, their
harvest was modest: some maize cobs were picked raw and roasted, while
only a few kilograms of beans were harvested. The dried maize stalks were
fed to the cows and Napier grass was cut whenever it reached a certain
height. They did not sell anything but gave away some of their crops to
friends. Pauline is responsible for the crops and at peak times she works on
the shamba all day, with some assistance from a nephew. One day she also
hired a local person to weed, which cost her Ksh. 300. The crop residues
were used as fodder for the cows and the animal dung as manure for the
crops. Farming activities are important for her because “it subsidises”. She
would not stop cultivating even if the household had sufficient income to
ensure a decent standard of living. Pauline is convinced that she could pro-
duce more crops if she was able to irrigate the crops. The local government
could assist by providing a water supply.

1
Rhonda Kaptembwa is a low-income, high-density residential area in the southwest
of Nakuru town (see Map A1.1 on p. 176).
154 CHAPTER 11

This brief description of the urban farming activities of Samuel and Pauline
includes many of the aspects dealt with in this book: food security (produce for
self-consumption), income (“it subsidises”), employment (family and hired
labour), environment (chemical inputs, animal waste for crop cultivation),
constraints (rainfall) and the role of the local authorities (provision of water
supply). In the next section, the main findings related to these aspects are sum-
marized for the whole study population as well as for the sub-studies. The
following section discusses some of the main findings in relation to the theo-
retical considerations outlined in the first chapter. The final section deals with
the future of urban farming in Nakuru town in the context of recent policy
developments in the municipality.

Summary of findings
Samuel and Pauline’s household was one of an estimated 25,000 households in
Nakuru town that practised urban farming in the late 1990s. This figure ac-
counts for about a third of Nakuru’s households. These 25,000 were not equally
distributed over the town’s population. Compared with non-urban-farming
households, households performing urban farming were generally larger, i.e.
with more mouths to feed. Another difference between farmers and non-farmers
was household welfare level (at least measured in terms of monthly cash
income): the poor were under-represented among urban-farming households.
Yet, low-income households were the largest group among urban farmers and
urban agriculture is very important as a food and income source for this group.
The dominant reason for the non-farmers not to farm in town was lack of access
to urban land, followed by other considerations among which lack of capital
was the most important. For some, there was no need to undertake urban farm-
ing because of access to rural land, although for many others this was not a
reason not to farm in town as well.
Nakuru households cultivate crops whenever they have access to a suitable
piece of land. For the majority, this land lies within their own compound. How-
ever, no less than 40% of the plots were located elsewhere, mostly being
government land or ‘undeveloped’ private land. The average plot was almost
1,000 m2 (0.25 acres), but plots varied greatly in size. The total area under crops
in the built-up area of Nakuru amounted to more than 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) in
1998. Most plots had been put into use after 1990, many even after 1995, indi-
cating that crop cultivation at this scale is a fairly recent phenomenon in
Nakuru.
A whole range of crops was cultivated by the Nakuru households, but these
were overwhelmingly food crops for self-consumption. Mixed cropping, with
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 155

traditional, simple equipment and carried out with family labour, was very
common. Almost all crop cultivators applied material inputs and the use of
organic fertilizer was common. About half of the cultivators used chemical
inputs. The same applied to irrigation, mostly tap water. Yields were quite low,
partly depending on the size of the plot (the smaller the plot the higher the land
productivity) and the number of inputs, irrigation in particular. Very few crop
cultivators received any technical assistance. Apart from typical problems
related to farming, crop theft was a major urban-related constraint for cultiva-
tors. Despite this, in 1998 (a ‘normal’ year in terms of rainfall) some six million
kg of crops were harvested, which contributed about 22% to the energy
requirements of the producing households and about 8% of the requirements of
the whole population of Nakuru.
Although the absolute number of households keeping large livestock in town
was relatively small, the total number of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs in the
built-up areas of Nakuru town could be estimated at some 25,000 in 1998.
Small livestock (mainly chicken) were more common, with numbers totalling
some 380,000. Large livestock were kept for both self-consumption and com-
mercial purposes, small livestock more for self-consumption. There appeared to
be some relationship between type of livestock and income class, as large live-
stock were more commonly found among higher-income households.
Livestock were partly kept in people’s own compounds and partly free
range. Small livestock roamed freely somewhat more often than large livestock.
In general, large livestock received more attention than small livestock, at least
when one considers the percentage of households using certain inputs. In con-
trast with crop cultivation, quite a number of livestock keepers had received
technical assistance, especially those keeping cattle. However, the death rate
among animals was equally high among both those households that had re-
ceived assistance and those that had not. Related to this, ‘disease’ was by far the
most frequently mentioned constraint.
An important environmental issue in town is related to the waste from live-
stock. About a third of livestock keepers dumped all or part of their animals’
waste in the street, but this was more common for small-livestock waste. Most
of the waste, however, was used for crop cultivation, either by the livestock
keepers themselves or by their neighbours.
For most households practising urban farming, the need for (additional) food
was the main reason to engage in it. This applied more to crop cultivation than
to livestock keeping. Livestock were also kept to obtain additional income
and/or to diversify income sources. As perceived by the respondents, about 40%
of crop cultivators stated that their urban cultivation constituted at least half of
the food they consumed (in 1998). And the large majority of those engaged in
urban farming said that it formed an additional food and/or income source,
156 CHAPTER 11

while for about a quarter it was the major source. The level of household food
security was somewhat better in farming households than in non-farming house-
holds. Probably partly as a result of this, the average growth in height of
farmers’ children was somewhat better than that of non-farmers’ children. The
year 1999 was quite different, however. As a result of the drought, there was
little harvest so urban farmers had to purchase much more food than in ‘normal’
years, thus saving less money for other expenditures.
Another benefit of urban farming – and of particular importance in times of
retrenchments and increasing unemployment – is the creation of work. The fact
that 25,000 households were engaged in urban farming implies that at least the
same number of persons were in some way involved in farming. Moreover, for
about a fifth of them it was a full-time job. In addition, about 8,500 persons
found work as labourers, either casually (in crop cultivation) or more or less
permanently (in livestock keeping).
Support for urban farmers was not widespread and crop cultivators were
hardly ever visited by professional officers. There was more support for live-
stock keepers, especially those with cattle. The study showed that assistance
from professional officers positively influenced rearing systems (more zero-
grazing), inputs (more modern inputs) and the disposal of animal waste (more
used for own crop cultivation). Some farmers in Nakuru participated in the
Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (ARDP). This sub-study com-
pared participants and non-participants and showed that the programme had a
positive impact on sales of cattle and milk and thus on the income situation of
the households involved. In 2001, the Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF
Kenya) started offering small loans in Nakuru. Among the recipients were some
urban farmers. The four (randomly chosen) case studies presented in this book
were all success stories.
Urban farming is always related to the urban environment, mostly in a nega-
tive way because the activity is supposed to cause all kinds of damage and
pollution. Although livestock keeping is usually considered to be worse for the
urban environment than crop cultivation, another sub-study showed that the
awareness among Nakuru crop cultivators regarding the possible damage of
their activities for the urban environment was greater than among livestock
keepers. A large majority of the livestock keepers were satisfied with the way
they disposed of their animals’ waste but quite a number admitted that their
neighbours did complain.
Among non-farmers as well as officials, perceptions regarding the relation-
ships between urban agriculture and the urban environment in Nakuru were on
the whole rather negative. Yet, both groups were generally convinced that urban
farming was important for the urban food supply and would be more acceptable
if it were better controlled. Particularly the non-farmers saw a role for the
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 157

government in tackling the (perceived) negative environmental impact of urban

farming.
Measurements of heavy-metal concentrations in soils, water and plants at
twelve selected sites showed that concentrations were relatively high at sites
where sewage water was used for irrigation and at the dump (where a thin layer
of soil covers the garbage and where crops are cultivated on a large scale).
Crops growing near busy roads also contained larger concentrations.
Farming in Nakuru Municipality takes place not only in individual house-
holds but is also undertaken by institutions. School farming is the most impor-
tant type of institutional farming in Nakuru and in 2000, about half of the
primary and 90% of the secondary schools were engaged in it. Crop cultivation
was the dominant activity, on plots of an average size of 1.7 acres. The use of
inputs was widespread, but the two school types differed considerably in this
respect. Manure was very common at primary schools, but was hardly used by
secondary schools. On the other hand, the use of chemicals (including pesticides
and insecticides) was widely used at secondary schools, to a much larger degree
than at primary schools. In 60% of schools, produce was used for the school
meals, particularly at secondary schools.
As mentioned above, although urban farming was found among all income
classes in Nakuru town and the poorest households were quite under-repre-
sented, the latter still formed the largest group among Nakuru’s urban-farming
population. Plot sizes did not differ very much between income categories.
However, there was an important difference as far as yields from crop cultiva-
tion were concerned, as high-income households realized a much bigger harvest
than low-income households. This can partly be related to the use of material
inputs and irrigation, which were more common among high-income house-
holds, and partly to the labour factor, as high-income households were able to
hire additional labour when needed. Theft of crops was more of a problem for
low-income households, which is likely to be due to the fact that their plots
were more often located outside their compound.
Livestock keeping was found among all income categories, although rela-
tively few of the poor households had large livestock (mainly cattle). They also
used fewer inputs for their animals, particularly such ‘modern’ inputs as im-
proved breeds, veterinary drugs and feed supplements. Moreover, they hired
less additional labour and received hardly any professional assistance compared
to their better-off colleagues. Dealing with animal waste was more of a problem
for low-income households because the habit of dumping in the street was more
common among them than among higher-income households.
The benefits of urban farming for poor households were dramatically shown
in an indirect way. Referring to the ‘normal’ (rainfall) year of 1998, 60% of
these households indicated that their own urban production contributed at least
158 CHAPTER 11

half of the food they needed. The following year was a dry year and this per-
centage dropped to 20%. And the percentage of poor households indicating that
they “always had enough to eat” dropped from almost 90% in 1998 to less than
25% in 1999. In comparison, among the non-poor, the difference between the
two years was quite small.
Finally, gender differences in relation to urban farming were found. In
general, female-headed households were somewhat under-represented among
both urban crop cultivators and urban livestock keepers. The same applied to
rural farming. Urban plots were generally smaller among female-headed house-
holds. Although these women cultivated a wider variety of crops, their yields
were much lower compared to those in the male-headed households, which can
be attributed to their very limited use of modern inputs. Keeping large livestock
was rare among female-headed households, but otherwise there were no major
differences regarding urban livestock keeping between male-headed and
female-headed households. The same applied to the various indicators of the
benefits of urban farming. However, those data referred to 1998. Since the large
majority of the (urban-farming) female-headed households had low incomes,
they probably suffered in 1999 from a lack of food due to very small harvests.

Theoretical reflections
The strong growth of urban agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa is related to the
economic crisis that has prevailed in most African countries. Also in Nakuru,
the increase in crop cultivation and livestock keeping in town can only be
assessed in the context of decreasing household purchasing power and increases
in the cost of living. As for growing crops, most plots have been put under
cultivation since 1990 when the economic recession began to be seriously felt in
Kenya, especially in urban areas. The reasons given for turning to this activity
confirm that for most people it is a way to secure their food supply and reduce
costs on food purchases so that other important expenditures, such as school
fees, can (still) be paid.
Thus, the increase in urban farming can be considered as a response to
adverse economic circumstances. However, it is by no means the only response.
People react in a number of ways, of which the diversification of income
sources is undoubtedly the most notable.2 A wide range of activities, all in the
informal sector, are being undertaken, including own food production (urban
and/or rural agriculture), manual jobs, petty trade and, especially in the case of

2
See, for example, Bigsten & Kayizzi-Mugerwa 1992; Ellis 2000; de Haan &
Zoomers 2003; Kaag et al. 2004.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 159

the very poor, prostitution and theft. In addition, social networks are being
exploited, with examples being women’s groups, merry-go-round groups, ethni-
cally based groups, etc. As for Nakuru’s population, Owuor & Foeken (2006)
described the livelihood strategies of five low-income households. The number
of income-generating activities ranged from four to seven, the mode being six
(in three of the five households). All five households practiced urban farming,
but it is very clear that urban farming is just one of these households’ livelihood
strategies.
It would be wrong to consider farming in Nakuru town only as a response to
the economic crisis. Quite a number of the Nakuru farmers stressed that farming
“is part of their life”. In other words, it is also a cultural phenomenon: whenever
you have (access to) a piece of land, you do not leave it idle. However, it is the
strong growth of the phenomenon, including farming on all kinds of plots that
do not belong to the people using it, that can only be explained by the economic
stress these people are facing. For those with high incomes, it is a way of, for
example, still being able to have a car. For the medium-income group, it may be
a means to allow the purchase of certain consumer goods. For the low-income
group, it is a means to, for instance, still be able to pay the school fees for their
children. For the very-low-income group, it can mean survival alone. To sum-
marize, for all households, it is one of the means of maintaining a certain stan-
dard of living. Or, as some respondents stated, “it subsidises my income”.
Despite the importance of farming in town for the households involved,
almost two-thirds of Nakuru households did not undertake any agricultural
activities in 1998. For the large majority of these people “no access to urban
land” was the main reason. Land, indeed, is the basic resource for urban farm-
ing: it has to be available, it has to be accessible and it has to be suitable
(Mubvami et al. 2003). To start with the latter, suitability, the volcanic soils and
relative flatness of the area are favourable circumstances for crop cultivation in
Nakuru town. In general, the availability of open spaces has decreased over the
past decades, which has caused the cost of renting a piece of land to rise to such
an extent that low-income households can no longer afford it. So, for poor
households with no compound of their own they can use for growing some
crops and/or keep some animals, the accessibility of land has been reduced
because of the costs involved. For over a quarter of the non-farmers, “lack of
capital” was another important reason not to farm. It is therefore not surprising
that the category of very-low-income households was seriously under-repre-
sented among the urban farmers in Nakuru.
Still, about a fifth of the very-low-income households did farm in Nakuru
town. Compared with non-poor farmers, however, they had less access to all
kinds of other resources necessary to optimise their farming activities, including
water. In an unreliable climatic region like that of Nakuru, water is a scarce
160 CHAPTER 11

resource, so irrigation is vital to ensure a good annual harvest. Only a quarter of

poor farmers had access to irrigation water, compared to almost 60% of the
non-poor. As a result, the food security effect of the drought during 1999 was
seriously felt by poor farming households. Some people tried to solve the water
problem by tapping the sewers, causing soils and crops to be polluted with high
concentrations of heavy metals. The use of sewage water for crop irrigation was
perceived by the local authorities as the cause of an outbreak of cholera in the
town in 2004 and led to the slashing of crops, thus denying these (low-income)
households the need for further access to irrigation water.
Keeping livestock in town – and large livestock in particular – requires
financial resources for the necessary investments in animals, shelter, drugs, feed
supplements, labour, etc. Poor households usually lack these resources, which
explains why so few Nakuru households kept large animals. Instead, almost all
the poor livestock keepers in Nakuru had chickens. As a result, access to sup-
port from professional agricultural officers was also denied to poor livestock
keepers because extension services were almost solely directed at helping farm-
ers with cattle. Thus, nearly all the poor households were excluded from making
an income from sales of milk and cattle, which can be quite rewarding as the
example of Baba Josephine showed (Annex 6, Table A6.5).
In the Kenyan context, access to land is not limited to urban land; on the
contrary, access to rural land is much more common. This was also the case in
Nakuru, where the percentage of households practising rural farming (by
Nakuru townspeople) was almost twice as high as those engaging in urban
farming. The importance of rural food and income sources for people in town
was the topic of a separate study (Owuor 2006) in the context of the larger
Nakuru research project. The study showed (1) that the large majority (85%) of
the households in Nakuru benefited from the rural farming activities by either
themselves or their rural kin, (2) that in terms of production, rural farming (by
urban households) is more important than urban farming, and (3) that the
dependency of urban households on rural food and income sources has in-
creased over the past few decades. These findings are in line with recent obser-
vations in the livelihood literature that (urban) livelihoods have become in-
creasingly multi-local or multi-spatial, i.e. households have an economic foot-
hold in both urban and rural areas.3
Access to urban land is limited for the urban poor because of financial con-
straints. For rural land, however, access is usually through inheritance. As a
result, the percentage of poor households engaged in rural farming was only
slightly lower than for the non-poor (some of whom had bought rural plots not

3
See, for example, de Haan & Zoomers 2003; on Nakuru, see Foeken & Owuor 2001,
Owuor 2006, and Owuor & Foeken 2006.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 161

far from Nakuru town). Thus, many poor households in Nakuru that are ex-
cluded from farming in town can compensate by obtaining food from the rural
home. Yet, it would be wrong to consider urban farming and rural farming as
substitutes for each other, as the latter is done because of the opportunity that
arises through inheritance, while the former should be seen as a necessity (on
‘opportunity’ and ‘necessity’, see, for example, Tellegen 1997).
Another recent observation in the livelihood discourse is that the choice of
activities and strategies depends on a number of household and individual
characteristics, particularly income and gender (Beall 2002; Kaag et al. 2004).
The income issue was dealt with above, but the gender aspect is still quite
unrecorded in livelihood studies, including urban agriculture. According to
Kanji (1995), women in particular increase their informal income-generating
activities in order to cope with the declining purchasing power of their house-
hold’s income. Moreover, these activities are generally concentrated in or near
their urban homes (see, for example, Wallman 1996), which was confirmed by
Owuor & Foeken (2006) in the context of Nakuru. Farming in town is one such
activity. In the literature, urban agriculture in eastern Africa – if not sub-
Saharan Africa as a whole – is usually seen as women’s business (see, for
example, Obudho & Foeken 1999), but it would be an exaggeration to see it
solely that way. In about 30% of the farming households in Nakuru, a man was
responsible for the activity, there being no difference between crop cultivation
and livestock keeping.
Moreover, although the present study’s focus was not on gender aspects,
some differences between female-headed and male-headed households were
noted. Female-headed households were under-represented among urban farm-
ers, had smaller urban plots, used fewer modern inputs for crop cultivation and
had therefore much lower yields. These differences are related to the same
constraints noted for low-income households (lack of access to land and to
capital), which is not surprising as the large majority of female-headed house-
holds fell in the low- and very-low-income categories. Yet, there are female-
headed households that manage to successfully tackle poverty through urban
farming, as was shown by the case of Grace Wanjiru who obtained a loan from
ECLOF Kenya. By exploiting her social resources – by forming a self-help
group as required by ECLOF – and her human resources (skills, experience,
labour), she managed to set up a thriving egg business, thus considerably im-
proving her household’s income situation.
162 CHAPTER 11

