Upscaling sustainable horticulture value chain of women urban farmer groups in Bogor City, West Java, Indonesia

(1)

AgriculturalChain Production Management specialisation Horticulture Chain Management

I

ka

Sat

yasari

Applied Research by:

UPSCALI

NG

SUSTAI

NABLE

HORTI

CULTURE

VALUE

CHAI

N

OF

WOMEN

URBAN

FARMER

GROUPS

(2)

Upscaling Sustainable Horticulture Value Chain of Women Urban Farmer Groups

in Bogor City, West Java, Indonesia

A research project submitted to

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of MSc in Agricultural Chain Production Management specialisation Horticulture Chain Management

This research has been carried out as part of the program Our Garden, Our Healthy Food - DeTara Foundation as recommendation for Agriculture Agency of Bogor City

By: Ika Satyasari

Supervised by: Peter van der Meer September 2019

(3)

i

Disclaimer:

This document represents part of author’s study programme while at Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science, the Netherlands. The views stated therein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the institution.

Inquiries:

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science PO Box 9001 6880 GB Velp The Netherlands t: +31 26 3695 695 e: info@vhluniversity.com w: https://www.hvhl.nl/ fb: https://www.facebook.com/vhluniversity/

Location:

Larensteinselaan 26a 6882 CT Velp The Netherlands

(4)

ii

1 |

P a g e

Chapter 1: Introduction & Overview

1.1 Research Background

More than 50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas today, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68% by 2050 (UN, 2018). In Indonesia, cities’ population is projected to increase to 56% in 2020 and 60% in 2050 (Indonesian Statistics Bureau, 2014). Most cities in the world are associated with several challenges, such as rapid urbanization, climate change, food insecurity, and spatial land use-change. Cities are therefore among the principal territories for intervention and planning of strategies that aim to eradicate poverty and improve livelihoods (FAO, 2007).

In several countries, urban agriculture offers an opportunity in providing environmental services and diversifying urban diets in the cities. As such, there is a growing interest in urban agriculture as a strategic component of urban resilience and climate change adaptation planning (Mlozi et.al, 2014). The special feature of urban agriculture is that it is integrated into the urban economic and ecological system: urban agriculture is embedded in- and interacting with- the urban ecosystem. Such linkages include the use of urban residents as labourers, use of typical urban resources (like organic waste as compost and urban wastewater for irrigation), and direct links with urban consumers (RUAF, 2019). Moreover, Dubbeling (2014) mentioned that urban agriculture could play a role in ecological development by countering the negative effects of climate change and increasing bio-diversity in cities.

In the term of agricultural production, women are involved in a variety of agricultural activities, who comprise an average between 40-50% agricultural labour force in Eastern and South-eastern Asia (FAO, 2011). In Indonesia, women farmer groups are recognized by government since 1979. Women farmer groups are not only organized in rural areas but also in the cities. Women farmer groups in the cities operate urban agriculture practices in small scale with a variety of land sizes. According to Saptana, et al. (2013) women farmer group is one of the strategic approaches to achieve households’ food security and diversification of local food.

Bogor City is one of the neighbourhoods of the megacity of Jakarta that actively facilitate women farmer groups conducting urban agriculture practice as part of achieving “Green City” program. The women urban farmer groups in Bogor City are formally facilitated by two local agencies, those are Agriculture Agency and Food Security Agency. The number of women urban farmer groups has developed rapidly since 2008-2009 in line with Indonesian governmental program “Sustainable Food Houses Region (KRPL)”. According to Agriculture Agency of Bogor City (2019), those are currently 166 women groups spreading at six districts in Bogor City. Women farmer groups in Bogor City have raised the attention of several parties (local government agency; research institution; and communities) to support their horticulture products value chain. In term of sustainability, however, the impact of urban agriculture and horticulture value chain of women farmer groups have not been measured yet.

(6)

2 |

P a g e

1.2 Problem Statement & Justification

In almost ten years of development of women urban farmer, the practices of urban agriculture by women farmer groups in Bogor Cities is shown as environmental movements to contribute in achieving Green City program. Furthermore, the local government encourages the women urban farmer groups to upscale their urban agriculture practices to be sustainable urban agribusiness. Nevertheless, lack of evidence on the effects of urban agriculture will lead to drawbacks for Agriculture and Food Security Agencies in measuring how sustainable the horticulture value chains of women urban farmer groups.

Before upscaling the urban agriculture practices as urban agribusiness, the local government should cope two main challenges. Firstly, there is still knowledge gap for local agency to assess the sustainability impacts of urban farming practices. Secondly, the possible value chain for horticulture products of women urban farmer groups is not identified yet. The objectives of this paper are to: (1). identify the sustainability impacts of urban agriculture practices and (2). identify several horticulture value chain approaches for the effectiveness of further urban agriculture practice in Bogor City.

Given challenges on upscaling horticulture value chain of women urban farmer groups, this paper seeks to address two main questions:

(1). To what extend do urban agriculture practices by women farmer groups have sustainability impacts on economic, social, and environment?

a). what are environmental impacts of urban agriculture practices? b). what are social impacts of urban agriculture practices?

c). what are cost and benefit of urban agriculture practices in producing horticulture sector?

(2). What are possible horticulture value chain approaches to help the effectiveness of further urban agriculture practices?

a). what have the supporters (e.g.: local government, NGOs, research and educational institutions) done to facilitate horticulture value chain of women urban farmer groups?

b). what are requirement and expectation from costumers on urban horticulture products?

c). what are constrains of urban agriculture practices?

d) what urban agriculture practices by women farmer groups could be improved? The outcome of this research will give suggestions that can be used for further strategy for local government to support the effectiveness of urban agriculture practices of women farmer group in relevant to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly goal number 2 (Zero Hunger); 12 (Responsible Consumption & Production); 3 (Good Health & Well-being); 5 (Gender Equality); 11 (Sustainable Cities & Communities) and 13 (Climate Action).

(7)

3 |

P a g e

1.3 Study Limitations

This paper is based on qualitative and quantitative data collected during fieldwork in July-August 2019. The selection of sample of women urban farmer groups was discussed with Agriculture Agency and Food Security Agency of Bogor City by choosing two women urban farmer groups in every sub-district that are already involved in KRPL program. Twelve women urban farmer groups were visited during the fieldwork, however, there were only eight groups could provide three variables on sustainability impacts in the research. Considering the time during fieldwork, this paper will focus on eight women urban farmer groups in Bogor.

The assessment of the sustainability impacts of urban agriculture practices will present three aspects; social, environment, and economic. The social impacts are limited on: group structure & rule, legality, activity & motive and network that were identified during group interview, FGD and site visits.

