Reports - United Nations Development Programme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY programmes where systemic UNDP restrictions against direct implementation by the UNDP (mandated by the Executive Board) require it to channel funds through other implementing agencies, even where it itself is a recipient of partner funds for programme implementation. This has raised programme implementation costs and introduced unnecessarily complicated implementation structures. The ADR Evaluation Team therefore believes that Country Offices should have more leeway to use direct implementation modalities. Mobilising and Managing Resources: From the early 1990s, core programme funding (i.e., UNDP’s own resources) has diminished significantly and an increasing number of the UNDP’s activities have had to mobilise financial support from other donors and from the Government. The relatively large volumes of project funds implemented outside the UNDP’s core thematic focus have limited its capacity to pursue core thematic areas of work. Future mobilisation of programme resources will need to focus on the core thematic areas where the UNDP has a substantive comparative advantage. UN Coordination: Coordination of UN agencies and their activities has long been a big challenge for the UN system. Turkey’s recent experience has been no exception. The new instruments of Common Country Assessment (CCA) and UN <strong>Development</strong> Assistance Framework (UNDAF) were too broadgauged, unfocused and costly, and had a limited impact on the effective day-to-day cooperation by UN agencies in Turkey. A new, action-oriented approach that is focused on Turkey’s EU accession and MDG agenda is now underway. This will help orient the UN agencies in a more visibly common strategic direction. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE This Report concludes that the UNDP stands at a crossroads in Turkey. For about five decades, the UNDP has supported the country on its turbulent path to development and progress. Over the last ten years in particular, the UNDP has made significant contributions in key human development areas, such as strengthening local governance and helping to reduce regional disparities, and working to build gender and environmental awareness and capacity. Now the UNDP has to decide what its future role in Turkey is, on what lines of business and operational modalities to concentrate, and how to rebuild its own resource base, which is under serious stress. The ADR Evaluation Team has concluded that there clearly continues to be a significant role for the UNDP in Turkey. This conclusion was supported by repeated and consistent comments by interlocutors met during the mission. The challenge is now to focus on the UNDP’s comparative advantages, and to continue the new, action-oriented approach towards the Turkey EU accession and MDG agenda. To make this engagement productive and sustainable, the ADR proposes the following set of recommendations for the UNDP and its partners in Turkey: Build systematically on the core message of the UNDP’s new mission statement: “UNDP works in Turkey for democratic governance and growth without poverty, in support of EU accession and for the achievement of the MDGs.” Focus on the five established core business lines of the UNDP in Turkey: governance, poverty, environment, gender, and disaster and crisis response. Use this focus as a selectivity screen when assessing all new initiatives, whether these emerge from partners in the country or from UNDP Headquarters. Leverage the UNDP’s experience in participatory and transparent capacity building for local Governments and communities and in dealing with regional disparities, both in Turkey as well as in other countries. Combine the UNDP’s international standing, capacity and experience with the strong national capacity and networks that it has built over the years in Turkey. Systematically pursue the sustainability and scalingup potential of UNDP programmes and projects. A very important part of this effort will be systematic monitoring and evaluation. Ensure the establishment and maintenance of major and sustained partnerships, especially with the Government, the EU, and the UN Country Team (UNCT). Continue reviving the collaborative efforts of the UNCT, focusing on a clearly defined set of common goals. The authorities should stand ready to meet with the UNDP at a high level and at regular intervals to ensure that new UNDP programme priorities are in line with national priorities, that commitment to agreed priorities is sustained and that systemic issues impeding effective implementation on both sides are addressed. The Government needs to commit its own resources 7
COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS – TURKEY (both financial and personnel) in support of the partnership with the UNDP in a predictable and effective manner, and also ensure disbursement of committed resources in a timely manner. UNDP Headquarters must ensure that its priorities are formulated so as to minimise frequent changes in the structure and content of the UNDP’s agenda. It must also ensure that any UNDP Headquarters directives for specific initiatives in Turkey are consonant with the UNDP’s comparative advantage and real partner needs in the country. Furthermore, UNDP Headquarters should support a move towards more direct execution of the UNDP’s programmes and thus help increase its efficiency in Turkey by avoiding the need for institutional layering of the UNDP’s assistance. 8
Page 1 and 2: United Nations Development Programm
Page 3 and 4: Copyright © 2004 United Nations De
Page 5 and 6: COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF D
Page 11: COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF D
Page 19 and 20: 2. TURKEY — COUNTRY AT A CROSSROA
Page 21 and 22: 2. TURKEY — COUNTRY AT A CROSSROA
Page 25 and 26: 3. UNDP’S STRATEGIC POSITIONING A
Page 63 and 64:
INTRODUCTION CHART 5.3: PROGRAMME F
Page 65 and 66:
INTRODUCTION and recently a systema
Page 67 and 68:
COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF D
Page 69 and 70:
6. CONCLUSION: OVERALL RESULTS, LES
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF D
Page 77 and 78:
ANNEXE 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE str
Page 79 and 80:
ANNEXE 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE of the
Page 81 and 82:
ANNEXE 2: TURKEY: SRF OUTCOMES - OU
Page 83 and 84:
ANNEXE 2: TURKEY: SRF OUTCOMES - OU
Page 85 and 86:
ANNEXE 3: MAP OF INTENDED DEVELOPME
Page 87 and 88:
ANNEXE 4: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM
Page 89 and 90:
ANNEXE 5: LIST OF KEY PERSONS MET A
Page 91 and 92:
ANNEXE 6: DOCUMENTATION AND REFEREN
Page 93 and 94:
ANNEXE 7: TURKEY - COMPARATIVE HUMA
Page 95 and 96:
ANNEXE 8: UNDP TURKEY VISION The Co
Page 97 and 98:
ANNEXE 8: UNDP TURKEY VISION deba
Page 99 and 100:
ANNEXE 9: REPORTS PRODUCED, CONFERE
Page 101 and 102:
ANNEXE 10: MEDIA AND PUBLIC APPEARA
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
show all

Reports - United Nations Development Programme

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?