Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Turkey

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office
Evaluation Type:
ICPE/ADR
Planned End Date:
12/2019
Completion Date:
12/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ICPE Turkey Annexes.pdf related-document English 1002.87 KB Posted 101
Download document ICPE Turkey ToR.pdf tor English 551.07 KB Posted 54
Download document ICPE Turkey evaluationBrief.pdf summary English 253.69 KB Posted 2
Download document ICPE_Turkey full report.pdf report English 6419.71 KB Posted 11
Title Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Turkey
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office
Evaluation Type: ICPE/ADR
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2019
Planned End Date: 12/2019
Management Response: No
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.2.2 Enabling environment strengthened to expand public and private financing for the achievement of the SDGs
  • 2. Output 2.1.2 Capacities developed for progressive expansion of inclusive social protection systems
  • 3. Output 3.1.1 Core government functions and inclusive basic services4 restored post-crisis for stabilisation, durable solutions to displacement and return to sustainable development pathways within the framework of national policies and priorities
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Elizabeth Wojnar Research Consultant elizabeth.wojnar@undp.org
Subramanyam Divvaakar
Rebecca Roberts
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: TURKEY
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

UNDP is strongly positioned to support resilience programme models to address Turkey’s development gaps as well as the Syrian crisis response. UNDP should continue its programming emphasis to address regional inequalities and disparities in development, and drawing on its well-tested programme models, it should continue facilitating long-term solutions to the Syrian crisis. 

The approach and themes in the ISG portfolio are well thought through and UNDP should continue this engagement. UNDP should consider engaging in efforts to strengthen the enabling environment for the competitiveness agenda at the subnational level. This is essential to take further several successful UNDP pilots with potential for replication and upscaling. Within the overall competitiveness assessments, the critical importance of effective management of the external sector, and the finance and investment climate needs specific attention, as these areas impact all sectors of the national economy and impede competitiveness gains in strategic sectors: agriculture, efficient and clean energy, and tourism. While other actors are more specialized in this area, UNDP has strong justification as a knowledge integrator and disseminator to collaborate with specialized agencies working on macroeconomic resilience. 

UNDP in Turkey is uniquely positioned to leverage its existing ISG programme models to provide support to sustainable job creation, rather than support on the labour supply side. Building on its programme models in the ISG area, UNDP should support initiatives with a longer-term focus aimed  at providing more sustainable income and employment generation options.

UNDP has an important niche in environmental governance. Given the challenges in financing for energy efficiency models it promoted, UNDP should pursue a two-pronged strategy of policy advocacy as well as assess market potential, particularly engagement of the private sector. Greater synergy between the energy efficiency portfolio should be forged (completed, ongoing, and pipeline initiatives) for a more coherent engagement in the sector, in particular, competitiveness, energy security, resource efficiency, and renewable energy.

Despite the limited space for governance engagement, UNDP has been successful in establishing strong partnerships across institutions. Moving forward, UNDP should consolidate its core governance support by building on its municipal level engagement and local administration reform support. UNDP should consider stronger engagement in e-governance and digitalization, priority areas for Turkey.

2

UNDP should respond appropriately to opportunities to support Turkey’s development cooperation and the indigenization of Turkish technology and development models in LDCs and lower MICs. The UNDP country office and the IICPSD should have a well-coordinated strategy to play a greater and concerted role in this area. 

UNDP has the advantage of a tripartite partnership with Turkey, at country, regional, and global programmes levels. This provides opportunities for facilitating Turkey’s LDC engagement building on the current country level engagements to share programme models, knowledge, and expertise. Programme models UNDP promoted in the area of energy efficiency, renewable energy, competitiveness, organic agriculture, and community tourism offer viable practices for sharing with other countries. 

There is a need for further clarity on the role of the country office, and IICPSD, particularly the role the policy centre would play; there should be a greater distinction between IICPSD activities from that of those of country office. While IICPSD should have a greater focus on providing strategies and technical support, the country office and the regional hub should play a greater role in the facilitation of Turkey’s LDC cooperation.

3

UNDP has taken measures to accelerate its private sector engagement beyond corporate social responsibility and use its subnational presence to facilitate private sector partnerships in development and Syrian crisis response. Such efforts should be sustained and further accelerated using a diverse set of tools to engage private sector appropriately. UNDP should prioritize development areas for a more concerted private sector engagement with commensurate resource investments to implement appropriate tools.

