Case study 2∶ Development of urban agriculture Ord
合集下载
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Policy Change Process: 2000-2006
• Drafted new ordinances still not favourable for UA • Increased pressure from NGOs for more supportive
laws, backed up by informal coalition of Ag officers, researchers and NGOs • Increased research evidence addressing technical concerns on public health and environment • Series of national and regional meetings on UA • Mayor turned from opponent into ‘champion’ • Funding for community consultation on new ordinances • Recommendations accepted by KCC and new laws agreed.
• ‘Idle’ land is available
– Used through a number of access mechanisms
• Important for food security and incomes • Practised by some 30% of households • Very important for women
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Case study 2: Development of urban agriculture
Ordinances in Kampala
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
• Collaborative R&D activities from 2002
– Evolvement of coalition - KUFSALCC
• Continued farming by urban farmers….
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy environment now
• A set of 5 new Ordinances on urban agriculture passed by Kampala City Council in 2005
– Kampala City Urban Agriculture Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Livestock and Companion Animal
KCC Technical staff feed reports on UA up to sectoral committees
Forums on UA Ordinances
INCREASING AWARENESS OF IMPORTANCE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE
Elected politicians hear/see about importance of U.A. from their constituencies
• Reference to stray animals in law & order ordinances
– Generally did not recognise nor prohibit
• Much legislation outdated (colonial) • Generally interpreted as not allowed
a. Map out behaviour changes of key actors b. Finalise map of key events and influences
4. Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.
Local Gov’t Act
Review of outdated Ordinances
Re-Draft of Ordinances
KCC Council approves Revisions
UA ordinances passed
MORE POSITIVE VIEW OF UA & NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE LAWS
• Activities of Ag officers and NGOs supported UA • Decision to review all outdated ordinances in 1999
– Inclusion of laws to deal with UA
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy environment early-mid1990s
• No specific laws on UA • Some reference in other laws
– Public Health Act – Town & Country Planning Act
• Ongoing support for urban farmers
– Agricultural Extension Officers – NGOs – incl. Environmental Alert
• International research efforts
– IDRC; SIUPA/Urban Harvest
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
How did this change happen?
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
ROA applied in Kampala case study
– Slashing of crops – Confiscation of livestock – Extraction of payments – Little information or extension services available
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
NGO activities in UA
Field visits for Mayor and councillors (EA)
High-level political support for UA laws
Decentralisation
Urban agriculture
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Why urban agriculture?
• Been part of Kampala’s economy for decades
– Historical perspective – Structural Adjustment Policies – Expansion of city boundaries
Key policy and political events
• Decentralisation – 1993
– Accountability – Extension officers within Kampala City Council
• PEAP/PMA - 1997 • Local Government Act – 1997 • Review of outdated Ordinances – 1999
• Episode Study component central • Case study & Outcome Mapping
components deepened analysis. 1. Literature review & commissioned
timeline of key events 2. Interviews with key actors 3. Workshop
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Concerns/myths over urban agriculture:
• Health Hazard
– Biological (mosquitoes, zoonoses) – Chemical (heavy metals – Hg, Pb, As)
Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Meat Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Fish Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Milk Ordinance (2006)
• Supportive of UA whilst laying framework for addressing public health and other concerns
• Decentralisation
– Closer link between decision-makers and voters – Effective reporting structures between officers and
politicians
• Evidence supporting economic importance of UA and nutritional benefits
– ‘stalled’ in 2001
• Strong political support from Mayor after 2002
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Kampala urban agriculture ordinance timeline - simplified
Research on Economic Importance of UA and Child Nutrition by Maxwell
Funding –DFID - EA
Major collaboration Research on Urban Agriculture in Kampala CIP/URBAN HARVEST & National partners incl KCC
• Physical – car accidents • Psychosocial Hazard
– Thefts – Stress – (nuisance; religious issues)
• Environmental Hazard
– Pollution – liquid and solid wastes, contamination of water
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
20022004源自2006Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy change process: 1990 - 1999
• Increasing pressure from farmers continuing to practise UA as a livelihood strategy
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Key events and activities
• Research by Maxwell in early 1990s
– Socio-economic importance; nutritional impact
• Drafted new ordinances still not favourable for UA • Increased pressure from NGOs for more supportive
laws, backed up by informal coalition of Ag officers, researchers and NGOs • Increased research evidence addressing technical concerns on public health and environment • Series of national and regional meetings on UA • Mayor turned from opponent into ‘champion’ • Funding for community consultation on new ordinances • Recommendations accepted by KCC and new laws agreed.
