190115 Backyard horticulture in Maputo-Final · horticulture was the basis and the inspiration for...

Backyard Horticulture in Maputo

Empirical findings

Enrique Fernández Flores

November 2018

Study commissioned by Urban Agriculture for Food Security and Income Generation

in South Africa and Mozambique (UFISAMO)

ii

UFISAMO

Urba n Agr i c u lture for Food Se cur ity a nd Income Generation i n South Afr i ca a nd

Moza mbi que

UFISAMO is a research project financed by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The project is the result of international and interdisciplinary cooperation with the following:

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and

Horticultural Sciences, Berlin, Germany

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, SLE - Centre for Rural Development,

Berlin, Germany

Freie Universität Berlin, FAO Reference Centre for Veterinary Public

Health,

Department of Veterinary Medicine, Berlin, Germany

University Eduardo Mondlane, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,

Maputo, Mozambique

University Eduardo Mondlane, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences

University of the Western Cape, Institute for Social Development, Bellville,

South Africa

University of the Western Cape, Department of Geography, Environmental

Studies & Tourism, Bellville, South Africa

Frankenförder Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Luckenwalde, Germany

Association for sustainable development, Maputo, Mozambique

Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition, Maputo,

Mozambique

Abalimi Bezekhaya, Cape Town, South Africa

iii

Preface

The German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) has supported the urban

agricultural project UFISAMO – Urban Agriculture for Food Security and Income Generation in South

Africa and Mozambique in Cape Town and Maputo since March 2016. The ultimate objective of the

project is to enhance food and nutrition security in certain segments of the poor urban population

and increase income generation by optimizing the production, processing and marketing of

agricultural and livestock products.

The applicability of research results takes centre stage: the project components are expected

to generate information that can be “translated” into good practice examples, extension material,

demo-plots, and capacity development. The project conducts research on a broad variety of topics:

- Urban agricultural value chains

- Opportunities and challenges of urban agriculture

- Urban agricultural research and education network

- Local capacity development and knowledge exchange through transfer of research results

into policies and practices

Ph.D. students from HU and UEM, and students from all the universities concerned carry out

the research, which is complemented by short expertise consultancies.

The present study focuses on backyard horticulture in Maputo, a hitherto widely neglected

topic.

Dr. Karin Fiege Erik Engel

Project leader Project coordinator

Centre for Rural Development (SLE) Frankenförder Forschungsgesellschaft

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

iv

Acknowledgements

The study would not have been possible without the help of a great number of people.

First of all, I want to thank Matias Siueia Junior, whose daily support during and after my stay

in Maputo made the research so much more effective. Not only is he a highly analytical capacity

and a talented researcher with a sound background in agriculture, he is also a kind person who has

contributed much to this study.

Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who welcomed me into their

homes with open arms and big smiles. Their readiness to share their experience in backyard

horticulture was the basis and the inspiration for this research.

I also want to thank the many experts who patiently answered a thousand questions, phone

calls and e-mails. Both their willingness and their knowledge were crucial assets to the study.

Special thanks go to the SLE team and the UFISAMO team, foremost to Karin Fiege

(supervisor), Anja Kühn, and Erik Engel (UFISAMO coordinator) for their continuous professional

and personal support.

My thanks to all of you!

Muito obrigado, vocês foram demais!

Enrique Fernández Flores

M.Sc. Agricultural Economics

B.Sc. Biology-Biotechnology

E-Mail: [email protected]

November 2018

v

Summary

Backyard horticulture in Maputo is vital to food production for the purposes of self-

consumption and commercialization. We find a diversity of backyard gardens in terms of size,

purpose, management schemes and inputs. The present study aims to provide a clear

understanding of their distribution, working dynamics and contribution to urban agriculture, as

well as their impact on the families under review.

Since the scant literature available does not reflect the current status of backyard horticulture,

this study has a strong exploratory character and seeks to explore and understand the components

concerned. The research involved site visits to the districts of KaMavota and KaMubukwana, 34

semi-structured interviews with randomly chosen families who practise backyard horticulture in

several neighbourhoods of these two districts, in-depth interviews with experts, and the validation

of results through specialists. This allowed us to select 14 case studies and characterize six types

of backyard horticulture based on production purpose and motivation; degree of diversity,

intensity and organization of production; types of fertilizers and/or pesticides applied, and water

access and management.

Backyard horticultural practices in Maputo are closely related to family backgrounds and the

changing dynamics of the city, but also to the country’s history of agriculture and self-sufficiency.

Two aspects in this context are considered relevant for backyard horticulture: a) the space

available at home, which was found to be 50 per cent or more of the total plot size; b) the time

available to family member(s) responsible for key activities associated with backyard horticulture.

Although women take the lead – decision-making and management of backyard production –

there is almost equal participation by male and female family members in the daily activities

production entails.

For the families interviewed, food production for self-consumption (47%) takes priority over

commercialization (30%), although many of these households work towards both simultaneously.

Here flexibility reflects individual family decisions and their contexts at a specific time and is clearly

linked to the amount produced, i.e., to the given growth conditions over a certain period of time.

The vast majority of crops and farm animals at these homes are easy to manage and rapidly

produced (e.g., lettuce, cabbage, pumpkin leaves and/or broiler chickens). Exceptions that see

families work towards production diversity and highlight the intrinsic character of the backyard

(i.e., leisure) are few and far between. The above-mentioned products are key to people’s diet in

Maputo and thus heavily consumed throughout the city. To a certain degree, backyard horticulture

appears to be an extension of what is produced in the agricultural areas of the green zones or

“zonas verdes”.

Manure from chickens and pigs, i.e., of natural origin, is the primary fertilizer. This is a dramatic

contrast to the intense application of chemical pesticides in some backyards, especially in the case

of market production. Since backyard horticultural producers frequently interact with producers in

the “zonas verdes”, it seems that the green zones “export” the use of these pesticides. Proximity

vi

to the green zones means greater access to technical information and/or other inputs. Water is not

considered a concern, since almost all households have more than one source of water. The quality

of the resource, however, particularly when it comes from a creek, seems to be a cause for concern.

Although numerous actors have recognized the potential of backyard horticulture in recent

years, the technical and management assistance for the families concerned has been either

minimal or discontinued, adding to the unawareness of its scope. This research shows that by

providing green space and space for leisure activities, backyard horticulture in the city contributes

to family development, food and nutrition needs, household incomes, and the general well-being

of the family. A primarily self-organized activity, backyard horticulture calls for technical

knowledge, motivation, space and time, and deserves increased and continued attention by

support structures if its potential is to be fully explored.

vii

Table of Contents

Preface............................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................iv

Summary............................................................................................................................v

List of tables ....................................................................................................................viii

List of figures ...................................................................................................................viii

Backyard horticulture in Maputo..........................................................................................1

1 Conceptual framework ...............................................................................................1

1.1 Definition of backyard horticulture and home gardens .........................................1

1.2 Characteristics of backyard horticulture .............................................................. 2

1.3 Importance of backyard horticulture....................................................................3

1.4 Backyard horticulture in Africa and other regions of the Global South .................. 4

2 Local context: Mozambique and Maputo.....................................................................5

2.1 Characteristics of Maputo city .............................................................................5

2.2 Previous experiences of backyard horticultural projects in Maputo........................7

3 Scope of Action and Methodology ............................................................................. 9

3.1 Objective........................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 9

4 Results..................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Distribution of home gardens in the KaMubukwana and KaMavota districts ........ 11

4.2 Distribution of visits ..........................................................................................12

4.3 Analysis of visits................................................................................................ 13

4.3.1 Production purpose ...................................................................................14

4.3.2 Yard size ...................................................................................................30

4.3.3 Operational management ..........................................................................32

4.3.4 Selling.......................................................................................................39

4.3.5 Challenges ................................................................................................41

5 Conclusions..............................................................................................................43

6 References...............................................................................................................45

7 Annexes.................................................................................................................. 48

viii

Annexe I: List of case studies ................................................................................... 48

Annexe II: Extended description of cases .................................................................. 49

Annexe III: List of experts interviewed ...................................................................... 82

Annexe IV: Topics of semi-structured interview for visits............................................83

List of tables

Table 1: Importance of home gardens by areas.....................................................................3

Table 2: Areas of the Maputo urban landscape ................................................................... 6

Table 3: Aspect s and characteristics relevant to bac kyard horticulture ................................ 13

Table 4: Estimated d egree and type of backyard contribution to household income ............27

Table 5: Estimated size of the plot, the yard and the productive section of the yard .............30

Table 6: Family members with a key role, number of children in the house and type of inputs

used in backyard production.................................................................................................... 33

Table 7: Estimation of time spent per day on backyard horticulture activities ......................38

List of figures

Figure 1: Map of Maputo with districts .................................................................................7

Figure 2: Methodology phases ..........................................................................10

Figure 3: Distribution of areas with home gardens in the districts .......................................12

Figure 4: Map of visits to KaMubukwana and KaMavota ..................................................... 13

Figure 5: Explanatory diagram and its characteristics.......................................................... 15

Figure 6: Explanatory diagram and photo of the Type 1 case............................................... 17

Figure 7: Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 2 case .............................................18

Figure 8: Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 3 case ............................................ 20

Figure 9: Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 4 case ............................................ 22

Figure 10. Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 5 case........................................... 24

Figure 11: Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 6 case........................................... 26

Figure 12: Analysis of the visits ..........................................................................................32

ix

Figure 13: Pesticides commercialized in small plastic bags .................................................. 37

Figure 14: An example of the “take-away” service ............................................................. 40

Figure 15: Explanatory diagram of Case 1 .......................................................... 49

Figure 16: Photos of Case 1 backyard ................................................................50

Figure 17: Diagram analysis of Case 2 ................................................................ 51


Figure 19: Diagram analysis of Case 3 ............................................................... 53

Figure 20: Photos of Case 3 backyard ............................................................... 55

Figure 21: Diagram analysis of Case 4 ...............................................................56

Figure 22: Photos of Case 4 backyard .............................................................. 57





Figure 27: Diagram analysis of Case 7 .............................................................. 64



Figure 30: Photos of Case 8 backyard ...............................................................................67




Figure 34: Photos of Case 10 backyard ............................................................. 71

Figure 35: Diagram analysis of Case 11 ..............................................................72

Figure 36: Photos of Case 11 backyard ..............................................................74

Figure 37: Diagram analysis of Case 12 ............................................................. 75

Figure 38: Photos of Case 12 backyard .............................................................76


Figure 40: Photos of Case 13 backyard .............................................................79

Figure 41: Diagram analysis of Case 14 ................................................................ 80

Figure 42: Photo of Case 14 backyard ...............................................................81

x

Abbreviations

ABIODES Associação para Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Association for sustainable

development)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DASACM Direção da Agricultura e da Segurança Alimentar da Cidade de Maputo

(Directorate of Agriculture and Food Security of the City of Maputo)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

INE Instituto Nacional de Estatística (National Institute of Statistics)

NGO Non-governmental organization

UEM Universidade Eduardo Mondlane (University Eduardo Mondlane)

UFISAMO Urban Agriculture for Food Security and Income Generation in South Africa and

Mozambique

UNHABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme

1

Backyard horticulture in Maputo

The present study describes the characteristics of the backyard horticultural landscape (also

known as home gardens1) of the city of Maputo with reference to production, purpose, economic

impact on families, and other relevant aspects surrounding this activity such as selling mechanisms

and challenges. Since home gardens can be understood differently depending on the context, it is

important to state the scope envisaged by UFISAMO (see chapter 1.1).

1 Conceptual framework

Throughout human history people have had gardens (FAO, 2011). Adjacent to the home, these

gardens provide space for several purposes, including food production in the form of crops and

livestock. Their complexity and variety depend on the specific characteristics of the environment

and on family structures. Hence backyard horticulture is a somewhat broad definition.

1.1 Definition of backyard horticulture and home gardens

First and foremost, it should be understood that the term “backyard” is not an exact translation of

the word used in the Mozambican context to define the space adjoining the habitable area or

house2 available for productive or leisure activities. The word used here is quintal and describes

the space behind, in front of or around the house. Quintal is therefore a wider understanding of

this space and encompasses all forms of what we know as yards (i.e., backyards, front yards). For

the purpose of this research and considering the many contexts, the term hortas no quintal or

hortas quintaleras is translated as “backyard horticulture” and/or “home gardens”. Moreover,

when referring to the space occupied by the yard and the habitable area or house, I will use the

word plot.

Definitions and interpretations around the concept of backyards and backyard horticulture and/or

home gardens are typically used in combination and adjusted to contexts such as family activities,

city structural characteristics or socio-economic and territorial features.3 The underlying concept

of “intimate, multi-story combinations of trees and crops, sometimes in association with domestic

animals, around homesteads” seems common to all. Although several authors have attempted to

describe the term “home garden”, no interpretation has been universally accepted as “the

definition” (Kumar & Nair, 2004).

