Reports - United Nations Development Programme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Other COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS – TURKEY MSAs CHART 3.1: UNDP PROGRAMME BUDGET TRENDS 20 UN Support 15 Gender Environment USD Millions 10 Poverty 5 Governance 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 Other 1,669,842 1,066,354 2,153,058 464,057 207,505 614,885 MSAs 13,449,526 5,803,213 5,421,767 2,818,000 4,619,766 3,000,000 26 UN Support 13,832 12,275 145,270 94,260 –5,257 51,985 Gender 230,629 210,701 403,464 147,832 125,649 169,103 Environment 76,552 238,791 308,254 573,641 749,438 911,384 Poverty 730,968 638,225 670,672 1,180,435 2,226,960 4,088,594 Governance 350,383 392,762 1,038,138 1,412,595 1,345,199 968,587 2000 2001 2002 2003 framed in the context of eleven expected outcomes. While some of the increased focus has been cosmetic and has involved retrofitting of existing projects and programmes into a smaller number of outcomes in the SRF (some by the country office and some by Headquarters) to fulfil Headquarters reporting requirements, it also does represent a real reduction in the overall fragmentation of the programme and a genuinely increased concentration around key UNDP thematic areas. Looking ahead, the UNDP in Turkey will need to ensure that it is, and is seen to be clearly supportive of Turkey’s overarching goal of EU accession, while at the same time assuring that it is responsive to the UNDP’s institutional mandate of a focus on sustainable human development and the achievement of the MDGs. These two sets of objectives are broadly consistent and complementary at the conceptual level. Indeed, in practical terms there is also much in common between the UNDP’s focus on regional disparities (see Box 3.2), good governance, building local participatory capacity and improving environmental institutional capacity and EU accession-related concerns. The ADR Evaluation Team believes that it would be useful for the UNDP to carry out small analytical pieces of work, which lay out in the case of Turkey how the approaches of the MDGs and the EU accession criteria are mutually related and reinforce each other. 33 Moreover, in some other areas, such as the focus on poverty reduction and gender equity, the overlap between the EU and UNDP mandates may be less clear. Here, it will be important to stress complementarities and the value added that the UNDP’s contribution can make. In this it will be essential that the UNDP avoid being viewed as just another contractor for the EC and also refrain from substituting for, or competing with, national institutions for EC resources. This requires the UNDP to strengthen its own perceptions of the value added that it provides. Furthermore, the UNDP in Turkey will have to decide whether it will continue, adapt or replace the long- ———————————————————————————————————— 33. This was a recommendation made by a participant in the Stakeholder Meeting in Ankara on 7 September, 2004.
3. UNDP’S STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PROGRAMME RELEVANCE standing flagship programmes that have made up the core of its activities over the years. In doing so, the key consideration will have to be what the UNDP’s unique areas of comparative advantage are and how it adds value through its involvement. (ii) Strategic Challenge 2: Creating Value Added in a Changing Environment Because of the UNDP’s relatively limited core resources and the high administrative cost of running its Country Office in Turkey, it is forced to aggressively mobilise resources in the form of trust funds, third party and Government cost sharing in support of programmes in its core practice areas. In order to do so, it is essential for the UNDP itself to recognise and then to project clearly the value added that it can provide: Projecting a Clear Set of Core Business Lines: One of the problems in the past has been the lack of a clear definition of UNDP’s core “business lines” in Turkey. This is because of a lack of clearly articulated or frequently changing strategic directions and a multiplicity of diffuse activities, many of which were too small to allow for critical mass. As a result of the recent “visioning” exercise, it appears that UNDP Turkey has now defined for itself a limited set of core business lines in four thematic areas: governance, poverty, environment and gender, with a fifth line, disaster and crisis assistance response, as needed. Track Record and “Brand Recognition”: The UNDP in Turkey has clearly gained maximum traction and recognition through its advocacy of human development (the NHDRs), its support for broader participation and transparency and its work to reduce regional disparities. While there may be pressures and opportunities for the UNDP to work in other areas, it is recommended that UNDP Turkey should build on the areas of its recognised strengths. This will serve as a springboard for scaling-up existing programmes, strengthening the capacity of local institutions to manage EU funding and ensuring greater involvement in policy development related to decentralisation, participation in decisionmaking, reduction of regional disparities, and the strengthening of local institutions including CSOs. Offering Substantive Capacity: The UNDP’s value added is no longer as a source of funding, but as a source of substantive capacity. While the UNDP’s current consultant fees do not always enable it to buy the best experts available in any given field, and while the UNDP office in Turkey does not in itself possess BOX 3.2: REGIONAL DISPARITIES, EU ACCESSION AND UNDP SUPPORT The reduction of regional disparities is likely to be a high priority in the period running up to EU accession and beyond, due to a number of factors. Key among them is the risk, following accession, of major migration flows to other parts of the EU caused by regional disparities. Another key factor is the need for absorptive capacity at the regional level of EU cohesion funding, which would become available at both the pre and post accession stages. This priority should enable the UNDP to build on the considerable experience and credibility it has gained especially in Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia. The approach taken in future, however, will have to be different from that of the past. The vast majority of EC resources provided in these two regions will be transferred through local Government institutions and CSOs. To leverage these resources, the UNDP should use its experience and expertise to: Strengthen the capacity of the institutions of local Government and CSOs, thereby raising their absorptive capacity and ability to efficiently manage resources Assist local Government in the identification and formulation of development projects and programmes in Southeast Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia Engage in a policy dialogue with the EC, local Government, regional administrations and Ministry of Interior on issues pertaining to regional disparities including local governance, participation, transparency and poverty alleviation. sufficient capacity, it should use its network of projects in the region and elsewhere in the world, its Sub-Regional Resource Facilities (esp. in Bratislava) and its Headquarters units as extended sources of substantive capacity for Turkey. This requires a corporate commitment to making better use of substantive resources available to UNDP through its global network. Bringing International Expertise to Bear: Linked to the previous points is that perhaps one of the strongest comparative advantages that the UNDP possesses is its access to international experience and expertise. Yet UNDP Turkey has tended to be used principally as a source of funding for the application of national expertise. It is the impression of the ADR Evaluation Team that because of past reluctance by the UNDP and the Government to look outside for expertise, comparative development experience is sorely needed. National expertise is of course a valuable input for capacity building and policy advice, but the UNDP would provide more value added by effectively packaging a combination of national and international capacity in key areas where experience gained elsewhere would be of particular value. The “<strong>United</strong> <strong>Nations</strong> Factor”: As steward of the Resident Coordinator system and as the lead agency in fostering the implementation of action plans derived from global compacts, the prestige associated with the involvement of the UN is a significant factor 27
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 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 29: 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 69 and 70: 6. CONCLUSION: OVERALL RESULTS, LES
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?