The Dynamics of Future Development in Rural-Urban Zones:
sustainable development for the “rurban” zones?
Michel Griffon
Conference to the European Forum on Rural Development Cooperation (Montpellier, France, 4-6
September 2002) based on guidance questions from the organisers.

Reflections on the future of the city and reflections on the future of the rural world have traditionally
been kept separate. They can be traced to two cultures, two professional groups, two traditions that are
seldom crossed. Yet, rapid extension of urbanisation the world over has created areas that have both
urban and rural characteristics. Back in the 1970s , French land planning specialists were already
talking about “rurban areas” and the “rurbanisation” process. These “rurban” zones, generally without
any pre-planning, usually combined the characteristic of the intensive agriculture found in rural zones,
suburban living areas and industrialisation zones. In the spheres of thought enshrouding development
policies, the question of urban and peri-urban agriculture has been topical for close to a decade, and the
analyses of the agro-urban problems are making headway. This paper seeks to give an update on these
issues, identify the main questions related to public policies and put forth some recommendations for
policy-makers.
1.
Sustainable “rurban” development
Cities have existed since the dawn of civilisation and have always played a decisive organic role in the
organisation of society. In most parts of the world, the rural areas of the hinterlands provided the cities
with food and basic agricultural and artisanal goods (fabrics, timber), as well as a major part of the fiscal
revenue. In the industrialising countries, much of the labour force for industry came from the rural
agricultural zones, and in the industrialised world, the rural communities consumed large quantities of
industrial goods. The complex historical transition going from rural society to essentially urban society
(urbanisation process) and from agriculture to industry and then to services (industrialisation process)
took close to a hundred years in Europe. In most of the developing countries, this process is occurring
more rapidly. It affects much bigger populations and is differently shaped: the more or less coincident
historical pacing of industrialisation, urbanisation, and heightened agricultural productivity observed in
Europe during the times of the industrial revolution are not being seen in the developing countries where
urbanisation stems just as much from the rural exodus as from industrialisation.
The process is different from one continent to the other. In Asia, urbanisation is an ancient process, and
high population numbers have created many densely populated areas where agriculture, industry and
residence are mixed together. In Latin America, urbanisation was often connected to rural poverty, and
in many countries, recurring political violence in the rural areas. In the Middle East and North Africa, the
limited production capacity has always made it impossible for the rural areas to sustain large
populations. Last, in sub-Saharan Africa, urbanisation is a more recent, rapid, massive phenomenon
connected to insufficient agricultural growth.
More generally, the large concentrated demand in the cities structures the offer from the peripheral
areas where intensity depends on the proximity to the marketing point. The urban hinterland, thus, is
characterised by productivity rings: in schematic terms, the closer “rings” provide the perishables with
high added value (vegetables, dairy products), while the more distant “rings” produce the nonperishables (cereals, livestock products requiring wide open spaces), with semi-intensive products
coming from the area between the two (poultry, pasture fattened animals, open field vegetable, etc.).
Spatial distribution of these products depends on the cost of transport, perishability and the need for
space. The organisation of production sectors differs greatly depending on the location: direct sale by
farmers on huge urban markets (e.g. Central America), or complex circuits with rural collectors,
wholesalers and retailers. Nowadays, there are new pathways dominated by supermarkets and the like.
The levels of efficiency (in terms of transaction costs) usually vary greatly, and competition everywhere
is triggering rapid change in the structure of these economic circuits, e.g. Africa.
The high concentration of agricultural, industrial and residential activity causes major pollution, which in
some cases can be dangerous, e.g. pollution of the groundwater tables (by fertilisers, plant health
products, effluents from livestock production, urban and industrial waste), soil pollution, and atmospheric
pollution. Whether peri-urban zones are the most highly polluted agricultural areas, especially in Asia, is
a valid question.
This high concentration is also a source of acute competition for land. In certain cases, conflict stems
from the vying between unplanned urban expansion and land ownership in urban peripheral areas, e.g.
especially in southern Africa.
Urbanisation is a very rapid movement. In the next thirty years, the urban populations in the developing
counties will more than double. If nothing is done, the problems we see today will become much more
serious and the solution, much more expensive. The main question, therefore, is: when single given
land areas are involved, how can urban development and rural development be made compatible so as
to reduce pollution and conflict? More broadly speaking: what sustainable development is needed for
the “rurban” zones? This question embraces problems of land planning connected to all productive
activities (agriculture, crafts, industry) and services (transport, trade) as well as major societal problems
(poverty reduction, agrarian issues related to access to land).
2.
What are the problems of poverty in the “rurban” zones?
The poor (according to the classical definition: income under $1/day) live in both the rural and the urban
areas, but in poorest of the poor group, 75% of the undernourished live in the rural areas. Actually, the
form of poverty of poor people whose livelihood comes from agriculture is very different from that of poor
people who must rely on monetary income.
