KONGRE KİTABI

BOOK of PROCEEDINGS

Kasım
5-6 November 2021

Online / Çevrimiçi
 3. ULUSLARARASI
TARIM ve GIDA ETİĞİ KONGRESİ

Kongre Kitabı

Proceedings Book
of 3rd International Congress on
Agricultural and Food Ethics

Editörler
Neyyire Yasemin YALIM
Mustafa EVREN

Online / Çevrimiçi

Kasım
5 - 6 November 2021

targetkongre@gmail.com /tarimvegidaetigidernegi
http://targetcongress.org @targetder
DÜZENLEME KURULU ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE
Kongre Başkanı Chairperson
Prof. Dr. Cemal TALUĞ Prof. Dr. Cemal TALUĞ

Kongre Düzenleme Kurulu Organizational Committee

Prof. Dr. Neyyire Yasemin YALIM Prof. Dr. Neyyire Yasemin YALIM
Rahime Petek ATAMAN Rahime Petek ATAMAN
Dr. Mustafa EVREN Dr. Mustafa EVREN
Erdem AK Erdem AK
Berivan ALKAŞ BAŞDOĞAN Berivan ALKAŞ BAŞDOĞAN

Sekretarya Secretary
Arş. Gör. Elif Gülşen KARABACAK Research Assistant Elif Gülşen KARABACAK
Buse YEGİN Buse YEGİN

Editörler
Neyyire Yasemin YALIM
Mustafa EVREN

Birinci Basım 2021

Baskı
Öztürk Ticaret - Engin ÖZTÜRK
Dumlupınar Caddesi Gül Sokak 3-A Cebeci / ANKARA
Tel: 0 312 362 20 67 - Fax: 0 312 362 15 66
web: www.ozturkticaret.com.tr

ISBN: 978-605-80738-5-2

Ankara-2021

Bu kitabın içeriğinde yer alan yazıların sorumluluğu tümüyle yazarlarına ait olup,
herhangi bir biçimde Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Derneği (TARGET) sorumlu tutulamaz.
(The responsibility of the articles in the content of this book belongs entirely to the authors, and the
Agricultural and Food Ethics Association of Turkey (TARGET) cannot be held liable in any way.)
İÇİNDEKİLER ix

Cemal TALUĞ / Açılış Konuşması.....................................................................................iii

Program........................................................................................................................ xiii

Açılış Konferansı / Openning Conference

THE USUAL SOCIETY OF 2045 – A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE LONG FOOD
MOVEMENT REPORT....................................................................................................1
Matthias KAISER
FOOD SUMMITS, POLICIES AND ETHICS – FROM 1974 TO 2021 AND BEYOND........ 13
Geoff TANSEY
CREDIT INDEBTEDNESS LEVEL OF TURKISH FARMERS: A BENCHMARK TEST
WITH STATISTICS AND “CODES OF FINANCIAL ETHICS” ...................................... 21
Ömer Faruk DEMİRHAN
AN ETHICAL COMPASS FOR AGRICULTURE............................................................ 31
Bart GREMMEN
BUILDING MORE RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS: LESSONS FOR CANADA FROM
COVID-19..................................................................................................................... 37
Roderick J. MACRAE
AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND DENIAL.................................................... 44
Robert L. ZIMDAHL
TÜRKİYE’DE ORMANSIZLAŞMANIN GERÇEK BOYUTLARI.................................... 58
Erdoğan ATMIŞ
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE NARRATIVE OF FOOD SYSTEM SOLUTIONS:
THE CASE OF THE UNFSS............................................................................................ 64
Molly ANDERSON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN SURVIVAL IN AN UNJUST WORLD .................... 69
Richard FALK
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ETHICS: IS IT TIME TO GO BACK TO BASICS?.............. 76
Paul B. THOMPSON
İÇİNDEKİLER x

