Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV Recibido: 11/10/2025 Aceptado: 22/01/2026 Publicado: 11/02/2026 UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico 1 of 8 Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXVI UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance: The Case of Van province, Türkiye Impacto del apoyo del programa IPARD en el desempeño de la apicultura: El caso de la provincia de Van, Turquía Ömer GezginÇ*¹ , Mustafa Bahadır Çevrimli² , Burak Mat² ¹ Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Health Economics and Management. Van, Türkiye ² Selçuk University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Health Economics and Management. Konya, Türkiye. *Corresponding author: omergezginc@yyu.edu.tr ABSTRACT This arcle examines the structural, producve, and managerial changes in beekeeping enterprises that have benefited by the European Union’s Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance in Rural Development. The research was conducted using data obtained from 72 beekeeping businesses operang in Van province and receiving Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance in Rural Development support, and the producon capacity, producvity and management indicators of the businesses were compared in the pre-support and post-support periods. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the McNemar test were performed using SPSS 25.0 soſtware in the analysis of the data. Analysis results showed that the number of hives, honey yield per hive, and total honey producon increased stascally significantly in the post-support period compared to the pre-support period (P < 0.001). The effect size coefficients calculated for these stascally significant variables revealed that the observed differences are also praccally important. While the increase in the number of employees was stascally significant, it remained at a lower level compared to other indicators (P < 0.01). Furthermore, the producon of secondary bee products, the adopon of quality control pracces, and the rate of hive insurance increased significantly in the post-support period (P < 0.001). Although the impact on markeng acvies was limited, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development support substanally enhanced producon performance and technical capacity. In conclusion, the study findings demonstrate that Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development is an effecve tool for promong sustainable development and provides valuable informaon for the formulaon of future rural support policies. Key words: Instrument for pre-accession assistance in rural development; beekeeping; impact analysis; producon efficiency; Van province RESUMEN Este arculo examina los cambios estructurales, producvos y de gesón en las explotaciones apícolas que se han beneficiado del Instrumento de Ayuda de Preadhesión para el Desarrollo Rural de la Unión Europea. La invesgación se llevó a cabo ulizando datos obtenidos de 72 explotaciones apícolas que operan en la provincia de Van y que reciben apoyo del Instrumento de Ayuda de Preadhesión para el Desarrollo Rural, y se compararon los indicadores de capacidad producva, producvidad y gesón de las explotaciones en los períodos previo y posterior al apoyo. Los datos fueron analizados mediante el uso de las pruebas de rangos con signo de Wilcoxon y de McNemar, empleando el soſtware SPSS 25.0. Los resultados del análisis mostraron que el número de colmenas, el rendimiento de miel por colmena y la producción total de miel aumentaron de manera estadíscamente significava en el período posterior al apoyo en comparación con el período previo al apoyo (P < 0,001). Los coeficientes de tamaño del efecto calculados para estas variables estadíscamente significavas revelaron que las diferencias observadas también fueron importantes desde un punto de vista prácco. Aunque el aumento en el número de trabajadores fue estadíscamente significavo, este se mantuvo en un nivel inferior en comparación con otros indicadores (P < 0,01). Asimismo, la producción de productos apícolas secundarios, la adopción de práccas de control de calidad y la tasa de aseguramiento de colmenas aumentaron de forma significava en el período posterior al apoyo (P < 0,001). Aunque el impacto sobre las acvidades de comercialización fue limitado, el apoyo del Instrumento de Ayuda de Preadhesión para el Desarrollo Rural mejoró de manera sustancial el desempeño producvo y la capacidad técnica. En conclusión, los hallazgos del estudio demuestran que el Instrumento de Ayuda de Preadhesión para el Desarrollo Rural es una herramienta eficaz para promover el desarrollo sostenible y proporciona información valiosa para la formulación de futuras polícas de apoyo rural. Palabras clave: Instrumento de ayuda de preadhesión para el desarrollo rural; apicultura; análisis de impacto; eficiencia producva; provincia de Van https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e361831

The Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance / GezginÇ et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico INTRODUCTION The Program Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development (IPARD) is the rural development part of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) that was established for the European Union’s (EU) accession candidate countries. The program aims to promote the sustainability of the agricultural sector, modernize producon infrastructure, and encourage economic diversificaon in the rural regions [1],2]. Beyond financial support, the program encourages producers to comply with EU standards and to develop instuonal capacity. The fundamental tenets of IPARD are local development, parcipaon, and environmental sustainability [3]. As one of the priority animal producon acvies, beekeeping is found to have a low investment cost, high biological value producon, and is a sustainable contribuon to ecosystem services [4 ,5]. Besides honey, pollen, propolis, and royal jelly producon, beekeeping is a natural producon process, which directly contributes to the muldimensional goals of rural development by promong the connuity of plant producon [5 , 6]. Parcularly for small family farms, beekeeping promotes economic diversificaon and facilitates the effecve ulizaon of women’s labor and the family workforce in rural areas [7]. Van province, with its diverse flora, transhumance tradion, and natural condions favorable for migratory beekeeping, is one of Türkiye main beekeeping areas and one of the provinces that receive the greatest level of program support in IPARD [8]. IPARD has also reformed the infrastructure of many beekeeping enterprises with improved producon volumes and increased product diversity [7 , 8]. Nonetheless, the degree to which these supports lead to economic efficiency and also migate structural challenges in the industry has not been thoroughly evaluated [1]. Although the IPARD implementaons overall have been good in Türkiye, the outcomes have varied in different recipient countries. North Macedonia did not benefit from IPARD I for the ancipated impact owing to implementaon difficules, underdeveloped instuons, and low parcipaon rates [9]. The infrastructure and capacity deficiencies in Serbia limit the effecveness of rural development policies [3]. The assessment of the socio-economic structure and producon potenal of IPARD-supported beekeeping enterprises in Van province, Türkiye, is important for the understanding of the local pracces and of the localizaon of EU rural development policies [1]. The structural characteriscs and producon performance of beekeeping enterprises receiving IPARD support are analyzed in this study. The results will help clarify whether the program is working in the beekeeping sector and can increase the efficiency of implemenng rural development policies. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area The study was conducted in Van province (Eastern Anatolia), which has favorable ecological condions and rich flora for beekeeping (FIG. 1). Van ranks among the leading provinces in terms of IPARD-supported projects, and beekeeping is a key source of rural livelihood. FIGURE 1. The geographical locaon of Van province in eastern Türkiye. The map illustrates the administrave boundaries of Türkiye, with the dark-shaded area indicang Van province Sample size and selecon The study populaon consisted of 84 beekeeping enterprises in Van that received either IPARD I (24 enterprises) or IPARD II (60 enterprises) support, according to data obtained from the Van Provincial Coordinaon Unit of Agriculture and Rural Development Support Instuon. All enterprises were operaonal before receiving support and connued producon thereaſter. Sampled with simple random sampling at a 95 % confidence level and 5 % margin of error, using Yamane’s formula, where n is the sample size, N is the populaon size (84), and e is the margin of error (0.05) [10]. Consequently, the minimum sample size was 69. Data were collected from 72 enterprises via face-to-face interviews to minimize sampling error and enhance reliability. Data method collecon In 2025 data were collected using face-to-face interviews with 72 beekeeping enterprises in Van that were provided with IPARD support. The demographic structure, producon capacity level, type of acvies, pre- and post-support variaon, and sasfacon levels were addressed. Stascal analysis The data were processed using SPSS 25.0. Descripve stascs are reported, and normality was examined by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. P < 0.05 suggests 2 of 8

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXVI UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico non-normal distribuon and thus parametric assumpons were not met [11]. Due to paired variables (pre- and post-support) the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was carried out as the connuous variable comparison coefficient (P < 0.05). Effect size (r) was computed as Z/√N, which indicates praccal significance for variables showing significant differences. According to Cohen, r values between 0.1 and 0.3 indicate small effect, 0.3-0.5 medium effect, and values greater than 0.5 a large effect [12]. This made it possible to determine any stascal and praccal significance. Furthermore, the McNemar test was used to test for differences in nominal (binary) variables, across the pre- and post-IPARD support periods. For variables that have sufficient transion frequencies (these were defined to be b + c ≥ 10), significance was calculated at a P < 0.001 level. Analyses excluded variables with insufficient transion frequencies [11]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The average age of the beekeepers found in the study was 44.15 years, ranging from 23 to 70 years, meaning that IPARD support was very widely distributed. A previous study by Van reported a lower average age (36.4) [1], possibly because of the greater number of young producers. Other non-IPARD studies reported higher averages [13 , 14 , 15]. Overall, the IPARD seems to benefit experienced and young beekeepers and spur generaonal renewal in the field. The socio-economic profiles of beekeepers who take advantage of IPARD support are reported (TABLE I). In this study, it was determined that beekeeping acvies were mostly carried out by men (77.8 %), indicang that beekeeping in Van province is largely a male-dominated sector (TABLE I). Similar results were reported in previous studies [1 , 15 , 16]. However, the presence of female beekeepers indicates that women also take part in field. Beyond gender, the educaonal background of parcipants also serves to describe the profile of beekeepers in the region. Primary school graduates accounted for 40.3 % of the parcipants, suggesng that beekeepers had a generally low level of formal educaon (TABLE I).The present results are in line with those in previous research [7 , 13 , 17]. Low level of educaon tends to be considered as a liming factor in accessing and applying technical knowledge which can translate directly to work in producon processes. Most parcipants, 90.3 percent, engaged in migratory beekeeping, due largely to the ecological diversity and seasonal floral richness of Van (TABLE I). This result is in line with the literature previously found [15 , 18]. Alternavely, staonary beekeeping was more prevalent in studies with chestnut honey- producing regions in the Black Sea environment, which stems from reliance on a single, locally specific floral source requiring beekeepers to stay in designated areas [19]. At 54.2 % of parcipants, they had no social security coverage, implying the lack of access to formal welfare systems and the vulnerability of the producers to socio-economic vulnerabilies (TABLE I). This also speaks to broader structural fragility of rural livelihoods. TABLE I Socio-economic profile of IPARD-supported beekeepers Variable Category Frequency % Gender Male 56 77.8 Female 16 22.2 Educaon Literate 4 5.6 Primary school 29 40.3 Middle school 14 19.4 High school 18 25.0 University 7 9.7 Type of Beekeeping Acvity Migratory 65 90.3 Staonary 7 9.7 Social Security Coverage Yes 33 45.8 No 39 54.2 Membership in Cooperave/ Union Yes 65 90.3 No 7 9.7 Training in Beekeeping Acvies Yes 59 81.9 No 13 18.1 Other Income Sources Beekeeping only 48 66.7 Agriculture and livestock 4 5.5 Other 20 27.8 Professional Experience 1–5 years 0 0.0 6–10 years 16 22.2 11 years and above 56 77.8 IPARD: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development Although the absence of social security reflects structural weaknesses, the high membership rate with cooperave or union illustrates an opposite strength in the level of the organizaonal parcipaon. There was high (90.3 %) cooperave/union membership, indicang that organizaonal structures are well established among the parcipants of the IPARD in Van (TABLE I). The same paern has been reported in prior work [4 , 18]. The precise impact of such memberships on creang economic returns, enabling knowledge sharing, or enhancing market access needs to be more closely examined, however. Most parcipants (81.9 %) were found to have received training in beekeeping (TABLE I). This result shows that the IPARD helps in capacity enhancement and knowledge transfer in the sector. However, the presence of an untrained minority among the respondents suggests long-standing gaps in the distribuon of technical material; this has been reported in previous research [1]. 3 of 8

The Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance / GezginÇ et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico Two-thirds (66.7 %) of parcipants cited beekeeping as their only form of income in this study, suggesng that the IPARD community was mainly professional, full-me beekeepers (TABLE I). In contrast, previous research revealed lower rates of full-me dependency [1 , 4 , 20], probably due to wider sampling frames that included part-me or recently established producers. The majority of beekeepers (77.8 %) had greater than 11 years of professional experience, suggesng that the idenfied supported enterprises are established (TABLE I). The same findings reported in prior studies [21], also support the narrave that IPARD funds have gone to experienced producers with a significant sectoral involvement. Following the socio-economic findings, the assessment of the impact of IPARD support on the producon capacity and producvity of beekeeping enterprises was conducted. Changes in the number of hives, number of populated hives, honey yield per hive, total honey producon, and number of workers were analyzed graphically and numerically (FIGS. 2 and 3; TABLE II). FIGURE 2. Number of hives and populated hives (pre/post-IPARD) The pronounced increase in both the number of hives and populated hives indicates that the number of supported enterprises has grown to a considerable scale (FIG. 2). The fact that previous research indicates the low average of populated hives—298 in Van [1] and 191.2 in Erzurum-Kars-Ağrı provinces [22]—supports the suggeson that IPARD has served as a significant factor in increased beekeeping acvies in the district of the research. TABLE II Producon indicators (pre/post-IPARD, mean ± SD) Producon Indicator Pre-IPARD Mean ± SD Post-IPARD Mean ± SD Number of Hives 249.88 ± 148.62 468.31 ± 71.32 Number of Populated Hives 188.01 ± 127.30 332.01 ± 102.40 Honey Yield per Hive (kg) 12.44 ± 6.95 14.56 ± 7.40 Total Honey Producon (ton) 2.81 ± 3.01 4.89 ± 3.10 Number of Workers 1.50 ± 0.98 1.63 ± 0.98 SD: Standard Deviaon. IPARD: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development A rise in honey yield per hive, total honey producon, num- ber of workers represents the posive trends in the producvity and scale. Moreover, the increase in honey yield per hive indi- cates greater producon (FIG. 3). However, the yield levels have shown considerable variaon in the previous literature. For the studies, higher averages have been reported [15 , 18]; but less drasc outcomes have been reported [19 , 20]. There may be differences in floral diversity, climac condions, producon techniques and management systems among regions. Thus, results of IPARD on producon need to be assessed in the parcular context. FIGURE 3. Changes in honey yield, total producon, and number of workers (pre/post-IP- ARD) The increase in total honey producon further supports the view that the IPARD has promoted producon efficiency. Alternavely, the small difference in number of workers indicates that this growth occurred primarily through technological and organizaonal development, not more input from labour. This suggests that the program is facilitang a shiſt in beekeeping from tradional, old school to more modern and effecve methods. The stascal measures of the producon indicators further validang the posive impact of IPARD support in the post- support period. Significant increases in hives, populated hives, and total honey producon were idenfied, indicang that the IPARD assistance has helped the expansion of the enterprises and the efficiency in producon. Increase in honey yield per hive also indicates producvity enhancements. By contrast, the small change in the number of workers indicates these gains were largely a funcon of beer resource ulizaon and adopon of new technologies, rather than increased labor input (TABLE II). Differences between producon indicators before and aſter IPARD support were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (TABLE III). The Wilcoxon test results revealed significant improvements in all key indicators aſter IPARD support (P < 0.05). The P-values obtained for hive number, total honey producon, and honey yield confirmed the strong effects of the support on capacity and producvity (P < 0.001). But with a smaller (albeit sll significant) increase in workers’ numbers, it suggests that supporng development predominantly enhanced infrastructure and efficiency as opposed to employment. 4 of 8

