Hibe Kapsamında Verilen Tarımsal Projelerim Etkinlik Analizi

Year 2021, Issue: 31, 505 - 514, 31.12.2021

Gülay Özkan , İsmail Bülent Gürbüz , Nezih Erdem Bedel

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1010172

Abstract

IPARD (Katılım Öncesi Yardım Aracı Kırsal Kalkınma) programı küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmelere, uzun dönemde ekonomik sürdürülebilirliği sağlamaları, tüm üretim aşamalarında sıkı bir kalite ve hijyen denetimi uygulamaları ve bu sayede sektöründeki adaptasyonuna katkıda bulunmak ve iç pazarda daha kolay rekabet etmelerini sağlamak için destek olmaktadır. Bu araştırmada Programdan destek almış olan tarımsal üreticilerin programa başvuran yöneticileri ve işletmelerin demografik özellikleri ile birlikte işletme ve sektör ile ilgili bilgiler araştırılarak Programın Bursa İlindeki etkinlik derecesi değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmada IPARD I ve IPARD II kapsamında destek alan 97 adet işletme ile görüşülmüştür. Veri analizi SPSS 25 Programı aracılığı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Başvuru sahiplerinin büyük çoğunluğunun erkektir (%78,4). Başvurusu sahiplerinin yaklaşık yarısı (%43,3) üniversite mezunu olmakla birlikte % 83,5’nin eğitimi proje için başvurulan sektörle ilgili değildir. %76,3’ü ise ilgili herhangi bir eğitim veya kurs almamıştır ve %40,2’simin meslekteki tecrübeleri 1-5 yıl arasındadır. IPARD başvurularının % 84,5’ü yeni şirketlerdir. Başvurular gerçek ve tüzel kişiler arasında dengeli bir şekilde dağılmıştır. Başvuru yapan yatırımcıların %59,8înin tarım dışı geliri yoktur. Hibe destekleri hakkında ilgilendirmede TKDK (%58,8) ve hibe desteği almış yatırımcıların bilgilendirmesi (30,9) etkili olmuştur. Programdan en çok et ve süt üreten işletmeler en az ise süt işleyen işletmeler faydalanmıştır. Projelerin %72,2’si büyük kapasiteli işletmeler olup %92,8’i kapasite artırımına gitmemiştir. Destek alan işletmelerin % 32’sinin aylık tarımsal net geliri 20001TL ve üstündedir. İşletmenin gelecekle ilgili planları arasında öncelikli olarak mevcut durumunu koruyarak faaliyetlerini sürdürmek (%25.7) ve kapasite artırımı yapmadan ilave makine ekipman yatırımı yapmak (%25.7) bulunmaktadır. Katılımcıların % 89,7’si kırsal kalkınma faaliyetlerini takip etmektedir.

Keywords

Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınma, Hibe, Tarımsal İşletme, IPARD, Kaltie, Sürdürebilirlik.

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Doç. Dr. İsmail Bülent Gürbüz’ün danışmanlığında yürütülen Nezih Erdem Bedel’in Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu Tarafından Desteklenen Tarımsal İşletmelerde Kırsal Kalkınma, Kalite ve Sürdürülebilirlik Algısı Üzerine Bir Alan Araştırması (Bursa İli) ” başlıklı yüksek lisans tezinden üretilmiştir

Efficiency Analysis of Granted Agricultural Projects

Abstract

IPARD (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance Rural Development) Programme supports small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve long-term economic sustainability, ensure stringent quality control, assist the sector's adaptation, and compete in the domestic market. This research aimed to unveil the distinct characteristics of the managers and enterprises of agricultural producers who have received support from the Program. Thus, the effectiveness of the Program in Bursa was questioned. Ninety-seven enterprises that received support from IPARD I and IPARD II were interviewed. Data analysis was performed using the SPSS 25 Program. The vast majority of applicants were men (78.4%). Although nearly half of the applicants (43.3%) were university graduates, the education of 83.5% was not related to the sector applied. 76.3% of them had not received any relevant training or course, and 40.2% had 1-5 years of experience in the profession. 84.5% of IPARD applications were new companies. Applications were evenly distributed between natural and legal entities. Of the investors applying, 59.8% had no non-agricultural income. ARDSI (58.8%) and past investors' feedback (30.9%) effectively informed potential applicants. Meat and milk-producing enterprises benefited the most from the Program; and milk processing enterprises benefited the least. 72.2% of the projects were large-capacity enterprises, and 92.8% had not gone to capacity increase. The monthly agricultural net income of 32% of the enterprises receiving support was 20001 TL and above. The company's plans included maintaining its current status (25.7%) and investing in additional machinery and equipment without increasing capacity (25.7%). 89.7% of the participants follow rural development activities.

Keywords

Agriculture and Rural Development, Grant, Agricultural entity, IPARD, Quality, Sustainability.