Paneller / Panels
ANIMALS IN TRANSITION: ON ETHICS AND LIVESTOCK FARMING..................... 85
Franck L. B. MEIJBOOM
SARIKIZ’IN GÖZÜYE HAYVAN REFAHI.................................................................... 91
Abdullah ÖZEN
HAYVAN REFAHI........................................................................................................ 96
Hazım GÖKÇEN
HAYVAN REFAHININ ETİK EKSENDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ.................................. 99
Recep KÜLCÜ
TÜRKİYE’DE MEYVE VE SEBZE YETİŞTİRİCİLİĞİ................................................... 104
Ayzin B. KÜDEN, H. Yıldız DAŞGAN
ARI ÜRÜNLERİNDE KALİTE, GIDA ETİĞİ VE GÜVENİLİRLİK............................... 111
Aslı Elif TANUĞUR SAMANCI
ANADOLU ARI ÜRÜNLERİNDE KALİTENİN STANDARDİZASYONU VE
SÖZLEŞMELİ ARICILIK ........................................................................................... 116
Ziya ŞAHİN
QUALITY, FOOD, ETHICS AND RELIABILITY IN BEE PRODUCTS......................... 121
Etienne BRUNEAU
İKLİM KRİZİ: İKLİM DEĞİŞİMİ VE TARIM ETKİLEŞİMİ........................................... 122
Levent ŞAYLAN
İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİNİN GIDA GÜVENLİĞİNE ETKİLERİ........................................ 127
Berrin ŞENÖZ, Gül ÇELİK ÇAKIROĞULLARI
İKLİM KRİZİ VE TARIM-GIDA SEKTÖRÜ................................................................. 138
İlkay DELLAL
İKLİM KRİZİ, KENTLER VE GIDA STRATEJİLERİ.................................................... 146
Hilal ELVER
KENT GIDA POLİTİKALARI ARAYIŞI....................................................................... 150
Mustafa KOÇ
YEREL VE YEREL ÖTESİ GIDA POLİTİKALARI: KAMUSAL HAYATI YENİDEN
CANLANDIRMAK..................................................................................................... 153
Bülent ŞIK
İÇİNDEKİLER xi

Sözlü Bildiriler / Oral Presentations

SON UMUT: PARİS İKLİM ANLAŞMASI: ETİK AÇIDAN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME..... 161
F. Gülsüm ÖNAL
THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE AND ADAPTATION OF
AGRICULTURE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.................................................................... 169
Melike BAHÇECİ, Sait ENGİNDENİZ, Abdullah ÜNLÜ, Derya BAYKAL, Erdem AK
ESKİŞEHİR İLİ KENT MERKEZİNDE YAŞAYANLARIN İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİ
KONUSUNDA YEREL YÖNETİMLERCE YAPILAN UYGULAMALARLA İLGİLİ
FARKINDALIKLARI.................................................................................................. 177
Nihal CAN AĞIRBAŞ, Sibel SARIÇAM
PANDEMİ SÜRECİNİN İÇ MEKAN TARIM PRATİĞİNE ETKİSİ................................ 187
Meltem YILMAZ, Nergiz AMİROV
MAKRO VE MİKRO KİRLETİCİ KAYNAĞI OLARAK HASTANE ATIK SULARI VE
TÜRKİYE’DE SU KİRLİLİĞİ KONTROLÜ YÖNETMELİĞİNDEKİ YERİ................... 195
Nazlı ÖZCAN ÇÖKEN, Didem SALOĞLU DERTLİ
TARIM POLİTİKALARI KAPSAMINDA TÜRKİYE’NİN TARIMSAL
BÜYÜMESİNİN DEĞERLENDİRMESİ....................................................................... 201
Mustafa BEKMEZCİ, Erdem AK
TARIMDA EMPERYAL KAPİTALİZME KARŞI ÇÖZÜMLER...................................... 208
Mustafa KAYMAKÇI
TARIM İŞÇİLERİ: HAKLARI UNUTULAN BİR GRUP İNSAN .................................. 215
Rabia İlay AKBULUT PEERZADA
TARIMSAL ÜRETİM, PAZARLAMA VE TARIMSAL İŞGÜCÜ SORUNLARININ
ETİK DEĞERLENDİRMESİ........................................................................................ 222
Yiğit ULUKENT, Erdoğan GÜNEŞ
ETİK AÇIDAN TARIMSAL ÜRETİCİ ÖRGÜTLENMESİNDE YENİ ARAYIŞLAR........ 230
Erhan EKMEN
A HIDDEN RISK OF FOOD FRAUDULENT ACTIONS: SEAFOOD ALLERGEN ........ 239
Elif Tuğçe AKSUN TÜMERKAN
SALGIN GÜNLERİ VE GÜVENLİ GIDAYA ERİŞİM.................................................... 244
Mustafa EVREN, Petek ATAMAN, Buse YEGİN
NESİLLERARASI ADALET YAKLAŞIMI ÇERÇEVESİNDE 11. KALKINMA
PLANINDA BESLENME HAKKI................................................................................. 253
Zeynep İSPİR
TÜRKİYE TOHUMCULUK SEKTÖRÜ VE YANLIŞ BİLİNENLER.............................. 262
Muhteşem TORUN
TARIM VE GIDA ETİĞİNİN KONUŞULMAYAN ALANI: HAYVAN SÖMÜRÜSÜ....... 269
Burçin ÇOKUYSAL
İÇİNDEKİLER xii

