Reports - United Nations Development Programme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS – TURKEY FIGURE 3.1: HARNESSING UNDP’S CAPACITY FOR TURKEY UNDP Headquarters units such as BDP, HDRO, BCPR, SURFs, Regional Projects, National Projects, Network of think tanks, academic institutions, consulting firms. Country Office, national projects, Turkish academic institutions, Turkish consulting firms. UNDP Turkey RBEC Region Global SURF, Regional Projects, National Projects, Network of think tanks, academic institutions, consulting firms. 28 that the UNDP can continue to leverage for change – particularly in areas which have not received much external assistance such as in sub-provincial units in the poorer regions of the country. This has been an important factor in gaining popular and official support for institutional change at the local level (perhaps the most striking example of this is LA 21). Therefore a New Way of Doing Knowledge Business: An office such as UNDP Turkey, which has relatively limited capacity, must be able to readily access capacity at the regional and global levels through the UNDP’s own offices (Bureau for Development Policy (BDP), Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR), Sub-Regional Resource Facility (SURFs), its projects and programmes (national and international experts in regional and national projects), and a broader network or roster of sources of expertise (academic institutions, think tanks, consulting firms and NGOs). It needs to see itself at the hub of concentric circles of knowledge management and capacity building in Turkey by reaching out and bringing in all relevant expertise from inside and outside the country (Figure 3.1). (iii) Strategic Challenge 3: The Importance of Visibility and Advocacy Visibility on high-priority issues and in the policy dialogue at the national level is an important factor in determining the UNDP’s ability to mobilise additional resources in support of its priorities. The UNDP has most successfully achieved a degree of visibility through: Successive NHDRs: NHDRs produced on a threeyear cycle, starting in 1990, have garnered considerable attention and have provided a platform for UNDP’s policy dialogue at the national level. Participation in and/or Organisation and Funding of Conferences: The UNDP has made extensive use of conferences to gain visibility for issues of central concern to its mandate and programme in Turkey. It has either participated in, or funded and participated in, a number of conferences and roundtables of direct relevance to the achievement of its goals in Turkey (see Annexe 9). The Establishment of Institutional Capacity: The UNDP has done this in centres with either an advocacy function or with influence over the development agenda such as: • LA 21 Citizen Houses in various cities • Entrepreneur Support Centres in Diyarbakır, Adıyaman, Sanlıurfa, Mardin, Gaziantep • Middle East Technical University Disaster Management Research and Implementation Centre (Ankara) • Sustainable Development Association in Erzurum, East Anatolia • Youth Centres in Southeast Anatolia • CISCO Networking Academies in Diyarbakır and Erzurum, Eastern Anatolia • Entrepreneur Support Centre in Erzurum In the past year, the UNDP Resident Representative has also appointed an 8-member UNDP Turkey Advisory Board. It consists principally of prominent Turkish academics, parliamentarians, journalists and individuals from the private sector in their personal capacities, who “guide” and advise the Resident Representative in the identification and implementation of the UNDP’s
3. UNDP’S STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PROGRAMME RELEVANCE programme. The role and effectiveness of this Board is as yet unclear as it is in its initial stages. It is likely that in order to be fully effective such a Board will require the continuous and intensive attention and substantive backstopping of the senior management of the UNDP Country Office. (iv) Strategic Challenge 4: Managing Key Partnerships With scarce resources and limited capacity in a large country, partnerships are critical for the UNDP’s effectiveness. But as in many other dimensions, a clear sense of priorities is also essential for selecting and nurturing partnerships, since not all potential partners can and should be equally attended to. The most important partnership for the UNDP is with the Government and its principal agencies and with its UN sister agencies. Selected other donors, private sector counterparts and CSOs are also important partners when the joint programmes are aligned with the UNDP and Government core priorities. The National Government: The effective implementation and financing of the UNDP’s programme depends critically on the ownership and support by key national Government Ministries. While the UNDP has had a direct relationship with line Ministries, regional administrations and the Prime Minister’s office in Turkey, its principal counterparts have been the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the SPO. The MFA does not play a significant role in domestic economic and social policy, and in the last few years, the SPO has had a much-reduced role, leaving other Ministries in the forefront. As a result, the UNDP’s access to economic and social policy decision makers has also been limited. With the SPO’s apparently enhanced role under the current Government, it is hoped that this access might improve. In the past, frequent turnover of staff, which is characteristic of the Turkish system due to party affiliations with newly elected Governments, has presented many problems for UNDP programme implementation. With the current Government expected to be firmly in place for some years, hopefully this will be less of an issue in the foreseeable future. Regional and Local Government Agencies: Despite its relatively small size, the UNDP has gained particular credibility and importance through its close programme partnership with large regional agencies (GAP) and regional programmes (LEAP). Further restructuring of these regional administrations is currently underway, and the role that the UNDP has played within their geographic areas of concern positions it well to play an important part in this process in future. Grassroots programmes through LA 21, LEAP and GAP have created a strong platform for the UNDP with local Governments at the municipal and provincial levels and by extension, with the Ministry of Interior. Despite the relatively limited volume of financial resources involved, the UNDP has gained a considerable repository of goodwill and trust that should be used as leverage in the arena of policy dialogue. The United Nations System in Turkey: Coordination of the UN system has been most effective and has received the most praise in the context of emergencies, first the earthquake and then the Iraq war. The UNDP, under the leadership of the Resident Coordinator and with the active participation of the Deputy Resident Representative was seen to have made a valuable substantive as well as administrative contribution to the success of UN response in both instances. Since the bombings in Iraq and more recently in Turkey itself, the UNDP has also taken the lead in security issues, and has devoted considerable capacity of its office to this issue. Regular coordination has been less successful to date, since UN agencies are relatively unfamiliar with each other’s programmes and projects and synergies have not been sufficiently explored. It is expected that greater, more substantive collaboration could lead to benefits at the project and programme level, greater leverage in policy dialogue and more room for the pursuit of priorities defined by the General Assembly and other UN organs. For instance, greater coherence among the UN agencies should enable more effective and active pursuit of concerns such as the MDGs and human rights conventions as they apply to the work of UN agencies. Furthermore, joint advocacy based on a common understanding of policy priorities should enable greater priority being attached to issues such as poverty alleviation in both the poor regions and in urban centres, population issues, internal migration, the role of women in society and effective environmental resources management. This could further be strengthened by UN agencies reserving funding to a common pool on specific issues such as gender and disaster management. As noted earlier, the UN agencies consulted do not view the 2001 CCA and the UNDAF as effective coordination 29
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 31: 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?