Policy and the future of urban farming in Nakuru

The importance of farming within the boundaries of Nakuru Municipality has
been clearly demonstrated by the studies that were done in the context of the
Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research Project (NUAP) presented in this book.
The figures concerning the numbers of crop cultivators and livestock keepers as
well as the amount of crops produced speak for themselves. Potentially, how-
ever, crop yields could be much higher. Plot size proved to be a major determi-
nant of productivity: the smaller the plot, the higher the yield. In other words, if
larger plots could be as productive as smaller plots, the municipality could
produce a substantial part of the food crops it needs within its own boundaries.
However, as shown by this study, more irrigation, inputs, labour and technical
assistance are required. In general, this involves more capital, which is a major
constraint for low-income households and for female-headed households in
particular. More research on the technical aspects of farming in town is neces-
sary to obtain detailed knowledge about present farming practices and to raise
productivity.
How productive the sector can be was shown by the example of the Cuban
capital of Havana (see Gonzalez Novo & Murphy 2000). Faced with a serious
economic crisis, the Cuban government started to actively encourage urban
farming, based on the slogan “Production by the neighbourhood for the neigh-
bourhood”. An urban agriculture programme was launched integrating access to
land, extension services, research and technology development, new supply
stores for small farmers, new marketing schemes, and the organisation of selling
points for urban producers. The so-called organopónicos and huertos intensivos
(intensive gardens) – raised beds on which horticultural crops are produced in
an entirely organic way – have been particularly successful. In 1999, the 773
units covered an area of 386 hectares and produced over 50 million kilograms
of crops (i.e. 14 kg/m2). By comparison, the 2,000 hectares of land used for crop
cultivation in the built-up area of Nakuru town only produced some 6 million
kilograms of crops in 1998 (a normal year in terms of rainfall). Trials closer to
home – in the Tanzanian cities of Dar es Salaam, Arusha and Dodoma – have
shown that yields of leafy vegetables can be raised substantially to a level much
higher than that produced in Nakuru at present (Jacobi 1997).
Until recently, urban planners have tended to consider urban farming as a
temporary feature. According to the Strategic Nakuru Structure Plan, this
vision prevails in Nakuru as well: “Economically, urban agriculture is a transi-
tory activity which eventually gives way to more traditional urban functions”
(MCN 1999: 44). Besides the fact that agriculture has always been part of any
urban economy (and in that sense can be seen as a traditional urban function), it
should be realized that “although some forms of urban agriculture are based on
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 163

temporal use of vacant lands, urban agriculture as such is a permanent feature of

many cities in developing (…) countries and is thus an important component for
sustainable city development” (de Zeeuw et al. 2000: 162).
How urban agriculture can be integrated in urban planning policies was the
subject of a five-day workshop held in Havana in October 1999 (Bakker et al.
2000). The outcome of the workshop was an “outline of a policy framework for
urban agriculture”, i.e. urban agriculture should be integrated in (1) urban land
use policy, (2) urban food security and health policy, and (3) in urban environ-
mental policy (de Zeeuw et al. 2000: 164-173).
(1) Integration of urban agriculture in urban land use policy implies the
removal of legal restrictions imposed on farming in town and the integration of
agriculture in urban development planning (de Zeeuw et al. 2000: 165-168). In
the context of the Localising Agenda 21: Action Planning for Sustainable
Urban Development programme, a serious attempt to develop urban planning
and management in Nakuru was undertaken in the mid-1990s. Funded by
Belgian aid money, a town-planning unit was created and the so-called Strate-
gic Nakuru Structure Plan was set up and eventually approved in 2001. Al-
though the Structure Plan was described as “the blueprint for urban sustainable
development” (Mwangi 2001: 17), any reference to urban agriculture, except
the above-mentioned remark on the transitional character of the activity, was
conspicuously lacking. However, there was awareness among key officials that
urban agriculture should indeed be part of the Nakuru planning process. This
was the reason that NUAP was very much welcomed by these officials.
By the end of the 1990s, farming in town was officially illegal but was
tolerated by the authorities. The main legal control mechanism was the Public
Health Act: any farming activity considered being detrimental to public health
and/or safety or about which people complained was dealt with.4 This con-
cerned mainly livestock confiscated because it caused a nuisance to neighbours
or the wider community (e.g. traffic accidents). Destruction of crops was rare,
although it did happen in 2004 (see Box 8.1). While completing this book, new
by-laws regarding urban agriculture in Nakuru Municipality were in the mak-
ing.
Official attitudes regarding urban agriculture may differ from one munici-
pality to the other, from one local department to another and even within
departments (Mushamba 2002). This was illustrated by a study in Tanzania,
where despite favourable national legislation regarding urban agriculture, the
local policy in one town (Morogoro) on this subject was positive but negative in
another (Mbeya), although the opinions of officials in the latter town differed in

4
Personal communication, Mr. S.C. Kiarie, Public Health Officer, Municipal Council
of Nakuru, 7 September 1998.
164 CHAPTER 11

this respect (Foeken et al. 2004: 124-127). In Nakuru, a comparable situation

existed from the end of the 1990s until recently. This emerged during a work-
shop in November 2002 when the results of the various NUAP studies were
presented and discussed by the various stakeholders in Nakuru (see Annex 11).
Although the official policy in Nakuru had long been one of toleration, at the
beginning of the workshop the then Director of Environment appeared to be
firmly opposed to any form of agriculture in town. After two days however, his
view of farming in Nakuru town had become more balanced. His colleague of
the Department of Housing said the workshop had been “an eye-opener” stress-
ing that “we need to revise our housing policy”, i.e. provide new municipal
houses with a compound so that the inhabitants can produce some of their own
food. A few years later, in 2005, the Nakuru Department of Environment had
become an active promoter of urban farming, i.e. as long as the activity is
carried out in an environmentally friendly way. The workshop was, at least in
part, responsible for this change in attitude and policy.5
(2) Integration of urban agriculture in urban food security and health policy
implies improved access for urban farmers to agricultural research, technical
assistance and credit services, improved systems of input supply and product
distribution, and the creation of awareness of the health risks of urban agricul-
ture (de Zeeuw et al. 2000: 168-171). One of the contradictions of the legal
setting of urban agriculture in Nakuru – and in Kenya in general and many other
former British colonies as well – is that, according to the local by-laws, farming
in town is an illegal activity, while the Municipality of Nakuru is just one of the
extension divisions in Nakuru District for the Ministry of Agriculture. In other
words, Nakuru Municipality has its own extension officers, for whom an urban
farmer is as much a farmer as a rural farmer. Yet, the research project revealed
that almost none of the Nakuru crop cultivators and a minority of the livestock
keepers had been visited in 1998 by an extension officer (some other livestock
keepers had received professional assistance from non-ministerial officers).6
The study also showed, however, that professional assistance for livestock
keepers did have a positive impact on rearing systems, the use of modern inputs
and waste disposal. Among the recommendations formulated by the participants
of the November 2002 workshop were issues such as educating urban farmers
(by extension officers) on appropriate production methods, raising awareness
about the environmental impact of farming in town, and space optimization (see
Annex 11). Although to some extent, these issues were already being put in

5
Personal communication, W.S. Wanyonyo, Environmental Officer, Municipal Coun-
cil of Nakuru, May 2005.
6
The numbers might have been higher if the study had not been restricted to the built-
up area, i.e. if the peri-urban areas – in this study defined as the area between the
built-up area and the municipal boundary – had been included.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 165

practice by both the extension officers and ARDP officers, only a few urban
farmers were actually being reached. A good example of practical research that
benefits farmers with very tiny plots was the cultivation of crops in a large bag
that requires very little inputs (see Photo 17) which was developed by ARDP
and successfully introduced to some farmers. And ECLOF’s micro-credit
scheme, which started in Nakuru in 2001, signifies another positive develop-
ment.

Photo 17 Experimenting with bag cultivation (sukuma wiki)

in the ARDP compound. (Dick Foeken, 2001)
166 CHAPTER 11

(3) Integration of urban agriculture in environmental policy implies the

promotion of the safe re-use of urban organic waste and waste water by urban
farmers, and the promotion of ecological farming methods (de Zeeuw et al.
2000: 171-173). Recycling urban organic waste for urban crop cultivation
purposes is often mentioned as one of the major benefits of urban agriculture for
the urban environment. Unfortunately, this is still a rather utopian picture in
sub-Saharan Africa. Large-scale composting requires a well-functioning,
municipality-wide collection system, installations for the composting process
and a distribution system for the compost. This requires large start-up invest-
ments, money and technical skills for the operating and maintenance of the
whole system, as well as organizational skills. A serious attempt – probably the
first one in sub-Saharan Africa, with the possible exception of South Africa – to
set up such a system was done in Cotonou, Benin, but it did not last long (Brock
& Foeken 2005). Nakuru faces the same urban waste problems as almost all
African urban centres: a very limited collecting system (in the town centre and
high-income areas only), a dump where all non-separated waste is deposited,
piles of garbage in the streets of the low-income areas and a chronic lack of
means to keep the system running. Small-scale waste recycling offers better
prospects in a town like Nakuru. There are many examples of successful waste
recycling by small-scale enterprises and cooperatives in towns and cities of
developing countries.7 An environmental project in Nakuru, carried out by a
partnership of the Municipal Council and local groups, whereby waste was
collected in some low-income residential areas, was successful for some time
(Mwangi 2003), but had been more or less abandoned by the time NUAP
started.
The same applies to the use of waste water for urban crop cultivation. Al-
though very successful systems operate in East Asia,8 this is probably a distant
dream for a town like Nakuru. The municipality does have a sewage system
with two treatment plants, but the sewers cover only part of the town and the
treatment plants do not function properly. One of the necessary improvements
in the context of the development of urban agriculture in Nakuru, as mentioned
during the workshop, concerns the rehabilitation of the sewage system, such
that domestic waste is separated from industrial waste (the latter containing high
concentrations of heavy metals found in the soils and plants irrigated with
sewage water). This could be an important step to optimising benefits and
minimising health risks from the use of waste water for farming in town (see
van de Hoek 2002).

7
See, for example, www.waste.nl.
8
See Urban Agriculture Magazine no. 14 (July 2005) on Urban Aquatic Production.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 167

Another matter that needs serious attention concerns the three rivers (Njoro,
Makalia and Nderit) flowing through the town and into Lake Nakuru, with its
fragile ecosystem. The water quality of these rivers has deteriorated considera-
bly over the last decades due to high organic loads (faecal coliform), silt, heavy
metals, oils and pesticides (Mkawale 2000). It is this same water that is used by
urban farmers with riverbank plots to irrigate their crops (not to mention the
people who use it as drinking water). Moreover, the use of chemicals by such
farmers increases the pollution of these rivers, although most of the damage is
likely to be caused further upstream by farms and industries there.
The promotion of ecological farming methods does take place in Nakuru.
According to some of the local extension officers,9 organic farming is encour-
aged among Nakuru producers. However, given the fact that virtually none of
the Nakuru crop cultivators (in the built-up area) had been visited by an exten-
sion officer and that half of them used at least one chemical input, this ‘policy’
cannot yet be called successful. Organic farming is also encouraged by a local
(Danish-sponsored) NGO called SENVINET (Strategic Environmental Network)
in the context of an environmental-awareness programme aimed at school chil-
dren. As we have seen in this book, school farming is common in Nakuru town
and almost 30 schools, mainly primary schools, participate in the SENVINET
programme.10

From the studies undertaken so far in Nakuru and from recent developments in
the town, it has become clear that urban farming (1) is omnipresent in Nakuru
and is likely to remain so in the future, (2) is a very important livelihood ele-
ment for many households, (3) is tolerated by the local authorities, and (4) is
receiving attention from policy-makers and NGOs. In short, these are all neces-
sary conditions for the further development and improvement of this economic
sector.
However, at least one important question remains: to what extent can urban
farming in Nakuru be a tool in poverty reduction? Many Nakuru households are
living below the ‘absolute poverty line’, but it is this group that appeared to be
substantially under-represented among urban farmers because of a lack of
access to land and capital. This is the group that would benefit most from urban
farming, especially those who also lack access to rural land. But, as usual, it is
the very poor who do not benefit from development policies and programmes.
A way to help them could be to make certain tracts of land available, located

9
Personal communication, May 2005.
10
It is not possible to assess the success of the programme. A special sub-study in an
upcoming research project on school farming in Nakuru town (with fieldwork envis-
aged in 2006) will be devoted to this issue.
168 CHAPTER 11

either in or at short distance from the municipality and lease out small parcels of
11
this land at a modest fee. In the words of Mushamba (2002: 9):
Most urban poor have little land of their own to produce food they need. However,
most land in African municipalities is public and institutional, even private. This is
land that planners at municipal level should consider as a resource available at any
time for food production.
There are examples of municipalities (Dar es Salaam, Maputo) where open
spaces have been made available for vegetable production and harvesting grass
(Ibid.). To some extent, Morogoro town in Tanzania could also serve as an
example (see Foeken et al. 2004: 125). There, the municipal authorities sub-
divided former sisal estates, the plots to be used by people from each of the
town’s nineteen wards. In addition, an area of 3,000 hectares outside Morogoro
was acquired by the local branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, for use by
townspeople who would otherwise have had no access to land. However,
whether it will be the very poor of the town that will benefit from such devel-
opments remains to be seen.

11
Shingirayi Mushamba is Senior Programme Officer and Urban Agriculture Pro-
gramme Coordinator at MDP (Municipal Development Partnership for Eastern and
Southern Africa: A Partnership Enabling Local Government Capacity) in Harare and
presented the keynote address at the NUAP workshop on 27 November 2002.
 Annexes

1 The Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research Project 173

2 Sampling and the study population 175
3 The farmers 181
4 The crops 186
5 The animals 188
6 The benefits 189
7 The support 194
8 The environment 196
9 The schools 197
10 The poor 199
11 Results of the NUAP workshop 205
Tables

A2.1 Household samples 177

A2.2 Characteristics of respondents 179
A2.3 Some basic characteristics of the sampled households by survey 180
A3.1 Farmers, crop cultivators and livestock keepers in town
by cluster, 1998 181
A3.2 Urban farmers and non-farmers: household characteristics 181
A3.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: characteristics of household heads 182
A3.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: migration history of household heads 183
A3.5 Non-farmers: reasons for not farming in town by type of farming 184
A3.6 Rural farmers and non-farmers: household characteristics 184
A3.7 Rural farmers and non-farmers: characteristics of household heads 185
A4.1 Characteristics of urban plots by housing density 186
A4.2 Crops cultivated in Nakuru 186
A4.3 Characteristics of urban crop cultivators by person responsible 187
A4.4 Problems with crop cultivation in town 187
A5.1 Problems with livestock keeping by type of livestock 188
A6.1 Crops: amounts self-consumed by crop type 189
A6.2 Calculation of energy from urban crop production 189
A6.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: general food security issues,
1998 and 1999 190
A6.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: energy intake by food group 191
A6.5 Estimation of profitability of keeping dairy cows:
The case of Baba Josephine 193
A7.1 Livestock-keeping characteristics by type of assistance 194
A7.2 Problems with livestock keeping by type of assistance 194
A7.3 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: farming inputs 195
A7.4 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: major problems
with farming 195
A8.1 Heavy metal concentrations in the soils by sampling site 196
A8.2 Heavy metal concentrations in Amaranthus by sampling site 196
A9.1 School characteristics 197
A10.1 All households: household size by income class 199
A10.2 Non-farming households: reasons for not farming by type of
farming and income class 199
A10.3 Rural-farming households: rural-farming characteristics
by income class 200
A10.4 Urban crop cultivators: plot characteristics by income class 200
 A10.5 Urban crop cultivators: characteristics of crop cultivation
by income class 201
A10.6 Urban crop cultivators: problems with crop cultivation
by income class 201
A10.7 Urban livestock keepers: characteristics of livestock keeping
by income class 202
A10.8 Urban livestock keepers: problems with livestock keeping
by income class 203
A10.9 Urban farming households: general food security issues
by type of farming and income class 203
A10.10 Urban farming households: general food security issues
by year and income class 204
A10.11 Characteristics of urban plots by sex of household head 204
 ANNEXES 173

Annex 1: The Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research

Project (NUAP)

The Nakuru Urban Agriculture Research Project consists of the following studies:

1) General survey among 594 households (fieldwork: 1999) and additional interviews
with 30 farming households selected from the study population of the general
survey (2000). Researchers: Dick Foeken (ASC), Samuel Ouma Owuor
(University of Nairobi).
 Foeken, D. & S.O. Owuor (2000), Urban farmers in Nakuru, Kenya. Leiden: African
Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper no. 45 (also on www.cityfarmer.org/nakuru.html).
 Foeken, D. & S.O. Owuor (2000), Livestock in a middle-sized East-African town:
Nakuru. Urban Agriculture Magazine 1(2): 20-22.
 Foeken, D. & S.O. Owuor (2001), Multi-spatial livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Rural farming by urban households – The case of Nakuru town, Kenya. In M. de Bruijn,
R. van Dijk & D. Foeken, eds., Mobile Africa: Changing patterns of movement in Africa
and beyond, pp. 125-140. Leiden: Brill.
 Foeken, D., S.O. Owuor & W. Klaver (2002), Crop cultivation in Nakuru town, Kenya:
Practice and potential. Leiden: African Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper no. 50
(also on http://www.ascleiden.nl/pdf/workingpaper50.pdf).
 Owuor, S.O. (2005), Coping with urban poverty: A study of farming within Nakuru
town, Kenya. Hekima – Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 3(1): 84-101.
 Owuor, S.O. & D. Foeken (2006), Surviving in the neighbourhoods of Nakuru town,
Kenya. In P. Konings & D. Foeken, eds., Crisis and creativity. Exploring the wealth of
the African neighbourhood, pp. 22-45. Leiden: Brill.
2) Impact of urban farming on the food and nutritional situation of the households
involved (fieldwork: 2000). Researchers: Wijnand Klaver (ASC), Dick Foeken
(ASC), Samuel Ouma Owuor (University of Nairobi).
 Results integrated in this book.
3) Environmental aspects of farming in Nakuru town (fieldwork: 2000). Researcher:
Ernest Oyieko Nyandwaro (Kenyatta University).
 Nyandwaro, E.O. (2006), Environmental impact of urban farming: A case study of
Nakuru town, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University, School of Pure and Applied
Sciences, MSc thesis (version submitted for examination).
4) Impact of support for urban farmers on the income, food and nutritional situation
of the households involved (fieldwork: 2000-01). Researcher: Peter Wambugu
King’ori (University of Nairobi).
 King’ori, P.W. (2006), Food security, child nutritional status and incomes of urban
farming households in Nakuru town, Kenya: A comparative study. Nairobi: University
of Nairobi, Applied Nutrition Programme, MSc thesis (version submitted for
examination).
174 ANNEXES

