Piyasalar ve Kolektif Davranış: Geleneksel Buğday Türleri Üzerine Bir Örnek Olay İncelemesi

Year 2019, Issue: 59, 13 - 30, 03.07.2019

Nurcan Atalan Helicke

https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS402676

Abstract

Türkiye buğdayın yabani atalarının ekilip biçilmeye başlandığı bir coğrafyada yer alır ve önemli bir buğday genetik çeşitlilik merkezidir. Küresel olarak bitki genetik çeşitlilik merkezlerinde çeşitliliğin azaldığı, geleneksel (atalık) türlerin modern türlerin hakimiyeti altında gitgide kaybolduğu ve bunun gıda güvenliği ve iklim değişikliğine karşı adaptasyon sürecinde etkileri üzerine kaygılar vardır. Geleneksel (atalık) buğday çeşitlerini pazara ulaştırmaya yönelik proje ve politikalar bu kaynakların korunması yanında geçimlik kaynaklarının korunmasını ve gıda güvenliğine erişimi de sağlar. Fakat geleneksel çeşitlerin pazarlanması için üreticilerin kollektif eylemi gereklidir. Türkiye’de alan çalışmasında derlenen bilgilere dayanan bu makale, geleneksel iki buğday çeşidi, siyez (Triticum monococcum) ve zeron/zerunun (T. Aestivum) korunması ve geliştirilmesini incelemektedir. Üreticilerin geleneksel buğdayların satışı için daimi ve güvenceli pazarlara erişiminde dışsal kalkınma müdahaleleri kadar üreticilerin kendi aralarında ve dış aktörlerle ilişkileri ve bağlayıcı, birleştirici ve köprü kuran sosyal sermayeleri gereklidir. Üreticilerin geçmiş kollektif eylem deneyimleri ve tarımsal biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunması için tohum ağları gibi pazar-dışı çözümleri de pazar odaklı çözümlerin uzun süreçte etkin olabilmesi için gereklidir. Ulusal yasal düzenlemeler ve sosyo-ekonomik politikalar da üreticilerin karar alma süreçlerini etkilediği için geleneksel buğday çeşitlerini pazara ulaştıran çözümlerin sürdürülebilirliği sürecinde ele alınan başlıklardan olmalıdır.

Keywords

Geleneksel buğday, siyez, geçimlik kaynağı, Türkiye, kollektif eylem, sosyal sermaye

Markets and Collective Action: A Case Study of Traditional Wheat Varieties in Turkey

Abstract

Turkey one of the centers of origin and genetic diversity for wheat. There are concerns about a global decline in crop genetic diversity in centers of agricultural diversity, the replacement of traditional varieties with modern varieties and implications for food security and climate change resilience. Market-oriented solutions can help conserve traditional wheat varieties, secure livelihoods and promote food security. However, overcoming marketing challenges of traditional varieties require collective action of small farmers. Based on fieldwork in Turkey, this article examines the conservation and development outcomes for two traditional wheat varieties, einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and a local bread wheat variety zeron/zerun (Triticum aestivum). While external development interventions are critical to secure guaranteed markets for farmers, bonding, bridging and linking social capital between farmers and external actors sustain collective action in the long term. Previous collective action of farmers and non-market solutions for agricultural biodiversity conservation, particularly seed exchange networks, also are critical for the effectiveness of market-oriented solutions. The national context, legal changes as well as socio-economic policies, also affects the decisions of farmers to cultivate the traditional varieties, and thus, should be included in the sustainability of market-oriented solutions for traditional wheat variety conservation.

Keywords

Taditional wheat variety, einkorn, livelihood, Turkey, collective action, social capital