In line with the variability of the concept, Box 1 presents some of the most accepted definitions

found in the literature, which I believe correspond to Maputo´s reality:

1 For the purposes of this chapter, backyard horticulture and home gardens are considered synonyms. 2 For the study as a whole, the house refers to the habitable area or physical structure excluding the yard. 3 When not (completely) enclosed, the space per se may or may not be considered a yard or home

garden.

2

Box 1: Definitions around the concept: Backyard Horticulture

According to Das and Das (2005), home gardens are traditional agroforestry systems

characterized by the complexity of their structure and multiple functions. They can be defined

as “land use system involving deliberate management of multipurpose trees and shrubs in

intimate association with annual and perennial agricultural crops and invariably livestock within

the compounds of individual houses, the whole tree-crop animal unit being intensively managed

by family labour”.

According to Freitas et al. (2004), home gardens are traditional productive systems for the use

of land, broadly applied in tropical regions with African origins, where agricultural and forestry

management combined with diverse cultural activities is carried out by families living in rural,

peri-urban and urban areas in the spaces adjacent to their houses, that is, their yards.

Machado et al. (2008), on the other hand, see “backyards as areas to conserve agricultural and

cultural biodiversity in the global tropical belt that contributes to food security, health and other

basic needs, in addition to foster leisure and socialization”. (Ferreira & Sablayrolles, 2009).

According to Freire et al. (2005), and from a more environmental perspective, “backyards are

spaces considered to be living laboratories in the context of family agriculture, which besides its

contribution to the supply of food is an excellent gene bank, encompassing numerous animal,

vegetal and microorganism species keepers of environmental services, which interact in a

functional way providing human beings with provision, regulatory and cultural services”.

It is important to recognize that in contrast to other urban agriculture practices, home gardens do

not encompass extensive areas of production. Neither is their main focus on market-oriented

activities. This may differ, however, when it comes to specific cases in specific areas around the

world. In Maputo, for example, yards around houses are used to produce significant quantities of

food either for self-consumption or commercial purposes, independent of the size of the yard.

1.2 Characteristics of backyard horticulture

Besides their close link to family activities and their location adjacent to the habitable area,

home gardens have several other characteristics. According to Galluzi et al. (2010), backyard

gardens in both rural and urban areas are characterized by their complex and multifunctional

structure, which is beneficial both to the ecosystem and to the people concerned. In addition,

home gardens differ greatly from conventional large-scale farming systems, since they involve

smaller areas, intense management of the production system and a reduced need for investment.

As stated by Kumar & Nair (2004), backyard garden production is mostly destined for food and

focuses on vegetables and spices. This is usually combined with natural production from trees

planted in the backyards, with annual fruit yields for the household. Home gardens also have the

potential to eventually generate income as a result of product sales (High & Shackleton, 2000).

Another characteristic of home gardens is the great diversity of crops and livestock species in

the region, country and/or geographical area. Due to their long tradition in tropical countries, for

example, home gardens are characterized by a set of plants, including trees, shrubs, vines and

herbaceous plants, that grow in the same place (Nair, 1993 a), all of which are representatives of

the region and widely consumed by the community.

3

The type of agriculture practised in these backyards with reduced areas, however, requires a

working model that guarantees its sustained use over time (Abdo et al., 2008).

1.3 Importance of backyard horticulture

Home gardens supported humanity when the hunting and gathering lifestyle gradually shifted

to more settled activities in smaller areas and the formation of communities.

Although analysed as a two-component phenomenon, given the provision of direct services

(e.g., food security, water, fuel and other materials) and indirect services (e.g., green space and

support for land rights and property possession), the literature recognizes multiple benefits that

are worth mentioning. The following table details these benefits:

Table 1: Importance of home gardens by areas

Sector Description

Food and

nutrition

security

Farming vegetables and/or fruit instead of buying them at local markets

satisfies nutritional needs (Pereira et al., 2010) with greater diversity, high

nutritional content and ultimately better health. The existence of poultry

guarantees a supply of eggs and animal protein4. The sale of home garden

produce generates income and allows for the purchase of other products to

help diversify family diets (Gazel Filho et al., 2009).

Economic

impact

Families save by not purchasing items they can produce themselves. In some

cases, homes look for a more commercial approach and conduct small-scale

selling of their products. According to Kumar & Nair (2004), backyard

gardening is a means of producing food for self-consumption and has the

potential to generate income for vulnerable families.

Social impact Community building occurs when gardening information is shared and/or

products are donated5. Understanding the structure and function of these

gardens calls for analysis of the socio-economic and biophysical aspects of

these systems (Das & Das, 2005). Collaboration among neighbours,

particularly in relation to food topics, is seen as a mechanism to improve

relationships and the quality of life. It also furthers knowledge about the social

and cultural importance of spaces where agricultural practices are conducted

(Blanckaert et al., 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010) and of their beautification.

4 In some cases, cattle, sheep, pigs and/or goats can be found in family backyards or around the house.

They also provide milk and meat when required. 5 This normally takes place after harvesting and refers to products that have not been consumed by the

family. In addition, families often donate vegetables, fruit and/or livestock from their home gardens when

special occasions are celebrated in the community.

4

Urban

ecology

Despite their small size, green spaces enrich the houses and their surroundings

with oxygen. Moreover, significant nutrient recycling takes place via

decentralized composting and the re-use of wastewater and organic waste.

Backyard production also allows for cultivation of several species with multiple

uses in a given area, thereby helping ecosystems to remain balanced.

According to Articles 7, 8 and 10 (c) of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

the inventory of productive backyard areas while assessing the sustainability

of the system can help in the identification and conservation of biodiversity

(CBD, 1992).

As pointed out earlier, the favourable impact of home gardens on families and communities

around the globe has been greatly acknowledged. The following chapter looks at some of the

aspects surrounding this phenomenon.

1.4 Backyard horticulture in Africa and other regions of the Global

South

The reasons why homes in the Global South undertake home gardening are diverse.

According to some authors and experts, these are strongly linked to the space available and the

increase in urban/rural migration (Yamashita & Ishida, 2017). Stren (1992), for instance, showed

that 82% of African countries experienced an urban population growth rate of 5% or more between

1980 and 1988. Inés Raimundo (Director, Center for Political Analysis - UEM) also mentioned this

aspect. Her research points to a similar phenomenon in Mozambique, where migration from the

provinces to Maputo city has surged in recent decades.

As pointed out in chapter 1.1, backyard horticulture represents a traditional form of

agriculture and is considered one of the oldest forms of land use, promoting a sustainable

approach to food production for millions of people around the world (Nair, 1986). Despite its great

importance in many respects, very little attention has been given to the field of horticulture.

Scientific reports on home gardens are replete with statements such as ‘studies on these systems

have been disproportionately lower than what their economic value, ecological benefits or

sociocultural importance would warrant’ (Nair, 2001).

Most studies on home gardens are carried out in the Southeast Asian and South Asian

regions, where they predominate (Nair, 2004). Kerala in India, where most of the residential areas

have vegetable garden stock to improve their food intake, is one example (Kumar & Chinnamani,

1994; Santhakumar, 1996).

In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, a number of studies emphasize the link between backyard

horticulture and the dynamics of migration. According to these studies and as stated by Inés

Raimundo, the expectations of those who have been migrating to the urban areas since the late

1980s were frequently not met as a result, for example, of Structural Adjustment Policies that led

to fewer jobs in these countries. Furthermore, workers who already had jobs in the cities witnessed

a real decline in their wages. In response, they engaged in other activities to supplement their

incomes or adopted coping mechanisms. Vegetable farming and fruit tree cultivation, livestock

rearing, beer brewing, and the sale of vegetables, fruit and/or prepared food are some examples

(Smart, 2014). Although little is known about the evolution of home gardens, Maroyi (2009)

5

documented the contribution of gardens in Zimbabwe, for example, to the livelihoods of rural

populations.

Similar to the African region and as a result of migration and the political situation in Latin

America and the Caribbean during the 1970s and 1980s, a patio or quintal6 with a home garden was

crucial to preventing food insecurity. Brazil and its use of home gardens is probably closest to the

Mozambican context. Economic growth in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro prompted countless

Brazilians to migrate to these cities in search of more favourable living conditions. The ensuing

urban population growth triggered expansion of the urban area to the surrounding countryside,

causing a further clash of urban and rural realities, including agricultural production patterns.

Today, proximity to family relatives and direct (daily) contact make home gardens in Brazil a sound

basis for the transfer of knowledge and environmental education. Knowledge is rarely taught

directly but usually passed on through living together or integrated into everyday conversation

(Halder, 2018).

2 Local context: Mozambique and Maputo

Although Mozambique is one of the least urbanized countries in Southern Africa, it is

urbanizing at a rapid rate – not unlike most countries on the African continent. In 1990, only 21%

of the population lived in the country’s urban centres. Ten years later, this figure had increased to

31% and in 2010 to an estimated 38%. UNHABITAT predicts that the urban population will increase

to 46% of the total population by 2020 and exceed 50% for the first time in the course of the 2020s7

(Raimundo et al., 2014). The differential growth rates of rural and urban populations add weight to

the notion of an accelerating urban transition. This refers in particular to its capital, Maputo.

2.1 Characteristics of Maputo city

The modern city of Maputo is located at the southern end of the country and, like many

African cities, has its origins in colonial times.

Due to its political and economic importance and the size of its population, Maputo has provincial

status, with jurisdiction corresponding to the area of the municipality. The area covered by the

municipality is 346.7 km2. The 34 neighbourhoods are divided into seven administrative districts:

KaMpfumo; KaMaxaqueni, Nlhamankulu, KaNyaka, KaMavota, KaMubukwana and KaTembe,

with a total of 1 300 000 inhabitants (Rocha, 2015; INE, 2018). The total metropolitan area amounts

to 300 km² and has an urban population amounting to 32.8% of the total population.8 Maputo itself

is the largest city and the administrative hub of Mozambique. It contributes 40% of the national

Gross Domestic Product and 70% of fiscal resources (Raimundo et al., 2014). According to these

researchers, the urban landscape of the city, with its districts and neighbourhoods or bairros, is

6 Depending on the country in the Latin American and Caribbean region, `patio ́ in Spanish-speaking

countries, `quintal ́ in Brazil. 7 The urban population of Mozambique in 1990 was 2.86 million and is estimated to increase to 16.8

million by 2030 (Raimundo et al., 2014) 8 According to the CIA World Factbook in

https://www.indexmundi.com/mozambique/urbanization.html

6

commonly divided into three separate areas as presented in Table 2.

Area 1, cidade de cimento or "city of the whites" as it was called in the past, has solid

foundations with stone buildings, houses, asphalt streets, piped water, electricity and a social

infrastructure. It contrasts significantly with cidade de caniço (Area 2), which was primarily built

with more precarious materials, notably reed, wood and zinc (Costa, 2007; Araújo, 2003).

Table 2: Areas of the Maputo urban landscape (based on Raimundo et al., 2014)

Area 1:

Cidade de

cimento

A nucleus of solid buildings that constitutes the wealthiest area of the city and

is made up of the Sommerschield, Polana, Coop and Triunfo, Central,

Malhangalene and Alto Maé neighbourhoods, all of which belong to the

Kampfumo municipal district.

Area 2:

Cidade de

caniço

The poorer residential suburbs that occupy the largest area of the city and are

comprised of buildings made of reed, wood and zinc sheeting. The area covers

the municipal districts of Nhlamankulu and Kamaxakeni, and includes

neighbourhoods such as Malanga, Chamanculo, Xipamanine, Aeroporto,

Benfica, Malhazine, Hulene, Laulane, Forças Populares and 25 de Junho.

Area 3: Peri-

urban

districts

The peri-urban municipal districts of KaMavota and KaMabukwana, including

neighbourhoods such as Zimpeto, Mahotas and Magoanine.

When referring to urban agriculture, production is concentrated in four of the seven

municipal districts, namely, KaTembe, KaNyaka and the two UFISAMO study (peri-urban) districts

listed in Table 2 as Area 3: KaMubukwana and KaMavota. (DASACM, 2017; Barghusen et al., 2016).

These are displayed in Figure 1.

7

Figure 1: Map of Maputo with districts Source: Barghusen et al., 2016

2.2 Previous experiences of backyard horticultural projects in Maputo

In recent years, empirical data and reliable information on home gardens in Maputo has been

limited to a few reports from previous projects, particularly the FAO project carried out in

collaboration with the KULIMA and AAES NGOs between 2009 and 2012. Here the objective was

to enhance food self-sufficiency and the diet of marginalized households selected from the

Maputo and Nampula municipalities.9 According to reports and expert interviews, the main

benefits of the project consisted more diverse production due to upgraded technical and

managerial skills and the availability of tools and the improved economic situation of women and

female-headed households. Additional benefits associated with the project were nutritional

education and processing skills, as well as better use of hitherto unused land. The same report,

however, also found that the project had failed to decrease household expenses for food in a

meaningful way (FAO 2012).

According to the Endline Report (FAO, 2012), there was an increase in the availability of basic

agricultural instruments required for home gardening. The availability of watering cans and

spraying pumps to facilitate irrigation and pulverizing of vegetables was nonetheless poor.