5) School farming in Nakuru town (fieldwork: 2000/01). Researcher: Elizabeth

Correta Odera (University of Nairobi).
 Odera, E.C. (2006), The implications of urban school farming on food security and
nutrition: A study in Nakuru town. Nairobi: University of Nairobi, Applied Nutrition
Programme, MSc thesis (version submitted for examination).
6) Decision-making around farming in town (fieldwork: 2001). Researcher: Nicole
Versleijen (Wageningen University).
 Versleijen, N. (2002), Sukuma! A social analysis of urban agriculture: Case studies
from Nakuru Town, Kenya. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Center,
Department of Rural Development Sociology, MSc thesis.
7) Legal aspects of urban farming in Nakuru town (1998-2000/2005, interviews and
literature study). Researcher: Dick Foeken (ASC).
 Foeken, D. (2005), Urban agriculture in East Africa as a tool for poverty reduction: A
legal and policy dilemma? Leiden: African Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper no. 65
(also on http://www.ascleiden.nl/pdf/workingpaper65.pdf)
 Foeken, D. (2006), Legislation, policies and the practice of urban farming in Nakuru:
Contradictions abound. Urban Agriculture Magazine 16 (July 2006).
 Foeken, D. (fc), Urban agriculture and the urban poor in East Africa: Does policy
matter? (to be published in African Dynamics, vol. 7)
8) Rural farming by urban households: The case of Nakuru town (fieldwork: 2002-
04). Researcher: Samuel Ouma Owuor (University of Nairobi).
 Owuor, S.O. (2002), Enhancing food security in African cities: Rural farming by urban
households – The case of Nakuru town, Kenya. Paper presented at the “Workshop on
urban policy implications of enhancing food security in African cities”, Nairobi, 27-31
May 2002.
 Owuor, S.O. (2003), Rural livelihood sources for urban households. A study of Nakuru
town, Kenya. Leiden: African Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper 51.
 Owuor, S.O. (2004), Urban households ruralizing their livelihoods: The changing nature
of urban-rural linkages in an East African town. A paper presented at the “African
Studies Centre Seminar Series”, Leiden, Netherlands, 16 December 2004.
 Owuor, S.O. (2006), Bridging the urban-rural divide: Multi-spatial livelihoods in
Nakuru town, Kenya. Leiden: African Studies Centre, Research Report 81.
9) Economic aspects of urban farming in Nakuru town (fieldwork in progress).
Researcher: Reuben Anyango (Egerton University).
10) School farming and school feeding in Nakuru town, Kenya (fieldwork planned for
2006). Researchers: Alice Mboganie Mwangi (University of Nairobi), Dick
Foeken (ASC), Samuel Ouma Owuor (University of Nairobi), Wijnand Klaver
(ASC).
 ANNEXES 175

Annex 2: Sampling and the study population

The 1999 survey

To obtain an overall view of urban agriculture in Nakuru town, a general survey was
carried out in June-July 1999. To ensure a representative sample of 600 households
from among Nakuru’s population, the 15 clusters of the Kenyan Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS) were used (see Map A2.1). Together, the clusters counted about 1,400
households. Therefore, from each cluster a 43% (600 out of 1400) random sample was
drawn (Table A2.1). In the end, 594 households were covered.
It is important to note that the 15 CBS clusters cover the built-up area of Nakuru
Municipality. There are no clusters in the peri-urban areas i.e. between the (more or less
densely) built-up area and the boundary of the municipality. The latter are former rural
areas that were incorporated into the municipality after the boundary extensions of 1972
and 1992 and still have a predominantly agricultural character: the area of large-farms
in the west, small farms in the southwest and medium-sized farms in the far east. The
‘white square’ in the far east is a military area (the Lanet Army Barracks). In short, we
are dealing with urban farming in the strict sense in this book (see Chapter 1) by
excluding the peri-urban areas.

Several problems were encountered during the fieldwork, the major ones being:
• Outright refusal by some households to respond to our questions. This was mainly
due to the fact that by the time of the survey, there was another general survey on
HIV/Aids being carried out in the same clusters. Due to the sensitive nature of those
questions, most households, especially the ones in high-density areas, were suffering
from ‘questionnaire fatigue’. They were, therefore, not ready to take any more ques-
tions from us, thinking that we had the same types of questions. This at one time led
to the households playing a ‘hide and seek’ game with the assistants, especially in
one of the clusters in Kwa Rhonda. Such refusals were solved by ‘replacing’ these
households, but only after more than three attempts at persuasion.
• Almost all the houses in one of the other clusters in Kwa Rhonda were vacant due to
inter- and intra-estate mobility. Apparently, the landlord had increased monthly rents
the month before the survey. Most tenants had, therefore, moved out to affordable
dwellings in the neighbourhood not known to the assistants. This problem was
solved by selecting another structure within or just outside the CBS cluster to
replace the vacant houses or by selecting another household within the cluster to be
used as a ‘replacement’.
• A number of ‘call-backs’ for household heads who were working during normal
working hours in the week forced assistants to go back to the households late in the
evening and at weekends. This problem occurred particularly in the low-density/-
176 ANNEXES

Map A2.1
1
Distribution of the research clusters
2
3
4
 ANNEXES 177

high-income cluster of Milimani. It was dealt with by making appointments (call-

backs) at the convenience of the household head. If there were more than three call-
backs the household was replaced.
• In some low and medium-density clusters, there was a problem of suspicion that in
turn led to reluctance by some respondents to cooperate. This problem was over-
come by giving a careful introduction and details about the purpose of the research
and asking whether the respondent had any questions, concerns or reservations about
the survey. The CBS enumerators were very helpful in this since most of the house-
holds knew them personally.

Table A2.1 Household samples

no. of no. of
no. of h’holds h’holds
cluster estate housing h’holds covered covered
name name density* drawn in 1999 in 2000

1 Lake View Lake View medium 43 42 10

2 Langalanga Langalanga medium 45 43 7
3 Flamingo I Flamingo I low 37 37 10
4 Ziwani Ziwani low 42 43 8
5 Milimani Milimani low 9 8 4
6 Bangladesh Bangladesh medium 39 39 6
7 London/Menengai Menengai medium 26 28 10
8 Kabachia Kabachia low 42 39 24
9 Lanet Lanet medium 56 56 14
10 Mwariki Mwariki high 56 55 8
11 Rhonda/Sewage Kwa Rhonda medium 25 23 6
12 Rhonda/Pondamali Kwa Rhonda high 46 48 7
13 Rhonda/Weavers Kwa Rhonda high 39 38 5
14 Rhonda/Muslim Kwa Rhonda high 34 33 12
15 Rhonda/Kaptembwa Kwa Rhonda high 61 62 5
Total 600 594 136
* Based on own observations in the field. The main criterion used is the amount of space that can potentially
be used for agricultural purposes relative to the total surface of the residential plots in a certain cluster.
Hence, the densities in this table do not fully overlap with the ones given by MCN 2000, Figure 3.6 (see
Map 2.4).
178 ANNEXES

The 2000 survey

A second survey was held in September-October 2000, specifically focusing on aspects
of food consumption and nutrition. From the outset, the intention was to select 150
urban-farming households and 50 ‘non-farmers’, the former group being much larger
than the latter to allow for further sub-analyses. The study population of 2000 was not
therefore a representative sample of Nakuru’s population (unlike the 1999 study popu-
lation) because of its focus on comparison between the two groups. Households were to
be selected from the 1999 study population. However, urban-farming households were
only eligible if they met certain minimum conditions, i.e. a plot size of at least 10 m2
(crop cultivators) and/or at least one cow or five goats/sheep or ten small livestock
(livestock keepers). A second condition was that the household had been involved in
urban farming in both 1998 and 1999. The idea behind introducing these conditions was
to make comparisons between farmers and non-farmers more worthwhile. At the time of
sampling, there appeared to be 153 eligible urban-farming households; so it was decided
to use them all. As for the 50 non-farming households, these were intended to be
selected in a stratified way as follows: 57% of them from non-farming households with
under-fives (children younger than 60 months: one in three non-farming households)
and 43% of them from non-farming households without under-fives (one in eight non
farming households). This was done partly to have sufficient households with young
children, and also not to have only young households, which would make it impossible
to compare the farming and non-farming groups. To allow for drop-outs, a larger sam-
ple of 80 non-farming households was selected. During the fieldwork, major problems
arose as many households appeared to have moved or refused to cooperate. Upon verifi-
cation of recent urban farming activities, about 10% of the urban-farming households
appeared to be misclassified: there were 137 (instead of 153) eligible urban-farming
households and 96 (instead of 80) eligible non-farming households Since no replace-
ment households were available in the urban-farming group and since only a limited
number (17) could be realized in the non-farming group, only 74 farming households
and 62 non-farming households could be covered in the end. The rate of ‘dropouts’ for
various reasons in the two groups was comparable. About 40% of the target number was
not attained even after replacements in the non-farming group, but at cluster level the
rates showed marked differences, ranging from 0% in Flamingo, about 25% in three
clusters (Ziwani, Kabachia and Rhonda Muslim) to 67% in Rhonda Weavers.

The respondents in the 1999 and 2000 surveys

Table A2.2 shows various characteristics of the respondents in the surveys carried out in
1999 and 2000. The large majority were either the head of the household him/herself or
the male-head’s spouse (the spouse was always a woman). In some cases, another
person was interviewed, usually a brother or sister of the household head or a grown-up
child. The majority of the respondents were between 20 and 40 years of age.
 ANNEXES 179
Table A2.2 Characteristics of respondents (%)
1999 2000
(N=) (594) (135)
relation to household head 40.2 27.2
household head spouse 46.6 54.4
brother/sister 5.4 2.9
child (adult) 6.7 14.7
other 1.0 0.7
Total 100 100
sex male 30.6 25.7
female 69.4 74.3
Total 100 100
age (years) <20 15.5 4.4
20-29 39.9 37.0
30-39 25.1 33.3
40-49 11.4 12.6
50+ 8.1 12.6
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 and 2000 surveys.

The in-depth survey

An in-depth survey was also held among 30 urban-farming households in 2000. These
all met the same conditions as the urban-farming households in the previous survey.
Since the study paid specific attention to low-income households, an additional condi-
tion was introduced, namely that only households from income classes 1 and 2 (i.e. with
a monthly cash income of less than Ksh. 10,000) be included. There appeared to be 74
households meeting all these criteria: 39 crop cultivators (10 randomly selected), 9 live-
stock keepers (all selected) and 25 mixed farmers (11 randomly selected). During the
fieldwork, six households appeared to have moved or refused to participate. These were
replaced by another household in the same category or, in the case of ‘pure’ livestock
keepers, by their nearest neighbour meeting the same criteria. The households were
approached with a semi-structured questionnaire focusing on urban-farming activities
and most were visited twice.

Additional household information

Additional, qualitative information presented in this book was obtained from a number
of sources. The first was the Masters thesis by Nicole Versleijen (2002), which is an
anthropological study with detailed information on five urban-farming households.
Results from the Masters theses by Ernest Nyandwaro and by Correta Odera constitute
the bulk of Chapters 8 and 9, respectively, while findings from the Masters thesis
carried out by Peter King’ori are incorporated in Chapter 7. Another source concerns
some case studies in Samuel Owuor’s PhD study. The free use granted by the authors of
these sources is greatly appreciated.
180 ANNEXES
Table A2.3 Some basic characteristics of the sampled households by survey (%)
1999 2000
(N=) (594) (136)
household size (members) 1 11.3 -.-
2-4 53.7 34.6
5-7 27.9 44.1
8+ 7.1 21.3
Total 100 100
monthly cash income (Ksh.) up to 5,000 53.2 22.1
5,001-10,000 28.6 33.8
10,001-20,000 12.7 28.7
>20,000 5.5 15.4
Total 100 100
sex of household head male 80.3 89.7
female 19.7 10.3
Total 100 100
age of household head <20 2.3 -.-
20-29 29.3 10.3
30-39 35.0 34.6
40-49 20.1 30.1
50-59 10.4 19.9
60+ 2.9 5.1
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 and 2000 surveys.
 ANNEXES 181

Annex 3: The farmers

Table A3.1 Farmers, crop cultivators and livestock keepers in town by cluster, 1998 (%)
households % % urban % urban
cluster housing in sample urban crop cul- livestock
name density (=N) farmers tivators keepers
1 Lake View medium 42 28.6 26.2 7.1
2 Langalanga medium 43 32.6 25.6 11.6
3 Flamingo I low 37 29.7 16.2 18.9
4 Ziwani low 43 25.6 16.3 16.3
5 Milimani low 8 87.5 87.5 75.0
6 Bangladesh medium 39 38.5 25.6 30.8
7 London/Menengai medium 28 71.4 67.9 46.4
8 Kabachia low 39 82.1 82.1 35.9
9 Lanet medium 56 37.5 33.9 17.9
10 Mwariki high 55 27.3 10.9 21.8
11 Rhonda/Sewage medium 23 39.1 34.8 26.1
12 Rhonda/Pondamali high 48 31.3 14.6 18.8
13 Rhonda/Weavers high 38 31.6 23.7 21.1
14 Rhonda/Muslim high 33 15.2 15.2 -.-
15 Rhonda/Kaptembwa high 62 16.1 4.8 14.5
Total 594 35.2 26.9 20.4
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A3.2 Urban farmers and non-farmers: household characteristics (%)

urban non-
farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385)
household size 1 5.3 14.5
(number of members) 2-4 37.3 62.6
5-7 44.5 19.0
8 or more 12.9 3.9
Total 100 100

household income up to 5,000 33.2 64.0

class (Ksh./month) 5,001 - 10,000 36.1 24.6
10,001 - 20,000 21.0 8.2
more than 20,000 9.8 3.2
Total 100 100

house ownership own house 21.5 4.9

rent the house 78.0 94.5
plot keeper 0.5 0.5
Total 100 100

housing density high 27.3 46.5

of estate medium 69.4 53.2
low 3.3 0.3
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.
182 ANNEXES
Table A3.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: characteristics of household heads (%)
urban non-
farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385)
age (years) less than 20 1.4 2.7
20-29 14.5 37.6
30-39 30.9 37.3
40-49 30.0 14.6
50-59 18.4 5.9
60 or more 4.8 1.9
Total 100 100
sex male 84.7 77.9
female 15.3 22.1
Total 100 100
ethnic group Kikuyu 38.8 46.9
Luo 26.3 16.4
Luhya 12.9 20.1
Kalenjin 6.7 5.2
Kisii 7.7 4.2
Kamba 3.8 3.9
Asian 1.9 1.3
others* 1.9 2.0
Total 100 100
type of residence full-time resident 92.3 97.4
regularly absent 7.7 2.6
Total 100 100
marital status single 10.6 22.9
married monogamously 73.6 68.8
married polygamously 8.7 1.8
divorced/separated/widowed 7.2 6.5
Total 100 100
educational level none 1.4 3.1
primary school, up to Standard 4 6.7 5.0
primary school, Standard 5-8 23.9 33.9
secondary school 45.0 47.0
more than secondary school 23.0 11.0
Total 100 100
occupational status regularly employed 40.2 41.3
temporarily employed 3.3 5.2
self-employed 45.5 39.7
casual labourer 7.2 9.4
housewife 1.0 1.6
unemployed/not employed 2.9 2.8
Total 100 100
* Meru (0.5% and 0.8%), Somali (0% and 0.5%), Teso (0 and 0.3%), Maasai (0.5% and 0%), Taita (0% and
0.3%), Mijikenda (0% and 0.3%) and Pare (0.5% and 0%).
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 183
Table A3.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: migration history of household heads (%)
urban non-
farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385)

migration status born in Nakuru town 13.0 13.4

immigrant from within Kenya 85.1 85.9
immigrants from outside Kenya 1.9 0.8
Total 100 100

province of origin Nairobi 1.4 2.7

(immigrants from Central 22.6 22.9
within Kenya only) Rift Valley 21.5 27.1
Western 13.6 22.3
Nyanza 34.5 19.5
Eastern 5.6 4.9
North Eastern -.- 0.3
Coast -.- 0.9
Total 100 100

year to come to Nakuru before 1970 9.0 2.8

(immigrants only) 1970 - 1979 28.1 8.0
1980 - 1989 34.3 29.0
1990 - 1994 20.2 27.8
1995 - 1999 8.4 32.4
Total 100 100

main reason to lack of land in home area 1.7 0.6

come to Nakuru lack of work in home area 0.6 0.6
(immigrants only) to look for work / to work 79.9 75.7
had relatives in Nakuru 7.3 7.0
followed spouse/came with parents 7.2 10.1
schooling/training 1.1 3.3
tribal clashes in home area 1.7 2.4
had a plot in Nakuru 0.5 -.-
health reasons -.- 0.3
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.
184 ANNEXES