EĞİTİM UYGULAMALARINDA DENEY HAYVANI KULLANIMI:

ETİK KAYGILAR........................................................................................................ 276
Şükrü KELEŞ
ORGANİK VE GENETİĞİ DEĞİŞTİRİLMİŞ ORGANİZMALI ÜRÜNLERE KARŞI
ÖĞRENCİLERİN DAVRANIŞLARI: ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ.... 282
Engin GÜNGÖR, Kürşat DEMİRYÜREK
KEMİK SUYU ÜRETİMİ VE SAĞLIK ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ......................................... 289
Meryem DUMAN, Hüseyin GENÇCELEP
TARIM, DİJİTALLEŞME VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK ÜÇGENİNDE ETİK SORUN
ALANLARI................................................................................................................. 294
Burçin ÇOKUYSAL
TARIM GIDA SİSTEMİNDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK YÖNETİMİ İÇİN KURUMSAL
SOSYAL SORUMLULUK VE ETİK.............................................................................. 300
Zerrin ÇELİK
TÜRKİYE’DE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR PAMUK DEĞER ZİNCİRLERİNİN
DESTEKLENMESİ PROJESİ SÖKE - BERGAMA ÖRNEĞİ........................................... 305
İbrahim OĞUZ, Serkan VEZİROĞLU
BEYPAZARI, ANKARA ÖRNEĞİNDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR TARIM VE ÜRETİM...... 312
Kumru ARAPGİRLİOĞLU
COMPARISON OF DNA BARCODING AND METABARCODING APPROACHES
FOR FOOD TRACEABILITY: FACTS AND GAPS....................................................... 321
Elif Tuğçe AKSUN TÜMERKAN
TÜRK SOMONUNDA İSİM KARMAŞASI................................................................... 327
Ekim ÖZAL
KENEVİR TOHUMU VE ÜRÜNLERİNİN ETİK AÇIDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ..... 333
Mustafa MORTAŞ, Ayşegül BEŞİR, Fehmi YAZICI
ZİRAAT MÜHENDİSİ ADAYLARININ MESLEKİ İŞ ETİĞİNE BAKIŞ AÇILARININ
BELİRLENMESİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA............................................................ 339
Zümral GÜLTEKİN, İlkay Nur ABACI, Kürşat DEMİRYÜREK
RESMÎ KURUMLARDA HALKLA İLİŞKİLER DEPARTMANINA İŞLEVSELLİK
KAZANDIRILMASI.................................................................................................... 346
Ehlinaz TORUN KAYABAŞI, Ramazan KARASU
ETİK DEĞERLER ÇERÇEVESİNDE TARIMDA MEDYASININ DURUMU................... 357
Erhan EKMEN
GIDADA BİLGİ KİRLİLİĞİ......................................................................................... 364
Mustafa EVREN, R. Petek ATAMAN, Buse YEĞİN

Index............................................................................................................................373
TARGET’in Etkinlikleri................................................................................................ 377
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 21

CREDIT INDEBTEDNESS LEVEL OF TURKISH FARMERS:

A BENCHMARK TEST WITH STATISTICS AND “CODES OF
FINANCIAL ETHICS”
Ömer Faruk DEMİRHAN1

Abstract: Indebtedness level of Turkish farmers in banks and other creditors are among the most
popular topic in recent years. There are many claims in media that farmers are sent in legal proceed-
ings and bailiffs because of high debt levels and leaving the sector by selling their agricultural assets
and land to pay their loans. These claims are being tested, first, looking through official domestic
macro agricultural credit statistics and parameters. In this method, formal credit level of Turkish ag-
ricultural sector is found ordinary, even below the line, when compared with other sectors. Informal
borrowing methods, on the other hand, will be presented through empirical evidence and samples.
It must be noted that current formal debt level has been achieved very fast in around last 10 years,
although it was found in ordinary levels. Possible complications of this fast borrowing process will
be discussed especially among smallholders with low level of financial literacy. Second, an empirical
and qualitative assessment will be done, for the first time in Turkey, to compare agricultural banking
practices with written domestic and international “codes of financial ethics”, because “unethical”
behaviors of financial institutions against farmers are also being criticized among the public along-
side the high debt levels. In this respect, a dilemma appears in which both parties seem to have right
on their sides. Measures and recommendations that can help resolution of these kind of disputes will
be presented as well.
Keywords: agricultural credits, farmer loans, financial ethics, access to finance

