Issue: 29
40 young men and women have been trained in hotel management and services in February-April 2008 among which 20 have already been employed in Afyonkarahisar, western town of Turkey through the fund. At least further 10 trainees will be placed in jobs by the end of the project in Afyonkarahisar.
In addition to its marble quarries, sucuk, (Turkish sausages) buffaloes and kaymak (thick desert cream), the natural mineral waters of Afyonkarahisar are renowned for their healing qualities, which is the basis for its Thermal Tourism sector. Despite the potential the registered rates of unemployment in the city are at about 8% while 53% of the total population of the province currently lives in rural areas. In this light the project has offered vocational training for youth in tandem with express demand from the major hotels in the city.
Subsequent to a UNDP call for proposals under the “TOBB Chambers of Commerce and Industry MDG fund” last year, “Training and Employment of Tourism and Hotel Management Personnel – Afyonkarahisar” was among the 10 projects that were granted funds. The project, which started on 14 December 2007 and will continue until the end 14 June 2008, is proving to be a success in forging key partnerships between Afyon Chamber of Commerce and Industry, civil society, NGOs and the Union of Thermal Tourism Hotels in identifying processes of sustainable cooperation to reduce poverty through training and employment in a sector of key importance for Afyonkarahisar. In similar fashion, there are currently 9 other on-going small scale projects across Turkey that are proving to be key in fostering private-sector partnership for achievement of local MDG and sustainable development targets, including strategic employment-generation activities… All projects are being implemented by Local Chambers of Commerce and Industry in partnership with LA 21 General Secretariats at the local level. All projects are taking place within the scope of component 4 of the main 4th phase LA 21 project entitled, “Localising MDGs in Turkey through the LA 21 Governance Network”…
Afyonkarahisar joined the LA 21 program in 1997 in the first year of the launching of LA 21 processes in Turkey subsequent to UN Istanbul Habitat Conference in 1996. Furthermore Afyonkarahisar’s membership to “United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) was finalized in February 2008.
Why the Millennium Development Fund?
This fund is one of the first of its kind and marks an important step by TOBB who has joined the UNDP along with the Local Agenda 21 family in support of Turkey’s Millennium Development Goals. The objective of this fund is to engage the private sector – through the leadership of TOBB- in making the Millennium Development Goals a reality in the lives of all of Turkey’s citizens across the country.
Beneficiaries
The aim of the MDG Fund is especially to demonstrate that partnerships between local authorities, businesses and civil society can and will result in sustainable developmental gains for people and the private sector, mutually beneficial to consumers and enterprises alike.
First the fresh water goby abandoned the streams of the historic southern city of Hatay in Turkey, then the eels that inexhaustibly migrate all the way from the Atlantic Ocean and feed on fresh water gobies failed to appear... Just when the thought of how much the fresh water grey mullet living in these streams would bear irresponsible fishing was being pondered, the Amanos Environment and Solidarity Association (AÇED) stepped in and initiated a public awareness project with the support of UNDP and BTC Company.
In recent months, in the context of the project predominantly implemented in the resort of Dörtyol-Kuzuculu:
This training project in Hatay is one of the nine projects that had received grants in the context of the second phase works of the BTC/UNDP Small Investments Fund Project. In this context, the project contributes to the projects of protecting biodiversity, use of renewable energy sources and developing ecologic and sustainable business projects implemented by NGOs and local governments in Erzurum, Kars, Adana, Osmaniye and Hatay as well as attaining the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Other projects that received grants in the context of the second phase of the BTC/UNDP Small Investments Fund Project and their implementors are as follows:
To read the “Fish Protection” brochure prepared in the context of the project implemented in Hatay, please clickhere. (English)
The project implemented by UNDP and Youth for Habitat Association with the financing of Vodafone Turkey aims to reach one million young people in 81 cities and to provide them with internet based European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) e-learning modules thus developing their capacities on the use of information technologies and increasing their standards to those of European youth. The principle target group of the project that is being realized with the cooperation of local youth platforms established under the context of Local Agenda 21 and the volunteer trainers of the “Young Trainers Teach Their Peers Basic Computer Skills” project (please click here to receive information on this project - Turkish) are disadvantaged youth and women under the age of 30. Following the completion of the infrastructure works of the internet portal of the project that was initiated in June 2007 and that will continue until the end of 2009, one thousand young people have already been reached as of April.
The portal, will inform youth about other youth studies in Turkey as well as the innovations in information technologies and will provide reciprocal information sharing through its forums. The “Bridging the Digital Divide” project not only supports narrowing the digital divide but will also transform youth in Turkey to become active citizens in the transition to information society by providing employment in communication technologies with qualified personnel.
Companies that participate in the United Nations Global Compact are required to produce an annual “Commucation on Progress” (COP) to their stakeholders which details progress made in implementing the ten Global Compact principles. The Global Compact Office in New York has therefore recently published a guide on how to create, share and post their COPs.
A COP that targets a company’s stakeholders such as its consumers, employees, shareholders, the media and the government sheds a light on the progress the company has made in internalizing corporate policies in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption and is essential for the company’s public accountability, transparency and continous improvement. COPs enhance the credibility and value of a company’s participation in the UN Global Compact, it serves as a source of information for stakeholders or a company’s environmental, social and governance activities and performance, provides learning, sharing and inspiration among other participants of the UN Global Compact and drives internal and external change for companies as well as protecting the integrity and accountability of the UN Global Compact initiative. In addition, COPs are excellent tools in preparing Corporate Social Responsibility reports not just for the members of the Global Compact but for any enterprise.
A COP therefore needs to be shared publicly either as hardcopy or on the company’s website and must also be uploaded on the Global Compact website. While there is no specific format or standard for a COP, the communication must include an executive statement of continued support for the Global Compact, a description of actions taken to implement the Global Compact principles and a measurement of current or expected outcomes.
The guide on “Communication on Progress” therefore not only explains how to create a COP but provides numerous examples of notable COPs including in all ten principles of the Global Compact. It shows how to create the most value with a COP and also includes additional resources such as tips, indicators, definitions and references to other publications.
A company’s first COP is due within two years of joining the Global Compact and every year thereafter. Companies must submit their COPs to be an “active” participant.
The UN Global Compact Office in New York had initially published a similar guide in 2005 which was then recently updated. The Turkish version of the guide was launched simultaneously with the English guide with the support of the Turkish Quality Association (Kalder). Currently the guide is only available in English and Turkish.
Article by Nicolas Jarraud
No one has lived in the hillside of Variseia since 1974. Nestled in the no man’s land dividing Cyprus between the Greek Cypriots living mainly in the southern part of the island and the Turkish Cypriots living mainly in the north, it has been abondoned to the elements and its stone walls are crumbling. But the village now hosts a very different type of inhabitant: the island’s largest wild mammal, the endemic Cyprus mouflon, of which a little over 3,000 remain, is now regularly encountered in the area.
The buffer zone, which in its present form was created in 1974 following the conflict on this small Mediterranean island, is strewn with minefields, patrolled by U.N. peace-keepers, and heavily guarded on either side by armed forces. Winding across Cyprus and dividing the capital, Nicosia, the buffer zone covers nearly 3 percent of the island, and is more than four miles wide in some places.
Has Cyprus’s demilitarized buffer zone become an unexpected wildlife sanctuary? This is what experts from the Greek – and Turkish-Cypriot communities have set out to discover in an unprecedented effort at multi-disciplinary scientific cooperation. There have been some ad hoc bi-communal scientific projects in the past, but this is the first time in over 30 years that such a wide-ranging attempt at evaluating the flora and fauna of the buffer zone has been undertaken. This effort may find evidence of endemic plant species such as the Tulipa cypria (Cyprus tulip) and the Ophrys kotschyi (Kotschyi’s orchid), as well as the fresh water terrapin (turtle). The buffer zone may also have protected plants and wildlife from the effects of the massive housing and tourism developments all over the island, which have threatened important habitats. According to ornithologist Iris Charalambidou, bird species such as the stone curlew are facing serious habitat loss outside of the buffer zone. If these birds have managed to establish breeding populations within the buffer zone, this could help secure their future on the island.
Salih Gücel, a Turkish Cypriot botanist who created the 14-member biodiversity team, explained that scientists from the two communities are working well together. “It’s going very well with our Greek Cypriot colleagues. We are all scientists and are all very curious. Everyone is very interested in this project so we don’t have problems”. Beyond acquiring biodiversity data, the project aims to show that the universal values of science, and a shared concern for the natural environment, can be important tools for peace-building, perhaps turning the buffer zone from a symbol of division into a symbol of hope for Cyprus.