The environmental impacts will present the total of biodiversity of flora and fauna on the site, but the measurement of diversity index is not applied in this research. Species lists are provided instead of diversity index since the horticulture species that are grown mostly perishable herbs. As well in fauna observation, the data is provided in species lists since this research was limited conducted in dry season only. In relation with environmental impacts, this paper will present some findings related on rotation practice, chemicals using and waste management.

The economic impacts of urban agriculture will refer to cost and benefit analysis (CBA) of each women urban farmer groups. The CBA will focus on horticulture sector only, even though the women farmer groups may have other activities to raise groups’ income such as poultry, fishery, and edu-tourism.

The interviewed stakeholders consisted of supporters (local agencies, universities, and community) and possible costumers. This paper does not include individual costumers (consumers) survey since the marketing of horticulture products of women farmer groups are still limited.

(8)

4 |

P a g e

Chapter 2: Analytical Framework

2.1 Food Value Chain in Concept

According to KIT, Faida MaLi, & IIRR (2006), a value chain is a specific type of supply chain – one where the actors know each other well and form stable, long-term relationships. They support each other so they can together increase their efficiency and competitiveness. They invest time, effort and money to reach a common goal of satisfying consumer needs, that enables them to increase their profits. While the supply chain is a set of linkages between actors where there are no binding/sought-after formal/ informal relationships, except when the goods, services and financial agreements are actually transacted. We are all part of a supply chain: as consumers, for example, we buy tomatoes from a retailer, who gets them from a wholesaler, who buys them from a trader, who gets them from a producer.

Kaplinsky & Morris (2001) described value chain as the full range of activities which are required to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use. The Global Value Chains Initiative (GVCI) (2017) mentioned that a supply chain emphasizes the manufacturing and distribution-related steps, whereas a value chain also includes the importance of other activities such as design and branding that add value to a product, but do not necessarily reflect a physical transformation. A value chain includes activities such as design, production, marketing, distribution and support to the final consumer.

A food value chain consists of all the stakeholders who participate in the coordinated production and value-adding activities that are needed to make food products (FAO, 2014). More clearly, Deloitte (2013) explained the food value chain is the network of stakeholders involved in growing, processing, and selling the food that consumers eat (from farm to table). This can include some actors: 1). the producers that research, grow, and trade food commodities, such as corn and cattle; 2). the processors, both primary and value added, that process, manufacture, and market food products, such as flour and bread; 3). the distributors, including wholesalers and retailers, that market and sell food; 4). the consumers that shop, purchase, and consume food; as well as 5). governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and regulators that monitor and regulate the entire food value chain from producer to consumer.

A sustainable food value chain (SFVC) is a food value chain that is profitable throughout all of its stages (economic sustainability); has broad-based benefits for society (social sustainability); has a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment (environmental sustainability). In addition, the SFVC concept recognizes that value chains are dynamic, market-driven systems in which vertical coordination (governance) is the central dimension and for which value-added and sustainability are explicit, multidimensional performance measures, assessed at the aggregate level (FAO, 2014).

FAO (2014) defined an SFVC as the full range of farms and firms and their successive coordinated value-adding activities that produce particular raw agricultural materials and transform them into particular food products that are sold to final consumers and disposed

(9)

5 |

P a g e

of after use, in a manner that is profitable throughout, has broad-based benefits for society, and does not permanently deplete natural resources. The “full range of farms and firms” refers to both value chain actors who take direct ownership of the product and various business service providers. The term “coordinated” means that in VCs the governance structure moves beyond a series of traditional spot-market transactions, with some level of non-adversarial vertical coordination in at least some part of the chain. “Value-added” is defined as the difference between the non-labour costs incurred to produce and deliver a food product and the maximum price the consumer is willing to pay for it. Environment impacts also can be value added to society.

In the concept of local food value chain, however, the term “successive coordinated” above should not be associated in the chain since local food distribution is supposed to create a shorter chain. As explained by USDA (2019), food value chain represents an innovative business model in which agricultural producers, manufacturers, buyers, and other related supply chain actors form collaborative, transparent partnerships that attempt to combine product differentiation strategies with commitment to shared operational values and social mission goals. Unlike traditional corporate marketing approaches which focus on the superior attributes of a firm’s products and services, value chain addresses consumers’ desire to promote social improvement. It incorporates social and environmental mission values, focussing on such issues as supporting local economy, farmland preservation and viability, providing human and animal welfare, expanding community access to fresh food, and demonstrating environmental stewardship. In relevant, GVCI (2017) explained a value chain can be contained within a single geographic location or even a single firm (think about a fruit that is grown, packaged, sold and consumed within one region/country).

Diamond, et al. (2014) mentioned that there are some key characteristics of food value chains, such as:

• Coupling economies of scale with sales of differentiated food products that are designed to attract consumer demand and obtain premium prices in the marketplace

• Using cooperative strategies to achieve competitive advantages and the capacity to adapt quickly to market changes

• Emphasis on high levels of performance, trust, and responsiveness throughout the network

• Emphasis on a shared vision shared information (transparency) and shared decision-making and problem-solving among the strategic partners

• Commitment to the welfare of all participants in the value chain, including providing adequate profit margins to support the business and its owners, fair wages, and business agreements of appropriate and mutually acceptable duration.

Additionally, farmers or agricultural producers in food value chains are able to know their production and transaction costs and are able to negotiate prices based on acceptable profit margins above those costs; perceive contracts and agreements as fair, having been freely agreed to, providing equitable treatment to all partners, and including appropriate timeframes; own and control their own brand identity as far up the supply chain as they

(10)

6 |

P a g e

choose or involve co-branding with other strategic partners; and participate fully in the development of mechanisms to resolve conflicts, communicate concerns about performance, and alter directions within the value chain (Diamond, et al., 2014).

2.2 Defining Urban Agriculture and Local Horticulture Product

Urban farming can be defined as city and sub-urban agriculture that takes the form of backyard, roof-top and balcony gardening, community gardening in vacant lots and parks, roadside urban fringe and livestock grazing in open space (US EPA, 2017). However, urban farming and community gardening are two different concepts. Greensgrow (2019) distinguished that the difference between urban farming and community gardening is a level of commerce, urban farming or urban agriculture is growing product to be sold, as opposed community gardening is more for personal consumption or sharing. Greensgrow (2019) explained urban agriculture has become a means to increase access to locally grown food and a way of reintroducing the public to several aspects of food that we have lost as a culture. It also aims to inform the consumer about how food grows and what regionally and seasonally grows.