Doménico Luzzi (Director of KULIMA NGO and ex-coordinator of the FAO project for KaMavota)

9 The neighborhoods that benefited from this programme in Maputo: Chamaculo “D”, Costa do Sol,

Ferroviário, Mahotas and Zimpeto (FAO, 2012).

8

recalls that the project improved and extended the production features of backyards, diversified

products and helped to increase people´s technical and management skills, particularly those of

women in the homes. Similarly, José Mabota (ex-coordinator by the AAES NGO of the FAO project

for KaMubukwana) stated that female household heads had been given the opportunity to actively

participate in enhancing the quality of life of their families by supplementing family earnings and

acquiring further knowledge on good nutrition. This aspect was also considered by Felicidade

Panguene, current FAO officer in Mozambique, who highlighted a key objective of the

organization she represents, which is to support the production of food not only as a source of

energy but also of nutritional components of great benefit when prepared correctly. Flávio Saraiva,

a member of the KULIMA NGO team in the FAO project, agrees and adds to the list the processing

of certain products to enrich their nutritional content and reduce production waste (e.g., preparing

porridge with maize flour enriched with carrots and beet).

Another expert involved in the FAO project, Marina Pancas (ex-member of the general

coordination team), claims the project had a huge impact on families by providing knowledge on

how to take advantage of previously unused backyards. Moreover, communication between

project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries saw the constant transfer of knowledge and a greater

appreciation of the potential of horticulture. One of the key findings, however, showed that

despite a slight reduction in the weekly average household expenses for vegetables, there was no

statistically significant difference in the average overall monthly expenditure of households before

and after the project intervention. In other words, the project failed to alter overall household

expenditures (FAO, 2012).

Experts not involved in the FAO project agree that backyard horticulture can have a positive

impact on family incomes. At the same time, they recognize that its potential depends on family

structures, not least the existing characteristics and motivation, all of which makes a general

strategy difficult to design. This is likewise the perspective of Delson João from AfricArte, who

organizes learn meetings for those who wish to become familiar with horticulture.

9

3 Scope of Action and Methodology

The present study focuses its empirical research on two districts of Maputo: KaMubukwana

and KaMavota, both of which are part of the UFISAMO research framework.

3.1 Objective

The aim of the study is to understand the dynamics around backyard horticulture, its

contribution to urban agriculture in the city of Maputo, and the impact on the families concerned.

Furthermore, the study seeks to create awareness of the backyard horticulture dynamic in the

city and provide useful information for the various actors working in urban agriculture in Maputo

to complement their approach to addressing future projects.

3.2 Methodology

The many different activities conducted during my stay in Berlin and Maputo (21.05. –

10.06.2018) are shown in Figure 2.

A context analysis of the city and the two study districts of KaMavota and KaMubukwana was

the first methodological step. The “tours” of the city undertaken for this purpose helped to gain a

first impression. A compilation of the relevant literature served as a basis for exploring the

characteristics of backyards and their use as a component of urban dynamics and urban

development. Final reports from past projects on home gardens in the study districts were likewise

taken into account. Nine expert interviews (list in Annexe III) were conducted, notably with those

who have been or continue working closely with households and are familiar with the backyard

panorama in both districts.

Following this stage, field visits were organized to randomly cover as many areas of KaMavota

and KaMubukwana as possible. Semi-structured interviews containing general and particular

questions on family structure, the relation to backyard horticulture and vital components

associated with this activity (Annexe IV) were carried out with the owner, person in charge or a

household member well-informed about the home gardens under review.

From these interviews, 14 cases were selected as “case studies” based on their diversity and

specific characteristics and/or because they were represented more than once on the visits.10 All

14 cases are presented in Annexes I and II.

Six “types” of backyard production were identified for these cases (see chapter 4.3.1) as a

means of classifying Maputo backyards regardless of their diversity. An analytical tool was

designed to identify the different types.

As part of an in-depth interview and validation approach, preliminary results were presented

and discussed with experts and/or in the context of discussion meetings.

10 As McCordic (2016) stated, case studies allow for a grounded investigation of scientific models,

whereby the focus is on collecting empirical data rather than on discussing theoretical concepts. Case studies

are also well suited to investigations where little is known (Eisenhardt, 2014).

10

Figure 2: Methodology phases Source: own

11

4 Results

According to my observation, backyard horticulture in the city of Maputo is a widely

practised and highly diverse activity with multiple purposes and both direct and indirect benefits

to the people concerned. The main empirical findings on and around this activity are elaborated in

the following chapters.

4.1 Distribution of home gardens in the KaMubukwana and KaMavota

districts

Backyard horticultural practices in the districts of KaMavota and KaMubukwana depend

primarily on family structures and the space and time available.

Antão Ali pointed out in our interview that the space available for agricultural purposes in

KaMavota district slightly exceeds that of KaMubukwana district. During field tours, however, I

was unable to find a major difference in the development of backyard horticulture between the

two districts that would justify a separate analysis of each district. Raimundo et al. (2014), who

stated in our interview that both districts belong to the same area (i.e., Area 3 mentioned in Table

2), substantiate this approach.

Nevertheless, a number of factors related to the characteristics of the district in which the

household is located play a certain role when it comes to backyard horticultural activities. The most

favourable factors are:

� Proximity to a technical centre such as a Casa Agraria or an ex-Casa Agraria11. The

latter is frequently used as a warehouse for technicians from the current Casa Agraria

to load and unload inputs. In both cases, technicians are usually willing to help when

neighbours have technical or other questions with regard to their backyard

production. This interaction develops into relations of trust.

� Distance from the ocean, since the nutrient quality of the soil is far richer the further

it is from the ocean. Soil close to the ocean contains a high degree of salinity, rendering

the soil quality unsuitable for agricultural activities.

� Proximity to “zonas verdes” (green zones), where not only is the soil quality and the

availability of water comparable to what exists in the “green zones”, but there is also a

direct exchange of information focused on problem solving. The area is known as a

“zona de transição” (transition zone) and although not yet part of the “green zones”, it

is closely linked to them. This is basically due to the daily dynamics of the “green

zones”, including organizational knowledge, administration through associations, the

purchase of inputs and the sale of products.

Furthermore, in some district quarters the majority of families live in predios or “áreas de cimento” (buildings) and others in “bairros de lata” (shanty towns). In both cases space is minimal,

11 “Ex-Casa Agraria” refers to a former Casa Agraria that is no longer in operation but serves as a

warehouse

12

implying a lack of backyards and consequently of significant horticultural activities12. Figure 3 shows the distribution of these two types of settlements.

Taking these considerations into account, I estimate that approximately 80% of the population

of KaMubukwana and KaMavota conduct horticultural activities.

Figure 3: Distribution of areas with home gardens in the districts of KaMubukwana and

KaMavota. “Predios” or “áreas de cimento” (buildings) are shown in blue circles. “Bairros de lata”

(shanty towns) are indicated by long-dashed dotted squares. All areas outside of these represent

home gardens.

Source: own map adapted from Barghusen et al. (2016)

4.2 Distribution of visits

The 34 field visits were conducted randomly in the two districts and according to opportunity

(Figure 4). As will be seen, the number of visits in each district is well balanced and aimed at

gathering empirical information in neighbourhoods located in and around the districts.

12 Although limited space is occasionally available in shanty towns and backyard horticultural activities

are undoubtedly carried out, they were not apparent in the course of my observations.

13

Figure 4: Map of visits to KaMubukwana (dark red contour) and KaMavota (blue contour)

Source: own map adapted from Andreatta & Magalhães, 2011

4.3 Analysis of visits

The characteristics of each household visited, including the space available at home and the

time available for backyard horticultural activities, were the key factors in understanding the

purpose and decisions involved in home garden production and its feasibility.

The following chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of five different aspects involved in

the development of backyard horticultural activities and those who practise them. Table 3 presents

these aspects and some characteristics considered for further analysis:

Table 3: Aspects and characteristics relevant to backyard horticulture

Aspects Characteristics

Production purpose Food production (for self-consumption), commercialization

and/or leisure.

Size of yard Yard size in relation to house and yard section used for

production.

14

Operational management Acquisition and types of inputs, including pesticides,

fertilizers and water, family members in charge of

production, time spent on backyard horticulture, relation to

other backyard producers, types of crops and animals

produced.

Sales Procedures around this activity include marketing and

methods of payment.

Challenges Issues that need to be taken care of to improve individual and

collective backyard horticultural activities.

4.3.1 Production purpose

In general, there are numerous reasons why families decide to carry out backyard horticultural

activities. As the literature and most experts like Inés Raimundo, Doménico Luzzi and Flavio

Saraiva reflect, the need for food under poverty conditions is one of them. This was the case with

some of the interviewed families (e.g., visits 2, 9 and 28).

As seen in other households, however, food grown in backyards is also produced for

commercial purposes (e.g., visits 1, 7 and 21). In fact, approximately 30% of all households

interviewed stated commercialization as the main reason for practising backyard horticulture,

while the principal motivation for around 47% of all households was self-consumption. Antão Ali

pointed out that a mix of both purposes is part of the natural dynamic13 of having home gardens.

This is also evident in the examples presented in this chapter and the importance of the yard size

in chapter 4.3.2, notably in Figure 12.

It should furthermore not be forgotten that the intrinsic feature of the yard is leisure rather

than production for whatever purpose. This ranges from appreciating an open space at home to

enjoying backyard horticultural activities.

Although households may share the same motivation for conducting backyard horticultural

activities, each has its own characteristics. In this context, I designed a simple but effective

explanatory diagram to present the results didactically, based on the three above-mentioned

components: food production (for self-consumption), commercialization (of backyard

production), and leisure.14

The diagram shows the yard space corresponding to each component and their

interrelationship.

13 With the exception of visits 6, 18 and 33, where home garden activities did not take place. 14 Some experts and interviewees spoke of these three components in their Portuguese version:

produção de alimentos, comercialização and lazer.

15

Characteristics of the diagram:

� The large circle represents the framework universe that corresponds to the yard area. It also

represents the leisure component, the intrinsic backyard feature.

� The size of the circles for the food production and commercialization components indicates the

space these activities occupy proportionally in the yard as a whole. The font size is adjusted to

the size of the circles.

� Green represents the most important activity/activities.

� Blue represents less important activity/activities.

� The relationship between the three components can be seen in their degree of intersection or

inclusion.

� If the inside circle(s) is partly located outside the universe area, it indicates production close to

but outside the yard.

Figure 5: Explanatory diagram and its characteristics

Source: own diagram

16

This perspective allows for characterization of the dynamics around the motivation(s) for backyard

horticulture.

In order to provide an overview of how the diagram works, how diverse backyard horticultural

practices in Maputo are and how we could begin to classify them, I typified 6 of the 14 selected

case studies for this chapter (chapter 3.2)15:

� Type 1: “necessary” low-input production for self-consumption

� Type 2: “opportunistic” low-input production for commercialization and self-

consumption

� Type 3: “intensive” broiler production for commercialization and “complementary”

vegetable production for self-consumption

� Type 4: “integrated” low-input production for self-consumption with vegetable resale for

commercialization

� Type 5: “highly diverse small-scale” production of vegetables and livestock for self-

consumption and commercialization

� Type 6: “highly diverse and integrated” production of vegetables and fish for

commercialization and self-consumption

The different types are described briefly and analysed in the following figures (Figures 6-10)

15 I am aware of the descriptive nature of case studies and the limited capacity for generalizations.

However, I am confident that the 14 visits selected as case studies are representative of all 34 visits and the

degree of backyard diversity in the city of Maputo.

17

Type 1: “necessary” low-input production for self-consumption

Figure 6: Explanatory diagram and photo of the Type 1 case

The plot measures 15 x 15 metres, whereby the yard occupies approx. 70% of the total plot (32% for

horticultural production, 38% free space). The plot is not enclosed.

Production in the yard is carried out without large investments, but simply with a small number of tools

and inputs, and mixed plant beds. The unique purpose of the home garden is food production for

self-consumption. The crops produced are lettuce, cabbage, pumpkin leaves, sweet potatoes and

bananas. The family also has three ducks.

18

Type 2: “opportunistic” low-input production for commercialization and self- consumption

Figure 7: Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 2 case

The plot measures 15 x 30 metres. The yard covers around 70% of the whole plot (50% for production,

20% free space).

The principal motivation for starting a home garden was originally to make use of available, previously

disorganized space rather than to produce food for self-consumption or commercial purposes. Today,

however, backyard food production serves both purposes. Cabbage and lettuce are produced for sale,

while other crops such as garlic, pepper, onions, tomatoes, pumpkin leaves, lemons, papayas and

bananas are grown entirely for self- consumption, although the designated space for these products is

smaller.

One specific characteristic is food production in a space that does not entirely correspond to the family

backyard. The neighbour who lives opposite the house allows the family to farm vegetables in front of

his house. Hence the circles “commercialization” and “food production” exceed the limits of the

backyard space.

