Issue: 8
The General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity in Turkey runs 931 Foundations under its umbrella. All of these foundations have the same status. They all have the same mission and responsibilities. Their purpose is to support the State in fulfilling its responsibilities towards poor people by distributing state aids to those who really need them. But only in one of the 931 places where the foundations are established, in Edirne, do the poor folks often name their new-born babies ‘Hicran'. This is not a coincidence. This is because the Director of Edirne Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundation is named Hicran.
Mrs. Hicran Balı has been working for the Edirne foundation for 16 years. Her dedication and success, and popularity among poor people are legendary. Almost all residents of Edirne's poor neighbourhoods have a story about Hicran hanım. How a convict she previously helped sent her handicrafts from the prison, embroidered with her name; how the students she taught to read and write later helped her translate an EU project document. Such anectodes are innumerable.
We asked Hicran hanım about the secrets of her success. But let us first give a short account of UNDP's involvement in the works of the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity.
UNDP - Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundation cooperation:
UNDP conducts a $ 124,000 'Social Assistance and Solidarity Project' in cooperation with the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity, to bring forth good practice examples in the area of social aid, disseminate such examples on the internet and other media, to promote public discussion on the subject, and provide a model for other institutions and authorities. The target of the project is to enhance the social content of aid network in Turkey and to promote citizen-centered services. UNDP has built a website for this purpose and is organizing various seminars and workshops to support the development of pro-poor policies.
The works of the Foundation in Edirne is one of the best examples that can be used in this project. First of all, the services of this foundation are really inclusive. Usually, the Roma people, who constitute the majority of the disadvantaged target group, determine the scope of the services. The compass of the work done in Edirne forms a very good example for other provinces with similar social structures. On the other hand, the range of the foundation's services in Edirne, as in many other towns, seems to depend on the good will and personal efforts of the managers and staff. Here is what Hicran Balı told us on this subject:
Hicran Balı (H.B.): Our colleagues working in foundations and other social institutions often complain about the difficulty of our job, about the very heavy and labourious conditions and the amount of overtime work they do. Whenever I get a chance to meet them, I tell them what a beneficial work we are doing, how important it is to be of some hope for desperate people, how lucky we should consider ourselves to be of help in solving their problems, how happy I feel when I see the sparkle in their eyes when they cry, not with helplessness, but with joy. I feel these emotions in every instant of my work, and I guess that's why the services of the institution I represent are appreciated by the public in general. We all work, we all tire, we all labour, we all make sacrifices from our personal lives, but in the end we may create some changes in the lives of some poor families. In the past, some of the service buildings here were insufficiently equipped and under capacity. But we didn't make it a big issue. We created solutions and seized the opportunities. Now we have almost perfect facilities. These buildings, where I feel at home, are also home to poor people. In the cold winter months, many people spend their day in the lounge here. It is possible for us to bring warmth, comfort and peace to these poor people, with a little altruism and passion, a little self-sacrifice.
We can solve many problems with the help of state-citizen collaboration. For example, we had a young girl who came 57th in the university entrance exam and was accepted to Boğaziçi University. But her mother was disabled and her father had some harmful addictions; they could not support their daughter. She came to us crying, in fear that she won't be able to go to university. We managed to provide a little support from the budget of the Foundation; then we found a benevolent citizen who was happy to extend her a monthly scholarship during the course of her education. Our girl graduated from Boğaziçi with honors this year, and will soon go to America to work as a lecturer at a university. Can there be a greater happiness than this for us? There are many such examples. We had two sisters, both going to university in Nevşehir, we supported them both with monthly study grants. We found a job for their unemployed father, arranged health insurance for their mother and she got treatment in a hospital. The elder sister is now in America, studying to improve her English. We are like a centre of attraction at the Foundation here. Benevolent people who want to contribute, in cash or in goods, to those who really need it, apply to our Foundation through the channel of Edirne Governorship.
But in my opinion, our biggest success is the projects we have been implementing lately. We prepare projects, find grants and implement our projects. We want to prove to everybody that our institution is not just a social security establishment, or a monthly pension payment office like SSK (Social Security Organisation) or Emekli Sandığı (Retirement Fund). We want to provide the opportunity for abled people to find a livelihood and maintain a decent standard of life by their own efforts.
UNDP Turkey: How do you do this?