Türk Çiftçilerinin Kredi Borçluluk Seviyesini İstatistikler ile

İnceleme ve “Finansal Etik Kuralları” İle Karşılaştırma
Özet: Türkiye’de çiftçilerin bankalar ve diğer borç verenlere karşı olan borçluluk seviyesi son yıl-
larda toplumsal gündemin en önemli konuları arasındadır. Çiftçilerin aşırı borçlanma nedeniyle
yasal takibe düştüğü, bu nedenle topraklarını veya hayvanlarını satarak üretimden çekildikleri ya-
zılı ve görsel medyada sık sık işlenmektedir. Bu bildiride bahsekonu toplumsal kanının doğruluk
seviyesi öncelikle yurtiçi makro ölçekli resmi kredi istatistiklerine ve parametrelere bakılarak test
edilmektedir. Bu açıdan bakıldığında tarım sektöründe formel (kayıt altındaki) borçlanmanın diğer
sektörlere kıyasla olağan seviyede, hatta daha az seviyede olduğu görülmektedir. Tarımın kayıtdışı
finansman kaynakları ise empirik ve örneklem bazında ele alınacaktır. Formel kredilerin olağan se-
viyede bulunmuş olmasına rağmen, bu olağan borçluluk seviyesine son 10 yılda çok hızlı gelindiği
tespit edilmiştir. Bu durumun finansal okuryazarlık seviyesi düşük olan özellikle küçük ölçekli çiftçi

1
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management Turkey, ofdemirhan@gmail.com
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 22

kesiminde bazı komplikasyonlara yol açtığı tartışılacaktır. İkinci olarak, bu bildiride Türkiye’de ilk
defa makro ve mikro seviyedeki tarımsal finansman uygulamaları yurtiçi ve diğer ülkelerdeki yazılı
“etik ilkeler” ile gözlemsel ve kalitatif açıdan tartışılacaktır. Nitekim, “borçluluk seviyesi” dışında
toplumsal gündemi meşgul eden bir diğer konu ise finansal kuruluşların çiftçiye “etik” davranmadığı
ile ilgilidir. Bu açıdan yapılan gözlem ve incelemelerde ise her iki tarafın farklı şekillerde “kendi açı-
larından” haklı olduğu gibi çıkmaz bir durum ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bildirinin sonunda bu çıkmazın
çözümü için yöntem ve öneriler sunulmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: tarımsal krediler, çiftçi kredileri, finansal etik, krediye erişim

INTRODUCTION
Turkey, as the 10th biggest agricultural economy and 15th biggest arable land owning country, has an
important place in global agriculture and food supply. There are more than 2 million registered farmers
to Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry2 (MoAF, 2021), in addition to around 1 million estimated
unregistered farmers. Financing such a big agricultural sector and community becomes a critical need
same as elsewhere. Challenges in economies of scale in farm size, collaterals, cost of funding (loan
interest rates and fees), and financial literacy level also exist as classical problems in Turkey. Before
2000s, only financier of the sector was the State’s agricultural bank which was generally resulting
with “duty losses” for the bank. With the help of reforms made during the first decade of the new
millennia, such as Farmer Registry Systems, Agricultural Insurance Schemes, removal of mandate
of the state bank for agricultural finance, private banks also stepped into the area and a competitive
environment for credit was maintained. This led to a rapid expansion of available formal credit for
Turkish farmers, together with international financial institutions channeling extra funding to private
banks for agriculture. There is no estimation in terms of informal (non-bank) credits to agriculture,
but it is clear that formal credit has crowded out informal loan market in Turkey. In 2013, private
banks’ market share in total agricultural loans reached to 35% from well below than 20% between
2000 and 2004. This doesn’t mean a stagnation in the state bank’s performance; it has also increased
its outreach by providing different subsidized loans for all specific sub-sectors of agriculture. In any
case, Turkey experienced a visible “competition” among private banks to give agriculture credits for
the first time in its history during this period. In fact, recent turmoil in Turkish economy since 2018
exchange rate shocks, which caused also a high non-performing loans rate, pulled the private banks
back from agriculture sector and decreased their share to 25%, leaving the market back to the state
bank, but this is another story that needs a specific analysis and attention. As of September 2021,
total outstanding agricultural loans is 152 billion Turkish lira which was only 5.1 billion in 2004. At
this point, “high indebtedness” level of farmers is a hot topic in the country as such there are many
claims that farmers are deep in debt. It is very easy to find news on mainstream and social media that
farmers are sent in legal proceedings and bailiffs because of high debt and they are leaving the sector by
selling their agricultural assets and land to repay their loans. Those claims will be tested below through
statistics and main financial indicators, before making an “ethical” assessment in last section.

