Policy Prospects For Urban And Peri-Urban Agriculture In Kenya

Farming is a well-known and widespread activity in the capital city Nairobi and other urban areas of Kenya, often practiced by vulnerable groups, the majority of whom are women. Although it alleviates hunger and poverty for those who lack wage-employment, it also carries health risks in built-up areas. And although the Government of Kenya provides limited extension services to urban farmers, there is no coherent legal and policy framework governing urban agriculture. In recognition of the diverse opinions on urban agriculture, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in collaboration with the regional office of Urban Harvest, a system-wide initiative of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) organized a one day stakeholders’ workshop to develop consensus on providing an enabling environment for advancing urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in Kenya. The workshop, which also received support from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), used an issue-based framework as the basis for developing a policy process. Substantive papers were presented on: • Employment and Poverty • Health Issues and Waste Management • Food Security focusing on Household Nutrition (Fresh Vegetables and Dairy) • Land Use Management and Physical Planning • Legislation and Governance Representatives of key national institutions, including KARI, the Ministries of Agriculture, Lands and Settlement, Health, and Local Government, confirmed their commitment to carrying forward a policy dialogue and presented substantive data and information relating to urban and peri-urban agriculture from the perspective of their sectors. The Department of Research development located in the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology presented important data on urban poverty in Kenya in relation to urban agriculture, while the Ministry of Agriculture presented recent statistics on the volume of urban agriculture production in Nairobi. International research institutions and national bodies including NGOs gave perspectives and data on the other aspects of policy. Participants met in groups addressing each aspect of policy to review the adequacy of treatment by the expert presentations, to come up with additional material and to chart the direction policy should take. To do this, each group addressed the key questions of who should be responsible for what. A final plenary session reviewed these suggestions and focused on deciding which institution or institutions should carry the policy process forward.

---

• View source