There is no single characterization of size or placement of urban farming, it can be rooftops, on landfills, brownfields, or demolished housing or industry. In some cases, some municipalities are giving part of their park systems to allow urban farmers planting their crops. Sanyé-Mengual (2015) gave definition urban agriculture as farming operations that take place in and around the city that beyond food production provides environmental services (soil, water and climate protection; resource efficiency; biodiversity), social services (social inclusion, education, health, leisure, cultural heritage) and supports local economies by a significant direct urban market orientation.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (2007) categorized urban agriculture into two subdivisions, those are intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture. Intra-urban agriculture takes place within the inner city. Most cities and towns have vacant and under-utilized land areas that are or can be used for urban agriculture, including areas that are not suited for building (along streams, close to airports, etc.), public or private lands not being used (lands waiting for construction) that can have an interim use, community lands and household areas. Peri-urban agriculture takes place in the urban periphery. Peri-urban areas tend to undergo dramatic changes over a given period of time, there is an influx of people from both rural and urban areas, population density increases, land prices tend to go up and multiple land use emerges. Such changes affect the agricultural production systems, which tend to become smaller scale with more intensive production and shift from staple crops towards more perishable crops and animal production (meat, eggs, milk). Experiences in various parts of the world including Cuba, Argentina, Lebanon and Viet Nam seem to indicate that farm enterprises located in the fringe of the city are on average larger than those in the city centres and more strongly market-oriented (FAO, 2007).

(11)

7 |

P a g e

According to Danso et al., (2003) in FAO (2007), women represent an important portion of urban farmers since they tend to have most of the responsibility for feeding the households, while men tend to seek other urban employment. If the plot is close to home, farming activities can be more easily combined with their other tasks in the household, which is not the case with other jobs that often require travelling to the city centre, industrial areas or ‘better off’ residential areas. Urban farmers can operate on an individual or family basis, formally or informally, and be organized in a group, cooperative or other types of farmer organizations.

Another focus that might be of help in characterizing urban production systems is food system analysis, which is the analysis of all processes, formal and informal, involved in fully answering the nutritional needs of a population: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consuming and disposing/recycling food, and also includes the inputs needed and outputs generated at each step (Brown and Carter, 2003; FAO, 2007). A food system operates within and is influenced by, the urban social, economic and natural environment of a city. It can be analysed at the household, community and city level, and relates to the production, processing and marketing of food produced in and around the city, as well as food from other channels (rural areas, imports) and their linkages and relative contributions to the health and nutrition of the population and to the local economy and environment. In this way, strategies for the development of certain types of urban agriculture can focus on strengthening the urban food systems, complementing other components of the urban food system (FAO, 2007). It aims to reduce the foods that are long transported and preserved chemically while increasing food security and awareness of healthy food. Urban agriculture is generally characterised by closeness to markets, high competition for land, limited space, use of urban resources such as organic solid wastes, low degree of farmer organisation, and mainly perishable products (Veenhuizen, 2006). Mouster & Renting (2015) stated that food produced in and around cities in Africa and Asia is normally distributed through very short chains. The short chain in the marketing of the products has a positive impact on the reduction of transaction costs in the marketing of perishable products of varying quality standards.

Horticulture is one of typically urban farming sector cultivated by farmers in the urban area. According to de Bon, Holmen, and Aubry (2015), urban horticulture includes all horticultural crops grown for human consumption and ornamental use within and in the immediate surroundings of cities. The products of urban horticulture include a large variety of vegetables, cereals, flowers, ornamental trees, aromatic vegetables and mushrooms. Poincelot (2004) mentioned that crops grown in the horticulture sense include vegetables, fruits, ornamental, nuts, herbs, and medicinal plants.

In term of desirable practices of horticulture products marketing for achieving economic sustainability is to improve marketing operations. Poincelot (2004) stated that the direct marketing of agricultural goods to consumers is a good add-on to existing markets. Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is becoming popular where farms are in proximity to urban areas.

(12)

8 |

P a g e

According to the definition adopted by the U.S. Congress in the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act in Martinez, et al. (2010), local horticulture product can be defined as any crop that is locally or regionally raised, produced, and distributed less than 400 miles from its origin. However, there is no consensus about the definition of “local” in terms of the distance between production and consumption. The most commonly accepted definition associated with ‘‘local’’ food is that it is consumed within 100 miles of where it was produced. This is relevant to the research conducted by Hu, et al. (2013), in the research that was conducted in Ohio and Kentucky, USA; 74% among of 1,023 consumers defined “local” as less than 100 miles.

2.3 Policy Related Urban Agriculture and Local Horticulture Value Chain 2.3.1 Improving Food Security and Food Diversification

Food diversification is an important part of food security aside from food availability and food accessibility. The main target on food consumption diversification is decreasing rice consumption 1,5% per annum, and wheat. On the other hand, several food groups commodities are expecting to be increased, namely tuber, fruits, vegetables as well as food of animal origin. Food diversification becomes an important agenda of agriculture developments (MoA, 2013).

The initiation of food diversification based on local resources has been begun by issuing Presidential Regulation No. 22 /2009. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture also issued Ministry Regulation No. 43/Permentan OT.140/10/2009 to consolidate agriculture resources on supporting food diversification. The following program has been issued to achieve the target on food security and food diversification (MoA, 2013):

a. Increasing national food production capacity through intensification and expansion of staple food production; development of local food source alternatives; development of non-rice local food consumption pattern; development and rehabilitation of irrigation networks

b. Securing food stock and availability

c. Securing distribution and accessible of qualified, safe, healthy and halal food d. Diversification of food production and consumption based on local resources

2.3.2 Promoting Food Self-Sufficiency

In order to achieve food self-sufficiency, the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia through Indonesian for Agricultural Research and Development have developed the “Models of Sustainable Food Houses-Region (M-KRPL)” in several parts of Indonesia and replicated the models into a program of “Sustainable Food Houses-Region (KRPL)” in every part of Indonesia (Suptana, Sunarsih, & Friyatno, 2013). Promoting utilization of backyard or home garden to grow foods has become a strategy to implement KRPL program.

The program of KRPL then is synergized to village level program on family welfare empowerment that called as PKK (Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga). Moreover, PKK has become an organizational structure in which the village level is the basic institution. In most cases, the membership PKK group are women. Therefore, PKK is now identic with the

(13)

9 |

P a g e

women group. In order to involve women in agricultural and food production, women farmer group has been also established in every village. More and less, the members of PKK are also members of women farmer group. They take a role in promoting food self-sufficient by cultivating food crops at backyards or vacant lands in their surroundings. The activity of KRPL includes urban agriculture that is under the supervision of the Agriculture and Food Security Agency in every city/regency.

