The Topic Not Included in Geography Curriculum in Turkey: Geographical Indications

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 190 - 206, 30.08.2017

Hakan Önal

Abstract

Almost all countries periodically review and discuss their educational systems and their content due to
the growing importance attached to educational activities. The goal here is to allow the use of
innovative and different methodologies and to reflect scientific advances and social developments and
innovations on school life which is one of the main dynamics of society. However, there are some
topics that are never included in teaching curriculums although their content is directly related to the
other topics in the curriculum. One of these topics is Geographical Indications (GI). Literature shows
the fact that one of the most crucial parts of country and regional development both in scientific and
political areas is rural development as emphasized in all platforms. The simplest way to ensure rural
development is to make use and market the goods and values produced in rural environments. Based on
this, it can be claimed that protecting the goods via GI, which aims to ensure the protection of goods
which possess a certain reputation, is actually protecting the producer. Providing value for the product
in markets will satisfy the producer in economic terms and the area will develop since the producer will
not leave the present location. Therefore, the economy of the country will also benefit. Since GI does
not only aim to protect the producer but also the consumer; the producer, consumers and all people in a
nation will benefit from this protection. Although it is a rather well established process historically,
such a significant program which has come to the fore in the past 30 years in our country is not directly
or indirectly included in geography curriculums in Turkey. This study which utilized document review,
a qualitative research method, addresses the topic of GI and presents suggestions as to how GI can be
included in Secondary School Geography Curriculum for 11th and 12th grades and what learning
outcomes it can entail.

Keywords

Geography Curriculum, Geography Teaching, Geographical Indications, Sustainable Rural Development

References

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
• Arfini, F., Albisu, L.M. and Giocoıni, C. (2011), “Current Situation and potential development of geographical indications in Europe”, CAB e Books, Labels of Origin for Food. In Barham, E., Sylvander, B. (Eds). Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition, 4, pp. 29, Retrieved from http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook /20113165525,Doi:10.1079/9781845933524.0029
• Aziz, A. (2008). Research Methods and Techniques in Social Sciences. Nobel Publishing, Ankara.
• Bowen, S. (2010). Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indications as a territorial development strategy. Rural Sociology, 75(2), 209-243.
• Çalışkan, V.; Koç, H. (2013). Evaluation of distributional characteristics of geographical indications and the potential for geographical indications in Turkey. Eastern Geographical Review, 28, 193-214.
• Commission, E. (2017). Agriculture of rural development. (European Commission) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html;jsessionid=pL0hLqqLXhNmFQyFl1 b24mY3t9dJQPflg3xbL2YphGT4k6zdWn34!-70879141?&filterReset=true
• Coşkun, A. Y. (2001). Geographical indications. unpublished master thesis, Turkish Patent Institute, Ankara.
• Demir, C. ve Çevirgen A. (2006), Turizm ve Çevre Yönetimi- Sürdürülebilir Gelişme Yaklaşımı, Nobel Yayıncılık Ankara.
• Demirbaş, Ç. Ö., (2011). Sustainable development in the curriculum of geography course, International Journal of Human Sciences 8, (2), 595-615.
• Dünya Gıda. (2017). www.dunyagida.com.tr/haber/mense-adli-ve-cografi-isaretli-tarimurunlerive-gidalar/2268
• Gökovalı, M. (2007). Geographical indications and economic effects: The case of Turkey. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 21 (2), 141-160.
• Gürsu, R. D. (2008). Quality policy in EU and adaptation of Turkey, unpublished master thesis. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock¸ General Directorate of European Union and Foreign Affairs, Ankara.
• Josling, T., (2006). The war on terroir: geographical ındications as a transatlantic trade conflict. Journal of Agriculrual Economics. 57 (3), 337–363.
• Kan, M., Gülçubuk, B. (2008). Geographical indications for recovery and Local owned of rural economy. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 22 (2), 57-66.
• Kesici, M., (2012). The role of traditional food and beverage culture concerning to demand of rural tourism, Kmu Journal of Socıal and Economıc Research, 14, (23), 33-37.
• Lackert, C. W. (1998). Geographical indications: what does the WTO TRIPs Agreement require? Trademark World (109), 22.
• Mardin Stone, (2017). www.seanationalheritage.com
• Ministry of National Education. (2005). High School Geography cirriculum, General Directorate of Secondary Education, Ankara, Turkey.
• Ministry of National Education. (2017). High School Geography cirriculum, General Directorate of Secondary Education, Ankara, Turkey.
• Oltu Stone. (2017). www.tesbihane.com
• Rangnekar, D. (2004). The socio-economics of geographical indications (A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe). International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). France: Issue Paper No. 8
• Sönmezışık, K. (2008, December 07). Eskişehir'in beyaz yüzü: Lüle Taşı, Yeni Şafak, retrieved from www.yenisafak.com/yenisafakpazar/eskisehirin-beyaz-yuzu-lule-tasi-154786.
• Soykan, A., Efe, R., Sönmez, S., & Cürebal, İ. (2015). A Geographical approach to local and traditional products in Balkesır. 2nd City Symposium, p. 129-154. 19-21 November, Balıkesir.
• Stoll, R. (1999, Haziran 14-18). TRIPs implementation on geographical indications. APEC IPR International Symposium, p. 1-2. Taejon.
• Tepe, S. (2008). Economic effects of geographical indications. Turkish Patent and Trademark Organisation, Department of Brands, master thesis, Ankara.
• Turkey via Decree Law. (1995). www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/4.5.555.pdf
• Turkish Culture Portal. (2017), www.kulturportali.gov.tr/portal/geleneksel-mutfak
• Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. (2000). Special commission on ıntellectual property rights report. Ankara.
• Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. (2015). Geographical indication national strategy and action plan 2015-2018. Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, Ankara.
• Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. (2017a). www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TurkPatent/onlinehelp /onlineCografi
• Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. (2017b). http://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TurkPatent/ geographical RegisteredList/
• World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2003). Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications, San Francisco, California, USA. Retrieved http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/geoind/en/wipo_geo_sfo_03/wipo_ geo_sfo_03_3-main1.pdf
• World Intellectual Property Organization. (2017). www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences, (8th edition), Ankara.