19

Photos: Images of the Type 2 case - “opportunistic” low-input production for commercialization

and self- consumption

20

Type 3: “intensive” broiler production for commercialization and “complementary” vegetable production for self-consumption


The plot at the biggest house interviewed measures 550 x 500 metres. The yard takes up

approximately 80% of the space (52% production space, 28% free space).

Vegetables are produced in the backyard for self-consumption. Moreover, galinhas de corte (broiler

chickens) are produced for commercialization. Broilers were initially bred as a food source for the

family and several relatives. It was later seen as a business opportunity that could – depending on the

season – amount to 1 200 animals.16 Today they are part of the family diet.

16 At the time of the interview they had 800 animals.

21

Photos: Images of the Type 3 case: “intensive” broiler production for commercialization and

“complementary” vegetable production for self-consumption

22

Type 4: “integrated” low-input production for self-consumption with vegetable resale for

commercialization


The plot measures 30 x 30 metres. The yard absorbs approx. 65% of the plot (60% production space,

5 % free space).

Home garden production has mixed purposes: self-consumption and commercialization. Around half

the products are grown here for self-consumption: lettuce, sweet potatoes, papayas, mangos,

oranges and lemons. The other half is used for commercialization: cabbage and piri piri (chili), which

is sometimes sold to Chinese business organizations for processing. Some of the oranges and lemons

grown at home are sold along with products that have not been produced in the backyard (e.g.,

tomatoes, coconuts, carrots and oranges) but were bought at Zimpeto market (see chapter 4.3.4 for

more details on selling).

The goal of commercializing is to increase the family income and contribute financially to the

children’s education.

23

Photos: Images of the Type 4 case: “integrated” low-input production for self-consumption and

vegetable resale for commercialization. Top: products from the family backyard and Zimpeto

market are sold side by side.

24

Type 5: “highly diverse small-scale” production of vegetables and livestock for self- consumption and commercialization

Figure 10. Explanatory diagram and photos of the Type 5 case

The plot measures 20 x 30 metres. The yard comprises 75% of this space, most of which is used for

horticulture production (70% production space, 5% free space).

Although the main reason for production in this family’s home garden is self- consumption, it is also

common for neighbours to buy some of their products. Small-scale commercialization is thus a

means of increasing the family income.

Diversity in the backyard is high. It ranges from the usual lettuce, pumpkin leaves and cabbage to

onions, garlic, piri piri (chili) and farm animals such as rustic chickens, ducks, pigs and ornamental

plants. The family enjoys these agricultural activities.

Products from wholesale markets are sold from a bench in front of the house. This does not apply to

vegetables farmed in the backyard.

25

Photos: Images of the Type 5 case: “highly diverse small-scale” production of vegetables and

animals for self-consumption and commercialization

26

Type 6: “highly diverse and integrated” production of vegetables and fish for

commercialization and self-consumption


The plot measures 60 x 60 metres. The yard takes up approx. 78% of this space, again mainly for

productive purposes (70% production, 8% free space).

The family’s backyard production has mixed purposes. Besides enjoying their backyard

horticultural activities, they consume and/or commercialize all the products grown in their

backyard, with the exception of fish.

The products show great diversity: peppers, onions, carrots, chives, green beans, leeks, manger,

arugula, more than one variety of cabbage, lettuce, and plenty of fruit trees, including mafureira,

lemon, banana, maphilua (African medlar), guava pear, coconut, peach, papaya and avocado, are all

grown in the backyard.

27

Photos: Images of the Type 6 case: “highly diverse and integrated” production of vegetables and

fish for commercialization and self-consumption

As shown above, the purpose and importance of backyard horticultural production vary

significantly from one case to another depending on the specific family situation at the time of the

interview. Thus, the families concerned found it difficult to estimate the costs they had reduced or

the savings they had generated (income from commercialization; self-producing instead of

buying). According to the interviewees and following a comprehensive analysis, however, it seems

that backyard horticulture contributes substantially to the family income. In Table 4, I show the

extent to which backyard horticultural activities contribute to the household income.

Table 4: Estimated degree and type of backyard contribution to household income

28

Visit Degree of

contribution to

HH income (%)

Relationship between

Household Expenditure Reduction (ER) &

Income Generation (IG)

Visit 1 100% ER: 20%, IG: 80%

Visit 2 70% ER: 70%, IG: 0%

Visit 3 80% ER: 45%, IG: 35%

Visit 4 100% ER: 20%, IG: 80%

Visit 5 15% ER: 5%, IG: 10%

Visit 6 0 0

Visit 7 100% ER: 10%, IG: 90%

Visit 8 100% ER: 40%, IG: 60%

Visit 9 50% ER: 50%, IG: 0%

Visit 10 40% ER: 40%, IG: 0%

Visit 11 50% ER: 25%, IG: 25%

Visit 12 50% ER: 50%, IG: 0%

Visit 13 60% ER: 20%, IG: 40%

Visit 14 40% ER: 40%, IG: 0%

Visit 15 5% ER: 5%, IG: 0%

Visit 16 100% ER: 50%, IG: 50%

Visit 17 40% ER: 40%, IG: 0%

Visit 18 0 0

Visit 19 45% ER: 40%, IG: 5%

Visit 20 60% ER: 20%, IG: 40%

Visit 21 60% ER: 0%, IG: 60%

Visit 22 70% ER: 70%, IG: 0%

Visit 23 60% ER: 60%, IG: 0%

29

The benefits of backyard horticulture (represented as expenditure reduction (ER) or

income generation (IG)) depend basically on the intensity with which families conduct horticultural

activities and their purpose. This seems, at first glance, to be at odds with FAO project results,

which saw no significant difference between the average overall monthly household expenditure

before and after project intervention. Although the FAO project framework for action differed

from what is presented in this study and generalizations cannot therefore be made, there has been

a major increase in urban backyard horticulture in the last six years with a positive impact at several

levels, e.g., enhanced productivity and the transfer of information among neighbours.

Hence backyard horticulture is clearly an activity of growing importance, whereby families

as the protagonists take ownership of production in their backyard and focus on their personal

situation without depending on external agents. It is fair to say that this calls for a more

comprehensive understanding of the stakeholders currently involved in urban agriculture and city

planning, since, as far as I could see, family activities in this context are all based on individual or

family knowledge rather than on the technical and/or structured plans of the city administration.

Alzira Menete from ABIODES added that backyard horticultural practices are

imperceptible to many policy- and decision-makers, and that recent reports may therefore have

underestimated the results of agricultural production, commercialization and diversity. Moreover,

she and her colleague Alberto Luis believe that although production specialization (not every

household produces the same) may indeed be more effective if approached from a macro-urban

perspective, family needs, particularly household food security, and family constraints on

organizing more technical activities without external support and monitoring should be taken into

account. According to experts in the FAO project (see chapter 2.2), few families continued to

practise the skills acquired from the project and other more minor initiatives. This, however, does

not mean that households avoid agricultural activities in their homes. In fact, in my observation

and according to the testimonies of interviewees, most families already involved in production

Visit 24 40% ER: 40%, IG: 0%

Visit 25 70% ER: 15%, IG: 55%

Visit 26 40% ER: 40%, IG: 0%

Visit 27 50% ER: 50%, IG: 0%

Visit 28 80% ER: 80%, IG: 0%

Visit 29 70% ER: 10%, IG: 60%

Visit 30 80% ER: 20%, IG: 60%

Visit 31 100% ER: 15%, IG: 85%

Visit 32 60% ER: 15%, IG: 45%

Visit 33 0 0

Visit 34 50% ER: 10%, IG: 40%

30

are eager to boost factors that would enhance their backyard horticultural activities. In the

same vein, several families currently not engaged in production would be willing to tackle the

factors that hinder the development of a productive backyard. These factors (sufficient space,

available time during the day) are detailed in chapters 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.

4.3.2 Yard size

As mentioned in chapter 4.1, one aspect that affects backyard horticulture is the available yard

space. This was also mentioned by Marina Pancas, who pointed out that a yard can be productive

regardless of the plot size – the plot being the total area occupied by the house and the yard.

In order to analyse this aspect and corroborate the unimportance of having a large piece of

land for this purpose, I listed the plot size for each visit, the portion occupied by the yard and the

section used for production. Table 5 gives an overview:

Table 5: Estimated size of the plot, the yard and the productive section of the yard

Visit Plot size (m2) (space occupied

by the house plus the yard)

Yard (% of total

plot)

Productive section (% of

total plot)

Visit 1 15 x 30 90% 80%

Visit 2 15 x 15 70% 32%

Visit 3 10 x 15 60% 51%

Visit 4 15 x 30 85% 80%

Visit 5 15 x 30 + 10 x 10* 70% 50%

Visit 6 15 x 30 85% ---

Visit 7 550 x 500 80% 52%

Visit 8 15 x 20 95% 90%

Visit 9 15 x 30 65% 28%

Visit 10 15 x 30 65% 45%

Visit 11 30 x 30 65% 61%

Visit 12 20 x 30 75% 70%

Visit 13 20 x 40 78% 72%

Visit 14 15 x 30 70% 42%

Visit 15 15 x 30 65% 10%

Visit 16 60 x 60 78% 70%

Visit 17 15 x 30 70% 62%

Visit 18 15 x 20 40% ---

Visit 19 15 x 20 70% 55%

31

Plot sizes are often limited to 15 x 30 metres or 450 m2 (e.g., Visits 4, 14, 27). In my observation,

however, and that of experts such as Marina Pancas, Flávio Saraiva and Doménico Luzzi – and

although some patterns were based on the 15 x 30 metres stratification – the current urban

structure of Maputo is the result of a dynamic in recent decades based on family decisions. The

latter range from building more houses on the plot (e.g., Visit 5); using the entire space for one

house; selling, buying or renting part of the plot for other activities; giving children part of the plot

as an inheritance; allowing neighbours to use almost the whole plot (e.g., Visit 8) or part of it (e.g.,

Visit 26) when the owners have no resources to build a house17 or take advantage of the free space

but nonetheless keep it tidy. I argue that this dynamic is based on a desire to use the available

space for diverse activities, with backyard horticulture as the most prominent of these. In fact, it

reflects that in some cases (e.g., Visit 5, also presented as a Type 2 case) terrain can be loaned to

families eager to produce. Also, if it is common knowledge that a small space close to the house

will not be reclaimed in the near future (e.g., Visit 28), a number of families occupy it to cultivate

crops. I believe this is strongly linked to the agricultural background of the families concerned.

Almost all of the interviewees (97%), even those who are not currently engaged in home

production, stated that their parents or guardians were farmers, have (un)used agricultural land

and/or have a relative who either produces at home or on land in or outside Maputo.

17 The current Lei da Terra (Land Tenure Law) requires a construction on the plot. The state can otherwise

claim the space.

Visit 20 15 x 60 80% 70%

Visit 21 15 x 20 85% 85%

Visit 22 20 x 80 70% 62%

Visit 23 15 x 20 85% 81%

Visit 24 50 x 100 80% 68%

Visit 25 50 x 100 80% 60%

Visit 26 20 x 30 + 10 x 10* 75% 60%

Visit 27 20 x 30 + 15 x 10* 75% 60%

Visit 28 15 x 20 + 10 x 10* 75% 50%

Visit 29 10 x 40 70% 65%

Visit 30 10 x 40 75% 68%

Visit 31 10 x 40 75% 62%

Visit 32 25 x 40 55% 52%

Visit 33 30 x 40 65% ---

Visit 34 15 x 30 55% 48%

* This refers to extra space temporarily acquired or occupied for home gardening activities.

32

Figure 12: Analysis of the visits (represented by the letter “V” and the visit number) in terms of

space availability and production purpose (V6, V18 and V33 neither produce food for self-consumption nor for commercialization) Source: own

In terms of production, it seems that the crucial factor is the size of the space available for

production rather than the total size of the plot or the yard. As shown in Figure 12, a great number

of homes with productive yards use approx. 50% or more of the total amount of space in their

possession for this purpose.

The results of analysing the production purpose and the section of the backyard used for

production (as explained in chapter 4.3.1) are illustrated in Figure 12, which shows that the

overwhelming majority of producers make use of approximately 50% of the available space on

their plots.

The visits also revealed whether families had an open or closed yard. The majority (17) are open

(e.g., Visits 5, 31), seven have arbustos espinhosos (thorny bushes) as an enclosure (e.g., Visits 11,

28) and ten have a walled enclosure (e.g., Visits 1, 16). Producers of farm animals all have a well-

built yard enclosure.

4.3.3 Operational management

Analysis of input management showed that families who produce food at home must consider

certain factors when it comes to choosing the inputs to be used. These vary from:

Location: proximity to an input store (e.g., Visit 10), “zonas verdes” (green zones) (e.g., Visit 5)

and associations that occasionally provide information and seeds/seedlings (e.g., Visit 9).

Networks: knowing someone who supplies inputs directly at home (e.g., Visit 2); being a

member of an association (e.g., Visit 17); proximity to a Casa Agraria or similar technical unit that

provides technical information on products (e.g., Visit 1).

33

Children: particularly important in terms of deciding whether to use chemical pesticides or

not18 (e.g., Visit 3).