2.3.3 Strengthening Micro/Small Scale Business in The Agricultural Sector

The Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 43/ Permentan OT.140/10/2009 mentioned the activity implementation to strengthen micro/small business consist of:

a. Food availability aspect: support the development of local food agribusiness and the production on the diversity of processed foods.

b. Food distribution aspect: facilitate the development of local food market, facilitate distribution of local based food products and stabilize the price for local based food products.

c. Food consumption aspect: proximate test, conduct training on food safety and facilitate local food safety and quality assurance, develop farmer groups and farmer association which specialize on local food processing, give the award to both individual or group pioneers who contribute in the acceleration of local food diversification.

d. Institutional support: extension, assistance, and dissemination of information related to local food business and industry.

2.3.4 Green Space Area in The City

Indonesian Law No. 26/2007 regulates green space area in the city must be targeted minimum 30% of total city area. This 30% green space area consist of 20% public area and 10% private/individual lands. In Bogor city, the Law No.26/2007 is supported with Local Government Regulation No. 8/2011 that targets 2,436.93 ha (20.56%) of public green space and 1,415.30 ha (11.94%) of private green space.

In addition, green city concept has become city planning approach to achieve sustainable development in Bogor. According the Agency of Regional Development of Bogor City (2019), green city concept is mainstreaming ecological planning, that means the city development and growth program has to consider environmental sustainability. Increasing green space area up to 30% out of the total city area is one of the targets in green city concept.

The public green space comprises state lands that can be consist of city parks, city forests, green belts, sport yards, etc. Furthermore, to develop more public green space, the local government can collaborate with national and provincial governments, research and education institutions, private sector, and community, by utilizing state-vacant land and conducting land leasing. The private green space can consist of home garden/home yard, office yard, and green space provided in the shops or business area.

(14)

10 |

P a g e

The activity of urban agriculture is supposed to contribute in achieving 30% green space area in Bogor City. Moreover, the green city concept of Bogor City requires active participation from community to achieve the target. In urban agriculture activities, women farmer groups are part of the key drivers to scale up green city movement.

2.4 History of Women Urban Farmer Group

Women farmer groups in Indonesia, called Kelompok Wanita Tani (KWT) is part of initiation to organize the farmers. Generally, farmer groups in Indonesia are distinguished into three kinds, those are: KWT (Kelompok Wanita Tani) that consist of women farmers as the members or called as women farmer groups; KTD (Kelompok Tani Dewasa) that consist of men as the members; and KTN (Kelompok Taruna Tani) that consists of youth (usually under 35 years old) as the members. Women farmer group (KWT) as well KTD and KTN are typically informal group that is recognized by government. The formation of farmer groups in Indonesia has been supported since 1979 through Ministerial Circular Letter of Agriculture No. 130/Mentan/II/1979.

By referring Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 82/Permentan/OT.140/8/2013 and No. 67/Permentan/SM.050/12/2016, farmer group is a group of people that consists of farmers (can be either specialized in horticulture, livestock, or plantation) that is formed by farmers themselves based on the similarity of interest; social economic condition; resources; and commodity, trust to achieve common goals developing the members’ farm business. The Ministry of Agriculture has set four level categories for farmer groups which determine the development of capacity of farmer groups. The categories of farmer groups consist of Beginner (Pemula); Intermediate I (Lanjut); Intermediate II (Madya); and Advance/Excellent (Utama).

The women farmer groups have been developed both in village area (regency) as well as in urban area (city). In some area, like in Bogor City, the activities of women farmer groups are synergized and merged with family welfare empowerment program that is called PKK (Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga) and government program on food security and diversification that is called KRPL (Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari). According to Agriculture Agency of Bogor City (2019), there are 166 women urban farmer groups in Bogor City, that consists of 49 groups in Bogor Selatan; 45 groups in Bogor Barat; 28 groups in Tanah Sareal; 21 groups in Bogor Utara; 12 groups in Bogor Timur; and 11 groups in Bogor Tengah.

2.5 The Key Driver of Groups Formation

The basic regulation about women farmer groups is Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 82/Permentan/OT.140/8/2013 and No. 67/Permentan/SM.050/12/2016 that regulates about supporting the development of farmer groups and associations. Both of those regulations explained that the formation of farmer group is by farmers themselves based on the similarity of interest; social economic condition; resources; and commodity, trust to achieve common goals developing the members’ farm business. However, the formation of women urban farmer groups in Bogor City seems that it refers more Ministry Regulation of

(15)

11 |

P a g e

Agriculture No. 43/ Permentan OT.140/10/2009 about accelerating food diversification based on local resources and the following Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 14/2019 related on poverty alleviation toward agricultural sector.

By referring those Ministry Regulations, the facilitation of women urban farmers is under two governmental agencies in Bogor City, those are Agriculture Agency and Food Security Agency. Even though both of agencies are under the same ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture Republic of Indonesia, but they are not combined yet as one agency in Bogor City. Therefore, both Agriculture and Food Security Agencies develop different program in the facilitation of women urban farmer groups.

The Agriculture Agency has agricultural extension program to the women urban farmer groups by providing regular extension activities, distributing technical and physical supports from the government, and linking the groups to other stakeholders for wider networks. On the other hands, Food Security Agency has main program called KRPL/Sustainable Food Houses-Region. According to Ministry of Agriculture (2012) KRPL has main principles: (i) the utilization of yards for eco-friendly purposes in order to achieve food security and self-reliance; (ii) local food diversification based on local resources; (iii) conservation of food genetic resources (horticulture, livestock, and fishery sectors); the sustainability of seeds-garden in every village; and (v) increasing community income and welfare.

In the beginning of 2019, Ministry of Agriculture through Food Security Body issued the technical guidelines on governmental support for KRPL activities. It is explained in the technical guidelines that KRPL is an activity of developing the existing home garden as sustainable food resources and nutrient intake by requiring active participation from the group of community. The KRPL program is stimulated to empower women groups or other communities who gather in groups/organizations in every village/district. To join KRPL program, a community/group is necessary to have a demonstration plot for conducting agriculture practices.

(16)

12 |

P a g e

2.6 Conceptual Framework

Upon reviewing some literatures and information on the current situation of horticulture value chains of women urban farmer groups, a research conceptual framework is developed as Figure 1.