Table A3.5 Non-farmers: reasons for not farming in town by type of farming (%)
no crop cultivation no livestock keeping
(N=434) (N=473)
reasons main reasons main
(>100%) reason (>100%) reason

land no access to urban land 85.7 75.6 74.4 62.8

issues plot too far away 0.2 -.- 0.2 0.2
land used by someone else 0.2 0.2 -.- -.-
have access to rural land 8.1 2.3 5.7 1.9
lack of no capital 28.6 9.4 24.1 10.6
other lack of time 7.1 4.4 6.6 4.4
resources no labour available 1.6 0.5 2.7 1.1
legal harassment 1.8 0.2 4.7 1.7
consider- not allowed in town 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2
ations disapprove of it 3.5 0.9 6.3 2.5
landlord disapproves 1.8 -.- 5.1 1.3
neighbours complain 0.5 -.- 0.4 0.4
theft/insecurity 0.9 0.2 2.3 1.9
tribal clashes 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
other not worthwile 5.3 2.5 7.2 5.1
reasons had not thought about it 0.9 0.7 2.5 2.5
crop failure in the past 0.5 0.2 -.- -.-
destruction by animals 0.9 -.- 0.6 0.4
diseases -.- -.- 1.5 1.1
was not in Nakuru 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.7
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A3.6 Rural farmers and non-farmers: household characteristics (%)

rural non-
farmers farmers
(N=366) (N=228)

household size 1 10.4 12.7

(number of members) 2-4 54.4 52.6
5-7 28.1 27.6
8 or more 7.1 7.0
Total 100 100
household up to 5,000 47.8 61.8
income class 5,001 - 10,000 32.1 23.1
(Ksh./month) 10,001 - 20,000 14.2 10.2
more than 20,000 5.9 4.9
Total 100 100
population density high 67.8 58.3
of estate medium 30.6 40.8
low 1.6 0.9
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 185
Table A3.7 Rural farmers and non-farmers: characteristics of household heads (%)
rural non-
farmers farmers
(N=366) (N=228)
age (years) less than 20 2.0 4.5
20-29 31.6 25.1
30-39 32.7 38.1
40-49 21.8 17.0
50-59 10.6 9.9
60 or more 1.4 5.4
Total 100 100
sex male 85.2 74.4
female 14.8 27.6
Total 100 100
ethnic group Kikuyu 36.2 56.6
Luo 24.4 12.7
Luhya 20.8 12.3
Kalenjin 7.7 2.6
Kisii 5.5 5.3
Kamba 4.1 3.5
Asian -.- 3.9
others 1.4 3.1
Total 100 100
type of residence full-time resident 95.6 95.6
regularly absent 4.4 4.4
Total 100 100
marital status single 14.8 24.6
married monogamously 76.4 61.0
married polygamously 4.9 3.1
divorced/separated/widowed 3.8 11.4
Total 100 100
educational level none 0.8 5.3
primary school, up to Standard 4 4.1 7.9
primary school, Standard 5-8 31.0 29.4
secondary school 48.1 43.4
more than secondary school 15.9 14.0
Total 100 100
occupational status regularly employed 46.3 32.2
temporarily employed 4.4 4.8
self-employed 38.6 46.7
casual labourer 7.7 10.1
housewife 0.8 2.2
unemployed/not employed 2.1 4.0
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.
186 ANNEXES

Annex 4: The crops

Table A4.1 Characteristics of urban plots by housing density (%)
high medium low
density density density total
(N=) (35) (138) (7) (180)
location riverside -.- 0.7 -.- 0.6
roadside 2.9 4.5 -.- 4.0
railwayside -.- 10.4 -.- 8.0
under powerline -.- 2.2 -.- 1.7
in own compound 52.9 60.4 100.0 60.6
within estate 29.4 14.2 -.- 16.6
in other estate 11.8 5.2 -.- 6.3
elsewhere 2.9 2.2 -.- 2.3
Total 100 100 100 100
distance to plot in less than 10 minutes 65.7 69.9 100.0 70.0
minutes walking 10-30 minutes 11.4 13.0 -.- 12.2
30-60 minutes 11.4 10.1 -.- 10.0
more than 60 minutes 11.4 7.2 -.- 7.8
Total 100 100 100 100
plot size in m2 <10 11.4 14.5 -.- 13.4
10-49 2.9 21.0 16.7 17.3
50-99 8.6 9.4 -.- 8.9
100-499 28.6 18.8 -.- 20.1
500-999 11.4 8.0 -.- 8.4
1000-4999 34.3 22.5 83.3 26.8
5000+ 2.9 5.8 -.- 5.0
Total 100 100 100 100
ownership of plot own land 57.1 25.5 57.1 33.0
landlord 28.6 50.4 42.9 45.8
government 2.9 17.5 -.- 14.0
other 11.4 6.6 -.- 7.3
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A4.2 Crops cultivated in Nakuru (% of plots; N=180)

maize 61.7 pawpaw 6.1 (mbiriganya) 1.7
kales 61.1 pumpkins 5.6 mavaki (local
beans 56.1 green peas 5.0 vegetable) 1.7
onions 25.0 avocado 3.9 millet 1.7
spinach 20.0 Napier grass 3.9 passion fruit 1.7
tomatoes 19.4 cassava 3.3 American herb 1.1
Irish potatoes 17.8 amaranth (terere) 3.3 mango 1.1
bananas 15.6 black night shade capsicum 0.6
cowpeas 15.6 (managu) 2.8 guava 0.6
spider plant cucumber 2.8 lettuce 0.6
(saget) 11.1 parsley (dhania) 2.8 loquarts 0.6
pepper 7.2 oranges 2.2 mushrooms 0.6
sugarcane 7.2 sweet potatoes 2.2 pineapple 0.6
cabbage 6.1 arrow root 1.7 strawberry 0.6
carrots 6.1 egg plant water melon 0.6
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 187
Table A4.3 Characteristics of urban crop cultivation by person responsible
male wife of female
head male head head
(N=48) (N=88) (N=23)
% households cultivating: maize 72.9 58.0 47.5
beans 70.8 51.1 39.1
kales 54.2 61.4 65.2
spinach 10.4 23.9 21.7
onions 10.4 29.5 30.4
tomatoes 14.6 21.6 17.4
cowpeas 12.5 15.9 17.4
bananas 18.8 10.2 17.4
Irish potatoes 10.4 15.9 8.7
saget 4.2 11.4 13.0
% households using:
- traditional inputsa zero 14.6 12.5 26.1
one 33.3 39.8 26.1
two to three 52.1 47.7 47.8
- modern inputsb zero 22.9 22.7 56.5
one 29.2 37.5 39.1
two to four 47.9 39.8 4.3
- chemical inputsc zero 37.5 50.0 91.3
one 27.1 29.5 4.3
two to three 35.5 20.4 4.3
- irrigation yes 18.8 48.9 52.2
Notes: a) Manure, crop residues and local seeds.
b) Chemical fertiliser, pesticides, insecticides and improved seeds.
c) Chemical fertiliser, pesticides and insecticides.
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A4.4 Problems with crop cultivation in town (%; N=160)

mentioned mentioned
as a as the main
type of problem problem problem
no problem 16.3 16.3
theft of crops 36.6 24.4
inadequate rainfall 35.0 24.4
destruction by animals 23.8 10.0
pests/insects 22.5 8.8
lack of water for irrigation 12.5 9.4
diseases 9.4 2.5
lack of inputs/capital 6.9 1.9
harassment 2.5 -.-
bad quality seeds 1.9 -.-
poor soil 1.3 -.-
lack of space/land 1.3 1.3
lack of labour 0.6 0.6
weeds 0.6 0.6
too much rainfall 0.6 -.-
poor seasonal timing 0.6 -.-
sewage burst 0.6 -.-
Total 100
Source: 1999 survey.
188 ANNEXES

Annex 5: The animals

Table A5.1 Problems with livestock keeping by type of livestock (%)*

large small all
livestock livestock households
(N=; households) (33) (108) (121)
A) Mentioned as problem
- no problem 9.1 11.1 10.7
- diseases 75.8 71.3 71.9
- theft 24.2 20.4 21.5
- lack of feed 27.3 12.0 14.9
- lack of funds/capital 15.2 10.2 10.7
- lack of safe drinking water 24.2 6.5 9.1
- predators 3.0 10.2 9.1
- lack of space 3.3 7.4 6.6
- harassment 12.1 2.8 5.8
- lack of market 6.1 3.7 3.3
- pests/parasites 3.0 1.9 2.5
- lack of labour 6.1 0.9 1.7
- nuisance 3.0 0.9 1.7

B) Mentioned as main problem

- no problem 9.1 11.1 10.7
- diseases 45.5 61.1 57.0
- theft 9.1 7.4 8.3
- lack of feed 12.1 1.9 3.3
- lack of funds/capital 6.1 6.5 6.6
- lack of safe drinking water 9.1 1.9 3.3
- predators -.- 3.7 3.3
- lack of space 3.0 3.7 3.3
- harassment 3.0 -.- 0.8
- lack of market -.- 0.9 0.8
- pests/parasites -.- 1.9 1.7
- lack of labour 3.0 -.- 0.8
- nuisance -.- -.- -.-
Total 100 100 100
* There are 20 households with both large and small livestock, hence the N of the column with
‘all households’ is 121 instead of 141.
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 189

Annex 6: The benefits

Table A6.1 Crops: amounts self-consumed by crop type (N)

amount self-consumed: less small calcu-
about than por- lation
all most half half tion none total (%)

1 kale 48 34 10 8 6 3 109 75
2 maize 45 35 11 2 4 4 101 77
3 beans 51 22 7 3 2 3 94 77
4 onions 22 15 2 2 2 2 45 78
5 spinach 11 12 2 3 5 3 36 62
6 tomatoes 20 8 2 1 - 4 35 78
7 Irish potatoes 19 9 1 - 1 2 32 82
8 cowpeas 16 3 2 - 3 4 28 70
9 bananas 13 3 3 - - 8 27 62
10 saget 8 5 1 2 1 2 19 68
Note: The amounts self-consumed (%) were calculated by translating the qualitative values of the amounts
self-consumed into percentages as follows: all = 100%, most = 75%, about half = 50%, less than half =
30%, small portion = 10%, and none = 0%. N.B.: The percentages are at best indications only.
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A6.2 Calculation of energy from urban crop production

no. of kg. harv- aggregate kcal/kg as aggregate
h’holdsa esteda kgs purchasedb kcal.
1 kale 109 84 9,156 384 3,515,904
2 maize 101 224 22,624 3,630 82,125,120c
3 beans 94 75 7,050 3,390 23,899,500
4 onions 45 26 1,170 187.2 219,024
5 spinach 69 92 6,348 384 2,437,632
6 tomatoes 35 15 525 196 102,900
7 Irish potatoes 32 88 2,816 637.5 1,795,200
8 cowpeas 28 67 1,876 3,400 6,378,400
9 bananas 27 4 108 777.2 83,916
10 saget 19 33 627 224 140,448
11 other crops d 32.7 4,184 2,308 9,656,672
12 total energy produced (1-11) 160 (56,484) 130,354,716
13 daily energy requirement per capita 2,200
14 annual energy requirement per capita (13x365 days) 803,000
15 annual energy requirements per household (14x3.5 persons/household)e 2,810,500
16 annual energy requirements 160 households (15x160 households) 449,680,000
17 annual energy requirements 594 households (15x594 households) 1,669,437,000
18 contribution of urban crop production to energy requirements 160 households (12/16x100%) 29.0%
19 contribution of urban crop production to energy requirements 594 households (12/17x100%) 7.8%
Notes: a. From Table 4.4. b. See Platt 1962.
c. Assuming that weight figures refer to dry mature kernels (100% edible).
d. From Annex 4, Table A4.1. As other crops include 31 items, the aggregate number of house-
holds is not meaningful.
e. Household size of 3.5 calculated as the total population in 1999 (239,000) divided by the total
number of households (68,436). See Kenya 2000.
Source: 1999 survey.
190 ANNEXES

Table A6.3 Urban farmers and non-farmers: general food security issues, 1998 and 1999 (%)
1998 1999
urban non- urban non-
farmers farmers farmers farmers
(N=209) (N=385) (N=71) (N=62)
always food yes, always 93.3 84.9 63.4 69.4
enough last most of the time 3.3 7.0 22.5 24.2
year? about half of the time 1.9 3.4 12.7 1.6
now and then 1.0 4.7 1.4 4.8
never 0.5 -.- -.- -.-
Total 100 100 100 100
most important own urban production 5.3 -.- 1.4 -.-
food source urban + rural production 9.6 -.- -.- -.-
last year urban production + purchased 30.1 -.- 28.8 -.-
purchased 36.8 68.1 61.6 90.3
rural production 0.5 1.3 -.- -.-
rural production + purchased 17.7 29.9 8.2 9.7
donations + purchased -.- 0.8 -.- -.-
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: 1999 and 2000 surveys.
Table A6.4 Urban farmers and non-farmers: energy intake by food group
Mean energy intake Percentage contribution of
Percentage households (kcal/CU/day) each food group to total
consuming food group by food group daily energy intake
UF non-UF Total UF non-UF Total UF non-UF Total
Food group (N=) (74) (61) (135) (74) (61) (135) (74) (61) (135)
Cereal products 100 98.4 99.3 1609 1604 1607 56.3 56.9 56.6
Grain legumes 47.3 39.3 43.7 154 114 136 5.3 4.6 5.0
Roots, tubers & starchy staples 67.6 75.4 71.1 126 139 132 5.0 5.6 5.3
Vegetables 100 100 100 146 144 145 5.9 5.6 5.8
Fruits 10.8 3.3 7.4 9 1 5 0.3 0.0 0.2
Products of animal origin 94.6 98.4 96.3 322 263 295 10.8 10.1 10.5
Seeds & nuts 2.7 1.6 2.2 5 0 3 0.2 0.0 0.1
Oils, fats & margarine 98.6 98.4 98.5 267 292 278 9.4 9.7 9.5
Miscellaneous 97.3 91.8 94.8 194 198 196 6.8 7.4 7.1
Total 2832 2755 2797 100 100 100
Note: UF = urban farmer.
Source: 2000 survey.

Note on consumer units and calculations: see next page.

192 ANNEXES

Note on consumer units and calculations (Table A6.4)

To ensure a meaningful comparison between households, food intake data were related
to household size, not simply measured on a per capita basis but in terms of the number
of “consumer units” (or “adult equivalents”). One consumer unit corresponds to the
daily energy requirements of a young adult male. The energy requirements of an indi-
vidual (according to his/her sex, age, physiological condition and activity pattern) are
expressed as a ratio of this unit. The sum of the individual ratios in the household thus
represents a “physiological” household size in terms of “consumer units” (for a detailed
explanation, see Klaver & Mwadime 1998). In the food consumption questionnaire,
meal participation was recorded for six categories of household members: children
under three years of age, children 3-15 years of age, mother, father, others and visitors.
These were assigned average consumer units as follows: 0.4, 0.7, 0.8, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.8,
respectively. For each dish, the numbers (in consumer units) of household members not
reported to have been eating elsewhere for that meal, and visitors, were added up. The
amount of food in each dish consumed was divided by the number of consumer units.
The idea is that a person skipping a meal but not eating elsewhere is still counted among
those whose food requirements should be met by that household consumption. The
amount of food per consumer unit was converted into amounts of dietary energy (kcal)
in two steps: (i) household measures were converted into grams (based on weightings
done before and during the survey, complemented by conversion data from previous
surveys in Kenya) and (ii) grams were converted into dietary energy value (kcal) using a
food composition table (Platt 1962). The values of all the foods consumed during the
recall period were added up to give the total dietary energy consumed per consumer unit
during this period.
The dietary recall period covered the 48 hours immediately preceding the start of the
interview, i.e. two days’ consumption, also called consumption units (and not to be con-
fused with consumer units). In cases where meals were recorded at household level
before that period (e.g. breakfast or lunch of the day before yesterday), such meals were
omitted from the calculations. When the recall period was shorter than two days due to
missing data, the following deductions were made from the two consumption units: 0.17
for each missed breakfast, 0.33 for each missed lunch and 0.5 for each missed dinner.
Thus, a household-specific denominator was obtained (usually two consumption units,
but fewer in a number of cases due to missing data). The total dietary energy consumed
per consumer unit during the recall period was divided by that denominator to obtain
the estimated amount of dietary energy (kcal) per consumer unit per day in a particular
household.
 ANNEXES 193
Table A6.5 Estimation of profitability of keeping dairy cows: The case of Baba Josephine
Capital costs  animals 1 cow @ sh. 35,000
1 cow @ sh. 25,000
Total sh. 60,000
1
 shed sh. 10,000
2
 milking utensils sh. 5,000
Total sh. 75,000
3
Variable costs  grass:
(per year) ‘rain season’: 244 days * 5 bags = 1220 bags @ 25 sh. = sh. 30,500
‘dry season’: 122 days * 5 bags = 610 bags @ 50 sh. = sh. 30,500
Total sh. 61,000
4
 supplementary feeds: sh. 7,270 per animal per year = sh. 14,540
5
 veterinary drugs: sh. 2,320
 additional check-ups: 200 sh/animal = sh. 400
 milking salve: 100 sh/cow = sh. 200
 one herds boy @ sh. 1,500/month = sh. 18,000
Total sh. 96,460

Income from Cow A: ‘rain season’: 210 days * 15 l/day = 3,150 litres
6
milk sales ‘dry season’: 156 days * 7.5 l/day = 1,170 litres
(per year) Cow B: ‘rain season’: 210 days * 13 l/day = 2,730 litres
‘dry season’: 156 days * 6.5 l/day = 1,014 litres
Total milk production 8,064 litres

Sales: ‘rain season’: 2/3 * 8,064 l = 5,376 l @ 21 sh/l = sh. 112,896

‘dry season’: 1/3 * 8,064 l = 2,688 l @ 25 sh/l = sh. 67,200
Total income from milk sales sh. 180,096
Notes: 1) Maximum costs for a fairly good and easily cleanable structure with a floor of cut stone or
cement and a corrugated iron roof top, i.e. rain and sun proof.
2) Sieve (500 sh.), 10-litre stainless steel milking pail (2,500 sh.), 10-litre milk can
(2,000 sh.).
3) Calculation based on:
 a grass consumption of about 62.5 kg/day/animal
 1 bag = 25 kg of well-stuffed green grass, hence 62.5 kg = 2.5 bags
 ‘rainy season’ = 8 months (244 days), ‘dry season’ = 4 months (122 days)
4) Dairy meal and mineral salts.
5) Includes dipping against ectoparasites (600 sh/animal); endoparasites (360 sh/animal); one
round of vaccination by a private veterinary practioner (200 sh/animal).
6) Calculation based on:
 lactation period of 210 days, i.e. full production; remaining 156 days half production
 total milk production: 2/3 sold in ‘rainy season’, 1/3 sold in ‘dry season’.
Sources: Versleijen 2002: 70-74 and technical information from William Keyah (personal communication,
April 2004).
194 ANNEXES

Annex 7: The support

Table A7.1 Livestock-keeping characteristics by type of assistance (%)

assistance from assistance from no
extension officer* neighbour/relative assistance
(N=) (25) (11) (85)
rearing within compound 52.0 36.4 38.8
system free range 32.0 45.5 55.3
both 16.0 18.2 5.9
Total 100 100 100
used yes 100 100 84.7
inputs? No - - 15.3
Total 100 100 100
types of improved breeds 68.0 18.2 8.2
inputs: veterinary drugs 96.0 45.5 36.5
% yes ethno-veterinary drugs 16.0 54.5 16.5
feed supplements 92.0 81.8 47.1
urban waste as feed 36.0 27.3 18.8
crop residues as feed 68.0 63.6 48.2
food left-overs 12.0 54.5 17.6
disposal of use part or all of it for own crop cultivation 68.0 36.4 43.4
animals’ give part or all of it to neighbours 28.0 27.3 8.4
waste** dump part or all of it in the street 20.0 27.3 37.3
dump part or all of it in dustbins, pits, compound 4.0 27.3 13.3
sell all of it -.- -.- 1.2
* Includes extension officers, programme officers and veterinary officers.
** Total exceeds 100% due to combined answers.
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A7.2 Problems with livestock keeping by type of assistance (%)

assistance from assistance from no
extension officer* neighbour/relative assistance
(N=) (25) (11) (85)
problems? yes 96.0 100 85.9
no 4.0 - 14.1
Total 100 100 100
types of diseases 76.0 81.8 69.4
problems: theft 12.0 9.1 25.9
% yes** lack of feed 36.0 9.1 9.4
lack of funds/capital 12.0 9.1 10.6
lack of safe drinking water 20.0 18.2 4.7
predators 8.0 9.1 9.4
lack of space -.- -.- 9.4
harassment 12.0 9.1 3.5
lack of market 8.0 9.1 1.2
pests/parasites 4.0 9.1 1.2
lack of labour 8.0 -.- -.-
nuisance 4.0 -.- 1.2
* Includes extension officers, programme officers and veterinary officers.
** Total exceeds 100% due to combined answers.
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 195

Table A7.3 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: farming inputs (%)
ARDP non-ARDP
farmers farmers
(N=29) (N=48)
inputs for manure 75.9 77.1
crop cultivation crop residues 24.1 25.0
chemical fertiliser 82.8 91.7
chemical pesticides 60.7 66.7
local seeds/seedlings 64.3 44.7
improved seeds/seedlings 82.8 77.1
irrigation 13.8 21.3
extension services 55.2 20.8

inputs for improved breeds/artificial insemination 48.3 35.0

livestock keeping feed supplements 51.2 66.7
veterinary drugs 82.2 68.8
ethno-veterinary medicines 24.1 17.0
extension services 37.9 39.6
Source: King’ori (forthcoming).

Table A7.4 ARDP farmers and non-ARDP farmers: major problems with farming (%)
ARDP non-ARDP
farmers farmers
(N=29) (N=48)

problems with lack of water 24.1 45.8

crop cultivation crop pests/diseases 13.7 25.0
poor market 24.1 14.6
theft 3.4 -.-

problems with animal diseases 48.3 52.1

livestock keeping lack of fodder 44.8 20.8
high prices of inputs 31.0 20.8
lack of safe drinking water 20.7 14.6
lack of capital 3.4 25.0
lack of space 17.2 8.3
poor market 10.3 12.5
lack of labour 10.3 6.3
theft 6.9 6.3
harassment 3.4 4.2
Source: King’ori (forthcoming).
196 ANNEXES

Annex 8: The environment

Table A8.1 Heavy metal concentrations in the soils by sampling site (mg/l)
Sampling site Zn Pb Cd Hg
WHO standards 50-150 5-10 0.05-0.2 <1
1 Mwariki 29.8 2.5 0.19 0.09
2 Rhonda Sewage 241.0 4.5 0.21 0.10
3 London (dump site) 135.6 4.5 0.51 0.61
4 Lanet Free Area 3.0 1.0 0.09 0.11
5 Rhonda Pondamali 10.0 3.2 0.01 0.07
6 Lanet 6.7 1.0 0.01 0.01
7 Kivumbini 21.1 3.1 0.12 0.30
8 Rhonda Kaptembwa 15.0 2.1 0.09 0.02
9 Kabachia 26.2 1.9 0.08 0.13
10 Rhonda Muslim 31.0 1.1 0.11 0.11
11 Kaloleni 53.5 1.4 0.08 0.14
12 Milimani 3.1 1.8 0.08 0.09
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).

Table A8.2 Heavy metal concentrations in Amaranthus (spinach) by sampling site (mg/l)
Sampling site Zn Pb Cd Hg Observed plant
WHO standards 50-150 5-10 0.05-0.2 <1 characteristics
1 Mwariki 26.8 10.3 0.02 0.10 Leafy, mature plants
2 Rhonda Sewage 210.0 10.0 0.10 0.21 Very green, leafy,
young plants
3 London (dump site) 130.0 4.6 0.09 0.50 Mixture of very
green plants and
withered ones
4 Lanet Free Area 2.5 2.3 0.08 0.09 Healthy plants
5 Rhonda Pondamali 8.0 2.0 0.07 0.08 Fully grown plants
with tiny leaves
6 Lanet 4.6 1.8 0.07 0.01 Healthy plants
7 Kivumbini 17.1 1.8 0.08 0.11 Very leafy, soft,
young plants
8 Rhonda Kaptembwa 9.5 2.0 0.04 0.08 Very green, mature
plants with soft stem
9 Kabachia 4.7 7.8 0.11 0.09 Healthy, mature
plants
10 Rhonda Muslim 2.2 2.3 0.12 0.11 Very green plants
with soft leaves
11 Kaloleni 3.2 2.5 0.07 0.10 Very green, soft,
young plants
12 Milimani 4.1 1.8 0.06 0.05 Healthy young plants
Source: Nyandwaro (forthcoming).
 ANNEXES 197

Annex 9: The schools

Table A9.1 School characteristics
Com-
Area School pound Plot Lunch
Name of income cate- School Farm- size size pro-
school level gory type ing? (acres) (acres) vided?
1 Lanet Secondary pu s d c 20 6.5 l
2 Lanet Primary pu p d c 8 4 -
3 Nakuru East pu p d c 11.5 3 l
4 Rhino pu p d - - - -
5 St. George’s Muthaiti m p d/b c/l 33 25 l
6 Ruth Wangugi pu p d - - - l
7 Nairobi Road pu p d - - - -
8 Shinners Academy m s b c 5 1 l
9 Madaraka m p d c 7 1.5 -
10 Jamuhuri m-h p d - - - l
11 Kisulisuli m p d - - - -
12 Bondeni l-m p d c/l 12 1 l
13 St. Columbus m-h s d/b c 12 2 l
14 St. Michaels m s b - - - l
15 Nakuru High h s d/b l - - l
16 Upper Hill m-h s d c/l 10 2 l
17 Loreto Nakuru m-h s d c 6 2.5 l
18 Rasul al Akram Acad. pu p/s b c/l ? 8 l
19 Lion Hill m p d c 10 0.5 -
20 Hyrax m-h p d c 6 1 -
21 Nakuru Blankets m-h s d/b c 15 3 l
22 Lake Nakuru High m-h s d/d c/l 5 1.5 l
23 Kenyatta m p d - - - -
24 Khalsa High m s d - - - -
25 St. Joseph m p d c 0.9 0.3 l
26 Christ the King Acad. m s b c/l 10 2 l
27 Heshima l p d c 5 0.5 l
28 Kaptembwa l p d c 3 0.5 -
29 Nakuru West l-m p d c 3.8 0.5 l
30 Koinange l-m p d c 2.5 0.125 l
31 St. Nicholas Faith Acad. l-m p d/b c/l 3 0.25 l
32 Kimathi l-m p d - - - -
33 Lake View l-m p d - - - -
34 Pangani p d 8 c 2 - -
35 Langalanga l-m p d - - - -
36 Freehold l-m p d c 5 0.125 l
37 Umoja l-m p d - - - -
38 St. Xavier’s m p d c ? 0.04 l
39 St. Xavier’s m s d c ? 0.08 l
40 Menengai m-h p d l - - l
41 Afraha m s d c ? 0.05 l
42 Kaloleni l-m p d - - - -
43 St. Teresa l p d - - - -
44 Nakuru Primary m p d c 11 4 -
45 Baharini l-m p d - - - -
46 Flamingo l-m s d c 1.5 0.5 l
47 Ngala Special m p d/b c/l 7 3.5 l
>>>
198 ANNEXES
Table A9.1, continued
Com-
Area School pound Plot Lunch
Name of income cate- School Farm- size size pro-
school level gory type ing? (acres) (acres) vided?
48 St. Mary’s m-h p d c 7 2 l
49 Langalanga m s d c 6 1 l
50 Menengai m-h s d c/l 13 2.25 l
51 Race Track m p d - - - -
52 Mwariki l p d - - - -
53 Khalsa m p d c 3 0.5 l
54 Kariba Road m p d - - - l
55 Jull Jeady Girls m s d/b c 2.5 0.75 l
56 Eileen Ngochoch l p d - - - -
57 Kiptenden l p d - - - l
58 Baruti pu p d c 8 0.5 -
59 Archbishop Ndingi Acad. l p d/b - - - l
60 Rhonda l p d c 8 1.5 -
61 Moi Primary h p d c 8 1 l
62 Moi Secondary h s d c/l ? 2 l
63 Prisons p d 10 c 4 -
64 Hill Special h p b c/l 5 0.25 l
65 Milimani h p d - - - -
66 Kenyatta m s d c 2.5 0.5 l
67 Nakuru Day m s d c 20 0.4 l
68 Uhuru pu p d c 10 1 l
69 Crater m-h p d - - - -
70 St. John’s m-h p d - - - -
71 Victonell h p d - - - l
72 Lenana h p d - - - -
73 Malvin Jones m-h p/s d - - - -
74 Flamingo l-m p d - - - -
75 Nakuru West l s d c 8 0.75 l
76 Muslim l-m p d c 3 ? -
77 Park View pu p d - - - l
78 Kigonor pu p d c ? 3 l
79 Kelelwet pu p d - - - l
80 Mama Ngina m p d c 8 0.25 l
KEY:
Area income level l = low School type d = day school
l-m = low to medium b = boarding school
m = medium d/b = both day and boarding
m-h = medium to high
h = high Farming? c = crop cultivation
pu = peri-urban l = livestock keeping

School category p = primary Lunch provided? l = yes

s = secondary
p/s = both primary and secondary

Source: Odera (forthcoming).

 ANNEXES 199

Annex 10: The poor

Table A10.1 All households: household size by income class (%)
up to more than
Ksh. 5,000 Ksh. 10,000
(N=310) (N=106)
1 member 17.4 1.9
2-4 members 59.7 34.9
5-7 members 18.4 49.1
8 or more members 4.5 14.2
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A10.2 Non-farming households: reasons for not farming in town by type of farming and
income class (%)
crop cultivation livestock keeping
<=5,000 >10,000 <=5,000 >10,000
(N=267) (N=50) (N=267) (N=50)

land no access to urban land 86.5 82.0 76.8 72.5

issues have access to rural land 5.6 16.0 4.1 10.1
lack of no capital 33.7 14.0 32.2 7.2
other lack of time 6.4 10.0 5.2 10.1
resources no labour available 1.9 -.- 2.6 7.2
legal harassment 2.2 2.0 3.0 11.6
consider- not allowed in town -.- 4.0 -.- 1.4
ations disapprove of it 2.6 12.0 3.4 15.9
landlord disapproves 1.9 -.- 4.1 7.2
neighbours complain -.- -.- 0.4 1.4
theft/insecurity 1.9 -.- 2.6 1.4
other not worthwhile 3.7 10.0 6.0 7.2
reasons had not thought about it 0.4 2.0 1.5 2.9
destruction by animals 0.7 -.- 0.7 1.4
diseases -.- -.- 2.2 1.4
was not in Nakuru 2.6 -.- 2.2 -.-
Note: Total exceeds 100%.
Source: 1999 survey.
200 ANNEXES
Table A10.3 Rural-farming households: rural-farming characteristics by income class (%; plots)
up to Ksh. 5,000 more than Ksh. 10,000
(N=216) (N=98)
Plot size* less than 1 20.8 12.2
(acres) 1 - 1.9 28.7 19.4
2 - 4.9 31.0 30.6
5 – 9.9 13.9 19.4
10+ 5.6 18.4
Total 100 100
Who uses plot? myself 49.1 71.0
other family 38.4 19.0
somebody else 8.1 5.0
nobody 4.5 5.0
Total 100 100
Importance of food source 37.2 30.6
rural plot income source 7.2 8.2
food and income source 35.9 43.9
no food and/or income source 19.7 17.3
Total 100 100
* Average plot sizes are 3.0 and 6.2 acres, respectively.
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A10.4 Urban crop cultivators: plot characteristics by income class (%; plots)
up to Ksh. 5,000 more than Ksh. 10,000
(N=46) (N=61)
location riverside -.- 1.6
roadside 8.7 3.3
railway side 13.0 -.-
under power line 4.3 -.-
in own compound 45.7 68.9
within estate 17.4 21.3
in other estate 10.9 3.3
elsewhere -.- 1.6
Total 100 100
distance to plot less than 10 minutes 58.0 83.6
(minutes walking) 10-30 minutes 26.0 8.2
30-60 minutes 10.0 6.6
more than 60 minutes 6.0 1.6
Total 100 100
plot size in m2 <50 38.0 26.2
50-99 6.0 13.1
100-499 14.0 21.3
500-999 12.0 8.2
1000+ 30.0 31.1
Total 100 100
ownership of plot own land 20.4 47.5
landlord 49.0 41.0
government 16.3 6.6
other 10.2 4.9
don’t know 4.1 -.-
Total 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 201
Table A10.5 Urban crop cultivators: characteristics of crop cultivation by income class
up to Ksh. 5,000 more than Ksh. 10,000
(N=43) (N=56)
% households cultivating … maize 79.1 58.9
beans 74.4 50.0
kales 58.1 75.0
spinach 20.9 28.6
onions 25.6 28.6
tomatoes 11.6 28.6
cowpeas 16.3 19.6
bananas 7.0 23.2
irish potatoes 23.3 21.4
saget 9.3 16.1
person responsible for household head 51.2 19.6
crop cultivation spouse 41.9 53.6
other household member 4.6 14.3
hired labour -.- 3.6
other 2.3 1.8
Total 100 100
crop cultivation full-time occupation? (% yes) 25.6 10.7
used hired labour for crop cultivation? (% yes) 18.6 35.7
% households using … chemical fertiliser 41.9 41.1
manure as fertiliser 41.9 66.1
crop residue as fertiliser 20.9 41.1
urban waste as fertiliser -.- 3.6
chemical pesticides 32.6 35.7
chemical insecticides 11.6 10.7
local seeds/seedlings 60.5 71.4
improved seeds/seedlings 53.5 64.3
irrigation 23.3 57.1
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A10.6 Urban crop cultivators: problems with crop cultivation by income class (%)
up to Ksh. 5,000 more than Ksh. 10,000
(N=43) (N=56)
no problem 18.6 16.1
theft of crops 44.2 33.9
inadequate rainfall 30.2 26.8
destruction by animals 23.3 17.9
pests/insects 23.3 23.2
lack of water for irrigation 4.7 17.9
diseases 7.0 12.5
lack of inputs/capital 11.6 8.9
harassment 2.3 -.-
bad quality seeds -.- 1.8
poor soil 2.3 1.8
lack of space/land -.- 3.6
lack of labour 2.3 -.-
weeds -.- 1.8
too much rainfall -.- 1.8
poor seasonal timing -.- 1.8
sewage burst -.- 1.8
Note: Totals exceed 100%. Source: 1999 survey.
202 ANNEXES
Table A10.7 Urban livestock keepers: characteristics of livestock keeping by income class (%)
up to more than
Ksh. 5,000 Ksh. 10,000
(N=43) (N=37)
% households keeping* … cattle 11.6 37.8
sheep 4.7 10.8
goats 7.0 21.6
pigs -.- -.-
chicken 90.7 78.4
ducks 9.3 -.-
rabbits 2.3 -.-
doves 2.3 -.-
turkeys -.- 8.1
rearing system within compound 35.9 48.3
free range 64.1 44.8
both -.- 6.9
Total 100 100
person responsible for household head 48.8 27.0
livestock keeping spouse 48.8 62.2
other household member -.- 5.4
hired labour/herds boy 2.3 5.4
Total 100 100
livestock keeping full-time occupation? (% yes) 18.6 16.2
used hired labour for livestock keeping? (% yes) 14.0 43.2
% households using … improved breeds 9.3 40.5
veterinary drugs 23.3 81.1
feed supplements 39.5 86.5
urban waste as feed 20.9 24.3
crop residues as feed 53.5 62.2
ethno-veterinary drugs 23.3 13.5
food left-overs 23.3 13.5
disposal of the use part or all for own crop cultivation 25.6 70.3
animals’ waste* give part or all to neighbours 9.3 16.2
dump part or all in the street 48.8 16.2
dump part or all in compound/pit 16.3 5.4
sell all of it -.- 2.7
not accumulated 4.7 -.-
* Total exceeds 100%.
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 203
Table A10.8 Urban livestock keepers: problems with livestock keeping by income class (%)
up to more than
Ksh. 5,000 Ksh. 10,000
(N=43) (N=37)
no problem 11.6 5.4
diseases 69.8 83.8
theft 18.6 24.3
lack of feed 11.6 18.9
lack of funds/capital 9.3 10.8
lack of safe drinking water 9.3 16.2
predators 7.9 10.8
lack of space 14.0 -.-
harassment 9.3 8.1
lack of market 2.3 8.1
pests/parasites -.- 2.7
lack of labour -.- 2.7
nuisance -.- 2.7
Note: Totals exceed 100%.
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A10.9 Urban farming households: general food security issues by type of farming and
income class (%)
crop cultivation livestock keeping
=<Ksh. >Ksh. =<Ksh. >Ksh.
5,000 10,000 5,000 10,000
(N=43) (N=56) (N=43) (N=37)
Reasons to needed food 95.3 100 90.7 86.5
farm in town* needed income 16.3 10.7 30.2 27.0
to diversify income 16.3 5.4 20.9 35.1
hobby/custom 4.7 12.5 7.0 10.8
other reasons 4.7 -.- -.- -.-

Importance of could not survive without it 14.0 7.1 2.3 2.7

urban farming* major food source 20.9 16.1 16.3 16.2
major income source 4.7 -.- 11.6 8.1
additional food source 55.8 73.2 53.5 48.7
additional income source 9.3 5.4 23.3 27.0
could do without it 2.3 3.6 4.7 5.4
* Total exceeds 100%.
Source: 1999 survey.
204 ANNEXES
Table A10.10 Urban farming households: general food security issues by year and income
class (%)
1998 1999
=<Ksh. >Ksh. =<Ksh. >Ksh.
5,000 10,000 5,000 10,000
(N=68) (N=63) (N=13) (N=29)
Always enough yes always 88.2 96.8 23.1 75.9
to eat? most of the time 7.4 1.6 46.2 10.3
about half of the time 1.5 -.- 23.1 13.8
now and then 2.9 -.- 7.7 -.-
never -.- 1.6 -.- -.-
Total 100 100 100 100
Most important own urban production 5.9 6.3 -.- 3.2
food source urban + rural production 8.8 17.5 -.- -.-
in 1998 urban production + purchased 26.5 25.4 15.4 32.3
urban production, rural
production + purchased -.- 1.6 -.- -.-
purchased 42.6 33.3 84.6 48.4
rural production -.- 1.6 -.- -.-
rural production + purchased 16.2 14.3 -.- 16.1
Total 100 100 100 100
(N=43) (N=56) (N=10) (N=26)
Contribution of most of the food 20.9 14.3 10.0 7.7
urban crop about half of the food 39.5 17.9 10.0 15.4
cultivation to less than half of the food 14.0 23.2 20.0 23.1
household food small portion 25.6 32.1 40.0 46.2
consumption negligible -.- 10.7 -.- 7.7
none -.- 1.8 20.0 -.-
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: 1999 survey.

