ID21 - communicating development research

	Search the whole id21 database


		id21 Urban Development
		Planning and local governance
		Housing and settlements
		Urban communication
		Urban water and sanitation
		Urban employment and income

		id21 Global Issues

		id21 Health

		id21 Education

		id21 Natural Resources

		id21 Rural Development

		id21 Home page

		Gender and Violence in African Schools

		id21 Publications

		id21 Viewpoints

		About id21

		Links

		Contact id21

		id21News

		id21 Insights

		id21 Media

Farming fish in cities – an undervalued activity?

Cultivating fish and aquatic vegetables is a common activity in many Asian cities. In fast-changing urban environments, what are the risks and benefits of this?

The potential of aquaculture in urban areas is poorly understood. Researchers from the University of Essex and the University of Stirling, both in the UK, investigate different approaches to farming fish and aquatic vegetables in these areas. The research shows:

Urban farmers use both freshwater and marine environments, and range from using extensive to intensive production systems.
Intensive systems rely on introducing feed for fish and applying fertiliser. Less intensive systems use by-products and waste instead of manufactured fertilisers.
Different systems rely on different forms of resource ownership and tenure, from common property rights and co-operatives to private ownership of resources.

Urban aquaculture has some advantages over rural aquaculture. Farmers are closer to markets, which means that they can deliver fresh products quickly and get a better price. Access to wastewater can increase the production season, meaning that farmers can sell fish throughout the year. This benefits consumers as well as producers. It can also provide income and employment for large numbers of people.

Using wastewater and agricultural by-products also reduces pressure on scarce freshwater and mineral resources. Diverting wastewater for use in aquaculture could also become important in sanitation for poor communities and improve health, including the reduction of infant mortality. Urban aquaculture also contributes significantly to food security in some places, because fish and aquatic vegetables are nutritious.

However, alongside these benefits, there are many constraints and risks in urban aquaculture. The research shows:

Increased rural-urban migration creates unregulated settlements near urban areas. Ineffective planning means people are unwilling to invest in land management or efficient urban aquaculture practices.
In peri-urban Kolkata, many households, particularly younger members, are abandoning farming of all kinds because they can find more highly paid work in the city. This creates labour and skills shortages for farming.
In Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, increasingly efficient infrastructure, particularly roads, means that distant producers can reach cities more easily. In these circumstances, urban fish producers lose their competitive advantage.
In Viet Nam, China and India, pollution from homes and industry threatens urban aquaculture. There are also health risks involved in consuming products grown using waste resources.

Urban aquaculture has enormous potential for poverty reduction, but there are important knowledge gaps and policy decisions that need resolving to take full advantage. Urban planners rarely consider aquaculture when planning uses of urban water. They also usually lack information about the relative importance and benefits associated with urban aquaculture.The researchers suggest:

Using urban wastewater for aquaculture can only continue if city planners separate industrial effluents from domestic sewage.
Urban development policies must consider and include the cultivation of fish and plants in cities.

Source(s):
‘Urban Aquatic Production’ by Stuart Bunting, David Little and William Leschen, in ‘Cities farming for the future: urban agriculture for green and productive cities’ IIRR/RUAF/IDRC, edited by René van Veenhuizen, 2006
‘Urban and peri-urban aquaculture development in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India’, CES Occasional Paper 2006-2: Report for DFID AFGRP, Colchester, UK: Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, by Stuart Bunting and Roger Lewins, 2006 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development; the INCO-DEV Programme of the European Commission

id21 Research Highlight: 12 April 2007

Further Information:
Stuart Bunting
Centre for Environment and Society
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester, CO4 3SQ
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1206 872219
Fax: +44 (0) 1206 872592
Contact the contributor: swbunt@essex.ac.uk

University of Essex, UK

University of Stirling, UK

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Unless stated otherwise articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged.

Week beginning Monday 12th May 2008

FREE Information Delivery services from id21:

Contact id21

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development www.dfid.gov.uk
id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies www.ids.ac.uk at the University of Sussex www.sussex.ac.uk
IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of
www.mediachannel.org