Project Number

Yok

References

• Akın, O. (2016). Rural development potential of Denizli province in respect to Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Rural Development Programme (IPARD) of the EU. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 25(1), 340-356.
• Aslan, S., Demirhan, Y., & Ertaş, M. (2016). EU pre-accession assistance for rural development component (IPARD I) and the effect to the province of Mardin. Journal of Academic Approaches, 7(1), 232-254.
• Asoğlu, V., & Binici, T. (2015). Evaluation of economic investments of RDISPs: Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır example. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(52), 221-230. doi:10.17755/esosder.26433
• Aydın, B., Öztürk, O., Çebi, Ü., Özkan, E., & Özer, S. (2019). Factors affecting the utilization from drip irrigation subsidies of the farmers in Edirne province. Soil Water Journal, 8(2), 87-95.
• Başaran, Y. K. (2017). Sampling theory in social sciences. Asos Journal the Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(47). doi:10.16992/ASOS.12368
• Beşen, T., Sayın, B., Çelikyurt, M. A., Kuzgun, M., Yılmaz, Ş. G., Bahçeci, M., & Aydın, B. (2020). Determination of factors affecting the receiving drip irrigation support of producers in Antalya province. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 23(6), 1578-1586. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.652397
• Cihangir, H., Bilgiç, B., & Aba, T. (2015). The impact of IPARD machinery and equipment supports on Mardin’s agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science, 11(1), 25-31.
• Çimen, A. O. (2017). A survey on the contrıbutıons of IPARD Programme to the economy (Unpublished Master Thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
• Çobanoğlu, F., Tunalıoğlu, R., Yılmaz, H. İ., Bozkıran, S., Nalbantoğlu, A., & Yıldız, H. (2017). Assessment of impact of rural development investments support programme: evidence from Bursa region. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 14 (01), 16-27.
• Demirbük, M., & Ayyıldız, B. (2021). Evaluation of the factors affecting benefiting from the grant program in rural development projects, case study of sarıveliler, Karaman province. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 36, 34-44.
• Gülçubuk, B., Köksal, Ö., Ataseven, Y., Gül, U., & Kan, M. (2018). Effects of rural development supports at the national level: Examing of Agriculture and Rural Development Support Institution (ARDSI)’s Projects. TEAD, 2,(1), 1-10.
• Iova, A. R., & Cretu, D. (2017). The impact of the European funds on the development of the rural area. Case study. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 17(2), 87–192.
• Kadiroğlu, A., & Türko, E. S. (2018). Project process in companies that received grants from regional development agency financial support programmes: Nada case. Journal of Business Economics and Management Research(2), 49-70.
• Kandemir, T., Baykut, E., & Avcı, A. (2017). An assessment of small and medium enterprises development organization (KOSGEB) incentives from the perspective of support receiving organizations (TR33 region implementation). Optimum
• Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 4(1), 97-114. doi:10.17541/optimum.285228 Koç, A. (2016). IPARD in funding rural development in Turkey on the path towards EU (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta.
• Koç, A., & Giray, F. H. (2016). Dairy cattle enterpreneurs' opinion on IPARD project supports. 12. National Agricultural Economics Congress, 25-24 May 2016, Isparta (pp. 975-984).
• Olgun, F. A., & Sevilmiş, G. (2017). European Union Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance-rural Development (IPARD) programme and assessment in terms of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23 (1), 25-36. doi:10.24181/tarekoder.317836
• Örs, A., & Oğuz, C. (2019). Unit milk cost and profitability of dairy cattle farms supported and non-supported by IPARD program: a case study of Konya, Turkey. Custos E Agroengocio online, 15(4), 471-484. doi:10.81043/aperta.75347
• Özdemir, Ş. (2014). Evaluating the properties of beneficiaries as part of IPARD programme: A case study in Konya. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Selçuk University. Konya.
• Özkul, G., & Bozkurt, A. A. (2020). The effect of ARDSI supports on regional development and firm growth performance: Isparta Sample. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(3), 676-698.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.
• Tan, S., Ekinci, Ö., Kurt, H., & Karakoç, N. (2018). Analysis of factors affecting the satisfaction level of producers from machinery-equipment support within the scope of the IPARD project in Çanakkale. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 6(1), 1-8.
• Taşcıoğlu, Y., & Sayın, C. (2017). Determination of the factors affecting the use of the support program of the enterprises benefiting from the rural development investments program in the western Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science And Technology, 5(7), 786-791. doi:10.24925/turjaf.v5i7.786-791.1190
• Toker, A., & Karlı, B. (2021). The effects of IPARD program on fruit sector: the case of Isparta province. Turkish Journal of Science and Engineering, 3(1), 13-21.
• Turkstat. (2018). Bursa provincial coordinator, publication no: 21 February 2018. Bursa.
• Turkstat. (2018b). Provincial populations by years publication no: 1590. Ankara.
• Türkan, Y., & Değirmenci, Ö. (2017). Support of KOSGEB, supports using the evaluation of business and the city of application Bingöl. Bingöl University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7, 159-175. doi:10.29029/busbed.365207
• Türkssat. (2018a). Agricultural areas, 2018 publication no: announcements-2015. Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara.
• Yardimci, M., Ari, H., & Aslan, R. (2018). The impact of IPARD supports on structural and managerial features of dairy enterprises in Afyonkarahisar province. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 52(1), 151-156.
• Zengin, B., & Savgın, E. C. (2016). Pre-accession EU rural development funds IPARD examination of rural tourism support. Academic Review, 57, 84-100.