H.B.: For the last five years, in addition to the material support we give to people, we've also been helping them to find jobs. Seeing our efforts, some of these unemployed people set about to start their own business, and applied to our Foundation. The Board of Trustees approves most of these applications and passes them to the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity. The results are usually positive. Apart from the projects, we also help people set up small businesses. The aim here is to assist people to work in areas in which they are skilled and thereby earn a decent income. Of course, there are no definitive regulations in this matter. It's the Board of Trustees of the Foundation who decides how the support will be extended. The Board evaluates the applications in twice-monthly meetings.
A short while ago we developed a new project. In one of the central neighbourhoods of our city, crime rate had recently escalated. Security teams carried out several operations in the neighbourhood. Then the Chief of Police, the Governor and the Mayor went there to talk with the residents. When asked what they wanted, the neighbourhood people said, “Jobs!”. So as a first measure, the Police Department, the Governorship and the Municipality have jointly mobilized their resources to find jobs for ex-convicts and chief trouble-makers in this district. And then, together with these authorities, we decided about creating employment opportunities for these people. Construction labour sector in our town is generally dominated by migrant workers from eastern provinces of Turkey. We decided to train the unemployed men in this neighbourhood in building work, painting, whitewashing, etc., so they can take over vacant job positions in this sector. Also, many people in our part of the country have unusual talent for music. So, we arranged the cooperation of some professional musicians, who are themselves from the same or nearby neighbourhoods, to teach gifted youngsters to perform music professionally. We prepared two vocational training projects. We are going to train 18 apprentice musicians to play darbuka (or dümbek, a kind of lap drum), dulcimer, clarinet and organ, and how to keep rhythm and harmony. In another workshop, we are going to train 14 men how to do professional jobs in masonry, painting, whitewashing, tile laying, etc. At the end of the courses, we will try to place our trainees in jobs.
When unrest escalated in the Roma community's neighbourhood, the Police Department, the Governor, the Mayor and the Foundation have all intervened to calm things down. Together they went to the neighbourhood to talk with the residents, and heard their complaints. They found jobs for the needy. One of the men who were placed in jobs, Türkün, tells his story:
Türkün: Thanks to our Chief of Police, our Governor and our Mayor. They find jobs for us poor folks. Bless them. They all make it their business to help us out.
UNDP Turkey: Where do you work now?
Türkün: It's a temporary job, at the Municipality.
UNDP Turkey: But you still get aid support?
Türkün: Yes, we get child support, for school, for provisions, for wood or coal.
UNDP Turkey: Do you have children?
Türkün: Yes, 10 of them. Two still go to school. The rest are grown up. They are married, with children.
UNDP Turkey: How was your situation before you began to receive aid from the Foundation?
Türkün: Our kids used to go robbing places, breaking-in here and there, right and left! Now we are at ease, things have calmed down in the neighbourhood. If the State didn't intervene, troubles would have continued. Authorities found jobs for 30 people. We were dicriminated against because we were “clueless”! But authorities gave us a really helping hand. We don't feel discriminated anymore.
UNDP Turkey: How did the Social Risk Reduction Project, implemented country-wide with the support of the World Bank, and the Conditional Cash Transfers made within this framework affect your efforts?
H.B.: When the Social Risk Reduction Project (SRRP) was first started, we didn't have many local work examples in this area, so we could not do much in 2002, the year the project began. When we really absorbed the gist of the project, we started developing sub-projects to help people build their own businesses and earn a living. Our first priority area was animal husbandry in rural regions. We developed projects on sheep farming, giving 10 sheep and one ram to each family, altogether 79 families. There is good money in sheep farming. Some families even later increased the number of their sheep. To the first 39 families we gave the animals as complimentary. The second party of 20 families returned us 2 sheep from their re-produced stock two years later. We gave those sheep to other families with the same condition. 20 families became 31. In the last project we made, we will receive the return as cash. We will use this money on cattle investment (cows and bulls). In these projects, the beneficiaries start paying back in the second year and finish the payments (without being charged interest) in three years. In all these projects we achieved 95% (in cattle farming 100%) repayment ratio.
We also prepared a 120-hour training project on ‘Fruit Production and Hothouse Cultivation', within the scope of Turkish Labour Organisation (İş-Kur) and Privatisation Social Support Programme, under the coordination of the Directorate of Agriculture. We trained 20 people on fruit and vegetable growing. İş-Kur provided the entire budget of this project. The trainees were paid a modest allowance, plus transport and food expenses. We made the commitment to provide 20% employment to the trainees, and we kept our promise by developing a fruit production project within the context of SRRP. We planted dwarf apple orchards for three persons, a peach and nectarine orchard for one, and developed a vineyard project for another person. We periodically check out these orchards and we see they are very well taken care of. Some trees already bear fruits.
