Who Benefits from Natural Wealth? The Journey of Value from the Land

We often know where a product comes from. We name the region behind a honey, the soil behind a fruit or the mountain behind a plant. We ask less often at which stage the product’s value grows and where the eventual income remains. Its connection to the land may be strong; its connection to local livelihoods can be much more distant.

A region can be rich in natural resources without its people enjoying corresponding prosperity. Production, processing, research, quality control and access to markets may be concentrated in different places. The person supplying the resource may receive a limited return while value increases further along the product’s journey.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s Global Trade Update of October 13, 2026 examines how developing countries can capture more value from biodiversity-based trade. The limited share of export value captured by biodiversity-rich regions is among its concerns. For Türkiye, I want to consider the economic and institutional conditions under which natural wealth can become a local future.

This discussion should not be reduced to earning more by consuming more nature. Setting the protection of life against people’s need for livelihoods can weaken both over time. The real challenge is to place the continuity of nature and local prosperity within the same plan.

If the resource is here, why does value grow elsewhere?

Selling a raw material and offering a processed product with documented reliability require different capabilities. Processing facilities, suitable storage, laboratories, design, business knowledge and customer relationships do not appear by themselves. Increasing added value often means making this less visible work function together.

Simply telling a small producer to build a brand is therefore insufficient. A testing cost they cannot afford, unreliable logistics or a difficult standard cannot be overcome by a good name. If we expect higher quality, we should also consider the infrastructure through which producers can demonstrate it.

Looking from Diyarbakır and the region’s productive possibilities brings the cost of disconnected work between universities, local authorities, professional bodies and producers into view. I am not making an unmeasured judgement about the failure of any particular institution. I am asking how complementary forms of knowledge can meet around the same product.

Can a characteristic studied at a university become a quality method accessible to a producer? Can a cooperative find the financial and technical advice it needs? Can a buyer obtain reliable information about the product’s origin and production conditions? Regional development should be assessed through whether these connections work.

Nor is it necessarily sensible to build the same facility in every district or give every product the same export target. A shared laboratory may be appropriate for one activity, a reliable buyer network for another, and better production conditions must come first elsewhere. A conspicuous investment and an investment meeting a real need are not the same measure.

Earnings that damage nature may not last

As a product gains market value, pressure on its source can increase. Rising demand can make collecting more or producing faster attractive. Yet ignoring a plant’s ability to regenerate, the land’s limits or the continuity of wildlife may secure today’s income by sacrificing tomorrow’s possibilities.

Economic activities based on nature therefore require questions beyond sales volume. What condition is the resource in? How are production or harvesting practices monitored? Who will intervene if damage appears? These belong to the conditions of a sustainable activity, rather than to details forgotten at the end of an environmental report.

We are not obliged to turn every part of nature into a traded product. In some places, the limits required for protection may take precedence over economic use. We cannot assume that higher sales revenue can compensate for losing a species or habitat. Nature’s value extends beyond the portion from which we can earn an income.

Local knowledge deserves the same attention. A community’s long-developed understanding of production or use should not be treated merely as material for an outside enterprise. Where knowledge comes from, how it is used and how resulting benefits are shared should be discussed. Specific arrangements require expertise; asking for fair sharing from the outset is a responsibility we can all recognise.

The place of women and young people in a production chain should also be examined beyond promotional photographs. Who makes decisions, who receives income and whose work remains unrecognised? If a regional product grows while some people’s labour stays invisible, the economic success is being measured incompletely.

The producer’s route to market

Market access is not completed by listing a product on a website. Reliable supply, consistent quality, timely payment and a working way to resolve problems are needed. The ability of a small producer to negotiate with a large buyer also belongs within this arrangement.

Cooperatives and other shared structures can meet some needs collectively. A cooperative name alone cannot create trust, however. Transparent accounts, accountable managers, access to information for members and professional operations matter. A poorly managed collective structure can amplify individual weaknesses rather than resolve them.

I would like the assessment of public support to make the years following an opening more visible. Is the facility operating? Can producers sell on better terms? Are payments timely? How many of the jobs created continue? Without these questions, completing a building can be confused with completing development.

Plans to enter international markets should also begin with reliable business practices. Product characteristics should be explained clearly, unsubstantiated health or superiority claims avoided and target-market requirements examined by specialists. Exaggerated language used to win one sale can damage a lasting reputation.

I see Türkiye’s opportunity in an economy that protects resources, develops research capacity, recognises producers’ work and supplies reliable products. Achieving this requires trade policy, agriculture, science, environmental protection and local development to look towards a shared aim.

Not every form of value will necessarily appear in export figures. Reliable local processing, an enduring skilled occupation in the region or a young person finding worthwhile work in their own city can also be development outcomes. Separating ambitious goals from these everyday results allows success to be announced without touching people’s lives.

Writing a region’s name on packaging does not make that region a partner in prosperity. The land, knowledge and labour behind the name should have a voice in the production chain. Turning natural wealth into a future means looking beyond the journey of value to change who has a share in it.

We cannot keep the inheritance left to future generations in two separate accounts: protected nature on one side and people without livelihoods on the other. Good development protects life while enabling people to remain within it with hope. Türkiye’s vision for its natural wealth should aim at precisely that shared future.

Read this column in Turkish ↗