The paper examines ways in which the poor can use small amounts of land to establish homegardens to advance important livelihood objectives. The paper considers the potential benefits of homegardens in light of policy, financial and cultural constraints, and provides a framework for planners to consider whether (and which) homegarden interventions are appropriate for improving livelihoods of the poor.
In many settings in the developing world, lack of access to land may be the most critical obstacle to creating homegardens useful to the poor. Land is a critical resource for most families in the world. Land has inherent value, and land can be a critical component in the creation of value. Even relatively small plots of land substantially supplement the physical, financial and nutritional security of poor households. Land is an important basis for identity and status of individuals within a family and of families within a community. Land can also be the foundation for political power (Agarwal 1994, Deere and Leon 2001, Mearns 1999). As such, programmes that allocate small plots of land for homegardens can provide benefits far beyond those derived directly from the homegardens.[1]
The paper is divided into three main sections. Within the context of the sustainable livelihoods analysis, the second section of the paper examines the benefits that homegardening may bring to the poor. The third section discusses various factors bearing upon the establishment of new homegardens and the improvement or expansion of existing homegardens. The fourth section of the paper discusses policy and programme considerations from the perspective of planners evaluating various strategies for using homegardens to address sustainable livelihoods objectives.
Sustainable livelihoods analysis provides a framework for examining the significant role homegardens and homegarden plots play in the livelihoods of the poor. The sustainable livelihoods approach focuses on the capabilities of people, and highlights interrelationships among people and the assets they develop and on which they rely. The analytical process focuses on the strengths of people and their aspirations as they pursue their livelihood objectives.
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Carney 1998: 4).
The sustainable livelihoods approach seeks to increase the sustainability of the lives of the poor by promoting six core objectives: (1) more secure access to, and better management of, natural resources; (2) more secure access to financial resources; (3) a policy and institutional environment that supports multiple livelihood strategies and promotes equitable access to competitive markets; (4) better nutrition and health; improved access to high quality education, information, technologies, and training; (5) a more supportive and cohesive social environment; and (6) better access to basic and facilitating infrastructure (DFID 2001).[2]
Within this framework, homegardens, and particularly homegarden plots, can play many roles. Secure access to a homegarden plot can be a livelihoods objective. Homegardens are also a natural asset through which other livelihood objectives, such as gender equality and sustainable use of resources, may be achieved. In addition, land can be a route or opportunity through which a multitude of other assets become accessible to the household (Baumann 2002). Access to land sufficient to establish a homegarden can enable a household to produce foods for consumption or trade. Skills learned in production increase the family’s human assets. Consumed foods improve the family’s nutritional status and food security. Sale of foods improve the family’s financial status. Trade, exchange of information and cooperation with other villagers strengthens the family’s relationships with others.
The sustainable livelihoods approach also recognizes that policies, institutions, and processes influence access to and use of assets, which ultimately impacts livelihoods. For example, land law, government land policies, government and customary institutions, as well as factor and product markets will impact whether a family can access and productively use a plot of land that is large enough and otherwise suitable to create a homegarden.
Homegardens have usefully been defined as "a small scale, supplementary food production system by and for household members that mimics the natural, multi-layered ecosystem." (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). Homegardens appear to have developed independently in the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia, the tropical Pacific islands, the Caribbean, and various parts of tropical Latin America and Africa (Brownrigg 1985, Landauer and Brazil 1990), and "can be found in almost all tropical and subtropical ecozones where subsistence land-use systems predominate" (Nair 1993: 86). Temperate climate homegardens were important for many years in the USSR and continue to provide an important safety net for families in the successor nations of the region (e.g., tho Seeth et al 1998).
Published analyses of homegardens generally refer to four identifying characteristics (Brownrigg 1985). First, the garden is located near the residence. Second, the garden contains a high diversity of plants. To this criterion some add that the garden recycles nutrients in a sustainable manner, that plants are planted densely, and that plants are layered to mimic natural forest. Third, garden production is a supplemental rather than a main source of family consumption or income. Fourth, the garden occupies a "small" area.
The issue of homegarden size is particularly important for our analysis. Although most commentators identify homegardens as occupying "small" plots, this criterion is applied to a wide range of plot sizes, varying from a few square meters to more than one hectare.[3] Because the purpose of this paper is to examine the ways in which poor households can obtain and beneficially use homegarden plots, we focus here on homegarden plots falling on the smaller end of the range. If limited public resources are to be used to provide the poor with land for gardening, the size of parcels distributed will determine the number of households benefitted.
A fifth distinguishing characteristic of homegardens that is important to our analysis is offered by Marsh (1998), who states that homegardens are a production system that the poor can easily enter at some level since it may be done with virtually no economic resources, using locally available planting materials, natural manures and indigenous methods of pest control. To the extent a poor family can afford to make beneficial use of homegarden plots, the plots are more likely to make a sustainable contribution to the family’s livelihood objectives.
|
[1] The concept of allocating
house-and-garden plots to landless labourers as a second-best (and more
feasible) alternative to traditional land reform approaches has been gaining
ground in India, as evidenced by India’s recently adopted Tenth Five-Year
Plan: "Access to even small pieces of land which may not be sufficient for providing income to a family for subsistence can significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity by providing an essential component in a diversified livelihood system." (Government of India, 2002,: sec. 3.2.57); and "Ownership of even a small plot of land enables a family to raise its income, improve its nutritional status, have access to credit facilities and lead a more dignified life.... Horticulture, floriculture and vegetable cultivation on small plots of land, including homestead land, have proved beneficial for the poor. Agricultural labourers, therefore, need to be provided access to land to improve their economic and social well-being." (Government of India, 2002,: sec. 3.2.71). [2] Underlying the sustainable livelihoods approach is the theory that people draw on a range of capital assets or poverty reducing factors to further their livelihood objectives (DFID 2001). Assets are categorized as social, human, natural, physical, financial and political, and may serve both inputs and outcomes (Baumann and others 2001). Various vulnerability factors over which people have little or no control (such as environmental disasters and political unrest) impact the assets. Assets are also filtered through policies, institutions, and processes that determine the degree to which the people’s livelihood objectives are realized (DFID 2001). [3] On Java, the great majority of homegarden plots are smaller than 200 m2 (Prosterman and Mitchell 2002), while on other less densely populated Indonesian islands they average 2,500 m2 and can reach sizes of 3 hectares (Christanty 1990). In Bangladesh, homegarden sizes range from 30 to 700 m2, with an average size of 200 m2 (Christanty 1990). |