In the area of education, also as part of the SRRP, we held courses for university exam preparation for economically disadvantaged students. The Foundation paid the teachers' wages, SRRP paid rest of the expenditures. 27 of our students succeeded in the exam.
UNDP Turkey: Are Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) also used in Edirne?
H.B.: Yes. And we loved that project! On condition that they send their children to school and have their medical check-ups periodically, families with primary and secondary school-age children, as well as parents with 0-6 year old kids, receive cash support. Unconditional cash support wasn't really approved, anyway. This project was a great relief for us. Families who use CCT did actually start to send their kids to school and have their check-ups regularly. Since they know their CCTs will be cut if they violate the conditions, parents pay more attention and take better care of their children now. Meanwhile, some parents themselves apply to us to help them find jobs. We started the CCT project in 2004. To date, we extended CCTs to 2155 families in child education and health care. We continue this aid.
UNDP Turkey: Have you developed other projects within the framework of SRRP?
H.B.: Yes, in fact many. We have ‘Kirişhane Social Centre' project, conducted by Social Services Directorate. We have ‘My Beautiful School' project, and ‘Citizen-centered Governance' project. Then we have the ‘Child and Youth Centre' project for disabled children, whose building improvements are underway, the cost of which is shared by SRRP and the Governorship of Edirne. We are going to set up computer, photography, painting and drama workshops there. We want to make sure all kids benefit equally from the educational and social activities and all share equal rights. We'll have two libraries in the building, one for adults and one for children. The Ce
“Integrative, community-based approach essential to help lift Roma and displaced out of poverty,” says UNDP report.
Greater inclusion is needed to fight social exclusion of vulnerable groups in the Balkans.
“At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe” , presents for the first time a wealth of survey data on the situation of Roma, refugees and IDPs in Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH), Bulgaria, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia, including the UN-administered province of Kosovo. It offers a comprehensive and statistically rich picture of the problems vulnerable groups face in the region – and puts forward pragmatic, concrete policy advice on what governments, the international community and representatives of vulnerable groups themselves can do to break this vicious cycle of poverty and exclusion.
As the Balkan region looks to a more prosperous future after a decade driven by conflict, ensuring that the most vulnerable are not left behind is imperative to these countries' maintaining social cohesion and eventually joining the EU, said Kalman Mizsei, UN Assistant Secretary General and UNDP Regional Director for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
“This report comes at a key moment, with Montenegro's recent emergence as an independent state, with the future status of Kosovo to be determined, with Bulgaria and Romania on the cusp of joining the EU,” said Mr. Mizsei. “As the future of the Balkans is being decided, we must take the opportunity to address the needs of the most vulnerable and eradicate these deep pockets of poverty which threaten the social cohesion of this fragile, post-conflict region.”
Crucially, At Risk does not limit its analysis to the at-risk groups themselves – it also examines the socioeconomic status of ‘majorities living in close proximity'. “Exclusion of society's vulnerable takes place at the local level, in the constant interaction with other groups. In order to foster inclusion, it is vital that we understand these interactions,” said Andrey Ivanov, lead author of the report. “What's more, the majority populations living side by side with Roma or displaced groups often face some of the same risks - examining the overall picture can outline the common challenges that need to be addressed.”
The report therefore advocates ‘group sensitive area-based approaches' - policies that take groups' specifics into account but address them in the context of local, territorially-defined frameworks. Such an approach offers the potential to integrate, and not segregate.
“The importance of inclusive policy interventions that target the specific needs of the at-risk group but emphasize an integrative approach is particularly evident in this region, where – tragically – group identity has so often been defined along ethnic lines and has helped to fuel conflict,” said Mr. Mizsei.
Fulfilling the Decade promise
At Risk builds on the work of Avoiding the Dependency Trap, UNDP's groundbreaking 2002 report on the Roma in Central Europe, which offered a deeper, more complex view of the Roma by providing quantitative data that complemented the human rights paradigm with a development perspective.
Roma are a diverse people, with an estimated eight million living in Europe. But in all countries of the region they are among the most likely to live in absolute poverty, to receive less education, to be shut out of the job market, to suffer worse health.
In response the governments of Central and Southeast Europe launched in 2005 the Decade of Roma Inclusion to work toward eliminating discrimination and closing the unacceptable gaps between Roma and the rest of society. The area-based development focus espoused by At Risk offers a way to fulfill this pledge, said Mr. Mizsei.
