Reports - United Nations Development Programme

COUNTRY EVALUATION: ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS – TURKEY
60
CHART 5.1: DONORS (1998–2005)
MSAs – 49%
UNDP – 10%
Host Govt – 20%
Switzerland – 6%
Other 3rd party – 1%
Trust funds* – 14%
*includes GEF and EC funding
CHART 5.2: SOURCES OF UNDP TURKEY
PROGRAMME FUNDS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998-2000
MSAs
Cost sharing and trust funds
UNDP core
2001-2005
UNDP have been to maintain a certain level of critical
mass in its programme and administration. Third party
sources have also played important roles, such as
Switzerland, EC and GEF.
The Chart 5.1 illustrates the distribution of funding
sources since 1998.
For the UNDP, the implementation of MSAs has
largely involved the delivery of administrative services
such as procurement and contracting. For MSAs as well
as for some programmes funded through cost-sharing, the
substantive focus has been on the periphery of the core
focus areas of the UNDP’s own country programme.
Since 2000/2001 however, as the importance of MSAs as
a funding source declined, there was an increasing focus of
financial resources on poverty and governance. The
current programme’s financial picture has a much stronger
relevance to key UNDP thematic areas than was the case
in the 1990s (see Chart 3.1 in Chapter 3). Chart 5.2
demonstrates the shift towards using cost sharing and
trust funds to a much larger extent than before, which
allows for a stronger integration of externally funded
programmes into the mainstream of UNDP thematic
focus areas.
(iii) Future Resource Outlook
The outlook for 2004-2005 depends partly on the
efficiency in delivery of approved external funding. To
ensure an increase in the delivery efficiency, the Turkey
Country Office needs to overcome constraints created by
absences of several key senior staff for large parts of 2003,
and it needs to successfully follow up on the thorough
review and adjustment of business processes that took
place at the end of 2003. To illustrate this situation, Chart
5.3 represents estimates of delivery of funds from
different sources. It should be noted that this Chart
represents a conservative estimate of approximately 50%
delivery of currently approved programme funds for
2004-2005. If the current effort to re-build the UNDP’s
capacity on the programme side in Turkey goes smoothly,
a significantly higher delivery might be expected.
Many interlocutors stressed the fact that the UNDP’s
services continue to be in high demand in Turkey. The
comparative advantages mentioned include the position
of the UNDP as an impartial and substantive dialogue
partner, its ability to supplement and build Government
capacity, and its expertise in local level governance and
development. It is clear that a significant niche exists for
the UNDP since neither larger or smaller donors, nor the
Government, have the same ability to implement the
requisite programmes at the local level and help build the
needed capacity over the longer term. This should create
a significant potential for future resource mobilisation.
Hence in response to this demand for its services, the
UNDP urgently needs to develop a sustainable funding
strategy. This is also discussed in Chapter 3.
B. RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT – RBM
In Turkey, the UNCT went through the UNDAF process
in 2000, producing an UNDAF document for 2001-2005.
This was followed by the UNDP’s preparation and
approval of a CCF document, also for 2001-2005.
Based on the UNDAF and CCF, the UNDP office
prepared SRFs for 2001 and 2002. In addition to