Conflict and the environment
There are four possible conceptual relationships between the environment and conflict: the environment can serve as a bridge for building cooperation and trust in post-conflict situations; it can itself be a source of conflict, as in Sudan;[1] as well as a victim of conflict, as in the case of depleted uranium in the former Yugoslavia[2]. Sensitive habitats can sometimes be unintentionally preserved through prolonged reductions in socio-economic activities in post-conflict areas. In Cyprus, all four possibilities are present.
The environment serving as a peace-building tool is not new. The United Nations Environment Programme’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch, for example, has secured transboundary cooperation on pressing environmental issues between Israelis and Palestinians. UNDP’s support for bi-communal environmental projects in Cyprus goes back to 1998 (reforestation, organic farming, waste management), and the realization that the different communities on this small island are unable to resolve common environmental problems by themselves.
Environmental programming to reinforce inter-community cooperation in Cyprus has occured in stages. The first stage, until the late 1990s, saw the implementation of ‘parallel projects’, in which Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot experts worked in parallel on the same environmental issues, but worked independently and rarely met (this occured with efforts to eradicate various animal diseases on the island, such as Brucellosis and Echinococcosis). The opening of crossing points through the buffer zone in 2003 set the stage for the second phase – cooperative projects – whereby Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot experts worked independently but met regularly to coordinate their efforts on projects of common interest.
In the third phase, which began in 2005, emphasis shifted to the implementation of projects, run by bi-communal teams working together rather than independently. The biodiversity survey mentioned above is an example of this approach; another example is the creation of specialized networks, such as the Madison Dairy Advisory Group (MADAG), the Cyprus Organics Advisory Group (COAG), or, more recently, the Emergency Disease Forum (EDF) and the Cyprus Environmental Stakeholder Forum (CESF). These island-wide networks specialize in improving the dairy sector, promoting organic farming, dialogue on pandemic preparedness, and civil society environmental advocacy, respectively. As these groups and networks created by UNDP mature, it is hoped that they will move environmental cooperation to a fourth phase – of continous dialogue and coordination.
Of course, the island’s division does have negative environmental effects. The effective suspension of the EU’s environmental acquis in the Turkish Cypriot community[3] entails serious divergences in environmental standards, particularly regarding environmental impact assessments, cooperate environmental responsibility, urban planning, and the establishment of conservation areas. The recent tourism and housing boom in the Turkish Cypriot community has resulted in habitat loss, increased quarrying activities, and growing sanitation problems. Similarly, weak technical cooperation between the two communities on environmental issues raises risks of wildfires in the buffer zone, as well as pandemic outbreaks.
Buffer zones and biodiversity
It is against this background that Cyprus’s buffer zone has become a de facto environmental sanctuary. Similar situations can be found in other post-conflict settings, where the conflict aftermath produced a ‘no man’s land’. The demilitarized zone between North and South Korea over the last five decades has become a sanctuary for some endangered species.[4] Indeed, since 1974, some parts of the buffer zone in Cyprus are patrolled only by United Nations peacekeepers, whilst other parts are farmed but no new constructions are allowed. Hunting is forbidden in the buffer zone, which should further help protect endangered species. However, the biodiversity team (with the help of the Cyprus Game Fund) regularly uncovers evidence of hunting and illegal bird trapping in the buffer zone. Moreover, in the areas reserved for farming, the team often comes across illegal rubbish tips and containers for dangerous pesticides which are presumably dumped by nearby communities.
Even if rare endemic species are found to have survived in the buffer zone, without a serious dialogue with local communities, there is little hope that they would survive once the island is reunited. That is why, in a parallel project, a bi-communal team of scientists supported by UNDP is working with local villagers in Mammari (which lies on the edge of the buffer zone) to set up plant micro-reserves around sites where endemic orchids and tulips are believed to exist. This type of local dialogue is essential, especially on an island where biodiversity is not seen as a major concern. In fact, Cypriots were at the bottom of the list in a recent EU survey on attitudes towards biodiversity: 84 percent of respondents said they had never come across the concept.[5]
UNDP’s biodiversity project has therefore been integrated within the Cyprus Environmental Stakeholder Forum (CESF), a bi-communal network of specialists in various fields of environmental protection. The CESF was launched in 2007 by UNDP in cooperation with the Union of the Chambers of Cyprus Turkish Engineers and Architects (KTMMOB) and the Cyprus Technical Chamber (ETEK). The CESF seeks to create an island-wide network of environmental experts, strongly rooted in the local environmental civil society movement, and aimed at evidence-based environmental advocacy of common priorities for the island. By targeting the public and key decision-makers locally and abroad, the CESF hopes to have significant impact in the coming years, helping more Cypriots to work together, at least on environmental issues.
