Impact Assessment of an Integrated Dairy Farming Project in Turkey Financed by Europe Funds

Author
S. Akin
Department of Agriculture Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Dicle University, 21280 Diyarbakir, Turkey
Abstract
Correction of wrong practices or thoughts by the producer or the adoption of a new production technique shows the success of rural development studies. This study was conducted to assess the effect of Integrated Dairy Farming Project on the Çakmak and Ekinciler villages before and after implementing the European funded “Integrated Dairy Cattle Project” carried out by the Diyarbakır Commercial Exchange in southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey, in 2006. Project villages have enough arable lands and dry farming is performed. The number of cattle is increasing compared to the other villages in the province. In order to make a comparison between the years, three surveys were conducted in 2006, 2007, and 2009 by using questionnaires. The findings of the research show that a considerable portion of the respondents (37%) stated that they did not trust the analysis of this kind of project that had not taken into consideration the rural needs. While 54.4% of the farmers wanted to sell their milk to cooperatives in 2007, the same farmers in 2009 stated that they would not sell to cooperatives. In addition, 47.8% of the farmers trusted and benefitted from Europe (EU) project training programmes in 2007, while selling rate decreased to 35.6% in 2009. Furthermore, 30% of the participants mentioned that they could not trust the project staff since the project duration was short. Because of the reasons mentioned, participation in the project was realized at low level.

Keywords

1. Alkan, H. and Demir, E. 2013. Impact Assessment of a Forest Village Cooperatives. SDU Faculty For. J., 14(1): 1-9.
2. Afolami, C. A. and Falusi, A. O. 1999. Effect of Technology Change and Commercialization on Income Equity İn Nigeria: The Case of İmproved Cassava. Paper Presented at The Assessing The İmpact of Agricultural Reserch on Poverty Alleviation Workshop, Costa Rica.
3. Anonymous. 2002. The Report on Turkey’s Rural Development Policy on the Pursuit of EU Membership. Rural Development Working Group, Ankara.
4. Akın, S. 2012. Bahşılar Village Cooperative :union: Perception and Marketing Behaviours. The 10th National Agricultural Economics Congress, Konya, PP. 1025-1035.
5. Aksoy, A. and Yavuz, F. 2011. Artificial Insemination: An Analysis of the Determinants Decisions: Sample of the Eastern Anatolia Region. J. Atatürk U. İİBF, 10: 35-41.
6. Atsan, T., Işık, H. B., Yavuz, F. and Yurttaş, Z. 2009. Factors Affecting Agricultural Extension Services in Northeastern Anatolia Region. Afr. J. Agrıc. Res., 4(4): 305-310.
7. Aydın, R. 1992. A Research on the Determination of the Main Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Adoption and Application of the Agricultural Innovations in a Selected Site in Tokat Province. PhD. Thesis (Unpublished), The Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Agean University, İzmir.
8. Bakırcı, M. 2007. Rural Development in Turkey: The Concepts, Policies and Applications. ISBN 978-9944-77, Social Science, Nobel Press, Ankara, 35 PP.
9. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, New York, 626 PP.
10. Coşgun, U. and Uzun, E. 2007. Examination of the Socio-economic Infrastructures of the Villages in Köprülü Kanyon National Park and Constitution of the Rural Development Action Plan. Western Mediterranean Forestry Research Institute, Antalya, Technical Bull., 27.
11. Çıkın, A. and Karacan, A.R. 1994. General Cooperative. Faculty of Agriculture Publications No. 511, Agean University Press, İzmir.
12. Datt, G. and Ravallion, M. 1998. Farm Productivity and Rural Poverty in India: Fcnd Discussion Paper No. 42. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.
13. Eren, T. 1992. A Model in Rural Development: DPT Publications No. 2312. The Malkara Application of Village :union: Services, Ankara.
14. Fazlıoğlu, A. 2003. Gender-Balanced Development Approaches in Rural Development Projects. The Seminar on Social Dimension in Erosion Prevention and Rural Development Projects, Erzurum. Access Date, January 2006: http://www.gap.gov.tr/Turkish/Sosprj/cdenge.html
15. Dinler, Z. 1993. Agricultural Economics. Ekin Bookstore Publications, Bursa, 345 PP.
16. Gülçubuk, B. Yildirak N. Kizilaslann. Özer D. Kan M. Kepoğlu A. 2010. Kırsal Kalkınma Yaklaşımları ve Politika Değişimleri. Agricultural Engineering VII. Technical Congress, Ankara, PP. 1200-1213.
17. Gülçubuk, B. 2006. A Development Activity in Harmony with the Nature. The TEMA Foundation Publications No. 49, İstanbul.
18. Garande, T. and Dagg, S. 2005. Public Participation and Effective Water Governance At The Local Level: A Case Study From A Small Under-developed Area in Chile. Environ. Dev. Sust., 7: 417–431
19. Hazell, P. B. R. and Ramasamy, C. 1991. The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of High-yielding Rice Varieties in South India. Published for IFPRI, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
20. McNemar, Q. 1947. Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference between Correlated Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2): 153–157. Access Date, March 2007: http://lms.yesevi.edu.tr/akademik50/Courses/AYU/
21. Montgomery, D., 1991. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Arizona State University, Third Edition, Willey J. and Sons İnc. Arizona.
22. Püskülcü, H. and İkiz, F. 1989. An Introduction to Statistics. Agean University Press No. 1, İzmir, 234 PP.
23. Özçatalbaş, O. and Gürgen, Y. 1998. Agricultural Extension and Communication. Baki Bookstore and Press, Adana.
24. Şenocak, C. 1967. Extension and Communication. The Fine Arts Press, Ankara.
25. Taluğ, C. 1975. The Spread and Adoption of Agricultural Technological. PhD. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Ankara, 141 PP.
26. World Bank. 1996. Environmental Papers. World Bank Participation Source Book, Washington DC.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 18, Issue 2
March and April 2016
Pages 303-314