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXVI UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico TABLE III Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for producon indicators Variable Z Value P-Value Significance Level Number of Hives -6.966 0.000 P < 0.001 Number of Populated Hives -6.985 0.000 P < 0.001 Honey Yield per Hive -4.189 0.000 P < 0.001 Total Honey Producon -5.818 0.000 P < 0.001 Number of Workers -2.714 0.007 P < 0.01 Overall, though the increase in the number of workers was stascally significant, it was smaller than the other indicators (TABLE III; P < 0.01). Thus this indicates that the support program actually facilitated more in physical infrastructure and technical efficiency than more direct jobs growth. Based on this, IPARD support seems to have increased producvity mainly by introducing modern equipment, knowledge transfer and the transion to more orderly producon methods. The praccal significance of the IPARD support for producon indicators was assessed by calculang the effect size (r) for the variables that showed stascally significant differences via the Wilcoxon test (FIG. 4). FIGURE 4. Effect size (r) values from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test Large effect sizes were recorded for the number of hives (r = 0.821), number of populated hives (r = 0.823), and total honey producon (r = 0.686); also moderate effect sizes were observed for honey yield per hive (r = 0.494) and number of workers (r = 0.320). Effect size analysis showed that IPARD support resulted not only in stascally significant improvements but also in praccally meaningful changes (P < 0.05). For certain structural relevant aributes, such as number of hives and total honey producon, large effects (r > 0.5) were observed, suggesng significant improvements in producon capacity. Instead, moderate effect sizes for producvity and labor force (0.3 < r < 0.5) suggest that operaonal efficiency and employment are changing less rapidly. In sum, the effect size result suggests that IPARD leads to producon increases in the short run and structural development in the long run in the beekeeping sector. These results show that rural development programmes, such as IPARD, may not only lead to an increase in producon volumes but also to greater efficiency in the operaon in the case of these investments. The findings provide a solid and praccal foundaon for shaping the future of rural support policy development. The effect of IPARD support on beekeeping enterprises was evaluated through a comparave analysis of pre- and post grant support me periods. Table IV summarizes the results on pracces such as record-keeping, producon of secondary products, honey quality analysis, insurance of populated hives, and disease control in bees. TABLE IV Status of beekeeping pracces before and aſter IPARD support (%) Variable Status Before IPARD Aſter IPARD Frequency % Frequency % Record Keeping Yes 3 4.2 9 12.5 No 69 95.8 63 87.5 Producon of Secondary Bee Products Yes 11 15.3 28 38.9 No 61 84.7 44 61.1 Honey Quality Analysis Yes 20 27.8 33 45.8 No 52 72.2 39 54.2 Insurance of Populated Hives Yes 18 25.0 40 55.6 No 54 75.0 32 44.4 Control of Bee Diseases Yes 69 95.8 72 100 No 3 4.2 0 0.0 IPARD: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development The impact of the IPARD assistance on processing results was manifested in technical and economic capacies as well as in behavioral paerns of the enterprises (TABLE IV). Significant progress has been made in quality analyses of honey, in using hive insurance, and in secondary bee products. However, the rate of record keeping rose from 4.2 % to 12.5 % aſter the intervenon, although it is sll low in absolute terms and lower than that reported in other studies [17 , 23]. This means that regional dynamics and producer characteriscs might limit these pracces. Apart from changes in technical habits, changes have also been observed in the producon of different bee products. According to the increase in producon of secondary products like propolis and pollen, IPARD encourages product diversificaon and supports alternave income sources. In previous studies, similar paerns of parcipaon in secondary product producon [18 , 21 , 24] were reported, indicang that market opportunies, enterprise scale, and producer knowledge are major factors. Beer quality producon and improvements in management of risks at the enterprise level are also posive. Improvement of the honey quality means higher producers’ competence and availability of analycal services. In the same way, the significant rise in insured hives may also be, in part, aributable to the 5 of 8

The Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance / GezginÇ et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico programmac requirements of IPARD and align with previous results of overall low baseline insurance rates [18 ,[25 , 26 , 27]. Generally, supports appear to enhance diversificaon and risk reducon strategies. Disease control is a crical component of enterprise health management. The already high rate of disease control pracces prior to IPARD support indicates producers already had high awareness, and an increase to 100 % aſter the program indicates enhanced sustainability of health pracces. Nevertheless, how these self-reported pracces translate into actual implementaon should be assessed with sound monitoring and assessment methods. Likewise, findings from a previous study conducted among beekeepers in Adıyaman reported widespread adopon of animal health measures, consistent with findings here [28]. Moreover, the number of insured hives indicates