Nobody knows what the future will hold for the buffer zone’s flora and fauna, or whether it might be one day transformed into a peace park[6] or wildlife corridor. For now though, the work of the biodiversity team is providing, for the first time in 34 years, a wealth of knowledge on what species do exist within the Green Line, and offer the CESF and the environmental community at large the tools for recommending the best course of action for the buffer zone. The work of the team may have given scientists and environmentalists a taste for cooperation, no matter how or when the Cyprus Question is finally resolved.
Nicolas Jarraud is an Environmental Analyst for UNDP’s Action for Cooperation and Trust in Cyprus.
This article was taken from the Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States’s e-bulletin titled “Development and Transition”, April issue.
1] UNEP, 2007. Sudan: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. http://www.unep.org/sudan/.
[2] UNEP, 2001. Depleted Uranium in Kosovo – Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/uranium.pdf
[3] In accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 10 of the Act of Accession, which was signed in 2004.
[4] Kim, K.C. 1997. ‘Preserving biodiversity in Korea’s demilitarized zone’. Science, 278: 5336, pp. 242-243.
[5] Christou, J. 2008. ‘Biodiversity, what’s that?’, Cyprus Mail, 23 January 2008, p. 5.
[6] For more information about the concept of peace parks, one can visit the website of the peace parks foundation: www.peaceparks.org – they have catalysed efforts to ease international or local disputes through transboundary conservation efforts.
Article by JoAnn Carmin[*]
The basic premise is that these organizations advance democratic ideals by representing public interests, socializing individuals into norms of citizenship, and assisting in the delivery of services. Nowhere was this vision more prevalent than in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) at the time of the fall of state socialism. Due to the role that dissidents and opposition groups played in exposing the regime’s inadequacies, expectations ran high that NGOs would hold state authorities accountable in the new democracies.
The desire to help NGOs fulfill their democratic promise was reinforced by domestic and foreign governments and foundations, all of which dedicated resources to newly formed organizations as well as to some of the state-sponsored associations active in the previous regime that became independent. Efforts were made to develop NGO capacity in many domains, but from the outset, the environmental arena was a priority for numerous funders. Their interest was partly driven by the goal to rebuild civil society, and partly was a reaction to the high visibility of environmental activists in the period leading up and subsequent to the fall of the regimes.
The euphoria of the early transition years has since waned. Despite the initial emphasis on developing the capacity of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and promoting civic engagement in environmental policy making, management, and education, the perception has become widespread across the region that some of these organizations, particularly those that rely on contentious tactics, are acting in their own self-interests rather than those of society.
ENGOs in Central and Eastern Europe
To understand the character and activities of ENGOs in the region, in 2007 I conducted a survey of environmental organizations in the countries that joined the European Union in 2004. In the summary that follows, I report the results of the survey, which represents the responses of 838 ENGOs from the Czech Republic (206), Estonia (97), Hungary (227), Latvia (35), Lithuania (20), Poland (142), Slovakia (54), and Slovania (57), or 60 percent of those contacted.
Funding Sources and Income Levels
Since the transition, ENGOs have had to adapt to new funding realities associated with democratic societies and market economies. As Table 1 shows, when asked about the sources from which they receive funds directly, membership dues and domestic governments were the most important. Domestic government funding usually consists of grants or contract work sponsored by ministries of the environment, education, or regional development and, in some cases, subsidies from municipal funds. While the original sources of these funds vary, in many instances they are disbursed by the European Union (EU) through its associated institutional bodies, funds, and programmes to government agencies for research, education, and project-based activities. Some of these funds, in turn, are channelled by domestic governments to ENGOs to perform specific tasks. Although dues are critical to many organizations, most have struggled to generate membership even though these annual payments usually are quite modest.
In contrast to domestic funding sources, the ENGOs rated transnational funders as their least common financial supporters. Early on, the field was crowded with foreign foundations and foreign governments, including their bilateral agencies. In the run up to accession, most of the funders left the region or phased out their support. This transformation is reflected in the survey results which show that foreign foundations and foreign governments are the lowest-ranked supporters. While still at the lower end of the rankings, the most active transnational funder is the EU which, in addition to channeling support through governments, makes funding available directly to ENGOs through some of its programmes.