Figure 1: Research Conceptual Framework

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:  Biodiversity of flora & fauna

ECONOMIC IMPACTS:

 Cost: inputs, labour & opportunity cost, investment & depletion cost, cost for added value, value of land

 Benefit: Horticulture production (marketed and non-marketed), processed products

VALUE CHAIN APPROACHES

POTENCIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING HORTICULTURE VALUE CHAIN:

 PESTEC (Political, Economics, Social, Technological, Environmental and Cultural analysis

SUSTIANABLE HORTICULTURE VALUE CHAIN OF WOMEN URBAN

FARMER GROUPS

SOCIAL IMPACTS:  Group structure & rule

 Group legality

 Type of activity & motive

 Network

CORE CONCEPT DIMENSION ASPECTS

VALUE CHAIN SUPPORTERS:  Identifying actors

 The role of each stakeholder in facilitating horticulture value chain

 Identifying costumers & products requirements

(17)

13 |

P a g e

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Research Location

Bogor City is located between 106o _{48’ EL and 6}o_{26’ SL. The position of Bogor City is in the}

middle of Bogor Regency and close to capital city of Indonesia, Jakarta. It has average height of 190-330 m asl. The lowest temperature is 22o_{C and maximum temperature is 33}o_{C. The}

humidity is 82% with average monthly rainfall 345 mm (Statistics of Bogor City, 2018). Figure 2: Map of Bogor City

Administratively, Bogor City has total area 11,850 ha that consists of six (6) sub districts and 68 villages. That total of 11,850 ha area constitutes Bogor Barat (32.85%); Bogor Selatan (30.81%), Bogor Utara (17.72%), Tanah Sereal (18.84%), Bogor Timur (10.15%), and Bogor Tengah (8.13%).

The total population of Bogor City in 2017 was 1,081,009 people (548,196 men and 532,813 women), with productive age population (15-64 years old) was 70%. The annual population increment (2016-2017) was 1.53%, with an average population density as 9,122 people/km2_{. Urbanization rate has}

contributed to the population growth in Bogor City (Statistics of Bogor City, 2018).

Agricultural practices are still existing in Bogor City even though the total of rice field has becoming smaller in Bogor City. The total area of rice field is only 321 ha that stretches at Bogor Barat District (155 ha), Bogor Selatan (105 ha), and Bogor Timur (57 ha). The proportion of non-rice field agricultural land in every district ranges from 119 ha – 786 ha, of which Bogor Tengah District has the smallest agricultural land (119 ha). Nowadays, the agricultural activities are mostly conducted at non-rice fields with total area of 1,648 ha (Statistics of Bogor City, 2017).

((Source: Agency of Regional Development of Bogor City, 2019)

(18)

14 |

P a g e

3.2 Research Methods

This paper is based on a case study approach to explore the sustainability impacts of urban agriculture practices (focus on environmental and economic aspects) and possible approach for the development of local horticultural value chain in Bogor City. The research was conducted during June-August 2019. Literature review and secondary data collection were carried out in June and field work was carried out on 6th_{July – 11}th_{August 2019. The primary}

data was compiled by conducting several methods, that consist of participatory research, survey, interview, and observation. Overall, the methods that was undertaken in this research is explained below.

3.2.1 Participatory Research

Laws, et al. (2013) stated that participatory research takes a facilitative approach to respondents, rather than aiming to extract information from them. The participatory parts of this research was carried out to find out the environmental, economic, and social impacts. By combining several tools in this research, participatory research was conducted as below.

a. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

To find out economic impacts of women farmer groups and cost-benefit analysis of urban agriculture practices, FGD was carried out by involving two member representatives per farmer women farmer group. A semi-structured questionnaire was prepared prior to the FGD and spread to women farmer groups to find relevant information regarding the economic aspects.

This activity was conducted under collaboration with Agriculture and Food Security Agency, as part of women farmer group facilitation to analyse their groups’ cost-benefit of their urban agriculture practice. In the end session of the meeting, the participants delivered about the constraints of their urban agriculture practices. Figure 3: FGD activity with representative of women urban farmer groups

(19)

15 |

P a g e

b. Group Interview

Group interview was conducted by visiting the groups in the site. List interview questions were prepared prior the meeting to gain information from the members regarding social and environmental aspects as well to cross check economic impact of urban agriculture practices.

Figure 4: Site visit and group interview to members of women urban farmer group

(Photo by: Tri Giyat Desantoro, 2019) 3.2.2 Field Survey on Biodiversity

The field survey was conducted by visiting the gardens of women urban farmer groups. It was conducted by following the main paths of garden and observing at radius 5-10 metres on the border of the garden (depended on the type of border). Census method was applied to identify the biodiversity of flora. The number per crop species was not calculated in detail, but only tree species (perennial crop) was calculated.

Species list method was applied to identify the biodiversity of avifauna and insects. According Bibby et. al (2000), species list method is the simplest method to identify the biodiversity of fauna on the site. Visual Encounter Surveys (VES) was used for observing the biodiversity of herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians). The VES technique can be defined as a time-constrained method in which information of species richness and abundance along a survey path can be gained (Crump & Scott, 1994 in Eekhout, 2010). This technique is appropriate for both inventory and monitoring (Eekhout, 2010).

The survey on fauna biodiversity was conducted twice. For birds and insects was conducted in the morning (06.30-08.00 A.M.) and afternoon (03.30-05.00 P.M.). For the herpetofauna was conducted twice in the evening time, between 05.00-06.00 P.M. and 06.30-07.30 P.M. In addition, due to time limitation for conducting observation repetition, fauna species information from local community (women farmer group members) during group interview were cited.

(20)

16 |

P a g e

3.2.3 Stakeholders Interview

The interviews were undertaken with several stakeholders including supporters and retailers. The supporters in horticulture value chain of women urban farmer groups in Bogor City, consisted of five (5) local government institutions, three (3) educational institution and five (5) TSOs (third sector organizations)/voluntary based-community. There were two types of costumers interviewed during the research, costumers who distributed fresh horticulture produces and the ones who marketed processed horticulture products. The retailers of fresh horticulture produces consisted of three (3) supermarkets and retailers of processed horticulture products consisted of five (5) shops. Detail interviewees are included in Appendix 1.

3.3 The Samplings of Women Urban Farmer Groups

This research took group samplings instead of individual samplings. A discussion with Agriculture and Food Security Agencies was conducted to select the group samplings prior the fieldwork. The group samplings were selected purposely at six sub districts in Bogor City, by taking women urban farmer groups who are involved in the government program KRPL (Sustainable Food Houses Region). Two groups per sub district was planned as research sampling. However, there were eight groups could represent active women urban farmer groups. The samplings were not taken in Bogor Tengah since the urban agriculture activity of women farmer groups could not identified at this sub district. The selected women farmer groups are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: List of women farmer groups

No. Name of Women Group Location Distance*)

(km)

Total Members

(people)

