LIBRI DI MAURIZIO TIEPOLO

Population growth in a fragile rural environment: lessons from a case - study of Keita, Niger, 1958-2007 (Processo di popolamento di un ambiente rurale fragile: insegnamenti dal caso di Keita, Niger, 1958-2007). Niger is a perfect case for studying the consequences of population growth on renewable natural resources (Rnr) since it is the 5th fastest growing county demographically and the country with the highest share of rural population. Studies of population pressure on Niger’s Rnr have reached opposite findings. On the one hand, studies showed agricultural intensification, densification, and natural assisted regeneration. On the other hand, they also highlighted rain-fed crop encroachment on forest, bush, and grazing land; decrease in yields; and conflicts over access to water pasture. The coun- try is using a wide range of participatory tools for Rnr management and local development planning, but there has been little discussion on the effectiveness of these tools. This study seeks to find out what the trends regarding population growth and Rnr management are in Keita Department (5,000 sq km, pop. 258,000), a semi-arid, remote rural area where only 26% of the land is arable. 30 years of increasing population pressure (up to 86 inh. /sqkm in 2007) brought rain-fed crop encroachment on bush and rangeland. Intensification is absent both in rain-fed and in irrigated agriculture. Nevertheless, since 1984 the Keita rural development program has provided cereal selfsufficiency to at least one fourth of the 1988-2001-population growth and has reduced population pressure on forestland. At the present, municipal development plans have identified strategies based mainly on micro realizations. Road construction, microcredit, and higher value-added production are not being considered and strategies to secure the next generation’s access to crop, forest, and grazing land are not being defined.

The conversion of rural land into urban soil in advanced economies has been extensively investigated, and has consequences which differ widely from those in poor economies, which have as yet received little attention, particularly in tropical Africa. Though Niger has the highest rate of urban growth in all of tropical Africa, it is also one of the countries that is poorest in terms of prime farmland, and has the world’s lowest per capita income. This paper investigates whether urbanization in the communauté urbaine of Niamey (the capital of Niger) generates or aggravates urban food insecurity. It first examines patterns in agro-pastoral production, demand for foodstuffs, and buying power. The paper then analyzes the characteristics of food insecurity, the measures taken to alleviate it, and the problems encountered in implementing these measures. It was found that Niamey’s high rate of urban growth has brought greater food insecurity for its inhabitants. However, the problem is not simply due to the loss of farmland (and hence of agricultural production) resulting from urban encroachment. Food insecurity is caused by a variety of other factors: the low productivity of peri-urban agriculture, insufficient influxes of provisions from neighboring areas, sharp increases in the demand for foodstuffs, increasing prices, extreme poverty, and a nutrient-poor diet. The measures that have been taken fail to strike at the roots of food insecurity, one of which is the uncertainty of land tenure. Niamey’s demographic increase is inevitable. If effective policies for increasing peri-urban agro-pastoral production are not put into place, food insecurity can only increase.

Over the last forty years, the urban population of Tropical Africa has increased seven-fold: more than anywhere else on the planet. To date, this intense process of urbanization has chiefly been investigated from the demographic standpoint, i.e., in terms of population growth. Conversely, little is known of urbanization’s physical component: the expansion of cities. This paper reviews the literature on rural-urban land conversion in the major capital cities of Tropical Africa, first focusing on the extent, type and methods of conversion. This is followed by an examination of conversion’s repercussions on peri-urban desertification, food insecurity, urban poverty and environmental degradation. Finally, the paper assesses the literature dealing with the urban planning efforts associated with conversion, concluding that our knowledge of its extent, type and methods is limited to a few capital cities. By contrast, the repercussions of conversion have been investigated in a much wider range of urban centers. The literature suggests a variety of measures for planning conversion. These measures, however, do not appear to be feasible without first recognizing the rights of those who possess the land (its customary owners), those who use it (the farmers) and those who work it or occupy it illegally (squatters). Without land reform, none of the measures that have been proposed for regulating land conversion can be put into practice. In this fundamental area, however, the literature on rural-urban land conversion has little to say.

The «leasehold» is a form of land tenure in effect in many cities. At the start of the 1970s, it was often suggested for Developing Countries, because it was held that, with respect to the «freehold» system, it offered advantages in land use planning and in recovering land values. In the 1980s, this point of view changed, because, where it had been applied, the leasehold system showed that it required a high level of sophistication in the administration of leases and a high degree of integrity in the bureaucracy involved. There were found to be problems with rents tied to an inflation index, the lack of incentives in order to maintain the property, and the acceptance of the lease as collateral near the end of the lease’s term. It was also difficult to acquire the reserves of land to be leased. Conflicts between planning restrictions and the lease convenants arose, as did conflicts among municipalities to attract industry and commerce away from other more suitable locations. In Hong Kong, the leasehold was introduced in 1841. In China and Vietnam, it was adopted only recently, following the opening of these economies to the free market. With regard to the advantages and the disadvantages of the leasehold system, Hong Kong was able to control urbanization and to collect huge revenues from the sale of leases, even though it was not able either to satisfy the high demand for land or to encourage land redevelopment. Shanghai and Hanoi have leasehold systems with different characteristics, which have thus not produced the same advantages nor presented the same disadvantages. In Shanghai, the leasehold permitted the redevelopment of the CBD and generated remarkable revenues, but it did not favor the control of urbanization or the vacant plots. For the moment, Hanoi has not benefited from any of the advantages mentioned above, and, to the contrary, is experiencing different disadvantages (complex administration, conflicts between lease convenants and planning restrictions, and conflicts among municipalities to attract economic activity). These results can be explained by looking at the different circumstances in which Shanghai and Hanoi introduced the leasehold system with respect to Hong Kong. Firstly, the system was introduced when they had already reached metropolitan dimensions, whereas in most of the cases in which this form of land tenure has been successfully practiced, including Hong Kong, the introduction has come at the foundation of the city, or before the city reaches such large dimensions. Secondly, the system was introduced when there was a high demand for land that both metropolis had to satisfy in some way, even though the leasehold system was not fully operative. Thirdly, the system was introduced when there was an intense need for investment in the productive and tertiary sectors as well as an acute need for financial resources in public administration, and so leasehold was used above all as an instrument to attract and, in part, collect financial resources at the expense of improvement in land use planning.