When urban farmers in Maputo fail to use protection (e.g., protective clothing and masks)

when applying pesticides to their fields, it is vital that at least the children remain safe. Excessive

exposure to pesticides can cause severe health issues. The danger is accelerated when the exposed

are minors19.

Furthermore, a close look at family structures and the family members in charge of backyard

horticultural activities did not reveal a pattern that could be described as the specific “type of

family” involved in these activities. In almost all cases, however, one family member has the

leading position. Table 6 presents the number of family members in charge of the home gardens,

their family role, their age, the number of children in the house and the inputs they use for

backyard horticultural purposes.

Table 6: Family members with a key role, number of children in the house and type of inputs

used in backyard production

Visit Number of family

members with a

relevant role

Role in the

family and

age (years)

Member

of an

associa-

tion

# of

children (<

10 years)

in house

Type of inputs/ Use of

Visit 1 1 out of 2 with a

worker for half a day

Husband (75) No 0 Chemical pesticides and

purchased fresh pig and

chicken manure as fertilizers

Visit 2 1 out of 8 and a

relative who comes

regularly

Oldest brother

(19)*, aunt

(40)*

No 1 Purchased fresh chicken

manure as a fertilizer

Visit 3 1 out of 2 Father (26) No 0 Chemical pesticides and

purchased fresh pork and


Visit 4 1 out of 6 Grandmother

(74)*

Yes 3 Chemical pesticides and



Visit 5 2 out of 5 Mother (49),

sister-in-law

(35)*




18 It is common for children to also play in neighboring gardens. 19 This is, however, not the case in every household. A number of families use chemicals at some stage

when commercialization is the focus of their horticultural activities, an aspect discussed later in this chapter.

34

Visit 6 0 --- No 0 ---

Visit 7 1 out of 5 with two

full-time workers

Mother (57) No 1 Chemical pesticides for

vegetables and own fresh

chicken manure as a fertilizer

Visit 8 3 out of 3 Grandmother

(57)

No 0 Chemical pesticides and fresh

chicken manure as a fertilizer

Visit 9 2 out of 4 Mother (26) No 2 Purchased fresh chicken


Visit

10

1 out of 3 Mother (37) No 1 Chemical pesticides and

purchased fresh chicken


Visit

11

3 out of 6 Mother (40)*,

2 oldest sons

(20 and 18*)


manure and self-made

compost as fertilizers

Visit

12


father (40)

No 1 Own fresh chicken and pig

manure as fertilizers

Visit

13

1 out of 14 Mother (52)* No 3 Own fresh chicken manure as

a fertilizer

Visit

14

1 out 6 Mother (28)* No 2 Purchased fresh chicken


Visit

15

1 out of 6 Mother (37) No 2 Purchased fresh chicken


Visit

16

2 out of 2 and 5 full-

time workers

Wife(56),

husband (58)*

Yes 0 Allelopathy20 for a pesticide

effect and self-made

compost as a fertilizer

Visit

17

2 out of 2 Grandmother

(57)*,

granddaughter

(18)

Yes 0 Own fresh pig and duck

manure - not for the

backyard but other

agricultural field

Visit

18

0 --- No 0 ---

Visit

19

1 out of 3 Mother (19) No 1 Purchased fresh chicken


20 Allelopathy is a biological phenomenon whereby one plant inhibits growth of another. For more

information see: https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/info/allelopathic-plants.htm

35

Visit

20

2 out of 14 and 4 full-

time workers

Mother (40)*,

oldest

daughter (21)*

Yes 2 Purchased fresh chicken


Visit

21


oldest son

(19)*


chemical fertilizers

Visit

22

3 out of 3 Father (78),

two oldest

sons (48, 45)*



Visit

23

2 out of 4 Mother (48),

oldest

daughter (29)*



Visit

24

2 out of 3 Mother (47),

oldest son

(17)*



Visit

25

1 out of 6 and 2

others

Mother (44),

two close

friends (42,

40)*

No 1 Chemical pesticides and



Visit

26


father (44)




Visit

27

1 out of 9 Oldest brother

(22)




Visit

28




Visit

29


(63)



manure as fertilizer

Visit

30

1 out 4 Grandmother

(75)




Visit

31



manure as fertilizer

36

Visit

32

1 out of 9 Nephew (28)* No 1 Chemical pesticides and



Visit

33

0 --- No 1 ---

Visit

34


(58)*

No 1 Own fresh chicken manure

for sale

* estimated age

Gender in backyard gardening: The leading role in backyard gardening is taken by female

family members to 75%, notably a mother or grandmother. Women are crucial to decision-

making processes in backyard horticultural practices. Almost all experts on family structures,

including Celeste Zunguza (agricultural director of KaMavota district), support this claim. It

appears that backyard horticultural activities are inextricably bound up with the organization and

planning component of the household, which is typically in the hands of the household head, many

of whom are women. At the same time, the participation of male family members (45%) in

household interviews was almost equal to that of female members (55%).

Water sources: Most interviewed families stated that water is available to them all year round.

Due to the high cost, however, approximately 95% of them do not use piped water for their

gardens. Only those with a minimum of production (e.g., Visit 15) use piped water regularly. The

other households use water wells (e.g., Visit 3, 10), reservoirs and creeks (e.g., Visit 29, 30). The

quality of the resource, particularly if it comes from creeks, is clearly of concern. The presence of

garbage around the creeks increases the risk of making water a source of disease transmission.

Pesticides: Most of the pesticides chosen to deal with insects and snails are chemical-based

(Table 6). Around 50% of the interviewed families are frequent users of this type of pesticide. The

simplicity (powder mixed with water) of applying chemical-based pesticides and the proximity of

providers has done much to spread their use. The quantity purchased depends primarily on

backyard producer needs and is not bound to a buying pattern. I noticed, however, that pesticides

are always presented in small quantities, which corresponds to the volume of home garden

production. Even sellers who tend to work with urban farmers in the “green zones” offer backyard

producers the possibility of acquiring pesticides in small plastic bags (Figure 13), thereby

facilitating their use even more.

37

Figure 13: Pesticides commercialized in small plastic bags in the “Mahotas” neighbourhood of KaMavota district Source: own

The price of a small plastic bag ranges from MT15 to MT20. I also heard that other pesticide

brands sell packages of the same quantity for the same price.

With regard to the presence of children and the use of chemical pesticides, as pointed out

earlier in this chapter, families with children living at home use the yard as a space for playing and

are careful not to expose the children to chemicals. As seen in Table 6, however, most of them

continue to use chemical pesticides to some degree, although children seem to be absent when

they are applied.

Fertilizer/manure: The overwhelming majority (approx. 90%) of interviewees consider fresh

chicken manure to be the most efficient fertilizer. In my observation of the neighbourhoods, there

is always someone who produces chickens and commercializes the manure. They either offer it

from door to door or let neighbours know they have it at home. Similar to the acquisition of

pesticides, the quantity of manure purchased depends primarily on backyard producer needs and

is not bound to a buying pattern. Since manure can also be used dried out, there is no rush to either

buy or sell it. The price is normally set at MT80 for a bag of 50kg. Manure is applied without a prior

composting process.

Training in backyard horticulture: Only one family of the total number interviewed was part

of the FAO project (Visit 10, also addressed as Case 8).21 In this case, the mother in charge of the

backyard received training from neighbours selected by the project organizers to transfer practical

knowledge on backyard horticulture. The family still conducts backyard production, albeit at a

reduced level. Some of the trees and seedlings (now productive plants) used in the programme as

21 I paid random visits to districts that benefited from the FAO project between 2009 and 2012.

38

an incentive for home production are still in the yard but not in the best condition (see Annexes I

and II, Case 8 for more details and pictures).

As explained earlier, the FAO project ended in 2012 and did not carry out monitoring or follow-

up programmes. This left backyard maintenance up to the families concerned. Most of the

technicians, trained neighbours and FAO project coordinators/experts (also interviewed in this

study) are now working on projects of no relevance to backyard horticulture. Some of these actors

continue to communicate with each other but in a personal manner rather than an advisory

capacity. Since many of the trainers in the FAO project belong to the various communities, they

are frequently sought out when families need advice on home gardening. However, I saw little

evidence of this.

Time available: Another relevant factor that experts mentioned (e.g., José Mabota and Antão

Ali) was the “time available” for backyard horticultural activities. Although the exact time per day

spent on these activities was difficult to determine and depends on the stage of production (e.g.,

sowing and harvesting calls for more time), it is possible to give a rough estimate based on people´s

responses and my observations. These are shown in Table 7:

Table 7: Estimation of time spent per day on backyard horticulture activities

Visit Average time spent

per day (hours)

Visit Average time spent

per day (hours)

Visit 1 12 Visit 18 0









Visit 10 2* Visit 27 6





Visit 15 0,5 Visit 32 5



39

As indicated in Table 7, those responsible for conducting backyard horticulture need at least

two hours a day to complete the necessary activities, primarily watering (40% of the time spent)

and the application of pesticides and fertilizers (30% of the time spent). Other activities such as

buying seeds or seedling and exchanging information can also be time consuming if stores are not

close to the household. When comparing these results with the production purposes shown in

Figure 12, no obvious link emerges between the time spent on backyard horticultural activities and

the production purpose, although 75% of the visits that invested the most amount of time have a

clear focus on commercialization. It can be assumed that the degree of differentiation would be

clearer if the analysis spanned an entire year. Since those who commercialize their production

have increased rotation, the time spent will of necessity be greater.

4.3.4 Selling

Different households have different ways of selling backyard produce. These range from

receiving neighbours (e.g., Visit 12) or offering neighbours (e.g., Visit 32) who buy some of the

products directly to selling to maguevas (intermediaries) who go from door to door collecting

backyard products (e.g., Visits 8 and 31). Others sell their products directly from home with the

help of a banca (bench) (e.g., Visit 11) or at markets (e.g., Visit 16). As also seen in both districts,

some houses provide a “take-away” service that offers farm animals produced in their backyards,

“clean” and ready to be prepared/cooked (Figure 14).

In terms of selling, the crucial factor is having the right networks. These provide the buyer,

trader, informant or other agent with enhanced selling opportunities. Most households that

commercialize their products establish their own prices as distinct from the buyer doing so,

although their prices would of course never exceed the market price. This entitlement motivates

households to continue producing and commercializing their products.

On the other hand, many of those responsible for backyard horticulture are keen to

reinvest – not only in the improvement of backyard conditions but also in new products. In the case

of Visit 7 and Visit 13, for example, the idea of having galinhas podeeiras (layer chickens) to enable

more frequent economic transactions arose, since eggs can be commercialized more quickly. It

has, however, been an inconclusive project for years. The reason for failing to reach this goal is lack

of funding.

Another aspect of selling refers to sporadic visits by close relatives, who usually receive or

take several products from the backyard. Establishing whether this is always based on exchange

from previous agreements as in the case of Visit 2 is, however, not an easy task. In my observation,

it appears to be an obligatory practice to which producers have adapted.

* excluding time spent on selling products at the banca (bench)

40

Figure 14: An example of the “take-away” service in the “Zimpeto” neighbourhood of KaMavota district Source: own

41

4.3.5 Challenges

As stated earlier, backyard production for the purpose of self-consumption or

commercialization is a vital component of family life. Nevertheless, some issues need to be

addressed to enhance the backyard horticultural setting.

Organization: Exchange of information among backyard horticultural producers is rare. Even if

they belong to an association, there seems to be little or no communication about backyard

horticultural activities or operations. Furthermore, although some interviewees see the potential

of having a network of backyard producers, no one is willing to take the lead and create a formal

platform. On the other hand, organizations working on urban agriculture, including government

units and academia, have almost no knowledge of backyard distribution, who the backyard

gardeners are, what they sell and to whom. When the FAO project ended (2012), most of the direct

beneficiaries returned to their previous activities and no longer practise backyard horticulture, not

even to a minor degree. As explained in chapter 4.3.3, since the FAO project failed to conduct

follow-up activities, families were obliged to decide for themselves whether or not to continue with

practices learnt.

The dynamic involved in producing, consuming and selling food from backyard

horticulture has undoubtedly expanded in the last few years and is heavily influenced by household

circumstances. This makes it difficult for urban development actors to understand the situation

correctly.

Ecological terms: Although many families carry out home composting and re-use material for

other purposes (e.g., fertilizer based on animal manure), practices such as burning plant residue

and contaminating flowing water are occasionally employed in backyard horticulture. Moreover,

as commercialization relies on product appearance, producers tend to opt for the application of

strong chemical pesticides in areas close to the house rather than consider natural alternatives

(e.g., chilli pepper extract). It appears that numerous families engaged in backyard horticulture use

chemical pesticides but fail to analyse the situation thoroughly. In my observation, the use – and

sometimes overuse – of these pesticides is driven by the first occurrence of pathogens or insects

that carry pathogens.

