Agricultural Infrastructure in Türkiye: A Complete Ecosystem

The often-repeated phrase “when agricultural infrastructure problems are solved” is frequently used as a catch-all prescription yet rarely unpacked in its full depth. Too often, it is reduced to images of roads connecting villages, electricity powering irrigation pumps, or water fields feed. These are indeed vital, but they represent only the most visible layers of a far more complex system. In the 21st century, infrastructure in agriculture must be understood in a broader sense. It extends well beyond bricks, wires, and pipelines to include the institutional structures that sustain production: education systems that equip farmers with knowledge, health services that safeguard rural labor, financial institutions that provide credit on fair terms, and legal frameworks that enforce property rights and contracts.

These pillars are no less critical than highways or reservoirs because they form the very foundation of a resilient agricultural economy. When this holistic view is applied to Türkiye agriculture, the magnitude of the challenge becomes clear. The sustainability and competitiveness of the sector depend not only on physical facilities but also on the quality and accessibility of institutional support. Farmers require reliable extension services, affordable loans, transparent markets, and functioning cooperatives alongside adequate transportation and irrigation. Without these, productivity gains remain limited, and rural communities are left vulnerable to market volatility, climate shocks, and structural inequalities.

Defining agricultural infrastructure as the entire ecosystem of physical and institutional factors helps to ground the discussion. It reminds us that every step of the value chain, from planting and harvesting to storage, processing, and delivery to consumers, rests on this foundation. Understanding and addressing the specific infrastructure problems farmers face is therefore not optional. It is the cornerstone for shaping a sustainable, competitive, and future-oriented agricultural sector in Türkiye.

Farming Viability and the Infrastructure Deficit in Türkiye

The viability of farming and the adequacy of farm income are inseparable from the quality and reliability of agricultural infrastructure. While debates around farming often emphasize input subsidies or price interventions, the deeper issue lies in how well the physical and institutional frameworks support farmers throughout the production cycle. In Türkiye, this challenge can be understood in two interconnected phases: the pre-production stage and the post-production stage. Both are essential, yet both remain hindered by gaps that reduce productivity, increase vulnerability, and limit farm incomes.

In the pre-production stage, the focus rests on input and biophysical infrastructure. Seeds, fertilizers, machinery, and water access remain the cornerstones of productivity. The Türkiye government continues to allocate substantial resources to these areas, with agricultural support payments reaching 81.5 billion TL in 2023 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2024). While such figures are impressive, they do not mask the persistent inefficiencies that farmers face on the ground. Water security illustrates this clearly. Agriculture consumes about 70% of Türkiye’s water resources, yet irrigation efficiency hovers around only 50% (TÜİK, 2023). The widespread reliance on flood irrigation wastes scarce water and undermines long-term sustainability. Shifting to pressurized systems like drip and sprinkler irrigation is urgent, but smallholder farmers, who dominate the sector, often lack the financial means to make such investments. Without affordable credit and targeted infrastructure programs, this modernization will remain out of reach.

Land fragmentation compounds the problem. With average farm sizes around 6.2 hectares (TÜİK, 2023), mechanization and the adoption of advanced technologies are constrained. Fragmented plots prevent economies of scale and keep productivity below potential. While land consolidation policies have been attempted, progress is slow and politically sensitive, leaving farmers caught in a cycle of high input costs and low returns.

If the pre-production stage determines what goes into farming, the post-production stage decides whether farmers can capture fair value for their efforts. This stage is arguably more critical, yet it has historically been neglected in Türkiye. Once crops leave the field, they encounter a chain of structural weaknesses that erode farm incomes. Post-harvest losses, estimated at 25–40% for perishable fruits and vegetables (TZOB, 2022), represent one of the most pressing issues. The lack of adequate cold storage facilities means products spoil before reaching consumers, while poor logistics and weak rural road networks increase transport costs and delays.

Equally troubling is the role of intermediaries. Farmers often lack direct access to urban or export markets, forcing them into dependency on middlemen who set terms to their advantage. In some cases, farmers retain only 20–30% of the final consumer price (Agricultural Economics Research Institute, 2023). This imbalance discourages production, weakens bargaining power, and fuels rural poverty.