some small but substanal improvements in animal health and enterprise security. While these improvements were not among the program’s primary objecves, they appear to stem from indirect effects due to the instuonal support and training. To examine the stascal significance of the observed changes in selected operaonal pracces between the pre- and post-support periods, the McNemar test was performed (TABLE V). TABLE V McNemar test results for changes in pracces Variable b (yes before → no aſter) c (no before → yes aſter) Total Transions (b + c) P-value Significance Level Honey Quality Analysis 13 0 13 0.000 P < 0.001 Insurance of Populated Hives 24 2 26 0.000 P < 0.001 Producon of Secondary Bee Products 17 0 17 0.000 P < 0.001 b: yes → no; c: no → yes; (b+c): total number of transions between categories The McNemar test results indicated stascally significant increases in honey quality analysis, producon of secondary bee products, and insurance of populated hives (TABLE V; P < 0.001). On the other hand, variables such as record-keeping and disease control were excluded from the analysis due to their low transion frequencies. Key operaonal pracces that were prominent were indicated to be significantly more widely occurring aſter the IPARD support. Increased honey quality analysis, diversificaon of products, and hive insurance efforts illustrate that the program extended well beyond volume producon to include quality control, market orientaon, and risk management strategies. Increasing quality of honey and a higher degree of quality analysis could indicate beer markeng potenal and improved consumer trust. Although record-keeping and disease control were not included in the McNemar test insufficient variability, their status remains relevant. There was already a very high rate of disease control before the program. As it is, the contribuon of the program in this context was probably more towards the maintenance than iniaon of the pracce. This study presents the sasfacon levels and evaluaons of markeng indicators of enterprises benefing from IPARD support (TABLE VI). The vast majority of beekeepers who received IPARD support reported sasfacon with the program and indicated that they would recommend it to others. However, the ancipated improvements in markeng opportunies and sales prices were not fully achieved. In addion to praccal gains, beneficiary sasfacon is also important. The findings of this study reflected a high level of sasfacon with IPARD support, which is consistent with the findings of previous research [22]. This finding shows that IPARD has a posive impact not only on economic outcomes, but also on percepons of and trust in the program. TABLE VI Beneficiary sasfacon and markeng indicators (%) Variable Response Frequency Percentage(%) Sasfacon with IPARD Support Yes 69 95.8 No 3 4.2 Would You Recommend IPARD Support to Others? Yes 68 94.4 No 4 5.6 Improvement in Honey Sales Prices (post-IPARD) Yes 24 33.3 No 48 66.7 Improvement in Markeng Channels (post-IPARD) Yes 10 13.9 No 62 86.1 IPARD: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development On the other hand, data related to markeng menoned limited impact of the program on structural changes in channels of sale. Fewer than one-third of the parcipants reported an increase in honey sales prices, and improvements made in markeng channels have been modest. These results emphasize both producon and markeng dimensions of beekeeping need to be addressed. For sustainable development, methods should not only aim to raise output, but should also strengthen the posion of the product within the value chain. Evaluaon of percepons of producers must also be carried out. A previous study revealed that the IPARD affects primarily rural development percepons 6 of 8

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXVI UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico [29]. In contrast, this study reported significantly improved levels of producon, producvity and capacity among supported beekeeping enterprises in Van, suggesng that IPARD led to perceptual and measurable improvements. Notwithstanding the difficules encountered at the commencement of implementaon, meaningful results have been achieved in the field. A similar study described Türkiye situaon early on to be characterized by a failure to effecvely ulise funds provided by the EU through structural obstacles on IPARD applicaon [30]. However, the study from the Van province in this research found that IPARD has had substanal effects on producvity, capacity, and quality in beekeeping. These new findings imply that the program has produced real, concrete progress through tangible goals in the face of inially great obstacles. To place Türkiye in perspecve: cross-country comparisons are required for the experience of Türkiye. IPARD has also connued to be in its developmental phase in Serbia and has thus far shown lile impact in Serbia [3]. In