“The Decade of Roma Inclusion has resulted in many important achievements on the level of policy and advocacy, but we have yet to see much in terms of practical implementation,” said Mr Mizsei. “The recommendations contained in this report can spearhead efforts to translate these political commitments and good intentions into action.”
UNDP hosted a conference with partner Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in November 2005 to explore measures for addressing the challenges facing Roma in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, which provided the basis for the recommendations in At Risk.
Towards a ‘Decade of the Displaced'
In addition to Roma At Risk addresses the situation of the displaced – refugees and IDPs, a significant vulnerable group in the Balkans. The 1990s was one of the most tumultuous periods in the recent history of the region, with the collapse of the Yugoslav Federation followed by a decade of violence and ethnic strife, which in turn resulted in the displacement of millions.
Unlike Roma, displaced persons were not necessarily vulnerable before their displacement – most had property, homes, jobs. Displacement brings a double blow: in addition to becoming refugees or IDPs, the displaced lose their middle-class status and find themselves among the most excluded in society. At Risk argues that like the Roma, the displaced need priority attention, and underscores the importance of resolving their legal status to achieve real advances in poverty reduction and overcoming exclusion.
As humanitarian assistance for the displaced is being phased out but appropriately crafted development programmes have yet to come on line, the report advocates for the creation of a broader framework of international support to address the vulnerability of refugees and IDPs in the region. A ‘Decade of the Displaced' could help mobilize governments to approach these issues in a systematic manner.
“A concerted, joint effort is required to address the needs of the displaced – although I believe that working together we can ensure that it will not take ten years to achieve this goal,” said Mr. Mizsei.
The main purpose of the meeting was to inform all related public institutions, NGOs, municipalities and universities in Turkey about GEF. The other aim was to start a workshop to determine Turkey's priorities in the areas of climate change and biodiversity, in compliance with the newly-implemented ‘Resource Allocation Framework' system.
Nearly 150 representatives from UNDP, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), World Bank, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, public institutions and establishments, NGOs, universities, environment and forestry directorates of provincial governments and municipalities participated in the meetings. On the second day of the conference, the participants clustered into work groups to determine Turkey's priority issues in this area.
We interviewed Mr. Salih Ayaz, Division Director, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, about the outcome of the meetings. Mr. Ayaz's branch is responsible for carrying out all GEF activities and operations, on behalf of Undersecretary Prof. Dr. Hasan Zulhi Sarıkaya, (the chief focal point for GEF in Turkey).
Salih Ayaz (S.A.): At the National Dialogue Meeting, GEF authorities gave detailed information to the participants about the Global Environment Fund, the procedures for preparing project proposals, the Resource Allocation Framework and the Culture Support Programme. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry made various presentations on the existing situation and the country's priorities in the areas of biodiversity, climate change and land degredation, as well as Turkey's approach to GEF funds and expectations, and the coordination mechanism of GEF. Following the information and presentation sessions, the participants gathered into work groups to determine the priorities in four areas: biodiversity, climate change, land degredation, and the Small Grants Programme. Each group specified at least 10-15 priorities, among which energy efficiency and conservation ranked first in the agenda.
UNDP Turkey: What exactly is the Global Environment Fund?
S.A.: Established in 1991 by the United Nations, GEF is an independent financial organisation, helping developing countries fund projects that protect and improve the global environment. GEF has several focal areas. These were firstly biodiversity, climate change, ozone layer and international waters. In 2002, following the 2nd GEF Assembly held in Beijing, land degredation and persistent organic pollutants were also added to the focal areas. Concerning our country, I'd like to point out that GEF also acts as the financial mechanism for three global agreements, namely the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Turkey has signed these three conventions. It has also signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, but has not yet endorsed it. Because of this situation, Turkey cannot get UN funding for projects in this particular area.
UNDP Turkey: What is GEF's budget? And what is Turkey's share in it?
S.A.: GEF builds it budget on contributions from donor countries and the recipient countries themselves. Presently in its forth stage, GEF's 4-year budget is approximately $ 3.2 billion. This money is distributed among regional projects and individual country projects. However, according to the ‘Resource Allocation Framework' that came into effect on 1 June, 2006 --and which focuses on climate change and biodiversity-- individual countries cannot get funding for individual projects. In our region, I think Turkey and the Russian Federation are the only countries which get Resource Allocation to fund individual projects in biodiversity and climate change areas.
UNDP Turkey: Does this have to do with the size of a country?