Production diversity: Although a number of native plants such as mafureira and particularly

maphilua (African Medlar) can be found in some backyards, production focuses primarily on

lettuce, cabbage and pumpkin leaves, not unlike the agricultural fields of the “zonas verdes”

(Halder et al., 2018). A good source of vitamins, these three vegetables can cover 80-100% of

backyard production in the least diversified gardens and between 15-30% in those that are highly

diversified. As observed on several of the visits, however, other more nutritious crops are grown

with the same inputs and are a fitting complement to family diets (e.g., broccoli, tomatoes, carrots

and peppers). Home gardens showed no evidence of plants such as native herbs (e.g., peppermint

and coriander) or those of Mozambican origin with medicinal properties (e.g., Walburgia

salutaris22). They could become an element of productive backyard diversity without

compromising the availability of space. No more than six of the visited gardens can be regarded as

diversified and only two of these have over eight different products for self-consumption and

commercialization. In this context, pumpkin leaves, cabbage and lettuce (particularly these last

22 For more information, please visit: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6693e/x6693e02.htm

42

two) are considered an important asset to people’s diet regardless of the production purpose, and

as safe crops for transactions.

Health: As already mentioned, water used for backyard horticultural practices is not of the best

quality. The (over)use of chemical pesticides increases the risk of harm to those who buy and eat

the products concerned, particularly to children. On the producer side, I found no evidence of the

use of protective clothing to avoid exposure to chemicals or of a thorough knowledge of the

consequences of such exposure. Chilli pepper, for example, which is sometimes grown in

backyards, has not yet been considered as a natural pesticide.

On a different note, producers have a good supply of vitamins and minerals due to the

regular consumption of backyard vegetables. I saw no evidence, however, of the intake by families

of other vital sources of nutrition rich in protein and fatty acids, with the exception of those that

produced animals in their yards.

Orientation and monitoring of education: In many of the households with backyard production

for self-consumption, the level of formal education of those in charge of backyard activities was

low to very low. This notwithstanding, a key objective of a number of parents interviewed during

the visits was for their children to have a good education that would allow them to obtain a well-

paid job “outside agriculture” and consequently a better standard of living. For some families,

education was a high priority. In Visit 17, for example, the grandmother refused to let her

grandchild help with backyard activities if she had school homework.

Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education corresponds to SDG 4. The interviews

indicated that education/higher education does not have to abandon agriculture. Visit 11 was an

outstanding example: one of the children financially supported in the past with profits from

backyard horticulture applied his knowledge as an agricultural engineer to improving home garden

distribution and production. As a result, most of the current earnings from the sale of backyard

produce are paying for his siblings´ education, which is seen as an investment in their future as it

was for him. From another perspective, the husband (a former engineer) in Visit 16 recalls his

experience in Germany, where he learned the importance of horticulture. He subsequently

combined the knowledge acquired there with local practices in Maputo, of which he had not

previously been aware. Today, he and his wife have a thriving backyard system. Education seems

to be a vital factor with the potential to impact at different levels. This first of all requires

commitment to prioritizing children’s welfare and, secondly, to allowing agriculture to be part of

those children’s future lives.

43

5 Conclusions

Backyard horticulture in Maputo, a highly diverse activity based on family structures, needs

and capacities, is currently the economic backbone of many households (80% in KaMavota and

KaMubukwana) in terms of food provision, reduction of household expenditure and/or income

generation. In addition, backyard horticultural practices are strongly linked to family backgrounds

but also to the history of the country in terms of agriculture and self-sufficiency. In recent decades,

however, Maputo’s changing dynamic has reduced the space available for backyard gardening and

shifted the utilization priority, notably to housing. Still, the connection to agriculture is so strong

that, with the exception of some built-up areas, there is a prevalence of urban backyards in the

city. Although these may not be actively used for horticulture, they at least accommodate fruit

trees that yield fruit once or twice a year23.

Apart from the space available at home24, the time available to the family member(s) (normally

1 or 2) responsible and their horticultural knowledge are also significant factors. There was no

evidence of a distinct pattern or “type of family” involved in backyard horticultural activities.

Generally, one member of the family takes responsibility, that is, for the management and

decision-making of backyard production. Women primarily adopt this role – particularly mothers

or grandmothers – although participation is almost equally distributed among male and female

family members.

There are several examples of households that produce solely for self-consumption or see it as

the principal motivation for production (47%). At the same time, households that focus on

commercialization also consume their products and/or produce certain products for the family

only. In terms of motivation and taking the backyard horticultural landscape into account, food

production for self-consumption takes slight priority over food production for the purposes of

commercialization (with some self-consumption).

Knowing people who conduct horticultural activities is crucial to inspiring families to engage

in horticulture. The former are in a position to help solve technical difficulties and acquire inputs

based either on their own experience or by introducing those who can provide that support. In fact,

particularly when the purpose of production is commercialization, knowing people with a direct or

indirect connection to the market is extremely useful.

Product diversity is poor. Despite the presence in some backyards of native plants, ducks, pigs

and galinhas cafreal (rustic or country chickens), the vast majority of the crops grown and animals

raised are those that are easily managed and rapidly produced (e.g., lettuce, cabbage, pumpkin

leaves and broiler chickens). There is a high demand for these products in the city, making it

convenient for producer families to remain in the same rut. If, however, the use of chemical

pesticides continues unabated, health and ecological issues will arise. These pesticides have

become popular with families that practise backyard horticulture (approx. 50% of the families

interviewed use them) as they are easy to apply and available in close proximity. Furthermore, not

unlike occurrences in the agricultural fields (“machambas”) of the “zonas verdes” (green zones),

hardly anyone uses the correct equipment when applying pesticides. Even in cases where the

23 This is confirmed by the detailed satellite imagery of the city shown and updated on the following

website: http://www.maplandia.com/mozambique/maputo/maputo/ 24 And/or an adjacent space close to the house that is available for use in some cases.

44

“children at home” factor has an influence on reducing the use of chemical pesticides, it becomes

a secondary consideration when commercialization is the focus of backyard production. A great

number of households use fresh manure from pigs and chickens to improve the quality of the soil

and some apply other organic material for composting.

Both the use of pesticides and technical information and/or access to other inputs seems to

travel from the “zonas verdes” to horticultural producers. Water is not seen as an issue, since almost

all households have more than one source of water (i.e., wells, reservoirs, creeks and piped water

as a last resort). The quality of the water, however, particularly when it comes from the creeks, is

apparently a cause for concern.

Despite its wide territorial outreach and importance for producers, backyard horticulture plays

an almost imperceptible role in the city administration’s current city planning and urban

agricultural approach. Likewise, private organizations, academia and the international community

have shown little or no interest in this field. It should be remarked, however, that backyard

horticulture has somehow been overshadowed by the presence of the “zonas verdes” and their

successful joint management by associations and private and governmental units.

It should nevertheless be acknowledged that both the city and its family backyard horticultural

activities are continuing to grow. Sustainable support for this dynamic process should see dialogue

and exchange between interested stakeholders, notably those in possession of technical and

managerial experience in this field, such as the FAO, UEM and KULIMA.

I strongly believe that Maputo is an outstanding example to the world of how backyard

horticulture can be conducted successfully without long-term external support. This field needs to

be fully recognized and gain momentum, its enhancement discussed and its relevance for urban

planning and the dynamic of the city of Maputo acclaimed.

45

6 References

Abdo, M., Valeri, S. & Martins, A. (2008). Sistemas agroflorestais e agricultura familiar: uma

parceria interessante. Revista Tecnológica & Inovação Agropecuária, 50-59.

Andreatta, V. & Magalhães, S. (2011) Relatório sobre as condições do Planejamento Urbano,

Habitaçâo e Infraestruturas em Maputo Moçambique. International Growth Center Programa

Moçambique.

Araújo, M. (2003) Os espaços urbanos em Moçambique. GEOUP: espaços e tempos, n. 14, p. 132,

São Paulo.

Barghusen, R., Bayer, S., Kiesler, T., Krupp, L., Mahlkow, H., Feitosa Maia, E., Müller, L., Neuwald,

M., Spath, K. & Wagner, N. (2016). Urban Agriculture in Maputo - Status Quo. Self-publishing.

Blanckaert, I., Swennen, R. & Paredes, M. (2004). Floristic composition, plant uses and

management practices in homegardens of San Rafael. Coxcatlan, Valley of Tehuacán-

Cuicatlán, Mexico.

Costa, A. (2011). Famílias de Maputo: processos de mobilidade e transformações urbanas, Revista

Internacional em Língua Portuguesa –RILP 3ª Serie, nº 23, pp. 177-192, ISBN: 1518-8434.

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. United Nations.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

Das, T. & Das, A. (2005). Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: A case study in Barak

Valley, Assam, North East India. Current Science, 89(1), 155–163.

DASACM (Direcção da Agricultura e Segurança Alimentar). (2017). Ponto de situação do PAPAP-

2017. Maputo, Mozambique.

Eisenhardt, M. (2014). Building theories from case. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4),

532–550.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2011). Livelihoods grow in

gardens. Diversification booklet number 2. Second Edition. Chris Landon-Lane. Rural

Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2012). Endline Survey Report.

UNJP/MOZ/097/SPA. Children, Food Security and Nutrition in Mozambique.

Ferreira, T. & Sablayrolles, M. (2009). Quintais agroforestais como fontes de saúde: plantas

medicinais na comunidade de Vila Franca, Reserva Extrativista Tapajós-Arapiuns, Pará.

Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia, v. 4, n. 2, p. 3159-3162.

Freitas, C., Rosa, L. & Macedo, R. (2004). Características estruturais e funcionais dos quintais

agroflorestais da comunidade Quilombola de Abacatal-Pará. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO

DE SISTEMAS AGROFLORESTAIS, p. 518-520, Curitiba.

Freire, A., Melo, M., Silva F. & Silva, E. (2005). In the surroundings of home and animals in

homegarden. Agricultures, 2: 20-23.

46

Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P. & Negri, V. (2010). Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-

biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity Conservation, 19: 3635-3654.

Gazel Filho, A., Yared, J., Mourão Junior, M., Silva, M., Brienza Junior, S., Ferreira, G. & Silva, P.

(2009). Diversidade e similaridade entre a vegetação de quintais agroflorestais em Mazagão,

AP. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Agroflorestais, 7. Luziánia. Diálogo e integração de

saberes em sistemas agroflorestais para sociedades sustentáveis. [Luziânia]: Sociedade

Brasileira de Sistemas Agroflorestais.

Halder, S. (2018). Gemainsam die Hände dreckig machen. Aktionsforschungen im aktivisten

Kontext urbaner Gärten und kollektiver Kartierungen.

Halder, S., Agüero, J., Dolle, P., Fernández, E., Schmidt, C. & Yang, M. (2018) Perspectives of

Urban Agriculture in Maputo and Cape Town: Dialogue, networks and future scenarios. Center

for Rural Development. SLE Publication Series-S275.

High, C. & Shackleton, C. (2000). The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in home

gardens of a South African rural village. Agroforestry Systems 48: 141–156.

(INE) National Institute of Statistics (2018) http://www.ine.gov.mz/

Kumar, B., George, S. J. & Chinnamani, S. (1994). Diversity, structure and standing stock of wood

in the homegardens of Kerala in Peninsular India. Agrofor. Syst., 25, 243–262.

Kumar, B. & Nair, P. (2004). The enigma of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry Systems 61:135.

Machado, A., Santilli, J. & Magalhães, R. (2008). Agrobiodiversidade com enfoque agroecológico:

implicações conceituais e jurídicas. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica: Embrapa

Secretaria de Gestão e Estratégia. 98p.

Maroyi, A. (2009). Traditional homegardens and rural livelihoods in Nhema, Zimbabwe: a

sustainable agroforestry system. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World

Ecology 16: 1-8.

McCordic, C. (2016). Urban Infrastructure and Household Vulnerability to Food Insecurity in

Maputo, Mozambique. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Meyer, C. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352.

Nair, P. (1986). An Evaluation of the Struture and Function of Tropical Homegardens. Agricultural

Systems 21: 279-310.

Nair, P. (1993). An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 497 p.

Nair, P. (2001). Do tropical homegardens elude science, or is it the other way around? Agroforest

Syst 53: 239–245.

Nair, P. (2004). The enigma of tropical homengardens. Agroflorestry Systems, 61, p. 135-152.

Pereira, C., Quaresma, R., Dias, P. & Keiza, I. de. (2010). Caracterização De Quintais

Agroflorestais No Projeto De Assentamento Belo Horizonte I, São Domingos Do Araguaia,

Pará. Agroecossistemas, v.2, n.1, p.73-81.

Raimundo, I., Crush, J. & Pendleton, W. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in Maputo,

Mozambique. Series editor: Prof. Jonathan Crush. African Food Security Urban Network

(AFSUN). Urban Food Security Series No. 20.

47

Rocha, A. (2015). Maputo: cidade das acácias: Alcance Editores, 2ed, Maputo.

Santhakumar, V. ( 1996). On-farm biodiversity in Kerala. In Using Diversity (eds Sperling, L. and

Loevinshon, M.), IDRC, New Delhi, pp. 22–34.

