Türkiye's Agricultural Consultancy Reform

The global agricultural sector is undergoing sustained structural transformation, driven by liberalized trade regimes, climate pressures, digitalization, and shifting consumer expectations regarding food safety and environmental stewardship. Multilateral negotiations under the World Trade Organization have progressively reshaped domestic support instruments, encouraging member states to transition from trade-distorting subsidies toward decoupled income support, rural development measures, and “green box” policies compatible with sustainability objectives. These reforms have compelled governments to recalibrate agricultural governance frameworks, placing greater emphasis on productivity, compliance, and innovation.

As a WTO member and an official candidate for accession to the European Union, Türkiye has actively aligned its agricultural policy architecture with international norms. Harmonization efforts have included restructuring support mechanisms, strengthened food safety standards, and enhanced institutional capacity in rural development programming. A particularly notable reform has been the formalization of an agricultural consultancy system designed to bridge the knowledge gap between research institutions and farm-level implementation.

This consultancy framework institutionalizes agricultural extension services, certifies professional advisors, and incentivizes farmers to adopt improved agronomic practices, precision input management, and compliance with environmental and quality standards. By facilitating knowledge transfer, the system aims to enhance productivity, resource-use efficiency, and market integration, particularly for small and medium-sized producers facing competitive pressures.

Nevertheless, diffusion constraints remain. Regional disparities, limited farmer awareness, financial barriers, and uneven service quality hinder full system penetration. Strengthening monitoring mechanisms, expanding digital advisory platforms, and integrating consultancy services with rural finance instruments will be critical to scaling impact. Despite these challenges, Türkiye’s institutionalization of agricultural consultancy represents a significant modernization milestone, demonstrating how policy reform, trade alignment, and knowledge-based support can collectively reposition national agriculture within an increasingly competitive global environment.

Institutional Development and Current Dynamics of Türkiye’s Agricultural Consultancy System

Türkiye’s agricultural consultancy system emerged as a structural response to the growing need for knowledge-intensive, market-oriented farming. Designed to provide professional, science-based guidance to producers, the system seeks to bridge the persistent gap between agricultural research institutions and on-farm application. Operating on a voluntary basis, it positions knowledge transfer as a strategic production input, arguably the most critical factor in enhancing productivity and resilience in contemporary agriculture (Direk, 2015). Formalized through a 2006 regulation under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the framework authorizes certified agricultural engineers, technicians, and veterinarians to deliver up-to-date technical information, regulatory guidance, and farm management advice directly to producers. Its overarching objective extends beyond incremental yield gains: it aims to strengthen competitiveness, reduce input inefficiencies, and secure long-term sectoral sustainability.

Implementation metrics reflect both progress and structural constraints. As of 2024, the number of licensed agricultural consultants has surpassed 5,500, compared to roughly 4,000 in the mid-2010s. However, active participation remains significantly lower than total certification figures. A 2021 assessment found that of more than 5,000 certified consultants, only about 1,500 were actively delivering advisory services, with many employed in public administration or agribusiness sectors (Özkan & Yılmaz, 2021).

To stimulate farmer demand, state financial support for consultancy services was introduced in 2009 and has been periodically adjusted. In 2024, annual support was increased to 15,000 TL per farmer, signaling strong fiscal commitment. Despite this substantial subsidy, adoption remains limited. Of approximately 2 million farmers nationwide, only around 12,000 were benefiting from state-supported consultancy services as of 2023. This disparity underscores significant untapped capacity and highlights the need for enhanced outreach, trust-building mechanisms, and integration with rural finance and digital extension platforms to scale system-wide impact.

Structural Constraints Undermining the Effectiveness of Agricultural Consultancy in Türkiye

Despite its progressive intent, Türkiye’s agricultural consultancy system continues to face deep-rooted structural and operational weaknesses that constrain its overall effectiveness and credibility. Foremost among these is the persistent knowledge transfer gap between consultants and farmers. Many producers, particularly smallholders operating under tight financial constraints, remain reliant on inherited practices shaped by experience rather than formal science. This often generates skepticism toward external advice, especially when recommendations involve upfront costs, behavioral change, or delayed returns. As a result, technically sound guidance may be only partially adopted or ignored altogether, weakening farmers’ perception of consultancy as a value-adding service rather than a discretionary expense.