Formal Credits to Agriculture Sector in Turkey

As of 30.09.2021, outstanding volume of total agricultural loans in Turkish banks’ portfolio is 152
billion Turkish lira (USD 17.1 billion) in nominal terms and 75% of this amount is in the state banks’

2
MoAF, Information Center, https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ (Turkish language only)
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 23

balance sheet (Figure 1). It is estimated that 94-95% of this figure belongs to Ziraat Bank (state’s
agricultural bank), and the rest to other 5 state-owned banks (2 deposit banks, 2 Islamic banks, 1
development bank), taking Ziraat’s end-2020 volume share (94.4%) within 94.4 billlion TRY into
account, according to the Bank’s 2020 annual report3. The figures reveals that the credit expansion has
not happened in either bank type but all. It is even easy to understand that the state banks (particularly
the Ziraat Bank) have not decreased their pace since the market imbalances started in 2018, while
there is an obvious hesitation to grow at private banks. In any case, one cannot claim the so-called
“indebtedness” of agricultural sector is derived from either private or state banks, but all.

Total Agricultural Loans in Turkey

(outstanding volume as end of year, bln TRY)

152 bln

129 bln
37.5
108 bln
100 bln 34.3
86 bln
30.4
72 bln 28.6
60 bln 27.4
45 bln 21.4 114.4
18.7 94.4
15.7 71.7 77.4
50.6 58.8
41.4
29.3

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-09

State Banks Private Banks

Source: Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA)

Figure 1. Agricultural Loans by bank ownership type

An important global benchmark in terms of credit indebtedness is loan over GDP (loan-to-GDP)
ratios which is depicted in below graph for Turkey’s credit market. Loan-to-GDP can be read as
percentage of total output financed by credit. In this sense, total bank loans market in Turkey has
reached 74% of the country’s total GDP as of 2020 (blue line in below diagram). The COVID-19
pandemic caused a strong upward turn in Turkey due to monetary and credit expansion like in any
country in the world. Loan-to-GDP ratios of some other sectors show even higher indebtedness
levels; manufacture – 78%, construction – 114%, tourism – 130%, electricity, gas, water industry
– 292%. Meanwhile, only around 38% of the agricultural output (Agri GDP) is being financed by
formal bank loans (green line in below diagram). Although agri loans / agri GDP ratio reached to 46%
in 2018, there has been 20-30% gap always between total loans and agri loans, historically, which
has even increased to 36% in 2020 (74% minus 38%). It is comparatively not fair to say agriculture

3
Ziraat Bank Annual Report, page 42, https://www.ziraatbank.com.tr/tr/yatirimci-iliskileri/finansal-bilgiler/yillik-
faaliyet-raporlari
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 24

sector is in bigger debt than the Turkish nation, in general. The opposite is even true, for 2020, to say
agriculture sector is overlooked during pandemic. In fact, this is a healthy result for the future to see
the pandemic has not caused an “inflated” credit market for agriculture.

Loans to GDP in Turkey

74%
68%
66%
65%
62%

53%
48%
45% 46%
39% 38%
33%
26%
22%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Agri Loans / Agri GDP Total Loans / Total GDP

Source: TurkStat for GDP, BRSA for loans

Figure 2. Share of loans in GDP

Non-performing loans (NPL) which indicate the loans overdue more than 90 days and officially
ready for legal proceedings is another, yet, indirect indicator of indebtedness level in banking
terminology. In this sense, agriculture credits in Turkey still do not pose a big threat for banking
sector with its 2.8% NPL rate (green line in below chart), compared to small and medium-sized
enterprises’ (SME) and Turkey’s total NPL rates of 5.6% and 3.6%, respectively.

