Case study 2: Development of urban agriculture Ordinances in Kampala

1. Case study 2:Development of urban agriculture Ordinances in Kampala

2. Urban agriculture

3. Why urban agriculture? • Been part of Kampala’s economy for decades • Historical perspective • Structural Adjustment Policies • Expansion of city boundaries • ‘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

4. Concerns/myths over urban agriculture: • Health Hazard • Biological (mosquitoes, zoonoses) • Chemical (heavy metals – Hg, Pb, As) • Physical – car accidents • Psychosocial Hazard • Thefts • Stress – (nuisance; religious issues) • Environmental Hazard • Pollution – liquid and solid wastes, contamination of water

5. Policy environment early-mid1990s • No specific laws on UA • Some reference in other laws • Public Health Act • Town & Country Planning Act • Reference to stray animals in law & order ordinances • Generally did not recognise nor prohibit • Much legislation outdated (colonial) • Generally interpreted as not allowed • Slashing of crops • Confiscation of livestock • Extraction of payments • Little information or extension services available

6. 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 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

7. How did this change happen?

8. ROA applied in Kampala case study • Episode Study component central • Case study & Outcome Mapping components deepened analysis. • Literature review & commissioned timeline of key events • Interviews with key actors • Workshop • Map out behaviour changes of key actors • Finalise map of key events and influences • Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.

9. Key events and activities • Research by Maxwell in early 1990s • Socio-economic importance; nutritional impact • Ongoing support for urban farmers • Agricultural Extension Officers • NGOs – incl. Environmental Alert • International research efforts • IDRC; SIUPA/Urban Harvest • Collaborative R&D activities from 2002 • Evolvement of coalition - KUFSALCC • Continued farming by urban farmers….

10. 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 • ‘stalled’ in 2001 • Strong political support from Mayor after 2002

11. Kampala urban agriculture ordinance timeline - simplified

12. Policy change process: 1990 - 1999 • Increasing pressure from farmers continuing to practise UA as a livelihood strategy • Decentralisation • Closer link between decision-makers and voters • Effective reporting structures between officers and politicians • Evidence supporting economic importance of UA and nutritional benefits • Activities of Ag officers and NGOs supported UA • Decision to review all outdated ordinances in 1999 • Inclusion of laws to deal with UA

13. 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.

14. The KUFSALCC coalition • Informal grouping from previous development activities • Formally came together for major collaborative R&D projects in 2003 • KCC; MAAIF; Environmental Alert; Makerere University; Urban Harvest

15. Key Urban Harvest/KUFSALCC activities: • Initial R&D activities- SIUPA / CGIAR • Continuous communication through all available channels • Within KCC • NGO field visits • Formal meetings • Pressure on KCC to ‘re-review’ draft Ordinances • Community consultation process • Facilitation of passage of Ordinances • Resource mobilisation

16. Lessons: Political and economic context • Political context was important • Actors (Maxwell to KUFSALCC) understood and engaged • Who are real decision makers, pressure-makers? • What are the political opportunities? • Politicians respond to grass roots pressure • linking evidence to such pressure can be very effective • Local politicians responding to their urban farming voters • Overarching strategies and policies • PEAP and decentralisation • Strong political leadership – key factor • Civil society organisations can play key role • Advocating; opening doors; linking grassroots to policymakers; piloting approaches

17. Lessons: Linkages • Diverse actors coming together • Very powerful together • Different actors bring different capacities • Exploit formal and informal channels • Individuals can be critically important • ‘Champions’ or ‘blockers’ • Know them and use them • Try to influence or bypass them

18. Lessons: Evidence • Evidence played a key role • Answered policymakers’ actual concerns and needs • Socio-economic & technical evidence - Why? and How? • Together can produce a broad picture of policy solutions • Communication was crucial • Targeting of a range of actors • Different formats for different actors • Meetings and presentations for technical officers • Field visits for politicians • Seeing is believing! • Internal KCC communication channels important