Santos de Almeida, L. & Vasconcellos, J. (2014). Quintais agroflorestais: estrutura, composição

florística e aspectos socioambientais em área de assentamento rural na Amazônia Brasileira.

Urban agriculture and economic change in the Zambia Copperbelt: The cases of Ndola, Kitwe and

Luanshya. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography at the

University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. December, 2014.

Stren, R. (1992). African Urban Research since the Late 1980s: Responses to Poverty and Urban

Growth, Urban Studies 29:533-555.

Yamashita, H. & Ishida, A. (2017). Who engages in urban and peri-urban agriculture in the

condensed urban slums of Bangladesh? Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics.

48

7 Annexes

Annexe I: List of case studies

Case number Visit number District Name

Case 1 Visit 2 KaMubukwana Alice Magaba

Case 2 Visit 5 KaMubukwana Luisa David

Case 3 Visit 7 KaMubukwana Clara Rute

Case 4 Visit 11 KaMubukwana Claudio Mange

Case 5 Visit 12 KaMubukwana Xitimila Sawele

Case 6 Visit 16 KaMavota Jacinta Jacinto

Case 7 Visit 1 KaMubukwana Viagem Zacarias

Case 8 Visit 10 KaMubukwana Amélia Mário

Case 9 Visit 17 KaMavota Anastacia Nhate

Case 10 Visit 27 KaMavota Marques Veloso

Case 11 Visit 28 KaMavota Maria Luís

Case 12 Visit 29 KaMubukwana Florentina Zavala

Case 13 Visit 31 KaMubukwana Lidia Rui

Case 14 Visit 33 KaMavota Celso Lipanga

49

Annexe II: Extended description of cases

Case 1 (Visit 2): Production of vegetables and animals in the “25 de Junho A”

neighbourhood of KaMubukwana district

Figure 15: Explanatory diagram of Case 1 Source: own diagram

Person interviewed: Alice Magaba

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 1 case. The household is located in the “25

de Junho A” neighbourhood close to the ex Casa Agrárias do Choupal (ex-Agrarian House of

Choupal). The plot measures 15 x 15 metres and has an open yard. Alice lives here with her parents,

siblings and a cousin. Her oldest brother and her aunt (who does not live in the house) are in charge

of horticultural activities in the yard and coordinate decisions related to the cultivation of food

crops, including cleaning, watering and harvesting. Once crops are ready for harvesting, they

divide the canteiros (plant beds) into equal sections. Production in the yard merely calls for mixed

plant beds and does not require large investments.

The crops produced are: lettuce, cabbage, pumpkin leaves, sweet potatoes and bananas. The

family also has three ducks.

Chemical pesticides or fertilizers are not used. To improve soil fertility Alice´s brother and her

aunt use fresh chicken and pig manure bought from door-to-door sellers. Most of the agricultural

inputs are purchased in the store at the former Choupal Agrarian House and from other stores and

retailers around the “green zone”. In addition, neighbours exchange seeds and information.

According to Alice, lack of money is the main reason why the backyard is not enclosed. There

has been no case of stealing in the area (Figure 16).

50

Figure 16: Photos of Case 1 backyard Source: own

51

Case 2 (Visit 5): Production of vegetables in the “25 de Junho A” neighbourhood of

KaMubukwana district

Figure 17: Diagram analysis of Case 2 Source: own diagram

Person interviewed: Luisa David

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 2 case. The household is located in the “25

de Junho A” neighbourhood close to the Associação Luísa Diogo (Association Luísa Diogo), of which

Luisa David is a member. The plot measures 15 x 30 metres. Luisa lives here with her husband and

three other family members, including her sister-in-law. She has practised agriculture for almost

thirty years and has a machamba (agricultural field) in the “green zones”. Her sister-in-law is in

charge of the home garden, since Luisa works in her agricultural field and has no spare time. Both

of them, however, coordinate backyard activities and decide what, how and when to plant their

crops. They acquired their agricultural knowledge from their families when they were young.

Making use of a previously disorganized space was the main motivation for this family to set

up a home garden. Today, production has a twofold purpose. Cabbage and lettuce are for sale,

while crops such as garlic, peppers, onions, tomatoes, pumpkin leaves, lemons, papayas and

bananas are cultivated entirely for their own consumption, albeit the space designated for these

products is much smaller than the commercialization section of the yard. Luisa asked her

neighbour across from her house if she could use some of her area to grow vegetables. The owner

accepted without hesitation (Figure 18 below).

Luisa uses chemical pesticides to combat pests, notably the caracol do alface (lettuce snail),

and chicken manure to enhance the fertility of the soil. She buys the latter from sellers who offer

it directly at home: “Chicken manure enriches the soil and the products have a better appearance …”.

Other inputs are mostly purchased at the store in the former Choupal Agrarian House or at stores

52

and retailers around the “green zones”. There is some exchange of information and occasionally

an exchange of seeds. The poor quality and high price of seeds are two of her concerns. Raising

poultry is another, since her farm animals have been stolen in the past.


53

Case 3 (Visit 7): Production of animals for commercialization and vegetables for self-

consumption in the “Dimitrov” neighbourhood of KaMubukwana district


Person interviewed: Clara Rute

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 3 case. The household is located in

“Dimitrov” neighbourhood close to the “zonas verdes” (green zones) and the Missão Roque (Roque

Organization). The plot measures 550 x 500 metres and was the biggest house interviewed. Five

people live here, including Clara’s husband, son, daughter-in-law and grandson. Clara is in charge

of activities and personally works in the gardens, where she raises galinhas de corte (broiler

chickens) for commercialization (Figure 20). She has the help of two permanent workers. She also

has a small garden where she farms vegetables (Figure 20, bottom) for self-consumption only. She

has an unused agricultural field quite a distance from her home.

Clara does not use pesticides in the garden. Chicken manure from her own chickens is used as

a fertilizer. For the chicken broiler business, she usually gives the chickens vitamins and some

preventive medicine.

The idea of raising broiler chickens was originally curiosity once other activities (e.g., nurseries)

had failed. At first, she saw broiler chickens were seen as a source of food for the family and several

relatives. Clara decided to take advantage of the space, improve and increase the number of

capoeiras (coops) (Figure 20), buy more chickens and focus on commercialization. Depending on

the season, she could have up to 1200 broiler chickens25.

Her attempt to sell broiler chickens at the markets did not work well. She now offers them to

consumers directly and considers this a good method of selling at a fair price.

25 At the time of the interview Clara had 800 broiler chickens

54

She pointed out that competition from the industrial production of broiler chickens is her main

concern. “They produce in huge quantities and can therefore buy chicken feed at a cheaper price and

sell their broilers at a cheaper rate… .” She would like to have a matador (a room with “killing cones”)

and more cold storage to operate properly and increase her earnings. She is currently in search of

funds, since she has enough space to increase production. A “take-away” business is also

something she would like to set up one day. At the moment, Clara burns plant residue but is keen

to know more about garbage separation and recycling.

Since challenges tend to be similar, neighbours often share information about broiler chickens

and the business features involved.

55


56

Case 4 (Visit 11): Vegetable production in the “Magoanine A” neighbourhood of



Person interviewed: Cláudio Mangue

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 4 case. The household is located in the

“Magoanine A” neighbourhood close to the Magoanine roundabout. The plot measures 30 x 30

metres. Six people live here. The family also has an agricultural field in the province of Inhambane.

Cláudio’s mother is in charge of garden activities. As the main person responsible, she also

manages cropping and monitoring activities. Cláudio and his siblings help, particularly with

watering and cleaning. These home gardens serve the mixed purposes of self-consumption and

commercialization. The latter increases the household income and contributes to financing the

children’s education. According to Cláudio, approximately half of the products grown are for self-

consumption: lettuce, sweet potatoes, papayas, mangos, oranges and lemons; the other half is

devoted to commercialization: cabbage and piri piri (chili), which is sometimes sold to Chinese

business organizations for processing. Some of the oranges and lemons grown at home are sold in

combination with products bought at Zimpeto market (e.g., tomatoes, coconuts, carrots, and

oranges). The family set up a highly diversified bench (Figure 22, top) containing all of these

products, a strategy that benefits from passers-by looking for certain products.

The family uses neither chemical pesticides nor chemical fertilizers. They use self-made

compost and chicken manure sold by neighbours to improve the fertility of the soil.

As pointed out above, the income generated from their home gardens is invested in their

children’s education. Cláudio’s brother is one of the beneficiaries. He studied Agronomy and is now

working on the family techniques in order to enhance the horticultural products and cause less

waste.

57


58

Case 5 (Visit 12): Production of vegetables and animals in the “Bagamoio”

neighbourhood of KaMubukwana district


Person interviewed: Xitimila Sawele

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 5 case. The household is located in

“Magoanine A” neighbourhood close to Praça de Magoanine (Magoanine Square). The plot

measures 20 x 30 metres. The five people living here are Xitimila, his wife and his three children.

He has practised agriculture since 2000, although he now works as a security guard. Xitimila and

his family started home gardening when they saw some of their neighbours growing their own

food. He was also keen to improve his family‘s diet. His wife is mainly responsible for gardening

activities, but he lends a hand when he is not working as a security guard. Although self-

consumption is the main driver of the family‘s home garden production, it is common for

neighbours to buy products from each other’s homes. Commercialization on this small scale

increases the family income.

Diversity in Xitimila’s backyard is high and includes the usual lettuce, pumpkin leaves and

cabbage, as well as onions, garli and piri piri (chili); farm animals such as rustic chickens, ducks, pigs

(Figure 24) and ornamental plants. The family manages to produce a variety of plants and animals

without using chemical pesticides or fertilizers. Their plants are fertilized solely with manure from

their own chickens and pigs. Vegetables that are not eaten are used as animal feed. The space

allotted to the animals, notably pigs, and the production of such a large quantity of vegetables is,

however, somewhat small.

Xitimila has great faith in the satisfaction gained from agricultural activities. As in many other

cases, relatives who drop by to visit his family take some of their products home with them.

59

There is a bench at the front of the house with products for sale acquired at wholesale markets.

Vegetables produced in the backyard are not for sale there. Xitimila says his wife enjoys this

activity. Some animals and ornamental plants are also sold.

Similar to other cases, the poor quality and high price of seeds are a cause for concern to the

family. Xitimila would welcome financial or technical support from organizations involved in home

gardening in order to improve his backyard production.

60


61

Case 6 (Visit 16): Production of vegetables and fish in the “Mahotas” neighbourhood

of KaMavota district


Person interviewed: Jacinta Jacinto

This case was presented in chapter 4.3.1 as a Type 6 case. The household is located in the

“Mahotas” neighbourhood close to the Associação Joaquim Chissano (Association Joaquim

Chissano), of which she is a member, and one of the closest to the “zonas verdes” (green zones).

The plot measures 60 x 60 metres. Jacinta lives here with her husband. She has practised

agriculture for many years and has two machambas (agricultural fields) in the “green zones” close

to her home. The idea of using her backyard for production came when she and her husband

moved from their old house. They were keen to raise fish for self-consumption and improve their

diet26 (Figure 26). Later, they decided to extend production in their agricultural fields to their

backyard. They have five workers to coordinate activities pertaining to the house, home gardening

and the agricultural fields. Jacinta is in charge of monitoring these activities and her husband

supports her when required “…we enjoy being in our backyard… if necessary, we work together,

neither of us is left alone”.

Everything in the backyard and in her agricultural fields is grown without the use of chemical

pesticides or fertilizers. The products are diverse and most of those found in the backyard (with

the exception of fish) are produced in far greater quantity in the agricultural fields at the “zonas

verdes”. Peppers, onions, carrots, chives, green beans, leeks, manger, arugula, several cabbage

26 It should be remarked that according to Jacinta´s husband, José Mafuieca, he got the idea of

gardening from his visit to the former GDR in the 1980s, when he was invited as a soil scientist to conduct

research in a number of cities. He witnessed gardening activities there and was amazed at the organic

practices.

62

varieties, lettuce, and numerous fruit trees such as mafureira, lemon, banana, maphilua (African

medlar), guava pear, coconut, peach, papaya and avocado are all part of the backyard horticulture

(Figure 26).

As mentioned earlier, the couple eats fish and some of the products grown in their backyard,

which they see as a vital component of their diet. On the other hand, they commercialize these

products at the “Mercado de Terra”, a market for organic products that takes place every two weeks

on Sundays. Relatives, friends or people recommended by them usually buy their products as well.

Some restaurant owners have come to visit their backyard.

Their future plans see the addition of ducks to the chain, a further component of their

sustainable circular production, “… we would like to have ducks that stay close to the fish tanks so

that their excretions can serve as fish feed …”

Although neighbours occasionally exchange information, they do not exchange seeds. Most

seeds are self-producing. Jacinta and her husband also have products that resulted from seeds

provided by the Agronomic Institute of the University Eduardo Mondlane several years ago. They

make compost from their organic plant residue. Water is not a concern, “... we use natural water

that comes from the subsoil … even during dry periods, we always have water for the fish and the

gardens…”

They are eager to improve their technical expertise in processing their products. At the same

time, they would be glad to share their experience with others involved in backyard agricultural

activities, particularly in terms of the health and environmental benefits of producing without

chemical inputs.