In the urban areas, the livelihood of the poor comes from various sources: small artisans, temporary
employment, access to plots of land to grow staples, etc. The urban economic system gradually
integrates newcomers through a great variety of means and at variable paces, including, in some cases,
periods of rejections, e.g. during the major Indonesian financial crisis in 1999, many urban dwellers who
became impoverished and jobless tried to cultivate any land that was available, just to survive. Similarly,
in Africa, structural adjustments often pushed urban families to cultivate interstitial lands in the suburban
areas. In times of expansion, the urban economy stimulates demand composed of a multitude of
personal services.
The poor people in the “rurban” zones, thus, are very vulnerable to variations in revenue from the formal
sector. During recessions, their only choice is to cultivate lands in their home zones. This explains why
poor people in the peri-urban zones have always had a great need for land. Land is part of their social
safety net.
If poverty is defined using A. Sen’s criteria, i.e. in terms of deprival, and insufficient rights of access and
capacities, poverty in the “rurban” zones can be characterised as follows:
Access to food, a priori, is more difficult there than in the rural zones. But this idea is misleading
because urban activities offer many very varied opportunities and possibilities for employment, albeit
unstable, to meet food needs. But, nonetheless, for large numbers of people, access to food is
uncertain and depends on the availability of petty jobs, which, in turn, depends on economic growth. In
some cities, peripheral lands are spontaneously occupied and cultivated; these land areas can be quite
big, e.g. Harare in Zimbabwe.
Access to other vital needs, such as healthcare and education, is not surer in the cities than in the rural
areas, but here again, urban areas offer more opportunities to find solutions. The association of
manifold opportunities and easier access to information are two major elements in explaining the
advantage for the poor to migrate from the rural areas to the urban areas.
3.
What are the main policy questions stemming from these problems?
These questions can be presented in two groups:
-
first, questions related to poverty in rural zones, since rural poverty is one of the sources of urban
poverty;
second, questions related to the “rurban” areas.
Poverty in the rural areas is now better known although efforts to make analyses are still extremely
insufficient and situations are extremely varied. The causes can be listed:
-
poor functioning of agricultural markets: asymmetric market forces (information gaps, dispersed
offer, police authority abuse, insufficient commercial justice) to the detriment of the farmers, high
transportation costs, distance from consumer points which often negates the ‘signals’ coming from
urban demand, international competition on domestic markets (import of competing food products),
iniquity in price formation on international agricultural produce markets, etc.
-
poor functioning of the state, the local governments and the public services: high state operating
costs, low level of amounts redistributed by the states, public decisions not in the general interest,
weakness of democracy, lack of local community services, etc.
-
livelihoods specialised in agriculture and small trade, which subjects rural dweller to the vagaries of
prices and climate.
The “rurban” areas suffer from these same ills, but less: price information circulates better and the
farmers can protect their interests better, local governments are obliged to face up to the problems
created by high population density, and the stakes stemming therefrom give more life to democracy.
Further, there are more ways to earn a living.
Yet, new questions arise:
-
What can be done to provide the poor with more stable livelihoods, in particular, to ensure greater
food security?
-
What can be done to limit and diminish agriculture-related urban, industrial and agricultural
pollution?
-
What can be done to limit and diminish the global environmental effects to which the “rurban” areas
already contribute or potentially will contribute, namely, the greenhouse effect, reduction of biodiversity, growing shortage of renewable waters?
-
What land use planning can be devised to ensure the sustainable development of these areas?
4.
Proposals
Great thought has been devoted to policies for rural areas and urban areas, but there has not been
much reflection on the “rurban” areas, the place where the urban and rural areas meet. One
conclusion would be to earmark more resources to increasing knowledge on the dynamics and
problematics of changes occurring in these areas.
Special attention should be given to food security and nutrition for the poor in the “rurban” areas.
Access to land to produce part of the staples and, even more so, supplementary food (vegetables,
fruits), is a solution worth study. The industrialised countries of Europe went through a period when the
public authorities had peri-urban gardening zones developed. Such a solution would have to be of
much greater scope in the major cities in the developing countries and would require sound land use
planning.
Reducing agriculture-related pollution is difficult for various reasons:
- industrial pollutants accumulate in land used for agriculture;
- pollutants connected to urban waste are used in compost for agriculture (heavy metals,
transmissible diseases);
- pollutants are found in fertilisers and pesticides;
- arsenic is found in ground watertables.
The search for solutions should consider four possibilities:
- the definition on non-polluting agricultural techniques using mulch and organic fertilisers;
- the definition of selective waste screening procedures in order to produce good quality urban
compost;
- constitution of long-term soil utilisation plans in order to contain the risk of pollution by giving due
consideration to water circulation in the phreatic zone and problems of proximity;
- last, the creation of irrigation infrastructure to ensure high productivity for production zones and
gardens.