Table A10.11 Characteristics of urban plots by sex of household head (%)

male female
(N=; plots) (153) (26)
size of plot (m2) <100 38.6 46.2
100-999 26.8 38.4
1000+ 34.6 15.3
Total 100 100
location of plot in own compound 59.7 65.4
within residential estate 15.4 23.1
elsewhere 24.9 11.5
Total 100 100
ownership of plot own land 32.7 34.6
landlord 45.1 50.0
government land 15.7 3.8
other 6.5 11.6
Total 100 100
distance to plot <10 minutes walking 67.5 88.5
Source: 1999 survey.
 ANNEXES 205

Annex 11: Results of the NUAP workshop,

27-28 November 2002

In November 2002, a two-day workshop was held in Nakuru town. The aim was three-
fold: (1) to present the results of the various NUAP studies to the local stakeholders, (2)
to discuss the practices of urban agriculture in Nakuru Municipality and formulate
possible improvements, and (3) to discuss policy and planning issues concerning urban
agriculture in Nakuru Municipality and formulate recommendations. This annex con-
tains a summary of the latter two objectives.1

Possible improvements of urban agriculture in Nakuru Municipality

Type of Practices/- Possible
farming methods Problems improvements
crop road - insecurity - train farmers on
cultivation reserves - obstruction alternative methods
- contamination of farming
undeveloped plots, - losses - encourage sausage
open spaces farming
developed - parasites and - multi-storey farming
plots diseases - short plants requiring
minimum distances
river banks - soil erosion - educate farmers
- chemical pollution
- diversion of river
- loss of biodiversity
near/along sewer - costly - rehabilitation of the
works - public health sewage system
concerns - more research on
health hazards
- need for more
sensitisation

Continues on next page

1
Annex 11 is based on the workshop report compiled by Samson W. Mwangi who is gratefully
acknowledged for that.
206 ANNEXES

Type of Practices/- Possible

farming methods Problems improvements
large free range - safety hazards - zoning
livestock - nuisance - ban in built-up areas
- pollution - restrict to own land
- destructive
- health problems
- MCN by-laws
zero-grazing - cost of feed - link with crop
- waste disposal cultivation
- hygiene - mobilisation for
- labour composting
poultry free range - losses, e.g. theft - extension services
predators, diseases, - enclose
poor production - alternative low-cost
feeds
- sensitisation
enclosed - waste disposal - link with crop
- initial capital cultivators
- feeding, low labour - cooperative farming
- nuisance, noise - explore cheap
- easy to steal enclosure costs
- hygiene - proper timing
- marketing
small free range or - sharing room with - educate farmers
livestock enclosed the family - educate on the
- health concerns usefulness of rearing
rabbits (little space
needed)

Policy and planning recommendations

The discussion concerning policy and planning recommendations was guided by four
“entry points for planning and policy issues in urban agriculture”, as formulated by
Shingirayi Mushamba2 in his keynote address to the workshop (Mushamba 2002: 3-5):
1) Official policy and planning controls exist for urban agriculture, but such controls are in-
creasingly a minor part of the full urban agriculture ‘industry’.
2) A certain paralysis can be observed in the progress to integrate urban agriculture, espe-
cially at the planning level. (…) Local officials have heard, have seen urban agriculture,
and most officials either do it or see it every day, but not much has been done to integrate
urban agriculture into current plans (such as Localising Agenda 21).
3) Changes in policy have far lagged behind practice on the ground and policy changes have
not been followed by changes in planning practice. (…) Urban agriculture has been in
existence in spite of denials by policy makers and planners. (…) Although there have

2
Senior Programme Officer and Urban Agriculture Programme Coordinator, Municipal Devel-
opment Partnership (MDP), Harare.
 ANNEXES 207
been some policy shifts (…) these were not followed by the necessary planning changes
(as was the case in other small-scale industrial sectors).
4) In most countries in the East African region, there exists no comprehensive policy specifi-
cally geared towards urban agriculture. (…) There is no coherent view among the differ-
ent municipal departments on urban agriculture, its role, its negative and positive impacts
and about how it should be regulated, which makes it more complicated to reach consen-
sus.

During the discussions, it was observed that the current policies are outdated with
respect to the dynamics of urban agriculture. There is a discrepancy between policy and
practice and there is no clarity in terms of actual policy regarding farming in town:
The Local Government Act and the Agriculture Act seem to contradict each other in
issues related to urban agriculture.
Operational definitions as contained in various legislations do not render sufficient
weight to urban agriculture. The preference is on other types of urban development.
The Physical Planning Act deals with development and control of physical infra-
structure and does not talk about agriculture at all. There is no provision for urban agri-
culture in the Nakuru Strategic Structure Plan, a blueprint to guide development in
Nakuru until the year 2025. In spite of that, there is plenty of opportunity through area-
based action plans to incorporate urban agriculture.
The presence of urban agriculture within Nakuru Municipality is acknowledged, but
there is a lack of policy to support it. Urban agriculture will continue to grow but will
change its nature determined by the growth of the built environment.
There is likely to be competition between different types of land use in the town and
there might be a reduction in urban agriculture in the future as other physical develop-
ments will continue. On-plot agriculture is likely to replace peri-urban farming. There
will be a tendency to move towards different types of urban agriculture, especially
where there is limited space, e.g. roof-top farming, use of containers and use of space
along the highways.
There is need for a mechanism to control and monitor urban agriculture projects in all
human settlements.

The following recommendations were formulated:

There is need to control urban agriculture and make the situation better for those who
rely on urban farming as a means of livelihood. Therefore, policies are required that will
link urban agriculture with other means of livelihood. There is need to create zones in
some places that could be utilised for urban agriculture, especially in the non-productive
areas. Proper zoning, regulations and guidelines need to be put in place, especially on
what to produce and where.
There is also need to control and manage adverse effects of urban farming. Appropri-
ate legal guidelines should be put in place and a very clear policy in urban agriculture
should be formulated by all stakeholders. There should be proper consultations of all
actors and there is need for awareness raising.
208 ANNEXES

The Ministry of Agriculture and the Municipal Council should educate people
involved in urban agriculture and there is need for awareness raising on space optimisa-
tion and appropriate production methods.
There is need for guidelines for waste management that is generated by urban farm-
ing activities. There is also need for waste management strategies by the local govern-
ment.
Local authorities and other policy-making institutions need to look at urban agricul-
ture as an important economic activity. Research and training institutions need to raise
awareness on both the benefits and the adverse effects of farming in town.
There is need to have a multi-stakeholder task force in the Municipal Council of
Nakuru (MCN) to deal with issues related to urban agriculture. Urban farmers should
also be included in this task force.
Zonal Development Committees need to discuss urban farming activities within their
respective zones and develop strategies how to undertake such activities.
A follow-up meeting of the workshop should be made by the NUAP team to the
MCN and other stakeholders and this should be done when the new Council is consti-
tuted.
References