1 KWT HePi Katulampa, Bogor Timur 7.3 15

2 KWT Flamboyan Katulampa, Bogor Timur 9.7 20

3 KWT Kentagor Kencana, Tanah Sareal 11 35

4 KWT Ciharashas Mulayahraja, Bogor Selatan 11.4 30

5 KWT Melati Tanah Baru, Bogor Utara 5.9 15

6 KWT Mawar Kencana Ciparigi, Bogor Utara 5 33

7 KWT Alam Lestari Balumbang Jaya, Bogor

Barat 8.9 20

8 KWT Mawar Menteng, Bogor Barat 5.9 30

Note: *) _{Distance from main municipality office by representing major office as the central area} 3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Quantitative Analysis a. Statistical Analysis

Multiple linear regressions were run to investigate relationships between predictor and dependent variables. Multiple linear regression attempts to model the relationship between two or more explanatory variables and a response variable by fitting a linear equation to observed data. Every value of the independent

(21)

17 |

P a g e

variable x is associated with a value of the dependent variable y (Yale University, 1998). In this paper, dependent variables that were tested consisted of total species biodiversity of fauna, total species biodiversity of flora, and prediction of annual benefit per Ha. Statistical tests to those dependent variables were to answer research question on related on environmental impact and economic impact. The software of IBM SPSS Statistics 25 was used to arrange the qualitative analysis. b. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is the most common and familiar form of economic analysis. It is most often used to evaluate the net benefit of specific new projects before they are carried out but can be used to analyse broader activities. A proper CBA of urban agriculture practice should indicate whether the overall impacts of the activity are positive or negative (Nuget, 2001).

The cost benefit analysis does not only consider on direct cash flow but also consider intangible aspects. Nuget (2001) mentioned that economically-relevant impacts of urban agriculture include the price effects of urban agriculture production on food, land and human resources involved; the opportunity cost of time and other non-priced resources involved and other non-price impacts.

3.4.2 Qualitative Analysis

Grounded theory was used as qualitative analysis. The qualitative was conducted to the responses of open-ended questions during group interview and FGD to women farmer groups, individual interviews to several stakeholders and additional findings during observation on the field. Willig (2008) stated that grounded theory is compatible with a wide range of data collection techniques. Semi-structured interviewing, participant observation, focus groups, even diaries can generate data for grounded theory. Coding constitutes the most basic as well as the most fundamental process in grounded theory.

Matrix coding with Microsoft Excel was conducted to help handle the data. Laws et.al (2013) mentioned that coding is locating material in the data that relates to the codes or categories. Excel is ideal for basic data analysis tasks such as data entry and storage, and run elementary statistical analysis. Inputted data were then selected based on the relevancy of the research questions and conceptual framework. The further, PESTEC analysis was carried out to indicate the potencies and challenges in upscaling horticulture value chains of women urban farmer groups in Bogor City.

(22)

18 |

P a g e

Chapter 4: Result

4.1 Women Urban Farmer Groups and The Social Impacts

This research found four variables in relevancy of social impacts of urban agriculture practices that are held by women urban farmer groups. Those social variables consist of group structure & rule, group legality, type of activity and motive and network.

4.1.1 Group Structure and Rule

Every group had own organizational structure that mostly consist of chairperson, secretary, treasurer, 3-5 divisions and members. The total members of each group consisted of 15-35 people. In general, the group organizational structure is presented in figure 5.

Figure 5: Organizational structure of women urban farmer group CHAIRPERSON

SECRETARY TREASURER

DIVISION A DIVISION B DIVISION C DIVISION D

MEMBERS

This research found that women urban farmer groups are developed as formal organization. Every group is controlled by rules although most of the rules are not written. Table 2 illustrates the general systems in the organization of women urban farmer groups.

Table 2: Systems in the organization

No. Elements System

1 Vision & mission Vision-mission is developed by representing group's interest

2 Type of hierarchy Vertical

3 Structural unit In combination between positions roles and individual roles

4 Basis for communication Proximity

5 Control mechanism Rules, but norms are still very strong

6 Activity arrangement Planned/scheduled but sometimes spontaneous

7 Group leadership Explicate

8 Documentation Book-records type documentation

(23)

19 |

P a g e

4.1.2 Group Legality

Every women urban farmer group has approval letter minimum from village office as their legality. Among eight women urban farmer groups could be categorized into three different group levels. The group level can be upgraded under assessment from Agriculture Agency. Those are four kinds of levels: Beginner, Intermediate I, Intermediate II and Advance which different level has different recognition from the government. Table 3 performs the

different among eight women farmer groups in the year of establishment, level and legality. Table 3: Women urban farmer groups and the legality

No. Name of Women

Group Founded Level Legality

1 KWT HePi 2018 Beginner Head of village

2 KWT Flamboyan 2015 Beginner -

Intermediate Head of village 3 KWT Kentagor 2015 Intermediate Head of sub district 4 KWT Ciharashas 2018 Beginner Head of village

5 KWT Melati 2008 Beginner Head of village

6 KWT Mawar Kencana 2015 Beginner Head of village 7 KWT Alam Lestari 2015 Intermediate Head of sub district

8 KWT Mawar 2012 Beginner –

Intermediate Head of village 4.1.3 Type of Activities and Motives

This paper categorizes the groups’ activities into three main activities based on value chain function. The first activity type is the group who conducted cultivation but used more than 50% of their crops for own consumption. This type activity occurred in most of women urban farmer groups (six groups out of eight groups conducted this type of activity).

The second activity model is the group that conducts cultivation and selling the produces. It happened in KWT Kentagor, which they derived benefit by consuming directly of chilly and some herbals but also gained cash-food regularly by selling their vegetables to their own members in cheaper price comparing to the local shop.

The last type of activity is the group who does not only produce but also sells both fresh and processed products. It was applied by KWT HePi which they regularly sold their harvest and sometimes sold the processed products to the neighbourhood. Simple chain map of figure 6 shows the types of activity that are conducted by eight women urban farmer groups.

(24)

20 |

P a g e

Figure 6: Type of activities of women urban farmer groups

Note:

WUFG = Women urban farmer groups

This research found that the motive of women urban farmer groups’ activities is based on informal relations and voluntary. Each group respondent agreed that the motives of doing gardening together are mostly for social cohesion and education purposes in order to improve their knowledge, experience and interaction to neighbourhood. Economic aspect is not the main objective, therefore harvest-sharing among group members become priority before selling them to the market. However, KWT HePi is the one among the group who has already had economic motive in their activity by selling >50% of their harvest and processing the horticulture products.

4.1.4 Network

The legality from the local authority, is one of the key entrances to connect to the networks. Eight women urban farmer groups in this research have strong relation with Agriculture Agency, Food Security Agency and PKK. There are several sectors that take a role in facilitating women urban farmer groups, but not to all groups. This research also identified that TSO (third sector organization) has participated in the facilitation of women urban farmer groups. The relation between TSO and women urban farmer group was found in KWT HePi, where a mosque community takes a role in the facilitation. Overall, a network between women urban farmer groups and stakeholders is illustrated in Figure 7.

