Uzbekistan : Strengthening the Horticulture Value Chain
Why produce a policy note on horticulture in Uzbekistan? There are several answers to this existential question, although they are not necessarily obvious ones. Agriculture, taken as a whole, constitutes a small and declining share of Uzbekistan s national income, and horticulture is a small share of agricultural income. Even so, it is an important source of income for the 4.7 million households that operate dehkan farms in rural and disproportionally poor communities. Horticultural products are grown on an additional 21 thousand larger private farms as well. Evidence in this note suggests that growing fruit and vegetables is among the most profitable activities on both dehkan and private farms and, over the last ten years, the incomes those activities generate comprised a growing share of national GDP. Horticultural export earnings have also surged in recent years, growing from USD 373 million in 2006 to USD 1.16 billion in 2010. Uzbekistan has special agro-ecological conditions that set it apart from most countries and provides the basis for its horticulture subsector. Like agriculture as a whole, the subsector benefits greatly from policies that support basic research in agronomy and post-harvest technologies, from policies that support private investment and efficient markets, and from policies that promote the good stewardship of natural resources. The policy note is centered on the horticultural subsector. However, because an effort is made to draw comparisons between the policy environment that prevails for dehkan farmers and private farmers growing horticultural crops and that which is relevant for private farmers growing wheat and cotton, the note touches on many sector-wide issues. Still, it is important to emphasize that this policy note should not be viewed as a general review of agricultural policies. Finding ways to adapt policy lessons from horticulture to improve agricultural productivity as a whole is a more ambitious task and one that requires broader analysis and discussion.
| Summary: | Why produce a policy note on
horticulture in Uzbekistan? There are several answers to
this existential question, although they are not necessarily
obvious ones. Agriculture, taken as a whole, constitutes a
small and declining share of Uzbekistan s national income,
and horticulture is a small share of agricultural income.
Even so, it is an important source of income for the 4.7
million households that operate dehkan farms in rural and
disproportionally poor communities. Horticultural products
are grown on an additional 21 thousand larger private farms
as well. Evidence in this note suggests that growing fruit
and vegetables is among the most profitable activities on
both dehkan and private farms and, over the last ten years,
the incomes those activities generate comprised a growing
share of national GDP. Horticultural export earnings have
also surged in recent years, growing from USD 373 million in
2006 to USD 1.16 billion in 2010. Uzbekistan has special
agro-ecological conditions that set it apart from most
countries and provides the basis for its horticulture
subsector. Like agriculture as a whole, the subsector
benefits greatly from policies that support basic research
in agronomy and post-harvest technologies, from policies
that support private investment and efficient markets, and
from policies that promote the good stewardship of natural
resources. The policy note is centered on the horticultural
subsector. However, because an effort is made to draw
comparisons between the policy environment that prevails for
dehkan farmers and private farmers growing horticultural
crops and that which is relevant for private farmers growing
wheat and cotton, the note touches on many sector-wide
issues. Still, it is important to emphasize that this policy
note should not be viewed as a general review of
agricultural policies. Finding ways to adapt policy lessons
from horticulture to improve agricultural productivity as a
whole is a more ambitious task and one that requires broader
analysis and discussion. |
|---|