Hayvansal üretim amacıyla kırsal alanda sosyal destek projesi yürüten tarımsal kalkınma kooperatiflerinin örgütsel analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, üyeleri kırsal alanda ekonomik yoksunluk içinde oldukları Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Vakıfları
aracılığıyla belirlenen, Tarımsal Kalkınma Kooperatiflerine sağlanan hayvansal üretim desteklerinin uygulama başarılarının sosyal ve
ekonomik açıdan ne düzeyde olduğu değerlendirilerek, destekleri kullanan kooperatiflerin örgütsel yapıları analiz edilmiştir.
Çalışmanın materyali, Elazığ ilinde Kırsal Alanda Sosyal Destek Projesi (KASDEP) kapsamında hayvansal üretim desteği kullanan
612 üyeli sekiz Tarımsal kalkınma kooperatifinin nitel ve nicel verilerinden oluşmuştur. Kooperatiflerin mevcut üretim ve pazar
koşullarında varlıklarını sürdürebilme yeteneklerini belirlemek amacıyla SWOT analizi yapılmıştır. Elde edilen verilere göre 2004-
2007 yılları arasında Elazığ Tarımsal Kalkınma kooperatiflerinin kullandığı toplam 5.798.801 TL desteğin (3.876.851,75 US$)
3.194.255 TL’si (2.135.554,07 US$) 2015 yıl sonu verilerine göre ödenmiş olup, geri dönüşüm %55.08 oranında gerçekleşmekle
birlikte geri kalan %44.92’lik kısmın yeniden yapılandırılan alacaklarla geri dönüşümü beklenmektedir. Kooperatiflerin üyesi olarak
desteklerden yararlanan ve üretime devam eden aile sayısı 142 olup, üye varlığının %23.20’sini oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

• Hayvansal üretim,kırsal destek proje,kırsal yoksulluk,SWOT analizi,tarımsal kalkınma kooperatifi

Organisational analysis of agricultural development cooperatives engaged in social support projects in rural areas for livestock production purposes

Abstract

The present study evaluates the extent to which the livestock production subsidies extended to Agricultural
Development Cooperatives, whose members were, by means of Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundations, found to be in economic
deprivation in rural areas, are implemented successfully in social and economic terms, and analyses the organisational structures of the
cooperatives that benefit from the subsidies. The material of the study consists of the qualitative and quantitative data of eight
agricultural development cooperatives with a total of 612 members that benefit from the livestock production subsidies under the
Project for Social Support in Rural Areas (KASDEP) in the province of Elazığ. A SWOT analysis was conducted to identify the
cooperatives' capability to survive under the current production and market conditions. 2.135.554,07 US$ of a total subsidy amount of
3.876.851,75 US$ extended to Elazığ Agricultural Development Subsidies between 2004 and 2007 was repaid according to the data
for 2015, which means a collection rate of 55.08%, and the remaining 44.92% is expected to be repaid through debt restructuring. The
number of families that benefit from the subsidies as members of the cooperatives and continue production is 142, constituting 23.20%
of the total number of members.

Keywords

• Agricultural development cooperative,livestock production,rural poverty,rural support project,SWOT analysis

