Risks of Law No. 6360 on agricultural production and animal husbandry

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 4)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

One of the most fundamental changes in Türkiye’s administrative structure in the last decade is Law No. 6360, which was adopted in 2012 and came into force with the 2014 local government elections. With this legal regulation, the borders of 30 metropolitan municipalities in Türkiye were expanded to the provincial civil borders, and the legal entities of all villages in these provinces were abolished and transformed into neighborhoods (1). This change is not just a name change; it means that the ownership structure, management model, and production style of the villages are also fundamentally shaken.

With the end of the village legal entity, pastures, common areas, and immovable properties belonging to the villages were transferred to the district or metropolitan municipalities to which they are affiliated. The end of the independent decision-making authority of villages in the local government hierarchy has weakened the link between rural development and the principle of decentralization (2). Especially for those engaged in animal husbandry, the transition of common usage areas, which are of vital importance, to municipal control has created a new and complex bureaucracy in agricultural production processes.

The fact that urban rules have started to be valid in rural areas has led to a structural mismatch. The increasing pressure of urbanization in areas where animal husbandry is practiced, the obligation to move barns away from settlements, and construction bans leave the producer in a difficult situation. In addition, tax and fee obligations, which started to be applied gradually with the transition of villages to neighborhood status, have become a new factor triggering internal migration by increasing the cost of living in rural areas (3).

At the point reached today, it constitutes a necessity to re-evaluate these side effects created by Law No. 6360 for Türkiye to ensure food security and make rural production sustainable. Resolving this tension between the nature of the village and the rules of the neighborhood concept has made the transition to a special and flexible “rural neighborhood” management model a requirement (4).

Aydın Tiryaki Ankara, January 12, 2026

---

All ideas, opinions, and suggestions in this article belong to the author. During the process of writing the text, the artificial intelligence Gemini was utilized for writing assistance and information compilation.

ANNEXES

Annex A: Number of Villages Transformed into Neighborhoods by Law No. 6360

• Total number of metropolitan provinces affected by the law: 30
• Total number of villages transformed into neighborhoods: ~16,000
• Number of town (belde) municipalities whose legal entity ended: 1,582

Annex B: Tax Advantages Within the Scope of Rural Neighborhood Status

• Real estate tax exemptions (gradual transition)
• Discounted tariffs on water and wastewater fees
• Exemptions from municipal income tax fees

REFERENCES

(1) Law No. 6360 on the Establishment of Metropolitan Municipalities and Twenty-Six Districts in Thirteen Provinces and Amendments. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr

(2) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Rural Development and Law No. 6360 Impact Analysis. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr

(3) Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), Population Mobility and Neighborhoodization Statistics in Metropolitan Borders. https://www.tuik.gov.tr

(4) General Directorate of Local Authorities, Guide for Rural Neighborhood and Rural Residential Area Regulations. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr