The links between urban and rural development

THIS IS THE second issue of Environment &Urbanization focusing on rural–urban linkages. The first, which came out in 1998, described the reliance of many low-income households on both rural-based and urban-based resources in constructing their livelihoods. But the majority of the papers also underlined the fact that this straddling of the rural–urban divide is usually ignored by policy makers, and that the rigid division between “rural” and “urban” on the part of sectoral strategies actually makes life more difficult for low-income groups. The papers in this issue show many reasons why it has become even less realistic for development specialists to separate into rural and urban camps. The notion of a “divide” has become a misleading metaphor, one that oversimplifies and even distorts the realities. As these papers demonstrate, the linkages and interactions have become an ever more intensive and important component of livelihoods and production systems in many areas – forming not so much a bridge over a divide as a complex web of connections in a landscape where much is neither “urban” nor “rural”, but has features of both, especially in the areas around urban centres or along the roads out of such centres (what can be termed the peri-urban interface). In addition, much of the rural population depends on urban centres for access to secondary schools, post and telephones, credit, agricultural extension services, farm equipment, hospitals and government services. Of course, there are still conflicts between rural and urban interests. But there are also conflicts between many urban interests and the needs of most of the urban population. There are also significant synergies between many rural and urban interests. Some factors can be generalized as having a key role in the increase in the scale of rural–urban linkages. Decreasing incomes from farming, especially for small-scale producers who, because of a lack of land, water or capital, are unable to intensify and switch to higher value crops, means that increasing numbers of rural residents engage in non-farm activities that are often located in urban centres. For those who continue farming, direct access to markets is essential in the wake of the demise of parastatal marketing boards – and markets are also usually located in urban centres. Better access to markets can increase farming incomes and encourage shifts to higher value crops or livestock. Population growth and distribution patterns affect the availability of good agricultural land and can contribute to rural residents moving out of farming. With the expansion of urban centres, land uses change from agricultural to residential and industrial, and in the peri-urban interface these processes go hand in hand with transformations in the livelihoods of different groups – with the poorest often losing out. Perhaps more significant than the absolute availability of natural resources in relation to population numbers and density are the mechanisms which regulate access to, and management of, such resources. These include land tenure systems and the role of local government in negotiating the priorities of different users and in providing a regulatory framework which safeguards the needs of the most vulnerable groups while, at the same time, making provision for the requirements of economic and population growth. Such mechanisms continue to call for attention, to