• ‘Idle’ land is available
– Used through a number of access mechanisms
• Important for food security and incomes • Practised by some 30% of households • Very important for women
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Case study 2: Development of urban agriculture
Ordinances in Kampala
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
• Collaborative R&D activities from 2002
– Evolvement of coalition - KUFSALCC
• Continued farming by urban farmers….
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy environment now
• A set of 5 new Ordinances on urban agriculture passed by Kampala City Council in 2005
– Kampala City Urban Agriculture Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Livestock and Companion Animal
KCC Technical staff feed reports on UA up to sectoral committees
Forums on UA Ordinances
INCREASING AWARENESS OF IMPORTANCE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE
Elected politicians hear/see about importance of U.A. from their constituencies
• Reference to stray animals in law & order ordinances
– Generally did not recognise nor prohibit
• Much legislation outdated (colonial) • Generally interpreted as not allowed
a. Map out behaviour changes of key actors b. Finalise map of key events and influences
4. Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.
Local Gov’t Act
Review of outdated Ordinances
Re-Draft of Ordinances
KCC Council approves Revisions
UA ordinances passed
MORE POSITIVE VIEW OF UA & NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE LAWS
• Activities of Ag officers and NGOs supported UA • Decision to review all outdated ordinances in 1999
– Inclusion of laws to deal with UA
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy environment early-mid1990s
• No specific laws on UA • Some reference in other laws
– Public Health Act – Town & Country Planning Act
• Ongoing support for urban farmers
– Agricultural Extension Officers – NGOs – incl. Environmental Alert
• International research efforts
– IDRC; SIUPA/Urban Harvest
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
How did this change happen?
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
ROA applied in Kampala case study
– Slashing of crops – Confiscation of livestock – Extraction of payments – Little information or extension services available
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
NGO activities in UA
Field visits for Mayor and councillors (EA)
High-level political support for UA laws
Decentralisation
Urban agriculture
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Why urban agriculture?
• Been part of Kampala’s economy for decades
– Historical perspective – Structural Adjustment Policies – Expansion of city boundaries
Key policy and political events
• Decentralisation – 1993
– Accountability – Extension officers within Kampala City Council
• PEAP/PMA - 1997 • Local Government Act – 1997 • Review of outdated Ordinances – 1999
• Episode Study component central • Case study & Outcome Mapping
components deepened analysis. 1. Literature review & commissioned
timeline of key events 2. Interviews with key actors 3. Workshop
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Concerns/myths over urban agriculture:
• Health Hazard
– Biological (mosquitoes, zoonoses) – Chemical (heavy metals – Hg, Pb, As)
Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Meat Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Fish Ordinance (2006) – Kampala City Milk Ordinance (2006)
• Supportive of UA whilst laying framework for addressing public health and other concerns
• Decentralisation
– Closer link between decision-makers and voters – Effective reporting structures between officers and
politicians
• Evidence supporting economic importance of UA and nutritional benefits
– ‘stalled’ in 2001
• Strong political support from Mayor after 2002
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Kampala urban agriculture ordinance timeline - simplified
Research on Economic Importance of UA and Child Nutrition by Maxwell
Funding –DFID - EA
Major collaboration Research on Urban Agriculture in Kampala CIP/URBAN HARVEST & National partners incl KCC
• Physical – car accidents • Psychosocial Hazard
– Thefts – Stress – (nuisance; religious issues)
• Environmental Hazard
– Pollution – liquid and solid wastes, contamination of water
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
20022004源自2006Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Policy change process: 1990 - 1999
• Increasing pressure from farmers continuing to practise UA as a livelihood strategy
Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change
Key events and activities
• Research by Maxwell in early 1990s
– Socio-economic importance; nutritional impact