NPL Rates of Total Loans - Agri Loans - SME Loans in Turkey

9.2%

6.7% 6.4%

5.3% 5.6%
4.9% 4.7%

3.9% 4.8% 3.9%

3.2% 3.0% 3.8% 3.8% 3.6%

2.7% 2.8%
2.8%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-09

Total Loans Agri Loans SME Loans

Source: BRSA

Figure 3. Share of loans in GDP

3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 25

In fact, all three NPL categories above reached their peak in 2019 due to deteriorated credit
portfolios of the banks after 2018 and 2019 macro-economic problems. Nevertheless, the situation
has become reversed from 2020 with introduction of COVID-related credit ease mechanisms, e.g.
postponement of overdue loans, extension of NPL periods (BRSA, 2020). NPL rates are nearly back
down to their 2016 levels as seen in above diagram. Agriculture credits again have separated from
overall credit market trend and those given to SMEs, and showed a healthier NPL correction down
to 2.8%, when compared together with previous “non-inflated” Loan-to-GDP ratio. As a summary,
“indebtedness” (Loan-to-GDP) and “non-performing” levels of agricultural loans are decreasing at
the same time.
It is also worth to compare NPLs by different sectors, as in below diagram (Figure 4). NPL ratio of
all real sectors in Turkey (loans other than given to individual consumers) points an average of 4%, as
of September 2021, well above the agricultural NPL rate (2.8%).

Sectoral NPL Rates in Turkey (Sept.2021, %)

Logistics, storage, communication 2.5%

Metal industry 2.5%

Recearch, consultancy, advertisement 2.7%

Agriculture 2.8%

Food, beverages, tobacco industry 3.0%

Mining 3.0%

Textile 3.1% Average of sectors: 4.0%

Wholesale Trade 4.5%

Retail Trade 4.6%

Tourism 5.2%

Electricity, gaz, water industry 5.6%

Real Estate Agencies 7.4%

Construction 8.3%

Source: BRSA

Figure 4: Non-performing loans by sectors

All above positive findings is in contradiction with NPL rates by bank shareholder type, and
reveals the other side of the coin. As seen below in Figure 5, private banks’ NPL in agriculture (gray
line in the graph) strongly separates from the state banks (yellow line). This means, in fact, the strong
factor levelling down the average NPL is extreme low level in state banks. As of September 2021,
state banks, which are dominantly represented by the Ziraat Bank, have an NPL of 1.4%, while the
same ratio is 7.3% in private banks. This may indicate the source of “high farm indebtedness” news are
emerging from the credits given by the private banks, although this requires testing through statistical
evidence, because their market share is already low (25%) in total agricultural loans.
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 26

Agri Loans NPL by bank ownership type

10.8%

8.3% 8.4%

7.3%

4.8%
3.8% 3.9%

2.8%
2.5%

2.0% 2.2%
1.4%

2018 2019 2020-12 2021-9

All Banks State Banks Private Banks

Figure 5. NPL rates by bank ownership
type
Source: BRSA

It is known by all market stakeholders that the state agricultural bank already has too many
privileges which helps decreasing NPL portfolio, e.g. agricultural credit deferral and restructuring
schemes, debt waiving campaigns. The private banks can only use “regular or traditional” financial
responses and technics to control NPL, first and foremost stop giving new loans until the NPL is
brought under control. This traditional response even pumps the NPL higher in the beginning,
which is known as “denominator effect”. If you stop giving new loans when you have been already
exposed to a high NPL, your NPL rate, which is [NPL volume / total volume], will go higher even if
you don’t create extra bad loans.
This was already confirmed before with the relatively slower growth of agricultural loans
portfolio of private banks in the first graph in this paper, compared to state banks. In a nutshell, state
banks, particularly the Ziraat Bank, has managed to decrease its NPL with both ongoing new loan
disbursements and loan restructuring / deferral / waiver schemes, while the private banks could only
response by decreasing new disbursements.
To grasp perspectives on demand-side, two selected findings of Credit Bureau of Turkey’s
(KKB) annual field surveys are presented below (KKB, 2021). The KKB is conducting and releasing
comprehensive studies in agriculture to the public through its website. In the latest study in 2021, the
farmers were asked to list their source of borrowing for agricultural activities since last 3 years. Four
out of ten farmers (41%) said they haven’t borrowed from anywhere and relied on their own savings
(capital). Most of the rest (at the same time, half of the total sample) stated that they have taken
credits (incl. farmer credit cards) from banks (49%), while the ones borrowing from agricultural credit
cooperatives account for 25%. The survey allows for selecting multiple choices, thus overlapping
resources of funding is possible when a farmer benefits from multiple resources. In any case, below
survey reveals an important reality from the field in terms of “indebtedness” level in agriculture; half
of the farmers try to benefit from all possible types of borrowing/funding options, while the rest do
not borrow at all. This means there is a “debt concentration” at a certain portion of farmers in Turkey,
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 27

that is to say around 1 million of total registered farmers, in contrast with the low levels of Loan-to-
GDP depicted in Figure 2 before. At this point, “indebtedness” becomes real as a “half-truth” reality
for the sector.