63


64

Case 7 (Visit 1): Vegetable production in the “25 de Junho A” neighbourhood of



Person interviewed: Viagem Zacarias

The household is located in the “25 de Junho A” neighbourhood close to the ex Casa Agrárias

do Choupal (ex-Agrarian House of Choupal). The plot measures 25 x 50 metres. Viagem lives here

with his wife. He has practised agriculture since 1974 as part of an apprenticeship encouraged by

Italian priests during implementation of the “zonas verdes”. “In the very beginning I used to grow

rice at the weekends for family consumption … when the green zones were established, the Italians

provided seeds and technical expertise … .”

He began to farm vegetables in the 1980s. He has now retired from his job as a funcionario de

linhas aereas (airline officer at Mozambique Airlines) but works in his gardens for up to twelve hours

per day. He has no other agricultural field. His wife helps with cleaning activities and a seasonal

worker is hired to water the crops once a day.

As presented in Figure 27, commercialization is the main purpose of the garden production

(e.g., cabbage and lettuce, Figure 28) although some crops are cultivated for family consumption

only (e.g., garlic, peppers, onions, tomatoes and fruit trees).

Inputs are mostly purchased in the shop at the former Agrarian House of Choupal and other

stores close to the “green zones”. To combat pests, he uses chemical pesticides and the soil is

made more fertile with chicken and pig manure. The sale of the garden produce takes place via

maguevas (intermediaries) who come to the house to collect and resell it at the markets.

At the moment, the poor quality and high price of seeds are his main concern. As a senior

person, however, he is also anxious about the coming years and the state of his health in the future.

Although in recent decades he has shared information and occasionally seeds with neighbours

who have horticultural backyards, he would like to have been part of a community or network of

backyard farmers.

65


66

Case 8 (Visit 10): Vegetable production in the “Zimpeto” neighbourhood of



Person interviewed: Amélia Mário

The household is located in the “Zimpeto” neighbourhood close to the psychiatric Hospital and

almost at the border of Maputo city, an area considered peri-urban. The plot measures 15 x 30

metres. Amélia lives here with her two children. She is responsible for the home gardens and found

them a useful instrument when it came to reducing the cost of living. Although she has practised

agriculture for more than ten years and learnt it from her mother as a teenager, her first contact

with home gardens was her experience as an FAO project participant in 2009. The project targeted

“Zimpeto” neighbourhood as a project beneficiary. She also has an agricultural field in the “Baixa

do Khongolote”, where she produces for commercialization.

Food production in the home garden concentrates on self-consumption (Figure 29), notably

vegetables such as cassava leaves (Figure 30). In order to combat pests, she occasionally uses

chemicals bought in a store close to her home27. She uses chicken manure as a fertilizer. Amélia

has a banca (bench) from which she sells products from her other agricultural land along with

several products bought at the Zimpeto market (Figure 30, bottom). The fruit trees she received

as part of the FAO project are still there. These and the home gardens, however, are not well cared

for. The family sees no cause for concern here, since they have sufficient earnings from her other

patch.

Amélia feels that the FAO project should have been continued or at least followed up by the

organizers.

27 Pesticides are acquired from a store at Av. Moçambique, where she knows the owner.

67

The poor quality and high price of seeds are her primary concern at the moment. She would

also appreciate funding opportunities from organizations that deal with home gardening activities.

Figure 30: Photos of Case 8 Source: own

68

Case 9 (Visit 17): Animal production in the “Ferroviário” neighbourhood of KaMavota

district


(The grid pattern indicates sporadic activity)

Person interviewed: Anastacia Nhate

The household is located in the “Ferroviário” neighbourhood, in the direction of the Praça dos

Combatentes. The plot measures 15 x 30 metres. Anastacia, who is primarily responsible for

backyard activities, lives here with her granddaughter, who frequently helps her after school and

when Anastacia herself is working at her machamba (agricultural field). The agricultural field is

located in the “green zones”, where she has worked for over twenty years.

Despite having a few isolated plants, Anastacia’s backyard production focuses on farm animals

such as chickens, goats, pigs and ducks (Figure 32). The pigs and ducks are used for self-

consumption and occasionally commercialization (Figure 31). Anastacia seeks to achieve

integrated production management. Since pig-raising demands considerable care and cleaning

procedures, the designated area was mounted with a drainage channel. The periodic cleaning

allows pig and chicken manure to be collected and transported to Anastacia´s agricultural field and

used as a fertilizer. Anastacia usually takes crop residue from her agricultural field to complement

the animal feed bought in specialized stores (e.g., Higest). No pesticides or chemical components

are used in her backyard. If pests appear, she uses ash to control them. As one of the most

prominent representatives of Maputo´s agricultural context,28 Anastacia has sound technical

expertise and considerable influence when it comes to solutions for field and backyard

horticultural problems. Thus, neighbours and colleagues welcome her opinion on technical and

managerial issues.

28 Anastacia took part in last year´s workshops in Maputo and is one of the protagonists in the

documentary film Farming the Future of Maputo. The trailer can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGPNJhiST2U

69

Although Anastacia acknowledges that she and her granddaughter have no food problems,

she makes a huge effort to keep it that way. She would greatly appreciate a funding opportunity

that would enable her to buy capoeiras (coops) and produce galinhas poedeira (layer chickens).


70

Case 10 (Visit 27): Production of vegetables and animals in the “Laulane”

neighbourhood of KaMavota district


Person interviewed: Marques Veloso

The household is located in the “Laulane” neighbourhood close to the Associação Samora

Machel (Association “Samora Machel”). The plot measures 15 x 30 metres. Nine people live here.

As the older brother, Marques is responsible for the home garden, which is located in front of the

house (Figure 34). There are also other spaces close to the creek and a space owned by someone

else (as shown in Figure 33) where he also produces food for self-consumption. In addition, the

family keep ducks in the backyard.

The idea of creating home gardens arose in 2013 when the road close to the creek collapsed,

leaving land available for several purposes but not for housing. Once the families who lived

adjacent to the creek had moved, other families, including his, cleared the area and began to grow

vegetables in the new space.

Food is produced entirely for self-consumption and focuses primarily on vegetables such as

cabbage, lettuce, onions, beetroot and cucumbers, as well as corn (particularly in the space close

to the creek shared by several families). He also sells newspapers, a job that provides him with a

regular income.

As mentioned earlier, the owner of the small area close to the house allowed him to use this

land for free, knowing Marques would use it to produce food (Figure 34, bottom).

71


72

Case 11 (Visit 28): Vegetable production in the “Laulane” neighbouhood of KaMavota

district


Person interviewed: Maria Luís

The household is located in the “Laulane” neighbourhood, close to the Associação Samora

Machel (Association “Samora Machel”). The plot measures 15 x 20 metres. Of the seven people

living here, Maria is responsible for the home garden. Her older children help with some minor

activities. The family does not own any other agricultural fields.

Similar to the previous case, the idea of having home gardens arose in 2013 when the road

close to a creek collapsed, leaving the families concerned no option but to move to another area.

Once these families had moved, other families, including hers, cleared the area and began to farm

vegetables in the new available space.

Food is produced entirely for self-consumption and focuses on vegetables such as cabbage,

lettuce, onions, beetroot, cucumbers, and pumpkin leaves (Figure 36). Maria sometimes uses

chemicals to combat pests, while chicken manure serves as a fertilizer.

There is another small production area close to the house but not owned by the family (Figure

36, bottom). Maria’s family used to cultivate it free of charge, but recently the owner asked for

MT300 per month if they wished to continue using the space. This is currently the family’s main

concern, since food production here contributed to the upkeep of the family.

74


75

Case 12 (Visit 29): Vegetable production in the “Bagamoio” neighbourhood of



Person interviewed: Florentina Zavala

The household is located in the “Bagamoio” neighbourhood near the Associação Marcelina

Chissano de Bagamoio (Association “Marcelina Chissano”) and very close to the “green zones”.

The plot measures 10 x 40 metres. Florentina lives here with thirteen relatives, including children

and grandchildren. The yard is located in front of the house. Florentina, who is in charge of

gardening activities, monitors and takes care of production every day. She has practised

agriculture in her yard since 1979.

As shown in Figure 37, production focuses on commercialization, although the large family also

consumes the vegetable produce from the garden. Tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce, beetroot, onions,

cucumbers, carrots and sweet potatoes, as well as mangos, bananas and papayas are among the

products Florentina sells. Interestingly, she sells much of the produce in South Africa. In the course

of her previous job activities she met numerous people active in the agricultural field who liked

Mozambican vegetables. This interest formed the basis of her current backyard produce business.

She also prefers to buy chemical pesticides in South Africa in order to combat pests in her yard. To

improve the fertility of the soil, she buys chicken manure from sellers who come directly to her

home. Her water source is the creek close to the house.

Her main concern today is the limited amount of space available for vegetable production. As

shown in Figure 38, her yard space for vegetable cultivation is used to the maximum.

76


77

Case 13 (Visit 31): Vegetable production in the “Bagamoio” neighbourhood of



Person interviewed: Lidia Rui

The household is located in the “Bagamoio” neighbourhood near the Associação Marcelina

Chissano de Bagamoio (Association “Marcelina Chissano”) and very close to the “green zones”. The

plot measures 10 x 40 metres. Lidia, who is primarily responsible for the garden, lives here with her

two children. The garden is located at the front of the house. There is, however, a smaller area

closer to the house (Figure 40, bottom), where she cultivates vegetables purely for self-

consumption and seed propagation.

She has practised agriculture in her yard since 2017, when she lost her husband in a car

accident. Producing food in her backyard for commercialization was a method of ensuring an

income. She and her family also consume the products (mainly lettuce, cabbage and pumpkin

leaves) she sells to the maguevas (intermediaries). She noticed that her neighbours were producing

food in their backyard and saw an income-generating opportunity she badly needed at the time.

For her it was a means of securing food for the family. Commercialization, however, does not

always work to her advantage, as intermediaries drop prices based on market fluctuation, making

it difficult to gain a profit.

Lidia uses some chemical pesticides to combat pests. To improve the fertility of the soil she

uses chicken manure bought from sellers directly at her door. Similar to Case 5, water flowing close

to the house is used for all yard production activities (Figure 40).

She would like to increase production diversity and be part of some capacitation programme

that enabled her to increase her backyard productivity.

79


80

Case 14 (Visit 33): No production in the “Costa do Sol” neighbourhood of KaMavota

district


Person interviewed: Celso Lipanga

The house is located in the “Costa do Sol” neighbourhood close to the commercial areas at the

beach. The plot measures 50 x 50 metres. Celso lives here with his wife and daughter. As Figure 42

shows, there are no gardens in the yard. The space is used solely as a leisure area. It has ornamental

trees and some fruit trees that bear fruit once a year29. He used to have home gardens and a worker

to help with vegetable cultivation. Celso’s time was limited when he began working as an officer

in the Zimbabwean embassy. Neither his wife nor his daughter were in a position to take care of

the gardens. When the above-mentioned worker eventually left, Celso decided to convert the yard

into an ornamental garden. Nevertheless, he is thinking about going back to producing food in his

backyard. According to him, this would imply finding and training a new worker he could rely on,

which in turn would mean a time investment and additional costs.

29 The fruit is for self-consumption only and occasionally as a gift for Celso´s work colleagues. There is

however, no monthly or yearly pattern here.

81

Figure 42: Photo of Case 14 backyard Source: own

82

Annexe III: List of experts interviewed

Name Position and Organization Interview date

Inés Raimundo Director, Center for Political

Analysis - UEM

22.05.2018

Celeste Zunguza District Director of Agriculture

(KaMavotas)

23.05.2018

Antão Ali Responsible at Casa

Agraria (KaMawukuana)

23.05.2018

José Mabota Ex-Coordinator of NGO AAS 24.05.2018

Doménico Luzzi Director of NGO KULIMA 24.05.2018

Flávio Saraiva Ex-Coordinator of Hortas

project from FAO by NGO

KULIMA

25.05.2018

Marina Pancas Ex- General Coordinator of

Hortas project from FAO

25.05.2018

Felicidade Panguene Officer by FAO 25.05.2018

Alzira Menete and Alberto

Luis

Director and Officer of NGO

ABIODES

05.06.2018

Delson João AfricArte Organization Communication via email

between 08.07 and

21.07.2018

83

Annexe IV: Topics of semi-structured interview for visits

Main topics Components

General information Neighbourhood, size of house, yard, number

of people living at home

Family structure Responsible(s) for backyard horticulture,

background, role of women

Purpose and Operational Management Motivation for production, form of cultivation,

types of crops and inputs, production

challenges

Selling Selling methods, product buyers, conditions

Information and Network Useful contacts, information sources,

networking

Challenges Current issues and possible solutions

190115 Backyard horticulture in Maputo-Final · horticulture was the basis and the inspiration for...

Documents

Transcript of 190115 Backyard horticulture in Maputo-Final · horticulture was the basis and the inspiration for...