References

1. Adaman F, Bulut T (2007): Diyarbakır'dan İstanbul'a 500 Milyonluk Umut Hikayeleri Mikrokredi Maceraları (Stories of Hope of 500 Liras: Microcredit Stories from Diyarbakir to Istanbul). İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
2. Akyıl N (2012): Kırsal Kalkınma Politikasının Yönetişimi. 75-81. In: 7. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı. TEPAV Yayınları No:71, Ankara.
3. Andersson H, Larsen K, Lagerksvist CJ, et al. (2005). Farm cooperation to improve sustainability. Ambio, 34, 383-387.
4. Bıçkı D (2011): Rural Poverty in Turkey: The Case of Kocalar Village, Çanakkale. Uludağ J Econ Soc, 1, 161-180.
5. Cebecioğlu C (2006): SWOT analysis and application on a company. Graduate School of Social Science of Gebze Technical University, M. Sc. Thesis, Turkey.
6. Çakar YM (2007): The rural development application in the 1980 laters in Turkey and Çorum province examples. Graduate School of Social Science of Gazi University, M. Sc. Thesis, Turkey.
7. Çamoğlu SM, Yılmaz H, Aykut G, et al. (2012): The Analysis of Effects of Supports through Cooperatives to Livestock Farms on the Market Participation of Producers: Case of Adana Province. TJAE, 18, 13-22.
8. Dorward A, Fan S, Kydd J, et al. (2004): Institutions and economic policies for pro-poor agricultural growth. International Food Policy Research Institute, DSDG Discussion Paper, No:15.

9. Gül M, Yılmaz H, Akpınar MG, et al. (2013): Investigation of Economic and Social Effects of the Dairy Cattle Support Project to Regional Economy via Cooperatives: Example of Isparta Province. IJFSB, 7, 324- 329.
10. Güneş S (2009): Yoksullukla Mücadelede Mikro Kredi Uygulamaları ve Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Genel Müdürlüğü Proje Destekleri. Başbakanlık Sosyal Yardım- laşma ve Dayanışma Genel Müdürlüğü, Uzmanlık Tezi.
11. Irz X, Lin L, Thirtle C, et al. (2001): Agricultural productivity growth and poverty alleviation. Dev Policy Rev, 19, 449-466.
12. Koçturk OM (2009): A case study of increasing income of dairy cattle in rural area in western part of Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv, 8, 1685-1688.
13. Norton RD (2004): Agricultural development policy: Concepts and experiences. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Ortmann GF, King RP (2007). Agricultural cooperatives I: History, theory and problems. Agrekon, 46, 18-46.
15. Quach TX, Kawaguichi T (2003). A Study on the Role and Development of Dairy Cooperatives in Honoi and Hochiminh City- A Case Study of Phudong and Taxuand Dairy Cooperatives. J Fac Agr Kyushu U, 48, 289-305.
16. Rotz CA, Zartman DL, Crandall KL (2005). Economic and environmental feasibility of a perennial cow dairy farm. JDS, 88, 3009-3019.
17. Sevinç G, Binici T (2016): General Situation of Breeding Cattle Cooperatives Founded With in The Context of Social Support Project at The Rural Area, The Problems and Solution Suggestions (Sanliurfa Sample). Harran J Agric F Sci, 20, 214-222.
18. Singh SRK, Chand R, Jha SK (2005). Impact assessment of milk cooperatives on dairying status of beneficiary farmers in Bihar. Indian J Anim Res, 39, 97-101.
19. SYGM (2015): Annual Report. Ministry of Family and Social Policies, General Directorate for Social Assistance, Turkey.
20. Timmer CP (1994): Population, poverty, and policies. The AER, 84, 261-265.
21. TSI (2016): The results of address based population registration system. Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr (Accessed November 14, 2016).
22. Valentinov VL (2005). The organizational nature of agricultural cooperatives: a perspective from the farm problem theory. JRC, 33, 139-151.
23. Xinhua Z, Zhi T, Xueyan Y (2004). Study of information model of agricultural cooperative organization. J Zhejiang For Coll, 21, 442-445.
24. Yeşilbaş M (2011): Evolution Line of Rural Development Policies and Rural Development Approaches in the Planned Session. TİD, 470, 153-176.
25. Yılmaz H (2010): Economic and social effects of support through cooperatives to dairy farms: Case of Adana province. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Çukurova University, Ph.D. Thesis. Adana, Turkey.
26. Zeuli KA (1999). New Risk-Management Strategies for Agricultural Cooperatives. AJAE, 81, 1234-1239.
27. Zijun Z (2006). Chinese farmers’ cooperation organization in the agricultural social service system. JIRCAS Working Report, 48, 67-74.