I’ve borrowed credit from bank(s) 49%

No borrowing at all (own capital) 41%

I’ve borrowed from Agriculture Credit Coop. 25%

I buy inputs on credit (on time) 25%

I get advance payments from buyers (off-takers) 7%

I’ve borrowed from family / relatives / friends 5%

Source: Credit Bureau of Turkey (KKB) 2021 Agricultural Field Study, www.kkb.com.tr

Figure 6. Answers of farmers to KKB’s “source of funding for agriculture in last 3 years” question

Second selected finding from the KKB’s survey is the farmers’ reasons of “non-borrowing from
banks” (Figure 7) which contains “ethical” perceptions in itself. Half of the farmers who answered
this question reported “no-need” for a credit (53%); an answer which cannot be considered as a
“problem” indeed. The first “real” problem is high interest rates and fees. In fact, this is an expected
result as Turkey is experiencing higher interest rates since 2018 than before.

I don’t need a crredit 53%

Credit interest rates & fees are high 29%

I don’t want to get involved in interest (against interest) 21%

I have (lack of) guarantee, collateral problem 12%

Loan procedures are complicated / long 4%

I am being rejected for negative past history of credit 3%

I am being rejected and I dont’ know the bank’s reason 2%

Others 2%

Source: Credit Bureau of Turkey (KKB) 2021 Agricultural Field Study, www.kkb.com.tr

Figure 7. Reasons of farmers who has not borrowed from banks (KKB, 2021)
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 28

Second answer, following the interest rates, reveals a surprising factor of “opposition to interest”
due to whatever reason, though mostly assumed to have religious roots. One out of five farmers
who didn’t get a bank loan in last 3 years stated that they don’t want to have / be part of / be afraid
of credit interest. The result, in fact, gives a clear idea how to mobilize an untapped potential in
agricultural markets; Islamic agricultural finance can present a promising alternative to the market.
As of September 2021, share of Islamic banks in total agricultural loans is only 1.7%, far behind
their observed potential (BRSA, 2021). Rest of the reasons not to have bank loans can be considered
negligible; collateral problems (12%), loan procedures (4%), negative past credit performance (3%).
Turkey seems to have already achieved to overcome such common difficulties observed in many of
the developing and less developed countries in terms of access to finance in agriculture.

An Empirical and Qualitative Assessment of “ethical” Agricultural Finance in Turkey

There are two ethical guidelines – one local, the other international – which will be used as
reference of “financial ethics”. The local one, which is named as “Banking Sector Ethical Principles”
belongs to the Banks Association of Turkey (TBB, 2014) which stands as a high-level ethical policy
framework document to be used as a benchmark for banks. Despite there is no detailed monitoring
and implementation statistics of the TBB’s guidelines, some of the ethical rules inside the document
seem worth to mention as far as the public debates are concerned. Second resource is European
Commission’s “European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision (EU-CGCMP)”
(European Commission, 2021) which is used as both a benchmark and “certification” standards
for any microfinance institutions (MFIs) through European and neighborhood policy countries,
including Turkey. One can question this European Code as to be only suitable for MFIs, but not
banks. However, most of agricultural loans falls into micro and small size anywhere, regardless
of nature and category of the financial institutions. Second reason of this paper to choose the
EU-CGCMP as a benchmark for agriculture is its “detailed” and technically precise nature when
setting the rules for ethical finance, contrary to ethical codes of commercial banks in EU and in any
developed countries. Codes of many commercial retail banks which are active in agricultural finance
have been checked through internet and understood to stay high-level like the case of TBB of Turkey,
repeating the same “overall rules”.
A popular website of commercial complaints and claims in Turkey, www.sikayetvar.com,
was reviewed as of October 2021, to catch and confirm types of disputes in agricultural finance,
before making an educated selection and assessment of ethical problems in agricultural finance. This
method helped to decide which ethical rules from those above two Codes need to be highlighted, as
a litmus paper, when it comes to problems confronted with the farmers. First of all, total number of
complaints from agricultural loans was counted as 27 in total during the first 9 months of 2021. This
number cannot be considered too many, but popularity of above website through rural communities
is a big question mark. Nevertheless, the problems caught through this website were all expected ones
which led us to highlight below rules from the Codes:

• Clients should be informed in a clear, understandable, accurate and complete way and in time
(TBB)
• Financial institutions should establish an information center which would answer all
applications and questions of their clients (TBB)
• Products/services offer should be made upon efficient assessment of their clients’ needs, status
and financial capacity (TBB)
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 29