UNDP is well-positioned to enable a stronger engagement with Turkey’s private sector for accelerating the sustainable development agenda and resilient approaches to the Syrian crisis. UNDP should focus more at the subnational level where it has well-tested programme models and strong partnerships with Development Agencies and municipal governments. UNDP should explore a mix of tools, both financial and nonfinancial, flexible tools that are fit for the purpose that can maximize the impacts of partnership at the Development Agencies and municipal levels. Similarly, it should explore the possibility of establishing integrator platforms to engage the private sector at the subnational level in selected themes. 

As outlined in Recommendation 2, UNDP should strategize to engage Turkey’s private sector in development support to LDCs, a key agenda of Turkey’s LDC cooperation. There is considerable scope across UNDP programme areas to engage the private sector more effectively, bringing Turkish knowledge, intellectual capital and technological innovations into instruments of development cooperation for LDCs and other lower MICs.
 

4

Given the upper MIC status of Turkey, working on substantive policy spaces are bound to be limited in the area of governance. Based on its partnerships, UNDP is well-positioned to support Turkey in its local administration reform efforts. UNDP over the years provided policy support and has piloted several subnational programme models across its portfolio that can inform local administration reform processes. UNDP should leverage on its work for a more coherent engagement in this area. 

UNDP programme models should move towards more focused engagement and consolidation for policy impact. UNDP has established strong partnerships at the RDA and municipal levels and has a robust working relationship with the national agencies. Building on programme models that are successful at the subnational level, UNDP should engage in policy advocacy in the areas of competitiveness, energy efficiency, service delivery, and local administration reforms. 

Breaking programme and project silos is fundamental to enhancing UNDP contribution to local administration reform processes. UNDP should have a deliberate approach to overcoming programme silos within/between programme areas and themes. Similarly, the consolidation of programme areas will strengthen UNDP’s response and improve contribution to policy processes. UNDP should identify key themes for a consolidated engagement. 

There is greater scope to leverage partnerships at the national and local level for policy engagement. With the restructuring of government institutions, finding the balance between national-level engagement and implementation support at the decentralized levels calls for the more effective articulation of UNDP value-added in both areas.
 

5

UNDP has made considerable progress in strengthening gender mainstreaming in UNDP programme and operations. This momentum should be sustained to enhance GEWE-related programme outcomes. 

UNDP should continue the ongoing measures to address gaps in GEWE mainstreaming identified by the Gender Seal. For more targeted interventions, UNDP should build partnerships to boost the scale and scope of initiatives.

6

The 3RP mechanism evolved stronger over the past two years. Given the protracted nature of the crisis, UNDP should revisit the form and the purpose of 3RP and its engagement in Turkey. 

Given the government emphasis on development approach to addressing Syrian crisis issues, and limited acceptance of 3RP framework by key donors and IFIs, the scope and purpose of UNDP’s engagement in 3RP needs to be revisited. There should be a greater focus on/use of initiatives that demonstrate a holistic approach to humanitarian challenges rather than investments in coordination mechanism. 

Issues such as larger humanitarian programme windows that are now sidling into development programme windows and their implications for resilience need wider discussion among humanitarian agencies and donors. Given its notable engagement and coordinating role in the 3RP, UNDP should take a leadership role in facilitating such strategic discussions, in collaboration with other UN agencies and donors.
 

7

UNDP should clarify its SDG integrator role to national actors and donors. Building on the momentum of the Accelerator lab and initiatives such as the B4G, UNDP should explore developing signature solutions that would be used in Turkey as well as applied in LDC support of Turkey.

UNDP should outline areas where UNDP can provide integrator platforms at the national and subnational level. Given the Turkey context, there should be a more structured engagement of the private sector in specific SDG activities. Lessons from initiatives such as the Global Compact will be important for enabling a more structured and well-coordinated platform.
 

8

The 3RP mechanism evolved stronger over the past two years. Given the protracted nature of the crisis, UNDP should revisit the form and the purpose of 3RP and its engagement in Turkey. 

Given the government emphasis on development approach to addressing Syrian crisis issues, and limited acceptance of 3RP framework by key donors and IFIs, the scope and purpose of UNDP’s engagement in 3RP needs to be revisited. There should be a greater focus on/use of initiatives that demonstrate a holistic approach to humanitarian challenges rather than investments in coordination mechanism. 

Issues such as larger humanitarian programme windows that are now sidling into development programme windows and their implications for resilience need wider discussion among humanitarian agencies and donors. Given its notable engagement and coordinating role in the 3RP, UNDP should take a leadership role in facilitating such strategic discussions, in collaboration with other UN agencies and donors.
 

Management response not available

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org