AJAEGBU, H.I., D. GROSSMAN & L.M. VAN DEN BERG (2000), Market gardening, urban
growth and sustainable income generation on the Jos Plateau, Nigeria. Amsterdam:
Royal Tropical Institute, NIRP Research for Policy Series No.3.
AMEND, J. & E. MWAISANGO (1998), Status of soil contamination and soil fertility –
The case of urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam: Urban
Vegetable Promotion Project.
ARDP (1998), Quarterly Report 2. Nakuru: Catholic Diocese of Nakuru,
Agriculture and Rural Development Programme.
ARMAR-KLEMESU, M. (2000), Urban agriculture and food security, nutrition and health.
In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the
policy agenda, pp. 99-118. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für
internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
ARMAR-KLEMESU, M. & D. MAXWELL (2000), Accra: Urban agriculture as an asset
strategy, supplementing income and diets. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities,
growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, pp. 183-208. Feldafing
(Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
ATAKUNDA, G. & D. MAXWELL (1996), Farming in the City of Kampala: Issues in
urban management. African Urban Quarterly 11(2-3): 261-272.
ATEKA, E. (1999), Farm Management Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi,
personal communication.
BAKKER, N., M. DUBBELING, S. GUENDEL, U. SABEL-KOSCHELLA & H. DE ZEEUW, eds.
(2000), Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda.
Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
BAXTER, J. (1994), Urban agriculture in South Africa: General perspectives and local
experience. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.
BEALL, J. (2002), Living in the present, investing in the future – Household security
among the urban poor. In C. Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-Jones, eds, Urban livelihoods: A
people-centred approach to reducing poverty, pp. 71-87. London: Earthscan
Publications.
BEBBINGTON, A. (1999), Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant
viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 17(12): 2021-2044.
BIGSTEN, A. & S. KAYIZZI-MUGERWA (1992), Adaption and distress in the urban
economy: A study of Kampala households. World Development 20(10): 1423-1441.
BLAIKIE, P., T. CANNON, I. DAVIS & B. WISNER (1994), At risk. Natural hazards,
people’s vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.
BOWYER-BOWER, T.A.S. (2002), Environmental consequences of illegal urban
agriculture in African cities. Paper presented at the Fifth International Eco-City
Conference, Shenzhen, China, August 19-23, 2002.
BOWYER-BOWER, T.A.S. & D. DRAKAKIS-SMITH (1996), The needs of the urban poor
versus environmental conservation: Conflict in urban agriculture. Final Report of
ODA/ESCOR Project R5946. London: Overseas Development Administration.
210 REFERENCES
BROCK, B. (1999), Actual and potential contribution of urban agriculture to
environmental sanitation: A case study in Cotonou. In O. Smith, ed., Urban
agriculture in West Africa: Contributing to food security and urban sanitation, pp.
126-137. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
BROCK, B. & D. FOEKEN, D. (2005), Urban horticulture for a better environment. A
case-study of Cotonou, Benin. Habitat International (yet to be published).
BROWN, A. & T. LLOYD-JONES (2002), Spatial planning, access and infrastructure. In C.
Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-Jones, eds, Urban livelihoods: A people-centred approach to
reducing poverty, pp. 188-204. London: Earthscan Publications.
BURGESS, R., M. CARMONA & T. KOLSTEE (1996), Contemporary urban strategies and
urban design in developing countries. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Directorate General International Cooperation.
BYERLEY, A. (1996), Urban agriculture in Botswana: A preliminary investigation of
extent, issues and potential (a minor field study). Uppsala: Swedish University of
Agricultral Sciences.
CARNEY, D. (1998), Implementing the sustainable rural livelihood approach. In D.
Carney, ed., Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make?, pp. 3-
23. London: Department for International Development (DFID).
CARNEY, D. (1999), Social capital. Key sheets for sustainable livelihoods. Policy
planning and implementation. London: DFID/ODI
(http://www.oneworld.org/odi/keysheets)
CHAMBERS, R. (1983), Rural development: Putting the last first. Harlow: Longman.
CHAMBERS, R. (1995), Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality counts? Brighton:
University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.
CHAMBERS, R. & G. CONWAY (1992), Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts
for the 21st century. Brighton: University of Sussex, Institute of Development
Studies, Discussion Paper 296.
CORNISH, G. (2002a), Informal irrigated production in peri-urban Nairobi and Kumasi.
Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy Implications of
Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May, 2002.
CORNISH, G. (2002b), contribution to e-conference on the use of untreated urban waste
water in agriculture, June 24, 2002.
DEELSTRA, T. & H. GIRARDET (2000), Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In: N.
Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy
agenda, pp. 43-66. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für internationale
Entwicklung (DSE).
DE HAAN, L.J. (2000), Livelihood, locality and globalisation. Nijmegen: Nijmegen
University Press.
DE HAAN, L. & A. ZOOMERS (2003), Development geography at the crossroads of
livelihood and globalisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
94(3), 350-362.
DE MEULDER, B. (1998), Nakuru, a patchwork. From colonial outpost to East African
town. In: B. de Meulder et al., Nakuru. An African town, pp. 13-34. Leuven: City of
Leuven/Catholic University.
DENNERY, P. (1995), Inside urban agriculture: an exploration of food producer
decision making in a Nairobi low income area. Wageningen: Agricultural
University (MSc thesis).
 REFERENCES 211
DENNERY, P. (1996), Urban producers’ decision-making in Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya.
African Urban Quarterly 11(2-3): 189-200.
DEVAS, N. (2002), Urban livelihoods – Issues for urban governance and management.
In: C. Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-Jones, eds., Urban livelihoods: A people-centred
approach to reducing poverty, pp. 205-221. London: Earthscan Publications.
DE ZEEUW, H., S. GUENDEL & H. WAIBEL (2000), The integration of agriculture in urban
policies. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture
on the policy agenda, pp. 161-180. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für
internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
DIALLO, S. (1993), Urban agriculture research in West Africa: Record, capacities and
opportunities. Ottawa: IDRC, Cities Feeding People Series, Report no. 5.
DONGUS, S. (2000), Vegetable production on open spaces in Dar es Salaam – Spatial
changes from 1992 to 1999. Dar es Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
DRAKAKIS-SMITH, D. (1992), Strategies for meeting basic food needs in Harare. In J.
Baker and P. O. Pedersen, eds., The Rural-Urban Interface in Africa: Expansion and
Adaptation, pp. 258-283. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
DRAKAKIS-SMITH, D., T.A.S. BOWYER-BOWER & D. TEVERA (1995), Urban poverty and
urban agriculture: An overview of the linkages in Harare. Habitat International
19(2): 183-194.
DRESCHER, A.W. (1996), Urban microfarming in central Southern Africa: A case study
of Lusaka, Zambia. African Urban Quarterly 11(2-3): 226-245.
DUCHHART, I. & F. GROOTENHUIS (1993), Urban agriculture, incentive planning and
Green Towns. Urban Perspectives, 4(1): 9-10.
EBERHARD, R. (1989), Urban agriculture: The potential in Cape Town: Literature
review. City of Cape Town: Town Planning Branch, Working Paper 89/E2.
EGAL, F., A. VALSTAR & S. MEERSHOEK (2001), Urban agriculture, household food
security and nutrition in Southern Africa. Paper presented at the Sub-Regional
Expert Consultation “Urban and Peri-Urban Horticulture in Southern African
Countries”, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 16-18 January 2001.
EGZIABHER, A.G. (1994), Urban farming, cooperatives, and the urban poor in Addis
Ababa. In A.G. Egziabher et al., Cities feeding people: An examination of urban
agriculture in East Africa, pp. 85-104. Nairobi/Ottawa: IDRC.
EGZIABHER, A.G., D. LEE-SMITH, D.G. MAXWELL, P.A. MEMON, L.J. MOUGEOT & C.J.
SAWIO (1994), Cities feeding people. An examination of urban agriculture in East
Africa. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
ELLIS, F. (2000), Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
ENDA-ZIMBABWE (1996), Urban agriculture in Harare: Results and recommendations
of a household survey conducted in Harare. Harare: ENDA-Zimbabwe.
FOEKEN, D. (2005), Urban agriculture in East Africa as a tool for poverty reduction: A
legal and policy dilemma? Leiden: African Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper 65.
FOEKEN, D. & A.M. MWANGI (1998), Does access to land have a positive impact on the
food situation of the urban poor? A case-study in Nairobi. East African Social
Science Research Review, 14(1): 19-32.
FOEKEN, D. & A.M. MWANGI (2000), Increasing food security through urban farming in
Nairobi. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture
on the policy agenda, pp. 303-328. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für
internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
212 REFERENCES
FOEKEN, D. & S.O. OWUOR (2000a), Urban farmers in Nakuru, Kenya. Leiden: African
Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper no. 45 (also on
www.cityfarmer.org/nakuru.html)
FOEKEN, D. & S.O. OWUOR (2000b), Livestock in a middle-sized East-African town:
Nakuru. Urban Agriculture Magazine 1(2): 20-22.
FOEKEN, D. & S.O. OWUOR (2001), Multi-spatial livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Rural farming by urban households — The case of Nakuru town, Kenya. In M. de
Bruijn, R. van Dijk & D. Foeken, eds., Mobile Africa: Changing patterns of
movement in Africa and beyond, pp. 125-140. Leiden: Brill.
FOEKEN, D., S.O. OWUOR & W. KLAVER (2002), Crop cultivation in Nakuru town,
Kenya: Practice and potential. Leiden: African Studies Centre, ASC Working Paper
no. 50 (also on http://www.ascleiden.nl/pdf/workingpaper50.pdf).
FOEKEN, D., M. SOFER & M. MLOZI (2004), Urban agriculture in Tanzania: Issues of
sustainability. Leiden: African Studies Centre, Research Report 75.
FREEMAN, D.B. (1991), A city of farmers: Informal urban agriculture in the open
spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. Toronto: McGill University Press.
FREEMAN, D.B. (1993), Survival strategy or business training ground? The significance
of urban agriculture for the advancement of women in African cities. African Studies
Review, 36(3): 1-22.
GATHURU, P.K. (1993), Women in sustainable urban improvement: Urban farming in an
informal settlement of Nairobi. Urban Perspectives 4(1): 14-24.
GBADEGESIN, A.S. (1991), Farming in the urban environment of a developing nation. A
case study from Ibadan metropolis in Nigeria. The Environmentalist 11: 105-111.
GEFU, J.O. (1992), Part-time farming as an urban survival strategy: A Nigerian case
study. In: J. Baker & P.O. Pedersen, eds., The rural-urban interface in Africa:
Expansion and adaptation, pp. 295-302. Uppsala: The Scandinavian Institute of
African Studies.
GONZALEZ NOVO, M. & C. MURPHY (2000), Urban agriculture in the City of Havana: A
popular response to a crisis. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food.
Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, pp. 329-347. Feldafing (Germany):
Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
GUMBO, D. & T.W. NDIRIPO (1996), Open space cultivation in Zimbabwe: A case study
of Greater Harare. African Urban Quarterly 11(2-3): 210-214.
HOON, P., N. SINGH & S. WANMALI (1997), Sustainable livelihoods: Concepts,
principles and approaches to indicator development. New York: UNDP, Bureau for
Development Policy, Social Development and Poverty Eradication Division,
Discussion Paper (http://www.undp.org/sl/publication/ind2.htm)
ISIKA, M., F.M. RUGENYI, E. MUTISYA & M. GATHUMBI (2002), Review of current
situation on urban and peri-urban aghriculture in Nairobi. Paper presented at the
Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy Implications of Enhancing Food Security in
African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May, 2002.
JACOBI, P. (1997), Importance of vegetable production in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Dar
es Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
JACOBI, P., J. AMEND & S. KIANGO (2000), Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam:
Providing an indispensable part of the diet. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities,
growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, pp. 257-283. Feldafing
(Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
 REFERENCES 213
JONES, S. (1999), Defining urban poverty: An overview. In S. Jones & N. Nelson, eds.,
Urban poverty in Africa. From understanding to alleviation, pp. 9-15. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
KAAG, M., R. VAN BERKEL, J. BRONS, M. DE BRUIJN, H. VAN DIJK, L. DE HAAN, G.
NOOTEBOOM & A. ZOOMERS (2004), Ways forward in livelihood research. In: D.
Kalb, W. Pansters & H. Siebers, eds., Globalization and development: Themes and
concepts in current research, pp. 49-74. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
KANJI, N. (1995), Gender, poverty and economic adjustment in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Environment and Urbanization 7(1), 37-55.
KANJI, N. (1996), Review of urbanization issues affecting children and women in the
eastern and southern African region. New York: Unicef.
KARANJA, Mr. (1994, 1999), Training Commandant of Nairobi City Council Training
School, personal communication.
KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1970), Kenya population census 1969, Vol. 1. Nairobi:
Government Printer.
KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1981), Kenya population census 1979, Vol. 1. Nairobi:
Government Printer.
KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1994), Kenya population census 1989, Vol. 1. Nairobi:
Government Printer.
KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (2000), Economic survey 2000. Nairobi: Government Printer.
KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (2001), Poverty reduction strategy paper for the period 2001-
2004. Nairobi: Ministry of Finance and Planning.
KIANGO, S. & T. LIKOKO (1996), Vegetable production on open spaces in Dar esSalaam
city. Dar es Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
KING’ORI, P. (forthcoming), Food security, child nutritional status and incomes of
urban farming households in Nakuru town, Kenya: A comparative study. Nairobi:
University of Nairobi, Applied Nutrition Programme, MSc thesis.
KLAVER, W. & R.K.N. MWADIME (1998), Food consumption and nutrition in the Kenya
Coast. Leiden: African Studies Centre, Working Paper 31.
KULSHRETSTHA, N. (1998), Nakuru. An African town today. In: B. de Meulder et al.,
Nakuru. An African town, pp. 35-74. Leuven: City of Leuven/Catholic University.
LADO, C. (1990), Informal urban agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya: Problem or resource in
development and land use policy planning. Land Use Policy, July 1990: 257-266.
LEE-SMITH, D., M. MANUNDU, D. LAMBA & P.K. GATHURU (1987), Urban food
production and the cooking fuel situation in urban Kenya. Nairobi: Mazingira
Institute.
LEE-SMITH, D. & P.A. MEMON (1994), Urban agriculture in Kenya. In: A.G. Egziabher
et al., Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa, pp.
67-84. Nairobi/Ottawa: IDRC.
LOURENÇO-LINDELL, I. (1996), How do the urban stay alive? Food production in a
squatter settlement of Bissau. African Urban Quarterly 11(2-5): 163-168.
MARTIN, A., N. OUDWATER & K. MEADOWS (2000), Urban agriculture and the
livelihoods of the poor in Southern Africa. Paper presented at the international
symposium on “Urban agriculture and horticulture: The linkage with urban
planning”, Berlin, Domäne Dalem, 7-9 July 2000.
MATSHALAGA, N. (1996), “I am hungry mum!” Gender, urban food security and coping
strategies. SAFERE, 2(1): 58-77.
214 REFERENCES
MAXWELL, D. (1994), The household logic of urban farming in Kampala. In: A.G.
Egziabher et al., Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East
Africa, pp. 47-65. Nairobi/Ottawa: IDRC.
MAXWELL, D. (1995), Alternative food security strategy: A household analysis of urban
agriculture in Kampala. World Development 23(10): 1669-1681.
MAXWELL, D. & T. FRANKENBERGER (1992), Household food security: concepts,
indicators, measurements. A technical review. New York/Rome: UNICEF/IFAD.
MBAYE, A. & P. MOUSTIER (2000), Market-oriented urban agriculture production in
Dakar. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture
on the policy agenda, pp. 235-256. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für
internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
MBIBA, B. (1995), Urban agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for urban management
and poverty. Aldershot: Avebury.
MBIBA, B. (2000), Urban agriculture in Harare: Between suspicion and repression. In:
N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy
agenda, pp. 285-301. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche Stiftung für internationale
Entwicklung (DSE).
MCN (1999), Strategic Nakuru Structure Plan. Action plan for sustainable urban
development of Nakuru town and its environs. Nakuru: Municipal Council of
Nakuru (Final draft).
MEIKLE, S. (2002), The urban context and poor people. In: C. Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-
Jones, eds., Urban livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing poverty, pp.
37-51. London: Earthscan Publications.
MEME, M.M. (1996), Nutrient intake and nutritional status of children in a school with
and without a feeding programme in Nyambene District, Kenya. Nairobi: University
of Nairobi, Applied Nutrition Programme, MSc thesis.
MEMON, P.A. & D. LEE-SMITH (1993), Urban agriculture in Kenya. Canadian Journal
of African Studies 27(1): 25-42.
MIANDA, G. (1996), Women and garden produce of Kinshasa: The difficult quest for
autonomy. In: Parvin Gharayshi & Claire Belanger, eds., Women, work and gender
relations in developing countries. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
MIRERI, C. (2002), The implication of planning & management on urban agriculture in
Kenya: Opportunities and challenges. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on
“Urban Policy Implications of Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi,
27-31 May, 2002.
MITLIN, D. (2003), Addressing urban poverty through strengthening assets. Habitat
International 27(2003): 393-406.
MKAWALE, S. (2000), Nakuru rivers writhing under massive sludge. East African
Standard, September 25, 2000, “The Big Issue”, p. 3.
MLOZI, M.R.S. (1996), Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam: Its contribution to solving
the economic crisis and the damage to its environment. Development Southern
Africa 13(1): 47-65.
MLOZI, M.R.S. (1997), Urban agriculture: Ethnicity, cattle raising and some
environmental implications in the City of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. African
Studies Review 40(3): 1-28.
MLOZI, M.R.S. (1998), Urban vegetable production in low-density areas of Dar es
Salaam. Dar es Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
 REFERENCES 215
MLOZI, M.R.S. (1999), Urban agriculture and its damaging effects on the urban
environment: The case of Tanzania. In P.G. Forster & S. Maghimbi, eds.,
Agrarian economy, state and society in contemporary Tanzania, pp. 184-199.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
MLOZI, M.R.S., I.J. LUPANGA & Z.S.K. MVENA (1992), Urban agriculture as a survival
strategy in Tanzania. In: J. Baker & P.O. Pedersen, eds., The rural-urban interface
in Africa: Expansion and adaptation, pp. 284-294. Uppsala: The Scandinavian
Institute of African Studies.
MOSHA, A.C. (1991), Urban farming practices in Tanzania. Review of Rural and Urban
Planning in Southern and Eastern Africa 1: 83-92.
MOUGEOT, L.J.A. (1993), Urban food self-reliance: significance and prospects'. IDRC
Reports 21(3): 2-5.
MOUGEOT, L.J.A. (1994a), African city farming from a world perspective. In: A.G.
Egziabher et al., Cities feeding people. An examination of urban agriculture in East
Africa, pp. 1-24. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
MOUGEOT, L.J.A. (1994b), Urban food production: Evolution, official support and
significance. Ottawa: IDRC, Cities Feeding People Series, Report 8.
MOUGEOT, L.J.A. (2005), Introduction. In L.J.A. Mougeot, ed., Agropolis. The social,
political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture, pp. 1-29. London &
Ottawa: Earthscan & International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
MUBVAMI, T., S. MUSHAMBA & R. VAN VEENHUIZEN (2003), Availability, access and
usability of land for urban agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine 11: 1-3.
MUGAMBI, A.M. (2002), Urban agriculture in Kenya: Technical and policy issues.
Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy Implications of
Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May, 2002.
MUKUI, J.T. (2002), Urban and peri-urban agriculture and rural-to-urban food flows:
Case study of Nairobi. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy
Implications of Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May,
2002.
MUNARI, Mr. (1994), Nairobi City Council Public Health Prosecution Officer, personal
communication.
MUREITHI, D. (2000), manager, Nakuru Prison Farm, personal communication, 20-09-
2000.
MUSHAMBA, S. (2002), Policy and planning options for urban agriculture relevant for
the Nakuru Urban Agriculture research Project. Keynote address presented at the
Nakuru Urban Agriculture research Project workshop, 27-28 November 2002.
MUSTER, G. (1997), Environmental problems of urban agriculture: A case study of Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
MWAGO, G. (2000), SENVINET, Nakuru, personal communication, 13-09-2000.
MWANGI, A.M. (1995), The role of urban agriculture in food security in low-income
areas in Nairobi, Kenya. Leiden: African Studies Centre.
MWANGI, A.M. & D. FOEKEN (1996), Urban agriculture, food security and nutrition in
low-income areas in Nairobi, Kenya. African Urban Quarterly 11(2-3): 170-179.
MWANGI, I.K. (2002), Using urban planning instrument in improving urban food
security. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy Implications
of Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May, 2002.
216 REFERENCES
MWANGI, S.W. (2001), Local Agenda 21 experiences in Nakuru, Kenya: Processes,
issues and lessons. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED), Urban Environmental Action Plans & Local Agenda 21 Series,
Working Paper 10.
NELSON, T. (1996), Closing the nutrient loop. World Watch, November/December
1996, pp. 10-17.
NKONYA, D.M. (1997), Effectiveness of urban agriculture/livestock extension agents
in disseminating information for reducing environmental damage that urban
agriculture causes. Morogoro: Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of
Agricultural Education and Extension, unpublished BSc. special project.
NUGENT, R. (2000), The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local
economies. In: N. Bakker et al., eds., Growing cities, growing food. Urban
agriculture on the policy agenda, pp. 67-98. Feldafing (Germany): Deutsche
Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE).
NUWAGABA, A. (1996), Urbanisation and environmental crisis in a Ugandan city:
implications for environment management and sustainable development. Eastern
Africa Social Science Research Review, 12(1): 15-34.
NYANDWARO, E.O. (forthcoming), Environmental impacts of urban farming: A case
study of Nakuru town, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University, MSc thesis.
OBOSU-MENSAH, K. (1999), Food production in urban areas. A study of urban
agriculture in Accra, Ghana. Aldershot: Ashgate.
OBUDHO, R.A. & D. FOEKEN (1999), Urban agriculture in Africa. A bibliographical
survey. Leiden/Nairobi: African Studies Centre/Centre for Urban Research, ASC
Research Report 58.
ODERA, C. (forthcoming), The implications of urban school farming on food security
and nutrition: A study in Nakuru town. Nairobi: University of Nairobi, Applied
Nutrition Programme, MSc thesis.
OWUOR, S.O. (2002), Enhancing food security in African cities: Rural farming by urban
households – The case of Nakuru town, Kenya. Paper presented at the “Workshop
on urban policy implications of enhancing food security in African cities”, Nairobi,
27-31 May 2002.
OWUOR, S.O. (2003), Rural livelihood sources for urban households. A study of Nakuru
town, Kenya. Leiden: African Studies Centre, Working Paper 51.
OWUOR, S.O. (2006), Bridging the urban-rural divide: Multi-spatial livelihoods in
Nakuru town, Kenya. Leiden: African Studies Centre.
OWUOR, S.O. & D. FOEKEN (2006), Surviving in the neighbourhoods of Nakuru town,
Kenya. In P. Konings & D. Foeken, eds., Crisis and creativity. Exploring the wealth
of the African neighbourhood. Leiden: Brill.
PAYNE, G. (2002), Tenure and shelter in urban livelihoods. In: C. Rakodi, with T.
Lloyd-Jones, eds., Urban livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing
poverty, pp. 151-164. London: Earthscan Publications.
PIETERS, J., J. DE MOEL, O. VAN STEENBERGEN & W. VAN DER HOEVEN (1977), Effects
of school feeding on growth of children in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. East African
Medical Journal 54: 622-630.
PLATT, B.S. (1962), Tables of representative values of foods commonly eaten in tropical
countries. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Medical Research Council
Special Report Series no. 302.
 REFERENCES 217
POTTS, D. & C. MUTAMBIRWA (1990), Rural-urban linkages in contemporary Harare:
why migrants need their land. Journal of Southern African Studies, 16(4): 677-698.
POTUTAN. G., E.M. IMAM, R.J. HOLMER & W.H. SCHNITZLER (1999), School gardens of
Cagayan de Oro contributing to food security. Initial observations (unpublished).
QUON, S. (1999), Planning for urban agriculture: A review of tools and strategies for
urban planners. Ottawa: IDRC, Cities Feeding People Report Series, Report 28.
RAKODI, C. (1988), Urban agriculture: Research questions and the Zambian experience.
Journal of Modern African Studies 26(3): 495-515.
RAKODI, C. (1995), The household strategies of the urban poor: Coping with poverty
and recession in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Habitat International 19(4): 447-471.
RAKODI, C. (2002a), A livelihoods approach – Conceptual issues and definitions. In C.
Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-Jones, eds, Urban livelihoods: A people-centred approach to
reducing poverty, pp. 3-22. London: Earthscan Publications.
RAKODI, C. (2002b), Conclusions. In C. Rakodi, with T. Lloyd-Jones, eds, Urban
livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing poverty, pp. 288-298. London:
Earthscan Publications.
ROGERSON, C.M. (1992), Feeding Africa’s cities: the role and potential for urban
agriculture. Africa Insight, 22(4): 229-234.
ROGERSON, C.M. (1994), Urban agriculture in South Africa: Scope, issues and
potential. GeoJournal 30: 21-28.
SANYAL, B. (1985), Urban agriculture: Who cultivates and why? A case study of
Lusaka, Zambia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7(3): 15-24.
SAWIO, C. (1993), Feeding the urban masses? Towards an understanding of the
dynamics of urban agriculture and land use change in Dar es Salaam. Worcester:
Clark University, unpublished PhD thesis.
SAWIO, C. (1994), Who are the farmers of Dar es Salaam? In: Axumite G. Egziabher et
al., Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa, pp.
25-46. Nairobi/Ottawa: IDRC.
SAWIO, C. (1996), Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam: Environmental planning
and management process. Interim technical report to IDRC, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania (unpublished).
SCHILTER, C. (1991), L’agriculture urbaine: Une activité creative d’emplois en
économie de survie. Le cas de Lomé. Cahiers des Sciences Humaines 27(2): 159-
168.
SEHMI, J.K. (1993), National food composition tables and the planning of satisfactory
diets in Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer.
SEMWANGA, M.A. (2002), The magnitude of urban food poverty in Uganda. The case of
Kampala. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on “Urban Policy Implications
of Enhancing Food Security in African Cities”, Nairobi, 27-31 May, 2002.
SEN, A. (1981), Poverty and famines. An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
SHAURI, R. (1988), Rus in Urbe: A study of urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Dar
es Salaam: Ardhi Institute, unpublished diploma project.
SHELDON, K. (1991), Farming in the city: Urban women in agricultural work in
Mozambique. Los Angeles: University of California.
SMIT, J., A. RATTA & J. NASR (1996), Urban agriculture: Food, jobs and sustainable
cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
218 REFERENCES
STEVENSON, C., P. XAVERY & A. WENDELINE (1996), Market production of fruits and
vegetables in the peri-urban area of Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam: Urban
Vegetable Promotion Project.
STREIFFELER, F. (1994), Urban agriculture in Africa: The recent situation in its most
important aspects. Africa Hilbt Sich Selbst, 4: 241-255.
TELLEGEN, N. (1997), Rural enterprises in Malawi: Necessity or opportunity?
Aldershot: Ashgate.
TINKER, I. (1994), Urban agriculture is already feeding cities. In: A.G. Egziabher et al.,
Cities feeding people. An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa, pp. vii-
xiv. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
TRICAUD, P.M. (1987), Urban agriculture in Ibadan and Freetown. Tokyo: United
Nations University, Food Energy Nexus Programme.
TUTS, R. (1998), Localizing Agenda 21 in small cities in Kenya, Morocco and Vietnam.
Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 175-189.
UNCHS (1996), An urbanizing world: global report on human settlements, 1996.
London/Nairobi: Oxford University Press/United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat).
VAN DE HOEK, W. (2002), The use of untreated wastewater in agriculture: Strategies for
health risk management. Discussion paper for the RUAF-IWMI e-mail conference
on “Use of untreated urban wastewater in agriculture in low income countries”.
VENNETIER, P. (1961), La vie agricole urbaine à Pointe Noire (Congo). Cahiers
d’Outre-Mer 14(55): 60-84.
VERSLEIJEN, N. (2002), Sukuma! A social analysis of urban agriculture: Case studies
from Nakuru Town, Kenya. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research
Center, Department of Rural Development Sociology, MSc thesis.
VILLIEN, F. (1988), L’agriculture dans la ville: L’exemple de Bangui. Cahiers d’Outre-
Mer 41(163): 163-180.
WALLMAN, S. (1996), Kampala women getting by: Well-being in the time of AIDS.
London: James Currey.
YACHKASCHI, J. (1997), Urban and peri-urban production, marketing system and
consumption of fruit and vegetables in selected cities in Tanzania. Dar es
Salaam: Urban Vegetable Promotion Project.
Index