A second major challenge lies in institutional ambiguity. Provincial and district agricultural directorates continue to provide advisory services alongside their regulatory and supervisory roles. While these public institutions are indispensable for disease control, subsidy administration, and compliance monitoring, their dual role as advisors creates overlap and competition with private consultants. This parallel structure blurs accountability and discourages the development of a truly market-oriented consultancy profession. The original rationale of the system was to enable individualized, demand-driven advice tailored to farm-specific conditions. Without a gradual and clearly communicated withdrawal of the state from routine extension functions, private consultants struggle to differentiate their services and build sustainable client relationships, as highlighted by Gülçubuk et al. (2020).

A further structural weakness is the enduring conflict of interest associated with agricultural input suppliers. Historically, advisory services were informally delivered by seed, fertilizer, and pesticide dealers, whose guidance was closely linked to product sales rather than holistic farm optimization. Although the formal consultancy system was designed to correct this distortion, the legacy persists. Farmers often continue to trust suppliers due to accessibility and familiarity, even when advice prioritizes input intensity over efficiency or environmental sustainability. For the consultancy system to gain legitimacy, consultants must maintain strict impartiality, offering diagnostics-based recommendations independent of commercial incentives. Without resolving these structural tensions, the system risks underperforming relative to its transformative potential in modernizing Turkish agriculture.

The Path Forward: Embracing a Market-Oriented Agricultural Paradigm

The long-term viability of Türkiye’s agricultural consultancy system depends not solely on the technical competence of certified advisors, but equally on the strategic orientation of farmers. The traditional production logic “whatever I produce, I will sell” is increasingly incompatible with volatile commodity prices, input cost inflation, climate variability, and international quality standards. In a liberalized and competitive agri-food economy, production decisions must be guided by market intelligence, comparative advantage, and risk-adjusted profitability rather than habit or subsistence logic.

A market-oriented approach requires farmers to treat agriculture as an entrepreneurial activity grounded in data-driven planning. Decisions regarding crop selection, planting schedules, input intensity, contract farming opportunities, and post-harvest management must align with demand forecasts, value chain requirements, and certification standards. Agricultural consultants are uniquely positioned to facilitate this transition. By providing real-time information on domestic and export market trends, climate-smart production techniques, input optimization strategies, and regulatory compliance requirements, consultants can help farmers reduce uncertainty and improve margin efficiency.

However, this transformation necessitates a collaborative model rather than a top-down advisory dynamic. Farmers must actively engage in joint problem-solving, sharing farm-level data, articulating constraints, and participating in performance evaluation. Trust-building, transparency, and measurable outcomes are essential to strengthening this partnership. Over time, such cooperation can shift consultancy from a subsidized service to a strategic investment, enhancing competitiveness, resilience, and long-term farm sustainability within Türkiye’s evolving agricultural economy.

Conclusion

Türkiye’s agricultural consultancy system represents a strategically significant reform within a broader context of global agricultural restructuring shaped by the World Trade Organization disciplines and harmonization efforts linked to the European Union. By institutionalizing professional advisory services under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Türkiye has taken a decisive step toward embedding knowledge transfer, regulatory compliance, and market responsiveness into farm-level decision-making. The measurable expansion in certified consultants and increased fiscal support signal political commitment; however, limited active participation and low farmer uptake reveal persistent structural frictions.

The system’s future effectiveness hinges on resolving three core constraints: closing the knowledge adoption gap among smallholders, clarifying institutional roles between public directorates and private consultants, and eliminating conflicts of interest associated with input-linked advisory practices. Equally critical is a cultural shift toward market-oriented farming, where consultancy is perceived not as a subsidized add-on but as a strategic investment in competitiveness and resilience.

If supported by digitalization, rural finance integration, and performance-based accountability, the consultancy framework can evolve into a cornerstone of Türkiye’s agricultural modernization. Its success will ultimately depend on aligning policy design, institutional clarity, and farmer engagement within a coherent, market-driven development strategy.

References:TEPGE; Gülçubuk et al; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; Özkan & Yılmaz.

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