contrast, SAPARD and IPARD in Croaa increased producvity, turnover, value added, and capacity, although improvements in profitability and employment were modest [31]. Likewise, the current study in Van found that there were enhancements in capacity, producvity, and quality, with modest posive consequences on employment. These findings indicate that Türkiye is working as a more effecve, outcome-focused intervenon model which should provide advice for policy and pracce in other transioning countries. In light of the literature on IPARD-supported beekeeping, the implicaons of this study are consistent with broad observaons on the degree to which the program improves producvity and modernizes beekeeping. Nevertheless, in contrast to previous research that is typically based on single-period or descripve data [1 , 7 , 8 , 22], this study offers a comparave view that facilitates a refined interpretaon of alteraons aributed specifically to IPARD intervenons. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This study reveals that IPARD support has had significant impacts not only on producon outputs in the beekeeping sector but also on enterprise scale, efficiency, and technical capacity. The increase in the number of hives and populated hives indicates scale enlargement, while the rise in honey yield per hive and total producon reflects gains in producvity. The modest increase in the use of labor might suggest that the increase was not accompanied by a translang growth in employment, which could imply the rise was efficiency related. A closer look at effect size also confirms that these differences are meaningful both in a stascal and a praccal sense. The findings illustrate how programs of rural development (e.g., IPARD) have to be implemented and scaled in a strategic way - most notably with regard to technical infrastructure, traceable producon systems and product range expansion. However, structural shortcomings in markeng and producer organizaon connue to limit the full effecveness of such support. Addressing these gaps through dedicated program components would enable progress in branding, traceability, and demand-oriented producon models, thus facilitang a transion toward high value-added and sustainable producon. In this context, complementary intervenons by cooperaves, local governments, and private sector actors, along with educaon and extension services, can further strengthen IPARD’s impact on market integraon, risk management, and producer behavior. Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest (financial, personal, commercial, polical, instuonal, or academic) related to this manuscript. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES [1] Tosun C, Oğuz C. IPARD supported beekeeping businesses’ socio-economical structure and problems: a case study of Van. Int. J. Innov. Approach. Agric. Res. [Internet]. 2020; 4(2):189-209. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4d [2] Gezginç Ö, Günlü A. Van ili IPARD desteklerinin hayvancılık sektörü açısından değerlendirilmesi. Van Vet. J. [Internet]. 2025; 36(1):23-29. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4g [3] Kosanović N, Karna M, Bartula M. Rural policy of Serbia and The Netherlands: comperave analysis. Agric. Econ. [Internet]. 2024; 71(4):1145-58. doi: hps://doi.org/ qp4h [4] Aksoy A, Ertürk YE, Erdoğan S, Eyduran E, Tariq MM. Esmaon of honey producon in beekeeping enterprises from Eastern Part of Turkey through some data mining algorithms. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2018; 50(6):2199- 2207. doi: hps://doi.org/grzw4b [5] Erten Ö, Öztürk Y. Determinaon of Beekeepers’ Thoughts on Current Problems and Colony Losses. Rev. Cient. FCV- LUZ. [Internet]. 2025;35(1):e35572. doi: hps://doi.org/ qp4j [6] Varalan A, Cevrimli MB. Determinaon of risk factors in beekeeping enterprises producing geographically indicated Kars honey. Acta Vet. Eurasia. [Internet]. 2024; 50(2):141-150. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4k [7] Keleş OC, Demir N, Eyduran E. Trabzon ilinde IPARD programı kapsamındaki arıcılık hibelerinin etkinliğinin belirlenmesi. 4 th Internaonal Syposium on Innovave Approaches in Social, Human and Administrave Sciences; 2019 Nov 22-24; Samsun, Türkiye: . SETSCI Conference Proceedings. [Internet]. 2019. doi: hps:// doi.org/qp4p [8] Tosun C, Oğuz C. Economic analysis and honey producon cost of beekeeping enterprises supported by IPARD program case study of Van province. Custos Agronegocio. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 12 May 2025]; 17(3):176-197. Available in: hps://goo.su/cUfCu8U [9] Mitreva E, Mitkovska T, Filiposki O, Gjorshhevski H. IPARD 1 programme-why and how its implementaon did not succeed in Macedonia. TEM J. [Internet]. 2019; 8(2):437- 443. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4q [10] Yamane T. Stascs: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Harper and Row, 1967. 7 of 8

The Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance / GezginÇ et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico [11] Field A. Discovering stascs using IBM SPSS stascs: and sex and drugs and rock “N” roll. 4th ed. London: Sage. 2013. [12] Cohen J. Stascal power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, Michigan, USA: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Internet]. 1988 [cited 25 Jul 2025]. Available in: hps://goo.su/lRrenua [13] Çevrimli MB, Sakarya E. Arıcılık işletmelerinin yapısal özellikleri ve sorunları Ege Bölgesi Örneği. Eurasian J. Vet. Sci. [Internet]. 2018; 34(2):83-91. doi: hps://doi.org/ n642 [14] Doğan N, Adanacıoğlu H. Performance evaluaon of beekeeping farms: a case study from Gümüşhane, Turkey. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2021; 53(5):1837-1846. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4r [15] Varalan A, Çevrimli MB. Kars ilinde arcılık işletmelerinin Sosyo-ekonomik yapısı üzerine bir araşrma. Dicle Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2023; 16(2):102-107. doi: hps://doi.org/px6b [16] Mohanty AK, Bordoloi RM, Amrutha T, Singha AK, Kumar B, Athare T, Jangid BL, Keshava, Kumar A. Promoon of beekeeping as a potenal opon for agriprenureship: insights in context of Mann Ki Baat (inner thoughts). Indian J. Agric. Sci. [Internet]. 2023; 93(5):475-483. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4s [17] Kaya U, Gürcan İS. An evaluaon of the efficiency of beekeeping enterprises in Hatay province with data envelopment analysis. Ankara Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2021; 68(3):229-235. doi: hps://doi.org/ qp4t [18] Onuç Z, Yanar A, Saner G, Güler D. Arıcılık faaliyenin ekonomik yönü üzerine bir analiz: İzmir-Kemalpaşa ilçesi örneği Türkiye. Ege Univ. Ziraat Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2019; 56(1):11-20. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4v [19] Polat M, Çevrimli MB, Mat B, Akın AC, Arikan MS, Tekindal MA. Economic analysis of beekeeping enterprises producing chestnut honey Black Sea region in Türkiye. Cogent Food Agric. [Internet]. 2023; 9(1):2237279. doi: hps://doi.org/px6d [20] Kulekçi M, Eyduran E, Aln AY, Tariq MM. Usefulness of MARS and Bagging MARS Algorithms in predicon of honey producon in beekeeping enterprises from Elazig province of Turkey. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2022; 54(3):1087-1093. doi: hps://doi.org/qp4w [21] İnci H, Karakaya E, Topluk O. Bingöl ili arıcılık işletmelerinin yapısal özellikleri. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. [Internet]. 2022; 9(4):996-1013. doi: hps://doi.org/n64z [22] Aksoy A, Demir N, Bilgiç A. A study on idenfying the effecveness of the beekeeping grants provided by IPARD program examples of Erzurum Kars and Agri provinces. Custos Agronegocio. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 7 Jul 2025]; 14(3):269-283. Available in: hps://goo.su/aLYllyr [23] Cilavdaroğlu E, Gündüz Z. Yozgat ili arıcılık yapısının ve arıcılık faaliyetlerinin belirlenmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilim. Derg. [Internet]. 2023; 38(1):145-162. doi: hps://doi. org/qp4x [24] Semerci A, Yurdugül-Topal A. Çanakkale ili arıcılık işletmelerinin sosyo-ekonomik analizi. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. [Internet]. 2023; 10(2):380-397. doi: hps://doi.org/ g7cz6s [25] Çevrimli MB, Sakarya E. Tarsim arılı kovan sigorta uygulamaları TR32 bölgesi örneği.MAKU J. Health Sci. Inst. [Internet]. 2017; 5(1):1-10. doi: hps://doi.org/ qp4z [26] Adanacıoğlu H, Topal E, Kösoğlu M. Arıcılık işletmelerinin modern uygulamalara adaptasyon durumu: İzmir ili örneği. J. Anim. Prod. [Internet]. 2020; 61(1):1-8. doi: hps://doi.org/qp42 [27] Işıl-Akbağ H, Özsayin D, İnce B. Muğla ili Fethiye ilçesi arıcılık faaliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu J. Agric. Sci. [Internet]. 2025 [cited 25 Jul 2025]; 40(1):139-159. Available in: hps://goo.su/lGQkyIe [28] Özmen-Özbakır G, Doğan Z, Öztokmak A. Adıyaman ili arıcılık faaliyetlerinin incelenmesi. Harran J. Agric. Food Sci. [Internet]. 2016; 20(2):119-126. doi: hps://doi.org/ qp43 [29] Ozkan G, Gurbuz İB. Have the Eu pre-accession funds achieved their purpose? beneficiary perspecves on the effects of the funds on producon quality, rural development and sustainability. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2023 [cited 5 Jun 2025]; 23(1):515-529. Available in: hps://goo.su/GbZM [30] Şerefoğlu C, Atsan T. The impact of the Eu instrument for pre-accession for rural development (IPARD) to Turkey. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 5 Jun 2025]; 12(4):133-140. Available in: hps://goo.su/2ABR3oR [31] Kukoč M, Škrinjarić B, Juračak J. The impact assessment of the EU pre-accession funds on agriculture and food companies: the Croaan case. Spanish J. Agric. Res. [Internet]. 2021; 19(3):e0107. doi: hps://doi.org/qp44 8 of 8