S.A.: There are some formulas for determining the amount of resource allocations. GEF has various criteria concerning the size of a country, as well as the (fauna and flora) species covered in the Convention on Biodiversity. The resource allocated to Turkey for projects on biodiversity, for a period of 4 years, is $ 4.7 million. That is the total amount of funds we can receive for projects we develop. In the area of climate change, we can use another $ 13.7 million. As I said before, since the other focal areas are not included in this framework, there are no limitations there. We can get as much funding as needed for the number of suitable projects we can develop.
As for the other areas: for example, funds mostly go to the Russian Federation and the nearby regions for projects involved with the depletion of the ozone layer. We don't get any funding for ozone protection. We don't receive any funds in the area of the protection of international waters, either, since we haven't signed UN's agreements regarding International Waters. As for Land Degredation, I believe, there is some work underway at the Ministry of Environment on this issue. In the area of organic pollutants, I hope we will develop some good projects, once Turkey signs the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
UNDP Turkey: Who can benefit from GEF? Is it only governments who can apply for GEF funds?
S.A.: GEF funds are granted to three types of projects. One of them is the Small Grants Programme (SGP). Organized through UNDP channels, this fund is extended to those projects with a budget of maximum $ 50,000. Generally speaking, NGOs, public institutions, municipalities and universities are the beneficiaries of SGP funds.
UNDP Turkey: Are SGP funds given every year? If so, how?
S.A.: UNDP has a resident National Coordinator (NC), dealing with SPG funds. Reporting to the National Coordinator, is a Project Steering Committee. This committee consists of representatives from our Ministry of Environment and Forestry's GEF Operations, Undersecretariat of Treasury, State Planning Organisation, and academic experts. Civil society organizations (NGOs) first present their project proposals to the NC. These proposals are prepared, under the guidance of the NC, according to the GEF format, and then presented to the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee approves some of these projects, rejects others, and sends some others for reviewing.
UNDP Turkey: How often does the Committee meet?
S.A.: The Steering Committee meets twice or three times each year. In each meeting there would be 3-10 projects to judge. For example, we had 4 new projects at the April meeting, and one project evaluation. We sent back the evaluation to be shortened. We approved 2 of the new projects, revised one and cut its budget, and refused one.
UNDP Turkey: When we look at EU funds or UN's other funds, we see that project proposal are presented almost always through a bidding process, i.e. there must be a call for proposals. I think, only GEF gives funds to environmental protection projects developed by NGOs, without waiting for a proposal call. Is that so?
S.A.: Yes, but this resource is rather limited. GEF limited its funds in its the fourth period even more. But Turkey has been benefiting from the Small Grants Programme (SGP) since the 1990s. Until now, 134 projects have been supported by SGP. $ 2,666,000 have been allocated to these 134 projects from the GEF fund.
UNDP Turkey: What kind of projects does SGP support?
S.A.: Small grants can be given to all kinds of projects covered in the scope of GEF's focal areas. But so far, most of the proposed projects were concerned with biodiversity and climate change. Lately there has been a few projects on land degredation. Land degredation is a relatively new focal area, included in GEF's budget in 2002.
UNDP Turkey: So far we discussed GEF's Small-Scale Projects. What would you say about other kinds of GEF projects?
S.A.: We have Medium-Scale Projects, whose budgets can go up to $ 1 million. All sorts of public establishments and institutions, universities, NGOs (in partnership with public institutions) can apply for these project funds. Medium-scale projects fund is open to everybody. It's been given since 1991. However, it has one specification (which also applies to Large-Scale Projects fund) that in this kind of projects, you develop only the idea. After developing the idea (design), you can receive a Project Development Fund (PDF-A), to hire experts to further develop and prepare the project for you, which can be as much as $ 50,000.
Large-Scale Projects are those with more than $ 1 million budgets. Again, public institutions are the main beneficiaries here. They can get PDF-B (up to $ 500,000) or PDF-C (up to $ 1 million) for project development. Medium and large-scale projects are developed by related public institutions, or municipalities and universities. Whether the project idea is appropriate for a GEF fund is first evaluated in our unit. If it is involved with one of the focal areas of GEF, we ask the opinion of the related government organs, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Undersecretariat of Maritime, Ministry of Agriculture, State Hydraulic Works, etc. If they find it suitable, we then send the project to the approval of the GEF focal point in Turkey. They prepare the application and send it to the related unit. Next comes the PDF-B or PDF-C stage, and finally the project preperation is completed. The project is then sent to the GEF Secretariat. If the Secretariat also approves the project, they sign a protocol with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the project becomes operative.
UNDP Turkey: Has Turkey used any medium or large-scale project funds so far?