References

• Açık Toplum Vakfı (2010). 100 konuda Avrupa Birliği’nin günlük hayatımıza etkileri (The impact of European Union on our daily lives in 100 questions) Retrieved from http://aciktoplumvakfi.org.tr/pdf/100_konuda_avrupa_birligi-nin_gunluk_hayatimiza_etkileri.pdf
• Adger, W.N. (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic geography, vol. 79, no. 4, 387-404
• Adhikari, K.P. (2008) Bridging, linking, and bonding social capital in collective action. Collective Action and Property Rights CAPRi , 1-23.
• Agrawal, A. (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29, (10), 1649-1672.
• Anadolu Ajansı(2015, 9 Aralık). Kastamonu’da siyez bugdayi paneli. Retrieved from http://www.haberler.com/siyez-bugdayi-paneli-7952454-haberi/
• Atalan-Helicke, N. (2015) Seed exchange networks and food system resilience in the United States. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5, (4), 636-649.
• Atalan-Helicke, N. (2018) “You can never give up siyez if you taste it once:” Local Taste, Global Markets and Conservation of Ancient Wheat Einkorn. Gastronomica 18, (2), 35-45.
• Atalan-Helicke, N. & Mansfield, B. (2012) Seed governance at the intersection of multiple global and nation-state priorities: modernizing seeds in Turkey. Global Environmental Politics 12, (4), 125-146.
• Atasoy, Y. (2013) Supermarket expansion in Turkey: Shifting relations of food provisioning. Journal of Agrarian Change 13,(4), 547-570.
• Bellon, M.R. (2004) Conceptualizing interventions to support on-farm genetic resource conservation. World Development 32, (1), 159-172.
• Bioversity International, (2006) Emmer in Turkey: An ancient cereal maintained by mountain farmers. Building the Market Chain. Retrieved from https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrated/uploads/tx_news/Emmer_in_Turkey_1272.pdf
• Brookfield, H.C. (2001) Exploring agrodiversity NY: Columbia University Press.
• Bourdier, P (1986) The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology Education (pp.47-58) Westport: Greenwood Press.
• BTC (2003) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Project Community Investment Plan, Final March 2003. Retrieved from https://www.commdev.org/files/2273_file_CDP_BTC_Pipeline_Georgia_Azerbaijan_Turkey_2003_.pdf
• Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120.
• Crespo, J., D. Réquier-Desjardins, and J. Vicente (2014) Why can collective action fail in Local Agri-food Systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico. Food Policy, 46, 165-177.
• Devaux, A., D. Horton, C. Velasco, G. Thiele, G. López, T. Bernet, I. Reinoso, and M. Ordinola, (2009) Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy, 34, (1), 31-38.
• EC (2004) Development of Organic Agriculture and Legal Alignment with the EU. TR0402.07. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/fiche-projet/turkey/2004/tr-0402.07-organic-agriculture.pdf
• FAO (2015) Wheat Landraces in Farmers’ Fields in Turkey: National Survey, Collection, and Conservation, 2009-2014, by M. Kan, M. Küçükçongar, M. Keser, A. Morgounov, H. Muminjanov, F.Özdemir, C.Qualset. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5316e.pdf.
• Flanigan, S. & Sutherland, L (2016) Buying Access to Social Capital? From Collaboration to Service Provision in an Agricultural Co-operative. Sociologia Ruralis, 56, (4), 471-490.
• Foreign Policy (2016) Inside the Syrian Dust Bowl. 5 September 2016.
• Giuliani, A. (2007) Developing markets for agrobiodiversity: Securing livelihoods in dryland areas London and New York: Earthscan.
• Giuliani, A., A. Karagöz, and N. Zencirci (2009) Emmer (Triticum dicoccon) production and market potential in marginal mountainous areas of Turkey. Mountain Research and Development, 29, (3), 220-229.
• Gökgöl, M. (1939) Türkiye’nin Buğdayları. Istanbul: Tom.II. Isakson, S.R. (2011) Market provisioning and the conservation of crop biodiversity: An analysis of peasant livelihoods and maize diversity in the Guatemalan highlands. World Development, 39,(8), 1444-1459.
• Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2013) Illerin ve bolgelerin sosyoekonomik gelismişlik sıralaması araştırması (Socioeconomic survey of cities and regions). Report by Turkey Ministry of Development Retrieved from: http://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ardb/evt/2_turkiye_ab_iliskileri/2_2_adaylik_sureci/2_2_8_diger/tckb_sege_2013.pdf
• Karagöz, A. (1996) Agronomic Practices and Socioeconomic Aspects of Emmer and Einkorn Cultivation in Turkey. In S. Padulosi, S. K. Hammer, and J. Heller (Eds.) Hulled Wheat: Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats (pp. 172–77). Rome: IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute).
• Karagöz, A. and N. Zencirci (2005) Variation in wheat (Triticum spp.) landraces from different altitudes of three regions of Turkey. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 52, (6), 775-785.
• Kruijssen, F., M. Keizer, and A. Giuliani, A. (2009) Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural biodiversity products. Food Policy, 34, (1), 46-52.
• Kuzmanovic, D. (2010) Project culture and Turkish civil society. Turkish Studies, 11, (3), 429-444.
• Markelova, H. and E. Mwangi (2010) Collective action for smallholder market access: evidence and implications for Africa. Review of policy research 27, (5), 621-640.
• McDonell, E. (2015) Miracle Foods: Quinoa, Curative Metaphors, and the Depoliticization of Global Hunger Politics. Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies, 15, (4), 70-85.
• Meng, E., J. Taylor, and S. Brush (1998) Implications for the conservation of wheat landraces in Turkey from a household model of varietal choice. In Farmers Gene Banks and Crop Breeding: Economic Analyses of Diversity in Wheat Maize and Rice (pp. 127-142). Springer Netherlands.
• Michelini, J.J. (2013) Small farmers and social capital in development projects: Lessons from failures in Argentina’s rural periphery. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 99-109.
• Ostrom, E and T. K. Ahn (2008) The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In G. T. Svendsen and G. L. H. Svendsen (eds.( Handbook on Social Capital: The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics (pp. 17-34), Cheltenham, UK and Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Özbek, N. (2003) Kemalist Rejim ve Popülizmin Sınırları: Büyük Buhran ve Buğday Alım Politikaları, 1932-1937. Toplum ve Bilim XX, (96), 219-240.
• Parker-Gibson, N. (2015) Quinoa: Catalyst or Catastrophe? Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 16, (2), 113-122.
• Pautasso, M., G. Aistara, A. Barnaud, S. Caillon, P. … and T. Döring (2013) Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development 33, (1), 151-175.
• Putnam, R.D. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6, (1), 65-78.
• Slow Food (2003) Slow Food Presidia: How to create a Presidium, build relationships with producers and organize activities. By Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity and Terra Madre. Retrieved from https://www.slowfoodusa.org/files/files/handbook-presidia.pdf
• Slow Food (2017) Siyez Wheat Bulgur, Turkey. By Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity. Retrieved from: http://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/en/slow-food-presidia/siyez-wheat-bulgur/
• TMO (2014) Turkish Grains Board Wheat Purchase List, 2013-2014 season price list. Retrieved from: http://www.tdag-ticbor.org.tr/tr/tmo_2013-2014_Alim_Baremi
• TMO (2016) Mission and Duties of Turkish Grains Board. Retrieved from http://www.tmo.gov.tr/Main.aspx?ID=370
• TUIK (2015) Turkiye Tarim ve Orman Alanlari (Turkey Forest and Agricultural Land) 1988-2015. By Turkish Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=53
• USDA (2015) Turkey Grain and Feed Annual, by Kubilay Karabina, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network TR 5016.
• ZMO (1970) Yabancı Menşeli Buğday Tohumluklarının Durumu (The Status of Non-native Wheat Seeds). By Chamber of Agriculture Engineers. Ankara.