Table 1: Direct Sources of ENGO Support, 2005-2006
|
|
Some Support |
Primary Support |
|
Dues and individual contributions |
80% |
27% |
|
Domestic government |
73% |
40% |
|
Sales |
54% |
15% |
|
Domestic foundations |
51% |
13% |
|
Corporate sponsorships |
50% |
10% |
|
European Union |
35% |
15% |
|
Foreign foundations |
21% |
6% |
|
Foreign governments |
19% |
3% |
The sources of an ENGO’s funding are significantly related to its annual income. Even though relatively few ENGOs reported that the EU and foreign foundations are their primary funders, those that did have the highest incomes. In addition, those that drew their support from the EU, as well as from sales, had the greatest number of full and part-time staff. This suggests that ENGOs receiving funds directly from the EU tend to be among the wealthiest and most professionalized. While many ENGOs rely on dues and domestic foundations as their primary sources of support, in general, these organizations have the lowest annual incomes. Not surprisingly, ENGOs with large memberships also are the ones that rely on membership dues as their primary source of support. The results indicate that they also are the ENGOs with the lowest number of full- and part-time staff members.
Many ENGOs rely on a single source of funding for half or more of their annual income. Among these primary sources, once again, the largest were domestic governments and membership dues. The EU and domestic foundations (including intermediary funders) also serve as sources of primary support, although to a more limited number of organizations. Market forces have had an impact on organizational support: More than half of the ENGOs reported receiving at least some funding from sales and corporate sponsorships; and many count on these sources as their primary means of support.
Notable disparities are present between those NGOs at the lower and upper ends of the financial spectrum. Most ENGOs have very limited incomes; 55 percent reported that their annual budgets are less than 10,000 EUR, and 77 percent less than 50,000 EUR. As shown in Table 2, 11 percent of the ENGOs reported no income. At the other extreme, of those organizations that have incomes of 100,000 EUR and above, 8 percent are in the 100,000 – 250,000 EUR bracket, 4 percent are in the 250,000 to 500,000 EUR range, 2 percent have annual budgets above 500,000 EUR. In general, ENGOs with higher levels of funding have higher levels of staffing, suggesting that those with greater financial resources also tend to be more professionalized.
Table 2: Annual Income of CEE ENGOs in 200
|
Above 100,000 EUR |
14% |
|
50,001 – 100,000 EUR |
9% |
|
10,001 – 50,000 EUR |
22% |
|
1,001 – 10,000 EUR |
25% |
|
0 – 1,000 EUR |
19% |
|
No budget |
11% |
|
Total |
100% |
Activities and Reported Impact
The majority of ENGOs indicated that they engage in information dissemination activities (88 percent), environmental management (77 percent), and education and training (76 percent). Most thought that these efforts had an impact, particularly in terms of raising awareness and protecting nature. A majority of ENGOs also indicated that they engage in activities related to community and civil society support (64 percent) and policy promotion (58 percent). Community support activities consist of offering administrative, legal, and capacity-building services as well as providing expert opinion at local meetings and hearings while policy promotion includes lobbying, meeting with government representatives, drafting legislation, and conducting research and analysis. A smaller percentage of ENGOs pursue direct action tactics (39 percent) such as protests, petitions, and letter-writing campaigns. These organizations maintain that their efforts not only mobilize the public and call attention to issues, but also contribute to deliberation in society and democracy.
Do Funding Sources Determine Activities?
Many sources of ENGO funding correlate with particular types of organizational activity. As Table 3 illustrates, the more funding an NGO receives from the EU, the more likely it is to engage in policy promotion, community support, and education. Fewer ENGOs receive funds from foreign foundations, and those that do pursue a more diverse range of activities. Alternatively, organizations that engage in educational activities, such as offering training courses or lecturing at schools, receive the highest levels of support from both domestic and foreign foundations. Further, ENGOs that focus on information dissemination tend to find sponsorship from corporations, while those engaging in direct action generally fund their activities through dues and individual contributions. Some foreign foundations also allocate funds for direct action, but on a very limited basis. Even though a majority of ENGOs receive funding from domestic governments, there is no statistically significant relationship between this source of support and particular activities.
Table 3: Significant Relationships between Funding Sources and ENGO Activiti
|
|
Community Support |
Direct Action |
Education |
Environmental Management |
Informa-tion dissemina-tion |
Policy Promo-tion |
|
Foreign Foundations |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
European Union |
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
Domestic foundations |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
Membership dues |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate sponsorships |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Domestic government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign governments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<
Contributors |