A package of innovations was disseminated in urban agriculture and created real opportunities for employment, income, and the supply of vegetables of high nutritional quality. However, ten years later, farmers are working for a daily income of less than United State Dollars 1.25, and critical exceedances of heavy metal content standards in crops are recorded. Survey data collected from 202 farmers were used to identify, via the Logit model, the factors influencing the sustained adoption of the of two contrasting innovations of the package. The results of the exploratory survey of 537 farmers showed that 2.42% owned a motor pump, while the in-depth survey revealed that 25.2% of the 202 respondents were using motor pumps at the time of the survey. A total of 74.8% watered with buckets and watering cans. The high cost of the motor pump makes it inaccessible to farmers. Some tried to circumvent this constraint, which led to group purchases. Integrated soil fertility management was used by 58.4% of respondents. In total, 41.6% applied only chemical fertilizers. However, Integrated soil fertility management has been hampered by farmers’ difficulties in accessing organic matter. The results of the Logit model revealed that no socio-demographic factors were significant for sustained adoption of the motor pump. They were relevant, rather, for integrated soil fertility management, where a single factor (mutual aid) appeared to play a role, albeit a moderate one. Economic factors such as land tenure status and diversification of income sources were significant for a sustained adoption of the motor pump. In contrast, no economic factors were significant for a sustained adoption of the integrated soil fertility management. Institutional factors such as access to credit and membership in an association were significant for sustained adoption of the two of innovations studied. A series of avenues to follow to improve the productivity of farms is proposed. We suggest an in-depth study of the mutual aid practiced by 86.1% of the farmers. The results of this study can be taken into account in research and policy aimed at improving adoption of innovative techniques that are beneficial to farmers in developing countries.

Introduction: The multiple constraints of urban agriculture have prompted farmers in Lubumbashi to turn to informal mutual aid networks. The survey data collected from 88 farmers chosen at random from the 202 farmers previously interviewed enabled us to decipher the crucial role of mutual aid in maintaining urban farms.Methods: The survey data collected from 88 farmers chosen at random from the 202 farmers previously interviewed enabled us to decipher the crucial role of mutual aid in maintaining urban farms.Results: The results show that 79.5% of the surveyed farmers resort to mutual aid to ensure the vegetable production cycle. More specifically, this mutual aid consists in sharing resources, for which the farmer would interact 15.1 times with other farmers, and in sharing agricultural know-how, for which the farmer would interact 11.6 times with other farmers. Four categories of resources are defined in this mutual aid network: highly exchanged resources with a high exchange intensity (hoes, watering cans, plant protection products and chicken droppings), highly exchanged resources with a low exchange intensity (land capital, spades, and seeds), lowly exchanged resources with a low exchange intensity (motor pumps and buckets) and non-exchanged resources (financing, labor, chemical fertilizers). Agricultural know-how such as soil preparation, soil fertility management, pest control and sales techniques are widely shared. Characteristics such as gender, age, experience, religious affiliation, and farmer status in the household are statistically significant explanatory factors of mutual aid. In addition, neighborhood relations, kinship and religious affiliation are social ties that enable farmers to help each other.Discussion: The results provide useful information on the crucial role played by informal mutual aid networks in maintaining urban farms in the face of the negative consequences of chaotic urbanisation and climate change. The study recommends that policymakers and agricultural extension services take these networks into account when drawing up policies for disseminating innovations. For, although informal, they constitute powerful and inexpensive channels of communication in an inoperative institutional context of urban agriculture.

The drastic and historic fall in natural rubber prices has prompted many smallholders around the world to abandon rubber plantations in favor of other survival alternatives. In the Lomela and Lodja territories of Sankuru Province (Democratic Republic of Congo), where a historical absence of a rubber market prevails, local communities have conserved rubber plantations inherited from the colonial era (dating back to 1955). Data collected from 401 households enabled us to identify the perceptions and determinants of rubber plantation conservation. The results show that households are highly dependent on forest ecosystem services. Agriculture is the main activity for 81.3% of respondents, in the context of extreme poverty where daily incomes amount to 0.33 USD/person. The patriarchal system favored men, who inherited 97% of the plantations. Men perceived the conservation of the plantations as beneficial, while women perceived it as serving external project interests. Perceptions were significantly influenced by gender, age, social and legal organization, geographical origin, mode of acquisition, main activity, diversification of income sources, membership in a tribal mutuality, access to the informal mutual aid networks, membership in an association and contact with extension services. Conservation was positively and significantly correlated with geographical origin, membership in an association, contact with extension service, consideration of plantations as natural heritage and the ecosystem services provided. These results underline that rubber plantations cannot be understood only in terms of rubber production, but also in terms of their socio-ecological and heritage dimensions.