S.A.: Within the framework of GEF, resources go to the Undersecretariat of Treasury, that is the political focal point. From what we learned from the Undersecretariat of Treasury, Turkey has been granted $ 33 million worth of funds. But of course, because not all projects are yet completed, we are talking about a committal here. However, as long as projects are implemented appropriately, the commitments are met within designated periods.
Turkey's GEF projects
UNDP Turkey: What kind of projects does Turkey have, within the framework of GEF?
S.A.: We currently have 8 to 10 projects within this framework. We presented one medium-scale project in the biodiversity area, two large-scale projects in the climate change area. We are designing three more projects in both areas, too. We have several regional projects already in the implementation stage, about the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and Caucasia. Then, there is a project concerned with land degredation in the Balkan countries, which is being conducted by the Istanbul University.
UNDP Turkey: The project on the Preperation of the Initial National Communication in the Area of Climate Change in Turkey, started last year, is also supported by GEF, isn't it?
S.A.: Yes, but it is supported by a different budget source. It is not in the scope of small, medium, or large-scale funds that we mentioned above. GEF also has a separate budget allocated to “enabling activities”, such as the Preperation of the National Communication. In addition, GEF has another budget item, called “development market place”, which became effective as of July, 2006, supporting projects with up to $ 200,000. This fund supports private sector establishments to increase their marketing variety and segments. This activity may not seem to be related to GEF, or environmental protection. But in fact, it is very much related, because let's say, for example, we are producing organic, biological products... We need to market these products, and eventually we'll try to increase our market share. This fund aims to support such activities.
UNDP Turkey: What is the source of GEF funds?
S.A.: Donor countries are the main source. First and foremost, the U.S.A. Recipient countries also put their share in GEF. For example, as an OECD member, Turkey is both a recipient and a donor country.
UNDP Turkey: How much does Turkey contribute?
S.A.: Nearly $ 1.5 million a year. To date, we have committed to contribute more than $ 23 million.
“The amount of funds allocated to Turkey does not correspond with the scale of biodiversity found in this country”
UNDP Turkey: By which criteria are these funds distributed among different countries?
S.A.: The newly implemented Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) uses common criteria in both focal areas. For example, in the biodiversity area, RAF uses two criteria: one is the index to allocate resources based on each country's potential to generate global environmental benefits, and the second index about the project performance. In the first index, land and marine biodiversity, such as endemic species, their numbers, etc., are taken into consideration. They determine a certain budget according to these data. Then, they evaluate the GEF performance index, made every two years, and according to the performance, they either increase or decrease the budget. In other words, a country gets as many good points as the number of good projects it develops. The number of projects we can propose depends on the amount of resource allocated for a period of four years. Actually, the $ 4.7 million budget allocated to Turkey does not correspond with the scale of biodiversity found in this country.
‘Conservation International', an organisation working in the environmental protection area, has identified 25 “hot spots” in the world, regarding biological diversity. Three of these so-called hot spots are in Turkey, that is more than 10%. The Mediterranean basin covers the whole of Mediterranean region, including Tunisia, Spain, France, the Aegean and the Marmara. There are 11,700 different species here. Also among the “hot spots are Eastern, Southeastern and Central Anatolia, and the Caucasian region which covers the whole of Eastern Black Sea. That means nearly the entire land of Turkey is within the boundaries of the area that must be protected for its biodiversity. From this point of view, Turkey deserves a much larger share in environmental project funds.
UNDP Turkey: Doesn't Turkey provide the data which form the basis of the indexes?
S.A.: No. Had it been the case, with
The project team, together with the National Parks Authority has restored two large village houses along traditional architectural lines, and turned them into a pension with 25 beds, which is already being run by the villagers. The old school building is also converted into a Visitors' Centre.
Project leader and Deputy President of KED, Dr. İsmail Menteş defines ecological tourism as “a model which is sensitive to nature and to local people's needs, which preserves the ecological equilibrium of the area, while bringing economic and social benefits to its residents.”
Küre Mountains are rich in old growth forests, canyons, caves, flora and fauna species. 40 of Turkey's 132 mammal species, and 147 bird species (46 of which are in danger of extinction) are endemic to this region. Küre Mountains National Park is also identified as one of the 122 ‘Important Plant Areas' in Turkey by The Society for the Conservation of Nature (DHKD).
With the implementation of this project, the locals of Zümrüt Village --whose traditional livelihoods depend on forestry labour-- will gradually switch to services and tourism sector. “The village folks have been earning their living by forestry work, which is indeed very hard labour. (With this project) they can now earn a second income from the services economy, which is relatively easier. And because the forests will be less exploited, they will be better conserved now,” says Dr. Menteş.