4-K club (school farming) · 125 cow peas · 31, 91

credit · 2, 14, 15, 17, 62, 95, 100, 102, 103,
access · 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 108, 148, 164
42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 55, 85, 90, 103, crop residues · 7, 54, 55, 60, 73, 89, 97,
105, 106, 137, 138, 139, 154, 159, 160, 111, 130, 141, 142, 153
161, 162, 164, 167, 168 crop sales · 8, 90
Agriculture and Rural Development crop yield · 56, 60, 62, 142, 162
Programme (ARDP) · 95, 98, 99, 100,
101, 102, 108, 156, 165 dairy cattle · 7, 72, 91, 99, 100
agriculture class (school farming) · 125, dairy farming · 102
127, 130, 131 Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) · 3, 5, 8, 9, 109,
amaranthus (African spinach) · 120 111, 123, 162, 168
Animal Diseases Act · 11 Department of Environment (Nakuru
animal husbandry · 105 Municipal Council) · 110, 164
animal waste · 77, 111, 112, 113, 143, 154, Department of Housing (Nakuru Municipal
156, 157 Council) · 164
artificial insemination · 73, 100, 130, 143 Department of Social Services (Nakuru
Arusha (Tanzania) · 162 Municipal Council) · 103
destruction of crops · 4, 16, 64, 113, 126
backyard farming · 3, 10, 49, 118 dietary recall · 86
beans · 4, 6, 42, 51, 52, 53, 55, 58, 65, 87, dipping (livestock) · 7
89, 90, 124, 128, 140, 142, 150, 153 Director of Environment (Nakuru
Blantyre (Malawi) · 9 Municipal Council) · 164
broiler (chicken) · 74 disease · 4, 31, 69, 75, 78, 91, 92, 96, 105,
built-up area (of Nakuru) · 3, 24, 29, 34, 39, 107, 111, 112, 114, 127, 155
51, 58, 67, 83, 100, 154, 155, 162, 164, disposal of animal waste · 78, 112, 113,
167 115, 116, 117, 164
by-law · 12, 16, 163, 164 diversification (of income sources) · 80,
104, 146, 155, 158
cadmium (Cd) · 117, 119, 120, 121 Dodoma (Tanzania) · 162
Cagayan de Oro (Philippines) · 124 drinking water (for livestock) · 75, 76, 97,
cassava · 4 98
cattle · 7, 31, 55, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, drought · 4, 39, 52, 57, 65, 76, 82, 84, 85,
78, 81, 101, 102, 111, 122, 128, 130, 92, 94, 130, 134, 139, 140, 145, 153,
140, 142, 143, 147, 155, 156, 157, 160 156, 160
cattle sales · 101, 102 duck · 44, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76
chicken · 62, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 87, dump (Nakuru) · 29, 114, 115, 118, 119,
92, 93, 99, 107, 111, 124, 140, 155 120, 121, 122, 148, 157, 166
chicken droppings · 62, 111
climate · 11, 21, 33, 124, 128 Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF-
commercial farming · 6, 7 Kenya) · 62, 95, 102, 103, 104, 105,
community-based organisation (CBO) · 33 107, 108, 148, 156, 161, 165
compost · 5, 166 egg sales · 94, 107
constraint · 62, 63, 64, 76, 128, 155, 162 eggs · 9, 69, 71, 80, 87, 92, 94, 101, 105,
consumer unit · 86, 87 107, 110, 124, 140
Cotonou (Benin) · 3, 166
220 INDEX
employment · 1, 6, 8, 9, 27, 32, 79, 92, 93, Havana (Cuba) · 162, 163
94, 154 hawking · 27, 102
energy intake · 9, 86 heavy metal (concentrations) · 110, 112,
energy requirement · 83, 155 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 148, 160, 166,
Enjoro River · 21, 27, 29 167
entitlement · 16 height-for-age · 9, 88
environment · 5, 11, 19, 109, 114, 116, 117, herdsboy · 74
121, 154, 156 HIV/Aids · 148
environmental awareness · 5, 11, 62, 112 horticulture · 9
ethno-veterinary medicine · 73 house quality index · 100, 101
eviction · 4 household head · 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 46, 65,
exclusion · 15, 16, 17, 33 74, 107, 143, 144, 151
exhaust fumes · 111 household income · 15, 41, 45, 69, 79, 84,
extension officer · 12, 95, 96, 97, 111, 128, 87, 89, 138, 143
164, 167 household size · 34, 41, 42, 45, 57, 61, 138
extension services · 12, 13, 17, 24, 26, 27, housing density · 29, 40, 41, 45, 47, 50, 64,
95, 96, 97, 100, 111, 113, 128, 160, 162, 76
164, 167 human resources · 161

family life cycle · 42 improved breed (cattle) · 73, 74, 78, 97,
farming system · 6, 7, 9, 16 143, 144, 157
farming technique · 8, 10, 16, 57 inclusion · 16, 17
feed supplement · 73, 97, 143, 144, 157, income · 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 26,
160 29, 34, 41, 45, 47, 56, 57, 62, 68, 69, 70,
female-headed household · 4, 6, 8, 34, 35, 74, 78, 80, 81, 82, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94,
46, 57, 150, 151, 158, 161, 162 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 124,
fertilizer · 54, 55, 65, 99, 100, 111, 128, 129, 131, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142,
129, 141, 155 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
financial resources · 160 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,
fish · 87 160, 161, 166
food consumption · 34, 81, 86, 99, 145 income-generating activity · 2, 15, 93, 103,
food leftovers · 73 104, 159, 161
food security · 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, 83, 84, informal · 2, 8, 12, 15, 18, 137, 158, 161
98, 108, 124, 145, 151, 154, 156, 160, informal sector · 2, 12, 18, 137, 158
163, 164 inputs for crop cultivation
food shortage · 84 chemical inputs · 6, 10, 55, 56, 57, 62,
food source · 71, 81, 85, 94, 144, 145 65, 93, 109, 112, 128, 142, 154, 155
food supply · 8, 9, 79, 83, 115, 116, 156, material inputs · 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60,
158 65, 100, 142, 143, 144, 155, 157
free range · 31, 70, 71, 75, 97, 143, 155 modern inputs · 6, 55, 56, 101, 150, 156,
fruit · 9, 52, 123, 124 158, 161, 164
fungible income · 8, 90 sustainable inputs · 56, 57, 60
traditional inputs · 55, 56
Gaborone (Botswana) · 3, 9 institutional farming · 157
gender · 8, 15, 150, 158, 161 institutional setting · 8, 11, 16
goat · 76, 130 Irish potato · 51, 53, 58, 83, 87, 128
government land · 51, 53, 150, 154 irrigation · 5, 6, 10, 29, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60,
grass boy · 74, 93 63, 65, 86, 99, 109, 117, 118, 119, 120,
Green Towns Project · 11 128, 129, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 151,
groundwater · 5 155, 157, 160, 162
growing season · 23, 54, 57
jembe (hoe) · 6, 128
Harare (Zimbabwe) · 3, 13, 111, 168
harassment · 4, 13, 16, 43, 44, 64, 75, 97
 INDEX 221
kale · 6, 31, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 65, 66, 87, low-income household · 6, 8, 13, 29, 32, 34,
89, 104, 128, 142 35, 47, 82, 84, 87, 95, 104, 139, 147,
Kampala (Uganda) · 3, 8, 9 148, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 159, 161,
Kenya Railways · 64, 70, 85, 146 162, 166

labour · 4, 6, 14, 15, 26, 44, 50, 53, 54, 57, maize · 4, 6, 10, 16, 31, 42, 48, 51, 52, 53,
60, 61, 62, 64, 74, 89, 91, 93, 125, 127, 55, 58, 64, 65, 66, 68, 86, 87, 90, 100,
129, 135, 143, 144, 151, 154, 155, 157, 115, 122, 124, 128, 140, 142, 150, 153
160, 161, 162 malnutrition · 9, 89
lack of capital · 4, 43, 44, 64, 100, 139, 154, manure · 54, 55, 56, 62, 65, 97, 100, 111,
159 113, 118, 120, 128, 129, 142, 153
lack of feed · 75, 97, 98, 140 Maputo (Mozambique) · 168
lack of inputs · 63, 64 Mazingira Institute · 5
lack of space · 45, 75, 100, 144 Mbeya (Tanzania) · 3, 10, 18, 163
Lake Nakuru · 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 33, 126, meat · 71, 87, 132
167 Menengai Crater · 20, 21, 24, 27, 33
Lake Nakuru National Park · 24, 27, 29, 33, mercury (Hg) · 110, 117, 119, 120, 121
126 merry-go-round group · 107, 108, 159
land milk · 4, 7, 8, 9, 52, 70, 76, 81, 82, 87, 89,
access to · 6, 11, 13, 14, 16, 42, 137, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108,
138, 139, 160, 161, 162, 167, 168 124, 129, 130, 132, 140, 156, 160
accessibility of · 102, 159 milk sales · 80, 91, 101, 102, 104, 105, 108
availability of · 14, 29, 41, 50, 139, 143, Ministry of Agriculture · 7, 12, 31, 67, 96,
159 164, 168
suitability of · 159 Morogoro (Tanzania) · 3, 10, 18, 111, 123,
land productivity · 60, 61, 151, 155 163, 168
land tenure · 4, 6 mosquitoes · 4, 111
layer (chicken) · 29, 74, 118, 157 Municipal Council of Nakuru · 29, 31, 32,
lead (Pb) · 17, 56, 60, 79, 110, 117, 119, 42, 43, 44, 64, 105, 110, 113, 115, 163,
120, 121, 148 164, 166
legal setting · 8, 11, 16, 18, 42, 43, 163, 164
legume · 87 Nairobi · 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18,
length growth · 88 21, 23, 26, 27, 49, 102, 105, 149
Lilongwe (Malawi) · 9 Nakuru District · 27, 110, 132, 164
livelihood · 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 81, 85, 107, Nakuru High School · 128, 130
137, 159, 160, 161, 167 Nakuru Metropolitan Area · 24
multi-spatial · 160 Nakuru Planning Zone · 99
livelihood approach · 14, 15 Nakuru Prison Farm · 123, 124
livelihood strategy · 15, 17, 159 Nakuru Urban Agriculture research Project
livestock · 19, 112, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168
large · 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 96, Nampula (Mozambique) · 9
111, 115, 116, 117, 143, 144, 147, Napier grass · 105, 108, 128, 130, 153
151, 155, 157, 158, 160 National School Feeding Council of Kenya
small · 40, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 96, · 132
111, 115, 116, 117, 130, 143, 155 noise (from livestock) · 5, 112
livestock mortality · 7 non-farmer · 17, 35, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46,
livestock products sales · 8 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 112, 114, 115,
livestock sales · 8 116, 117, 154, 156, 159
loan · 15, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, non-governmental organization (NGO) · 19,
108, 161 128, 167
local authorities · 4, 11, 12, 16, 17, 64, 154, nuisance (caused by livestock) · 4, 31, 44,
160, 167 163
Local Government Act · 11 nutrient · 11
Localising Agenda 21 · 31, 33, 163 nutrition · 34, 86, 87
222 INDEX
nutritional condition · 5, 19, 94, 99 Milimani · 29, 40, 49, 50, 64, 74, 76, 77,
Nyeri District · 85, 86 118, 148
Mwariki · 54, 74, 104, 118, 120
off-plot farming · 3, 4, 31 Rhonda Kaptembwa · 40, 54, 118, 153
on-plot farming · 3, 31 Rhonda Muslim · 40, 118, 120
Ordinary Jiwezeshe Credit Scheme · 103 Rhonda Pondamali · 82, 118
organic · 6, 11, 54, 56, 111, 118, 155, 162, Rhonda Sewage · 118, 119, 120
166, 167 Rhonda Weavers · 36, 54, 136, 152
organic farming · 111, 166, 167 Shabaab · 74, 92
organic waste · 11, 166 Ziwani · 29, 38, 48, 49, 54, 70, 71, 81,
overgrazing · 11 82, 141
Rift Valley (Province) · 21, 24, 27
panga (cutlass) · 6, 128 riverside (plot) · 12
peri-urban · 3, 20, 27, 33, 58, 67, 100, 102, roadside (plot) · 7, 12, 73, 119
164 rural farming · 5, 11, 38, 45, 46, 85, 138,
peri-urban farming · 3, 20 158, 160
Physical Planning Act · 12 rural plot · 13, 45, 46, 85, 139, 160
pig · 76, 102, 105, 106, 107
plot size · 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, saget (spider plant) · 51, 52, 53, 58, 124,
100, 134, 141, 142, 149, 151 147
pollution · 5, 10, 112 school farming · 18, 19, 123, 124, 127, 132,
poultry · 87, 102, 104, 105, 107 134, 148, 149, 151, 167
poverty · 2, 4, 19, 26, 137, 138, 148, 161, school feeding (programme) · 125, 130,
167 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 148
poverty line · 26, 167 seasonal(ity) · 21, 64, 93
problem (with urban farming) · 31, 33, 46, seedlings · 6, 36, 50, 54, 55, 60, 124, 128,
63, 64, 65, 75, 76, 78, 84, 98, 104, 105, 129, 142
107, 112, 115, 117, 144, 157, 160 seeds · 50, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 93, 99, 100,
Public Health Act · 11, 31, 163 128, 129, 150
Public Health Officer ((Nakuru Municipal self-consumption · 68, 100, 153, 154, 155
Council) · 110, 121, 163 self-help group · 98, 104, 107, 108, 161
purchasing power · 2, 45, 137, 158, 161 SENVINET (Strategic Environmental
Network) · 167
rainfall · 4, 19, 21, 23, 39, 54, 57, 63, 64, settlement · 24, 29
65, 83, 86, 90, 128, 142, 151, 154, 155, sewage water (for irrigation) · 5, 10, 11, 12,
157, 162 29, 49, 55, 64, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117,
rearing system · 70, 71, 75, 96, 98, 130, 118, 119, 120, 121, 157, 160, 166
143, 156, 164 shamba (plot) · 42, 46, 50, 54, 79, 80, 81,
recycling · 5, 11, 111, 166 85, 89, 91, 141, 147, 153
residential estate (Nakuru) sheep · 7, 31, 67, 68, 69, 70, 89, 101, 124,
Bangladesh · 74 129, 155
Block 14 · 29, 109 social resources · 14, 15, 16, 161
Flamingo · 29, 43, 50 soil erosion · 5, 10, 109, 111, 112
Free Area · 107, 118, 148 soil fertility · 6, 62, 111
Kabachia · 38, 40, 48, 52, 54, 66, 70, 73, solid waste (management) · 5, 11, 29, 33,
94, 118, 120, 148 111, 119
Kaloleni · 43, 118, 119, 120 sorghum · 4
Kivumbini · 29, 110, 118 spider plant · 51, 58
Kwa Rhonda · 29, 136 spinach · 4, 31, 51, 52, 53, 58, 83, 87, 89,
Lakeview · 54 104, 105, 109, 120, 124, 128
Lanet · 36, 50, 62, 74, 78, 89, 118, 148, spraying (livestock) · 7, 105
152 staple food · 8, 86, 142
Langa Langa · 105 Strategic Nakuru Structure Plan · 33, 162,
London/Menengai · 40 163
 INDEX 223
structural adjustment · 2 urban land · 9, 12, 17, 29, 32, 43, 139, 154,
stunting · 9, 87, 88, 89 159, 160, 163
subsistence · 5, 6, 7, 12, 51, 62, 81 urban management · 1, 17
sukuma wiki (kale) · 6, 51, 52, 55, 58, 80, urban planning · 11, 12, 32, 163
90, 104, 105, 110, 165 urban plot · 50, 85, 90, 141, 146, 161
survival · 3, 8, 18, 107, 159 urban poor · 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18,
sustainable livelihood · 17 137, 160, 168
urban poverty · 1, 2, 26, 82, 137
tap water (for irrigation) · 89, 90, 117, 118, urban waste · 7, 54, 55, 73, 128, 130, 166
119, 120, 128, 155 urbanization · 1, 33
technical assistance · 61, 95, 96, 147, 151, urban-rural linkages · 8
155, 162, 164
temporary occupation licence (TOL) · 12 vaccinating (livestock) · 7
theft (of crops/livestock) · 4, 6, 44, 53, 55, vegetable · 51, 99, 110, 123, 168
63, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 97, 98, 142, 155, veterinary drugs · 7, 73, 78, 91, 97, 100,
159 130, 143, 144, 157
tomato · 4, 51, 52, 58, 87, 89, 104, 124,
128, 142 wasting · 9, 87, 88, 89
tools (farming) · 6, 10, 14, 15, 53, 54, 93, Water Act · 11
128 weight growth · 87
traffic accidents (due to livestock) · 5, 11, weight-for-age · 88, 89
111, 112, 163 weight-for-height · 9, 88, 89
training · 11, 32, 33, 98, 101, 103, 104, 106, welfare index · 100, 101
107, 124, 128 White Highlands · 23
Windhoek (Namibia) · 9
underweight · 88, 89
Undugu Society · 13 Young Farmers Club (school farming) · 128
unemployment · 2, 4, 18, 26, 82, 105, 156
urban development · 8, 11, 12, 17, 27, 32, zero-grazing · 7, 31, 40, 66, 70, 72, 78, 96,
115, 163 98, 99, 102, 108, 113, 130, 152, 156
urban economy · 8, 162 zinc (Zn) · 117, 119, 120, 121, 148
urban environment · 5, 10, 11, 17, 109, 111, zoning · 12, 24
112, 114, 116, 117, 121, 125, 156, 163,
166
 AFRIKA-STUDIECENTRUM
SERIES
ISSN 1570–9310

1. Konings, P. and Nyamnjoh, F.B. Negotiating an Anglophone Identity.

A Study of the Politics of Recognition and Representation in Came-
roon. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13295 3
2. Wels, H. Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe. Joint Ventures and
Reciprocity. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13697 5.
3. Spierenburg, M.J. Strangers, Spirits and Land Reforms. Conflicts about
Land in Dande, Northern Zimbabwe. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13657 5.
4. Müller, T.R. The Making of Elite Women. Revolution and Nation
Building in Eritrea. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14287 8.
5. Ntsebeza, L. Democracy Compromised. Chiefs and the politics of the land
in South Africa. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14482 X.
6. Evers, S., Spierenburg, M. and Wels, H. Competing Jurisdictions. Settling
land claims in Africa. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14780 2.
7. Foeken, D. “To Subsidise My Income”. Urban Farming in an East-African
Town. 2006. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15202-1, ISBN-10: 90-04-15202-4.