Finally, limited agro-processing capacity restricts opportunities for value addition. Instead of transforming raw produce into higher-value goods like juices, sauces, or packaged foods, much of Türkiye’s agricultural output is sold fresh. This dependence exposes farmers to price volatility and market shocks. Expanding processing industries in rural areas could not only reduce waste but also generate employment and stabilize incomes.

Taken together, these pre- and post-production bottlenecks illustrate that Türkiye’s agricultural difficulties are not simply about producing more. They are about creating a system where infrastructure both physical and institutional supports farmers at every stage, ensuring that productivity gains translate into viable and sustainable livelihoods.

Recommendations: Towards a Holistic Infrastructure Policy

Addressing the “infrastructure problems” of Türkiye agriculture requires a broader vision that goes well beyond inputs at the farm gate. Infrastructure must be seen as a complete system, connecting the farmer not only to seeds, water, and machinery but also to markets, financial services, and knowledge networks. A narrow focus on production alone has led to repeated cycles of inefficiency and waste. The future of Türkiye’s agricultural sector depends on moving towards a holistic, dual-track policy that gives equal weight to both production and post-production stages.

First, the policy focus needs to shift. While input subsidies and production support remain necessary, they cannot be the centerpiece of agricultural strategy. A significant share of public investment should be channeled into post-harvest systems. Cold storage facilities, efficient logistics, and regional food processing plants are no longer optional but essential. Farmers who can store, process, and market their produce retain greater control over prices and reduce their exposure to middlemen. Strengthened cooperatives can further level the playing field, enabling smallholders to collectively access infrastructure, negotiate fairer prices, and compete in larger markets.

Second, regional value-added processing industries must be prioritized. Instead of transporting raw produce long distances to distant markets, regional facilities can convert perishable crops into storable, higher-value goods such as juices, pastes, or packaged products. This not only minimizes post-harvest losses but also creates employment opportunities and generates steady rural incomes. By balancing supply and demand throughout the year, such processing hubs stabilize prices for both producers and consumers.

Third, modernizing institutional infrastructure is indispensable. Agricultural development is not only about physical assets but also about knowledge, finance, and governance. Farmers need greater access to affordable credit tailored to their needs, strong agricultural education and extension programs to diffuse new technologies, and reliable digital platforms to access price information and connect directly with buyers. Such reforms would improve transparency, reduce information asymmetry, and empower farmers to make informed decisions.

Ultimately, only by addressing infrastructure as an interconnected chain, from input provision to final sale, can Türkiye secure a competitive, resilient, and sustainable agricultural sector. Farmers’ efforts deserve a system that values their work at every stage, ensuring their livelihoods are protected while the nation’s food security is strengthened.

Conclusion

The question of agricultural infrastructure in Türkiye cannot be reduced to roads, irrigation systems, or electricity alone. It is about recognizing infrastructure as a complete ecosystem where physical assets and institutional structures reinforce one another. Farmers operate at the intersection of these systems, and their productivity, incomes, and resilience depend on how well each component functions. Current gaps in water efficiency, land consolidation, and access to credit at the pre-production stage combine with post-harvest weaknesses such as storage deficits, poor logistics, weak processing capacity, and exploitative market structures to hold back the sector’s potential.

A meaningful response requires moving beyond piecemeal interventions. Investments must balance production support with post-harvest infrastructure, encourage regional processing industries, and strengthen cooperatives so that farmers can capture more value. At the same time, institutional reforms in education, finance, and digital governance are essential for equipping farmers with the tools to compete in modern markets. Addressed together, these measures can close the infrastructure deficit and create a more competitive, resilient, and inclusive agricultural economy. The path forward is clear: Türkiye must treat infrastructure as the backbone of sustainable farming, ensuring that farmers are not left behind but positioned at the center of national growth and food security.

References: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; TÜİK; TZOB; Agricultural Economics Research Institute; World Bank; Özertan & Aerni

Please note that the views expressed in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of any organization.

The writer is affiliated with the Department of Agricultural Economics, Selcuk University, Konya-Türkiye and can be reached at mdirek@selcuk.edu.tr

Related Stories