Long-term planning for “rurban” zones is also an important part of a long-term biodiversity
management policy. These zones will be occupying considerable land areas. The major African cities
may triple in geographic size, and their dense hinterland could extend very far away from the city
centres. Part of the land areas could be reserved as habitat for fauna, or to preserve certain landscape,
or for special ecological purposes (mitigate the albedo effects, arrest urban runoff) or else be used for
recreation and educational purposes. The local populations could also be encouraged to protect certain
cultivated species, as was done in Addis Abeba.
Long-term water management is also a planning issue. The “rurban” areas are places of intense water
utilisation and recycling. An integrated approach should be used when contemplating problems of
access to resources, water supply lines, circulation of rainwater, and purification circuits for wastewater.
Similarly, planning and regulations are going to play a decisive role in fighting the greenhouse effect.
The nature of the habitat (i.e. whether it is designed to economise on energy or not), the charting of
roads and the planning of urban, “rurban” and inter-urban transport, keyed either to facilitate
communal or individual life, will play a decisive role in carbon emissions.
Ultimately, all the proposed solutions require land use planning as well as planning for the
attendant ecological, economic and social infrastructures. They all require the introduction of rules
and laws on irreversible conduct (non-pollution, site conservation, access rights for the poor). This
presupposes that the states and the local governments will be able to do this work in an orderly manner
and have their decisions respected. Public decisions affecting land tenure run very serious risks of
corruption.
5.
In conclusion, what recommendations can be made for international aid related to
sustainable development in the “rurban” zones?
This short presentation is not comprehensive. Further, the proposals should be modest and open to
criticism. Remember that international aid has not been decisive in ensuring satisfactory sustainable
development for the rural zones. Yet, the stakes for the “rurban” zones are so high that support tools
must be defined for the countries concerned. After recognising this, what can be done?
If the choice were to favour aid that targets what is essential, it would select support for “rurban”
planning methods. This, in essence, means providing the components of methods and funding
needed to establish plans, laws and regulations that structure land use in the long-term, drawing
up rules on the proper use of lands and ensuring access to livelihoods that enable the poor to
emerge out of poverty. Defining such plans, legislation and regulations will require input from a variety
of specialists (academics, consultancy bureaux, civil servants); they must be given the necessary
information. It will also require a permanent place for consultation among public (executive, legislative)
authorities, representatives of the civil society (unions, representatives of associations, etc.) and
experts, in order to prepare decisions. Last, the funding agencies should make an extended,
collegial commitment to support the process and contribute to funding the downstream infrastructure.
Decisions such as these require great steadfastness in public decisions) and the related funding ability.
Short Bibliography
Aboh, A.B.; 2001. Importance, contraintes et voies de développement des élevages urbains et
périurbains dans la région Sud du Bénin – in: Working document series (ICDOR – 96) .- ICRA Montpellier.
Altieri, M.A. et al; 1999. The greening of the “Barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba.
Agriculture and human values. UCA. Berkeley.
Van den Berg; 2000. Urban agriculture as the combination of two “impossible” though sustainable
trends – ALTERRA – WUR. Commission on sustainable rural systems. Pusan Conference. K.
Backhaus, G; Balder, H; 2000. Urban horticulture on the verge of a new century. Insights of the
International Symposium on Plant Health in Urban Horticulture. Braunschweig. Germany.
Cao Linkui; Chen YunZhen; 1998. Study on sustainable development and industrialization of Shangai
urban agriculture. Journal of Shangai Agricultural College, Vol. 16, No. 1.
Chaplowe, S.G.; 1998. Havana’s popular gardens: sustainable prospects for urban agriculture.
Environmentalist (United Kingdom). Vol. 18, No. 1.
Deelstra, T.; Girardet, H; 2000. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. Growing cities, growing food:
urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture.
Dossa, K.; Guira, M.; Loko, B.; Traore, B.; Vigelandzoon, J.; 2000. Intensification durable de l’agriculture
urbaine et peri-urbaine à Lomé – Togo: cas du maraichage. Série de Documents de Travail – Agropolis
International, No. 91.
Nugent, R.A.; 1999. Measuring the sustainability of urban agriculture. For hunger-proof cities:
sustainable urban food systems.
PNUD; 1996. Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities. New York, N.Y.
Zhang AnLu; 1999. Sustainable development of agriculture at the urban-rural eco-economic fringe.
Research of Agricultural Modernization, Vol. 20, No. 5.
Tacoli, Cecilia; 2000. Rural urban interdependance. Focus 3 in Achieving Urban Food and Nutrition
Security in the Development World. 2020 Vision IFPRI. Washington.
Special expertise
CGIAR Support Group on Urban Agriculture
Global Initiative on Urban Agriculture
Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial, and the Global Environment Facility
AVRDG-CGIAR