**4. Discussion**

#### *4.1. Future of Urban Agriculture in Singapore*

Agriculture in Singapore awaits a series of major changes, not only quantitative, but also spatial, in connection with the closure and/or relocation of certain farms, as well as qualitative (leading to a change of production methods). The policy that Singapore's authorities pursue as regards the smart city concept is a somewhat selective one. It supports actions integrating modern technology, while making it difficult for inhabitants to become involved in bottom-up initiatives that are less advanced technologically but do strengthen ties in society and help educate young people of school age, who usually lack contact with rural areas and do not have much idea of how the food goods that they consume every day are actually produced. The governmen<sup>t</sup> of Singapore, in fact, takes a rather restrictive approach to civic activism, and that does much to limit the development of, say, community gardens [86]. On the other hand, the building of a contented and healthy community is an aspect of the smart, resilient and soft city concepts, and one intended to facilitate coping with the challenges that today's city poses.

Urban farming in Singapore is, thus, at a turning point, where the technocratic vision of an autocratic city of the future is beginning to win against grassroots initiatives as well as tradition, and low-profit forms of agricultural activity are being pushed out of the urban space. Investments in the latest technology and a drastic policy toward ineffective farms are the way of the Singapore's governmen<sup>t</sup> to reach the goal set in March 2019 of achieving a 30% level of food self-sufficiency by 2030, known as 'the 30 by 30 goal' [87]. It comes, however, at the price of the seizure and development of the land previously allocated to traditional agriculture.

#### *4.2. Future of Urban Agriculture in Kigali*

Considering the fact that subsistence farming predominates in the capital of Rwanda, nutritional needs of the inhabitants constitute an important factor influencing its presence in the urban space. In order to improve the food security of Kigali's urban dwellers, who suffered from severe food shortages, agriculture was included in the city's spatial policy. Currently, however, its role is changing. First of all, given that the vast majority of households in Kigali have achieved food security (according to the Ministry of Agriculture in 2015, only 3% of urban households in Rwanda's capital were considered food insecure), agriculture is not so much a basis for livelihood as it is an additional source of income for the inhabitants, who sell agricultural produce, thereby improving their financial situation [88]. The fact that agriculture is slowly ceasing to be indispensable to secure livelihoods and provide food for families may work to its disadvantage. Once the food security of the inhabitants is achieved, local food production will no longer be a strategic activity and will be pushed out into peri-urban or rural areas, as demonstrated by the Singapore example. It should be noted, however, that the situation related to food security in the capital of Rwanda is still unstable, as almost 35% of households within the city are considered marginally food secure [88]. Urban agriculture, although slowly losing its importance, still serves as a kind of safety buffer for residents.

The urban tissue of Kigali is currently undergoing dynamic changes, similar to those that took place in Singapore. They result from the present urban planning policy as well as from increased foreign investment and hence, the inflow of foreign capital. Due to the gradual improvement of residents' economic status, urban farming will most likely become the first victim of the spatial expansion and in-fill development, the first cases of which are presented in this paper. Moreover, the government's policy toward agricultural activity in Kigali is ambiguous. On the one hand, urban agriculture is to be removed from the valleys in order to enable the restoration and protection of valuable natural wetlands. On the other hand, as part of the policy of food security improvement, the authorities allow residents to use wastelands for short-term cultivation.

As urban agriculture is not a highly profitable activity, and Kigali is one of the fastest growing cities in Africa, it is very important to ask not whether, but how long agriculture will be able to remain in the urban space. The Kigali authorities choose similar solutions regarding urban development to those currently being implemented in Singapore. While comparing the two documents—the Singapore Master Plan 2019 and Kigali Master Plan 2020—there are many noticeable similarities concerning the policy toward urban agriculture in both cities. Agricultural areas are to be concentrated mainly on the outskirts of the cities, and the area that they currently occupy is to be limited in both cases. Thus, will Kigali's

urban agriculture, like that in Singapore, be gradually pushed out of the most central districts of the city, to finally disappear completely from the urban space? The results of the fieldwork conducted in Kigali lead toward a positive answer to the question posed.

As for the qualitative changes, according to the latest Kigali Master Plan, the priority action is the modernization and mechanization of urban agriculture as well as increasing productivity while reducing the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. These provisions regard, primarily, peri-urban areas though, as agriculture is to be removed from inner-parts of the city. As for the integration of modern cultivation methods, the document merely mentions rooftop farming. Nevertheless, considering the fact that Kigali, to a certain degree, follows Singapore's steps, some changes might be anticipated. The transformations projected in the Kigali Master Plan seek an optimization of land use that, at the same time, takes into account the inhabitants' nutritional needs. The limitation of traditional agricultural activity within central parts of the city requires innovative solutions that will sustain the level of food security; therefore, the methods implemented in Singapore, such as hydroponics, aquaponics and rooftop farming, might prove effective enough to catch the authorities' attention.

Table 1 presents a juxtaposition of the research results with regard to 36 farms studied in Singapore and 98 agricultural areas analyzed in Kigali.


**Table 1.** Research results for Singapore and Kigali.


**Table 1.** *Cont*.

The two cities studied provide two distinct examples of how urban agriculture can develop and what forms it can take under different socio-economic, political and cultural conditions. The attributes of urban agriculture in both cases differ in terms of spatial and inherent features, as well as the scope of grassroots initiatives and inhabitants' agency in shaping urban space. Nevertheless, the analysis of the institutional and legal framework of urban agriculture and the policy toward its development proved that certain similar patterns may be observed. This mainly includes the planned reduction of farmland contained in the analyzed planning documents, as well as the process of large-scale urban agriculture being pushed out into the periphery of both cities. It should be noted, however, that in the case of Singapore, the alternative to limiting agricultural areas proposed by the authorities is the implementation of innovative production methods based on high technologies, while in Kigali such solutions have not been promoted so far, although they could prove to be an effective and sustainable solution to the problems with food security of the inhabitants.