Producing Dirrect Consuming Processing ACTORS WUFG ACTIVITY Selling Collecting WUFG WUFG WUFG WUFG WUFG WUFG WUFG WUFG Buying _ResidentsLocal _ResidentsLocal _ResidentsLocal _{in Bogor City}Consumers

(25)

21 |

P a g e

Figure 7: Women urban farmer groups’ network

Women Urban Farmer Groups Agriculture Agency Food Security Agency Health Agency LPPM MUI BPATP BPPTPH Micro, Small, Medium Business & Cooperative Agency

Industrial & Trade Agency

Other TSO (Third Sector Organization)

PKK

KRPL Program Agriculture _Extension Program KRPL Program Training: product packaging& halal certification Halal certification Training: entrepreneurship

& food safety Food safety

permit

Voluntary facilitation: environmental program &

group capacity building

Note:

Information flow

The relation doesn’t happen in every women urban farmer groups Having a strong relation

4.2 Environmental Impacts from Urban Agriculture Activities

This research found that every women urban farmer group managed different sizes of land. Seven women urban farmer groups practiced allotment gardens with mix crops and some species of perennial trees were also planted/growing on the site. One group, KWT HePi practiced community garden with agroforestry method. This group utilizes vacant land in the neighbourhood and maintain several perennial crops that already grew on the site.

Figure 8: Allotment garden (left: KWT Kentagor) and community garden (right: KWT HePi)

(26)

22 |

P a g e

4.2.1 The Biodiversity of Flora

The field survey on flora biodiversity found that the highest number of flora species was at KWT Alam Lestari’s, that representing 83 species of plants. Figure 9 presents the total species biodiversity of flora at each site of women urban farmer group. The detail species of flora was listed in the Appendix 2.

Figure 9: Total flora biodiversity at each site

A multiple liner regression was run to predict relationship of total biodiversity of flora based on total members, group age, group level, type of farming practice, and main border total member. Table 4 presents the total biodiversity of flora and some predictors that might associated to flora biodiversity.

Table 4: The total of flora biodiversity and several predictors

No. Group name Flora

Biodiversity Members

Group Age (Year)

Level Type of Farming Practice 1 KWT HePi 27 15 1 Beginner Community garden with agroforestry system 2 KWT Flamboyan 47 20 4 Beginner - Intermediate Allotment garden with mix crops 3 KWT Kentagor 59 35 4 Intermediate Allotment garden

with mix crops 4 KWT

Ciharashas 40 30 1 Beginner

Allotment garden with mix crops 5 KWT Melati 51 15 11 Beginner Allotment garden

with mix crops 6 KWT Mawar

Kencana 40 33 4 Beginner

Allotment garden with mix crops 7 KWT Alam

Lestari 83 20 4 Intermediate

Allotment garden with mix crops

8 KWT Mawar 68 30 7 Beginner -

Intermediate

Allotment garden with mix crops

(27)

23 |

P a g e

Linear regression with group level as predictor produced R2 = .635 and adjusted R2 > 20%, F (1,6) = 10.437, p<0.01). The total of flora biodiversity in the site (y) is equal to 24 + 16x where

x is level of group: “elementary” is coded as 1; “elementary - intermediate” is coded as 2, and

“intermediate” is coded as 3. Figure 10 shows the normality of residuals test with normal P-P plot and the correlation between total flora species and group level. There is no strong deviation that indicates the residual are normally distributed.

Figure 10: Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual with total fauna species as

dependent variable (left side) and a boxplot total flora species by level of group

4.2.2 The Biodiversity of Fauna

The field survey on fauna biodiversity found that the highest number of fauna species was at KWT HePi’s site, that representing 45 different species of fauna. Figure 10 presents the total species biodiversity of fauna at per site of women urban farmer group. The detail species of fauna was included in the Appendix 3.

Figure 10: Total fauna biodiversity at each site

A multiple liner regression was run to predict relationship of total biodiversity of fauna based on land size, main border and total flora species. Table 5 presents the total biodiversity of flora and some predictors that might associated to flora biodiversity.

(28)

24 |

P a g e

Table 5: The total of fauna biodiversity and several predictors

No. Group name Fauna

Biodiversity

Flora Biodiversity

Land Size

(m2) Main Borders

1 KWT HePi 45 27 3,000 Gardens & River

2 KWT Flamboyan 20 47 100 Settlements

3 KWT Kentagor 40 59 1,000 Settlements

4 KWT Ciharashas 16 40 400 Settlements

5 KWT Melati 18 51 150 Gardens & River

6 KWT Mawar

Kencana 15 40 200 Settlements

7 KWT Alam Lestari 20 83 500 Gardens & River

8 KWT Mawar 24 68 400 Settlements

A multiple liner regression was run to predict relationship of total biodiversity of fauna based on land size, total flora species and main border. A significant regression was found that there is

relationship among total of fauna species and land size. Linear regression produced adjusted R2 >20%, F (1,6) = 17.560, p<0.05). The total biodiversity of fauna in the site (y) is equal to 17 + 0.1x, where xis land size. Figure 11 shows the normality of residuals test with normal P-P

plot. There is no strong deviation that indicates the residual are normally distributed.

Figure 11: Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual with total fauna species as

(29)

25 |

P a g e

4.3 Economic Impacts of Urban Agriculture Practices

This paper analysed annual cycle of cost-benefit of urban agriculture practices specifically in horticulture sector. Table 6 presents the summary of annual cost benefit of urban agriculture practices. The detail cost-benefit calculation was enclosed in Appendix 4.

Table 6: Annual cost-benefit of urban agriculture practices

No. Group Name

Land Size (m2) (A) Costs without land tax (IDR) (B) Costs + land tax (IDR) (C) Annual Benefit (IDR) Lost (C - A) 1 KWT HePi 3,000 11,027,250 15,527,200 10,750,000 -277,250 2 KWT Flamboyan 100 3,334,500 3,484,450 1,437,000 -1,897,500 3 KWT Kentagor 1,000 5,626,350 7,126,300 5,613,750 -12,600 4 KWT Ciharashas 400 5,735,400 7,310,350 1,185,000 -4,550,400 5 KWT Melati 150 3,084,200 3,084,200 1,467,500 -1,616,700 6 KWT Mawar Kencana 200 4,429,500 4,729,450 2,486,000 -1,943,500 7 KWT Alam Lestari 500 3,452,950 4,202,900 1,162,500 -2,290,450 8 KWT Mawar 400 7,079,500 7,679,450 3,633,500 -3,446,000 Statistical analysis was run to predict the factors that can influence the annual benefit per Ha. Six factors (total group members, size of land, distance from main municipality office, group level, and type of group activity) were used as predictors in multiple linear regression test. Table 7 presents annual benefit prediction per Ha and several factors as predictors. Table 7: Annual benefit per Ha and several predictors