• All clients should receive similar quality and level of service regardless of their sector, wealth
level and status (TBB)
• Taking measures to avoid repeat of similar problems with the clients through analyzing current
and past claims (TBB)
• Disclosing total and annual cost of borrowings (lending costs) in advertising and credit
contracts (EU-CGCMP)
• Taking adequate measures to ensure that the customers fully understand financial products,
processes and terms of contract (EU-CGCMP)
• Assessment of repayment capacity and loan affordability on the basis of sufficient information
from the applicant, database and/or from competitor (EU-CGCMP)
• If there is significant non- or underpayment exceeding one (1) month’s credit, the financial
provider should inform the borrower without delay of non- or under-payment through the
appropriate medium (EU-CGCMP)

In Turkey, the ethical debates around agricultural loans are mostly being made to maintain above
rules. As seen in the list, some rules have overlapping and/or cross-cutting nature, while there are
many others in these documents which can be considered as “indirect” or “less-related” with loans. A
more specific study can be made to collect statistical and/or empirical evidences for compliance to the
ethical rules, first and foremost to those above listed.

CONCLUSION
Turkey has experienced a fast credit expansion since the beginning of new millennia in all areas,
including agriculture. This created a strong and uneven competition, a reason which generally
triggers unethical behaviors in finance sector (Pitesa M., 2015), together with worsening market
indicators in Turkish case; specifically exchange rate shocks and high cost of funding for loans.
Considering together with low level of financial literacy and inelastic dependence on bank loans,
Turkish community started to discuss high indebtedness level in agricultural sector which supposedly
causing farmers go into bailiffs and leave the sector. In this paper, such claims are examined through
two universal indicators, Loan-to-GDP and Non-Performing Loans ratios. Results clearly do
not indicate a high indebtedness level when compared with other sectors and total of the Turkish
economy, rather a low and “under control” situation. However, the high NPL rates of “private
banks” in agricultural loans when disaggregated from the overall sector rate gives a clear signal of
deterioration and “unhealthy” portfolio which might be the result of “unethical” and out-of-rule
practices.
Another critical finding comes out from the KKB Credit Bureau of Turkey’s annual field surveys
in which around half of the farmers appear not to use bank loans, while the rest use each possible
funding availability (bank loan, credit cooperative, on-credit input purchases, etc.). This explains the
source of “high indebtedness” debate better than the universal ratios above, if there is a high credit
risk exposure, “debt-concentration” in other words, on certain portion of farmers. In-depth research
and analysis is necessary to verify these findings of KKB.
A brief empirical and qualitative assessment on frequently encountered unethical behaviors has
also been conducted by referring to two benchmark ethics guidelines, of the EU and the Banking
Association of Turkey (TBB). Farmers’ complaints of bank credits on a famous website has been
tracked for 2021, and corresponding ethical rules from the above two benchmark guideline
3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi 30

documents have been listed in a practical way without extra study. This can stand as a starting point
to go more in deep in future researches.

REFERENCES
Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency of Turkey (BRSA), (2021), Monthly Bulletins, https://www.
bddk.org.tr/BultenAylik/en
Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency of Turkey (BRSA), (2021), Press Releases, http://www.bddk.
org.tr/Duyuru/Liste/44
European Commission, (2021), “European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision)”, 18-19,
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8312&furtherPubs=yes
KKB Credit Bureau of Turkey, 2021, “Agricultural Overview Field Study”, 38-39, 41, https://www.kkb.
com.tr/urunler/tarim-kredileri-degerlendirme-sistemi
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, (2021), Information Center, https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ (Turkish
language only. Access months: September and November)
Pitesa M., (2015), “The psychology of unethical behavior in the finance industry”, Singapore Management
University, Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of Business, 2015-4, 10.
SikayetVar, (2021), https://www.sikayetvar.com/tarimsal-kredi, https://www.sikayetvar.com/tarim-kredisi
TBB Banks Association of Turkey, (2014), “Banking Sector Ethical Principles”, https://www.tbb.org.tr/Con-
tent/Upload/Dokuman/822/Etik_Ilkeler_27.08.2014.pdf
Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), (2020), “National Accounts / Annual Gross Domestic Product”,
https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=ulusal-hesaplar-113&dil=2
Ziraat Bank Annual Report, 2020, https://www.ziraatbank.com.tr/tr/yatirimci-iliskileri/finansal-bilgiler/
yillik-faaliyet-raporlari, 42