Reports - United Nations Development Programme

4. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT RESULTS AND UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION
At present, the GAP administration is going through
a major restructuring process as a result of both the
current Public Administration Reforms, as well as the
EU’s Regional Disparities Programme. New regional
institutions are to be established and new regional
programmes will be funded with EU support. There
appears to be great enthusiasm in the Government for
continuing the partnership with the UNDP for
addressing regional disparities with new projects. A
proposal for a pilot rural development project in the
region with EU funds is currently under consideration. It
would seem only natural for the UNDP to bring its
comparative advantages to bear by remaining a major
substantive partner for the national and regional
authorities in this important area.
ENTREPRENEUR SUPPORT
AND GUIDANCE CENTRES (GI˚DEM)
The GI˚DEM Approach and Experience
The GI˚DEM initiative, a major sub-programme under
GAP, deserves special attention, since it received
sustained support from the UNDP and represents an
interesting effort to help regional development through
strengthening the economic base of a backward region.
Indeed, the experience with this sub-programme was
replicated not only elsewhere in Turkey (in the LEAP
programme), but is also intended to be shared in some
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
GI˚DEMs were established through a UNDP-GAP
partnership in 1997 in five centres of Southeast Anatolia:
Gaziantep, Diyarbakır, Mardin, Adıyaman and Şanlıurfa.
The first phase of the project, which was funded by the
UNDP, was finished in 2002. The same year, following a
six-month interim period, the EU provided funds for the
project in all centres, except for the one in Gaziantep as
this had already been replaced by an EU Business
Development Centre. The UNDP became the project
execution body for the second phase.
Although there has been considerable continuity,
GI˚DEM activities differed somewhat across the two
phases. Between 1997 and 2002, there was great diversity
in the projects within and across centres. Many of the
projects were targeted at smaller enterprises with
significant involvement and local ownership from the
Regional State of Emergency Governor’s Office
(Olağanüstü Hal Valiliği). Besides providing business
advice services, GI˚DEMs were involved with many
diverse activities, from compiling the Inventory of
Industries in the province, to many small-scale projects
BOX 4.1: STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL
CAPABILITIES OF MALARIA SERVICES
IN TURKEY – A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT
THAT PROVED UNSUSTAINABLE
In the late 1970s, especially after irrigation was introduced in
the GAP region, there was a gradual recurrence of malaria in
Turkey, reaching epidemic proportions in the 1990s. In 1998,
36,824 cases were recorded. The project entitled “Strengthening
the National Capabilities of Malaria Services in Turkey” was
developed by the UNDP Country Office in 1998. This project
was carried out by the National Malaria Control Directorate
(Ministry of Health) in cooperation with WHO. The GAP-RDA
became the executing agency.
All of the expected outputs were successfully achieved. With
the help of WHO international consultants, a regional strategy
and a plan of action were developed. The Adana Malaria Institute,
the closest to the region, was provided with laboratory supplies.
The Ministry of Health welcomed most of the improvements.
However, the human capacity building component of the
project experienced difficulties. Even though the individuals
trained had showed great aptitude, enthusiasm and dedication,
the turnover in personnel was overwhelming. Only 10-20% of
the trained group stayed in the region.
The Diyarbakır Malaria and Tropical Diseases Research and
Training Center was established independent of the project.
Even though this center may prove to be a great asset, how
much of the experience and knowledge accumulated in Adana
is actually being transferred to this new center is in doubt.
The project has certainly updated the technical knowledge and
human capacity for malaria services in Turkey. Nevertheless,
it is very difficult to assess the impact of this project on the
region. One very important reason for this outcome was that
the Ministry of Health did not have a regional action plan, and
could not retain the trained personnel in the region. It is not
apparent that the UNDP and the government ever took stock
of the lessons learned from this project.
aimed at income generation. In view of the minimal
capacity for project proposal writing and implementation,
GI˚DEMs provided a readily available advisory resource.
They were also asked to help develop projects for
employment and income generation in areas ranging from
silk production to the making of pavement stones, and to
organise a market for the handicrafts of local women.
This flexibility, enthusiasm, responsiveness and good
technical support made Diyarbakır GI˚DEM a highly
sought organisation, so much so that in the six-month
interim period between two sources of finance, the
governor’s office and the local business community partly
supported the project. Meanwhile, the other four
GI˚DEM offices were closed until they received EU
funding.
In the second stage (started in September 2002),
GI˚DEMs have focused more on business development,
although they have also helped the local authorities and
NGOs with many of their projects despite their overload.
At present, GI˚DEMs concentrate on business
43