No. Group Name Prediction Benefit/Ha Total Members Size of Land (m2) Distance (km) Level Type of Activities

1 KWT HePi 35,833,333 15 3,000 7.3 Beginner Type 3 2 KWT Flamboyan 143,700,000 20 100 9.7 Beginner –

Intermediate Type 1 3 KWT Kentagor 56,137,500 35 1,000 11 Intermediate Type 2 4 KWT Ciharashas 29,625,000 30 400 11.4 Beginner Type 1 5 KWT Melati 97,833,333 15 150 5.9 Beginner Type 1 6 KWT Mawar

Kencana 124,300,000 33 200 5 Beginner Type 1

7 KWT Alam

Lestari 23,250,000 20 500 8.9 Intermediate Type 1 8 KWT Mawar 90,837,500 30 400 5.9 Beginner -

Intermediate Type 1

Linear regression produced adjusted R2 >20%, F (4,3) = 5.601, p<0.05). The benefit per Ha (y) is equal to 331,072,225 – (47,586 x1 + 4,000,189 x2 + 15,740,176 x3) + 65,094,472 x4. Those

nominal are rupiah (IDR) which equal to €20,954 – (€3 x1 + €253 x2+ €996 x3) + €4,120 x4

(30)

26 |

P a g e

group. Figure 12 shows the normality of residuals test with normal P-P plot. There is no strong deviation that indicates the residual are normally distributed.

Figure 12: Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual with annual benefit/Ha as

dependent variable

4.4 Multi-stakeholders and Their Roles

The matrixes bellow identifies several multi-stakeholders and their roles in relation of women farmer groups and horticulture value chain facilitation Table 12 provides the role of governmental agencies. Table 13 provides information on the roles of educational sectors (universities) and table 14 provides the roles of TSOs (Third Sector Organizations).

Table 12: Governmental sectors and their roles

No. Organization Role

1 Agriculture Agency of Bogor City

a. Providing extension services to farmer groups related on sustainable agriculture

b. Linking to several parties, to support farmers groups in capacity buildings, input supplies and technology

c. Facilitating the formation of ASWATANI (farmer entrepreneurship association) 2 Food Security Agency of

Bogor City

a. Leading KRPL (Sustainable Food Houses

Region) program in the city level that promotes the achieving of food security and food self-sufficiency based on local resources

b. Facilitating women farmer groups to develop KRPL

c. Distributing competitive funds from national government for women urban farmers groups to develop KRPL

(31)

27 |

P a g e

d. Linking the women groups to Health Agency and LPP MUI, regarding food safety & halal food, especially for processed horticulture products

3 Environmental Agency of Bogor City

a. Leading eco-village program, which promotes integrated environmental management, including water and biodiversity conservation. b. Integrating urban agriculture practices into

climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda.

4 Cooperative and Micro, Small, and Medium

Entrepreneurship Agency of Bogor City

a. Facilitating micro, small, and medium entrepreneurship groups to access credit, entrepreneurship capacity building and promotion events.

b. Facilitating the formation of Micro, Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Community (Dewan Paguyuban) in Bogor

c. Spreading digital awareness and socialization via thematic movies in order to promote local communities' products.

d. Linking to several parties, including private sectors (department stores & hotels) in order to promote local entrepreneurs' products. 5 Industrial & Trading Agency

of Bogor City

a. Coordinating the retailers (mini market & super market) for marketing food products from local communities.

b. Upscaling the food products value chain by giving capacity building to local entrepreneurs. c. Facilitating the formation of BaKul/Badan

Kuliner (Culinary Board) association for marketing culinary products from local communities.

d. Conducting local food exhibition in certain special/national commemoration by

collaborating with certain department store

(32)

28 |

P a g e

Table 13: Educational sectors and their roles

1 IPB - Bogor Agricultural University

a. Having division called P2SDM (Central of Human Resources Development) that leads community empowerment program. b. Having program called Posdaya (Family

Empowerment Centre) with 4 main issues (Food, Health & Sanitation, Economic, and Environment) in 70 different areas in Bogor. By this program, IPB also participates in women urban farmer groups facilitation.

b. Linking agricultural products from local communities to IPB outlets and Botany Mart IPB.

c. Linking the farmer groups to alumni through Kampus Desa/Village Campus program, where farmers can get free learning regarding agricultural innovation from IPB alumni. 2 Trilogi University, Jakarta a. Promoting urban agriculture through Program

Study agro-ecothecnology and students association Trilogi Berkebu.

b. Providing training to increase the capacities of community groups in conducting urban

agriculture. Especially farmer groups in the area of JABODETABEK (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi) can send request letter to the Agro-Ecothecnology Program Study for applying the trainings.

3 Nusa Bangsa University, Bogor

a. Integrating urban agriculture into university lesson "Urban Agribusiness"

b. Linking to Agriculture Agency in conducting students internship, research and community service activities related urban agriculture.

Table 14: TSOs and their roles

1 ASWATANI (Farmers Entrepreneurship Association)

a. Collecting agriculture products from urban farmers

b. Promoting & distributing agriculture products from urban farmers to consumers (mostly agricultural-processed products).

2 PKK (Family Welfare Movement)

a. As a driver of women group movements in every village

b. Coordinating women empowerment program to local government

Upscaling sustainable horticulture value chain of women urban farmer groups in Bogor City, West Java, Indonesia

I

ka

Sat

yasari

UPSCALI

NG

SUSTAI

NABLE

HORTI

CULTURE

VALUE

CHAI

N

OF

WOMEN

URBAN

FARMER

GROUPS

Upscaling Sustainable Horticulture Value Chain of Women Urban Farmer Groups

in Bogor City, West Java, Indonesia

Disclaimer:

Inquiries:

Location:

CONTENTS

1 |

P a g e

Chapter 1: Introduction & Overview

2 |

P a g e

3 |

P a g e

4 |

P a g e

Chapter 2: Analytical Framework

5 |

P a g e

6 |

P a g e

7 |

P a g e

8 |

P a g e

9 |

P a g e

10 |

P a g e

11 |

P a g e

12 |

P a g e

13 |

P a g e

Chapter 3: Methodology

14 |

P a g e

15 |

P a g e

16 |

P a g e

17 |

P a g e

18 |

P a g e

Chapter 4: Result

19 |

P a g e

20 |

P a g e

21 |

P a g e

22 |

P a g e

23 |

P a g e

24 |

P a g e

25 |

P a g e

26 |