He also emphasizes the role of women in ‘Küre Mountains Ecotourism Project': “In Zümrüt village, women are more dominant in the decision-making process. Women, and also youngsters, have actively participated in all of our project meetings. In any case, if women say 'no', there is nothing you can do!”
And indeed Zümrüt women, with their colourful folkloric attires, their friendly communication skills, and delicious jams, marmalades and grape molasses they prepare, and the handicrafts they create, are the centre of attraction in the village.
The project team has built horse riding and bicycling routes, and walking paths around the village, where young boys and girls earn extra income, serving as nature guides for visitors.
Küre Mountains Ecotourism Association plans to implement similar projects in other villages in the area, following the success of Zümrüt Village.
A new report released by UNDP in June 2006, entitled National Millenium Development Goals: A framework for action presents an overview of national ‘Millenium Development Goals' (MDG) strategies, and discusses the progress of efforts to reach the MDGs in Central and East European (CEE) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, in the light of their specific development challenges. A framework for action reviews development trends in 32 countries and territories of CEE and CIS, focusing on problems such as inadequate income, access to education, gender equality, health conditions, environmental deterioration and poor governance, which are the critical issues for poverty alleviation and sustainable human development, as outlined in the Millenium Declaration of the year 2000.
“In some countries of Central Asia, the challenges of meeting national MDG targets do not differ so dramatically from the development challenges facing low-income countries in Africa, South Asia or the Caribbean”, said Kalman Mizsei, UN Assistant Secretary General and Regional Director for UNDP's Bureau for Europe and the CIS. “The international community should seek to engage in these countries with the same intensity that is apparent in its concern for development prospects in Africa”.
This new UNDP report breaks ground by charting countries' progress towards achieving nationally adapted goals. While the global MDGs were designed to tackle the kind of underdevelopment that characterizes Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, the very different histories of underdevelopment in Eastern Europe and the CIS necessitated altering the goals to fit national circumstances.
The eight Millennium Development Goals – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all UN member states at the Millennium Summit at UN headquarters in September 2000. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world's poorest.
The report is intended to serve as a platform for integrating the nationally adapted MDGs into country-level poverty alleviation frameworks. “The key question concerns how nationally adapted MDGs can be best used to promote sustainable development and eradicate inequalities in Eastern Europe and the CIS,” said Jacek Cukrowski, the report's Lead Author.
New donors to international development cooperation
The transfer of the experience acquired by the new EU member states in crafting the policy and institutional reforms necessary to build healthy market economies and democratic policies –particularly to the countries of Southeast Europe and the CIS—can constitute a particularly important form of development cooperation.
Although the monetary value of these countries' contributions to global official development assistance is relatively minor, the potential impact of the new EU member states' expertise and lessons learned in negotiating the transition and development challenges of the 1990s could be fundamental. As former recipient countries that are one of the world's major development success stories of the 1990s, these new donors are in a unique position to provide expert knowledge to the development community.
The more traditional forms of technical assistance offered by the government of Turkey and its International Cooperation Agency, as well as the Russian Federation's technical assistance and debt forgiveness for developing African, Asian, and Latin American countries, also indicate possible ways in which CEE/CIS countries are successfully contributing as new or non-traditional donors to international development cooperation.
The report emphasizes the need for partnerships between the public and private sectors to promote the region's development agenda. Experience from the new EU member states in particular shows that the private sector can be an important participant in alleviating many development problems. Private companies increasingly see the opportunities associated with incorporating social concerns into business operations, in the light of increased pressures from consumers and governments, but also in terms of securing access to new markets.
“Through a combination of philanthropic motives and self-interest, businesses are increasingly teaming up with governments and non-governmental organizations to form public-private partnerships that reach new markets and improve the quality of social services”, said K. Mizsei. In Kazakhstan, Chevron Texaco, Citibank and UNDP have formed a partnership to promote small- and medium-sized enterprise development. In Poland the oil refinery PKN has teamed up with Levi Strauss, the local government and UNDP in order to fund projects promoting sustainable development.
From National Milennium Development Goals:A Framework for Action, 2006
The report paints a mixed picture of development trends in the region. Among the success stories are the Czech Republic and Slovenia, which have eliminated absolute poverty altogether. For these and the other Central European states the challenge now is to overcome economic inequality and to integrate vulnerable groups such as the Roma.
Other countries face much starker challenges. The per-capita GDP (in purchasing-power-parity terms) of Tajikistan is lower than the per-capita GDPs of Rwanda, Uganda and Cote d'Ivoire. Uzbekistan's per-capita GDP is lower than Sudan's and Cameroon's. Approximately half the population of Moldova and Georgia remain under the absolute poverty line of $2.15 in PPP terms. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 23 million people (over 40 % of Central Asia's population) lived on less than PPP $4.30 a day; 10 million experienced extreme deprivation (living on less than PPP $2.15 a day).
Many countries of the region need to improve governance in order to deliver on the promise of the MDGs. The countries that have made the most progress in reducing poverty, ensuring gender equality, promoting better health and education, and combining economic growth with environmental sustainability–the new EU member states–have also had the most success in implementing economic, political and social reforms.
On the other hand, the biggest social and economic problems are often observed in countries with underdeveloped democracies, suffering from high levels of corruption and poor state capacity.
Regarding this fact, Kalman Mizsei emphasizes “In our globalized world, societies clearly expect their leaders to run clean, honest governments –captured in their leaders' declaration in the uniquely progressive and humanistic document that is the Millenium Declaration.”
In his ‘Forward' to the National Millenium Development Goals: A framework for action , Mizsei adds that “This report does not attempt to provide inter-country comparisons of progress. Instead, it intends to spur action, promote reforms needed to achieve national goals, and support the cross-country application of best practices. (This report) acts as a signpost for the way forward.”
To see Turkey's performance on Millennium Development Goals, please click.
Local Agenda 21 Turkey Programme Coordinator Sadun Emrealp, Local Agenda 21 Ürgüp Women's Council President Ms. Necla Kırcı, Ürgüp's Mayor and a UNDP Turkey official will give the opening speeches of the summit, at which leading academics, politicians, female mayors, journalists, writers, artists, businesswomen, trade unionists, and representatives of NGOs and women's organizations will discuss women's issues at various workshops and panel discussions.
Among the speakers who will participate in the panels to discuss “Women's Place in Political and Social Life”, “Women's Perspective and Impact on Decision-making Process”, and “Necessary Legislations to Establish Gender Equality in Women's Representation in the Parliament: Women's Quota”, will be Prof. Şirin Tekeli, ex-mayor of Şişli/Istanbul and actress Fatma Girik, Prof. Ersin Kalaycıoğlu, Prof. Beyza Bilgin, Prof. Nilüfer Göle, author and academic Elif Şafak, businesswoman Suzan Sabancı, as well as the representatives of women's branches of political parties.
The participants will also hold panel sessions on “Women's Branches of Political Parties in Turkey: What are their Mission and Function? What are their Contributions and Shortcomings?”, and “The Historical Development of Women in Politics in Turkey”.
The Women's Summit in Ürgüp will host many plays, concerts, poetry readings, dance and folklore shows, art workshops, and vintage visits to Ürgüp's vineyards. The Summit will be concluded on 4 September, with a press conference and a Summit Report.
Local Agenda 21 Programme and Women's Councils
At the UN “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992, the concept of “sustainable development” was adopted as humanity's common goal in the 21st century. As the primary output of the Rio Conference, “Agenda 21” plan was endorsed by all UN member countries as a wide-ranging blueprint for action to achieve sustainable development worldwide, along with the ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development'.
As a participatory action programme carried out locally and independently, “Local Agenda 21” has been implemented since 1992, in thousands of towns and cities in nearly 140 countries around the world. Turkey Local Agenda 21 programme was started in 1997 with the support of UNDP.
The activities of Agenda 21s concerned with women's issues constitute the framework and essence of Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted by the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, on 15 September 1995.
Recognizing the social gender inequality faced by women, this decleration made a commitment to the realization of women's involvement in economic and social development, of equal opportunities and the full and equal participation of women and men as agents and beneficiaries of people-centred sustainable development.
Currently women's work councils carry out ambitious activities in more than 40 cities of Turkey. Aiming to further strenghen women's place, visibility and voice in social life, in production, business, politics, culture and arts, Local Agenda 21's works on women are conducted by Women's Councils, Commissions and Work Groups.
The September issue of New Horizons will cover a special dossier on “Women's Councils and Politics”.
A farmer in Asia increases his income from growing rattan to an astronomical $15,000 per acre per year with help from a network of researchers, inventors, marketing and other experts spread across 50 developing countries.
Lastly, a high level mission from Ghana comes to Turkey to learn from Turkey's experience in implementing and tracking government decisions successfully.
These are the examples of South-South Cooperation. UNDP has a special unit to promote enhancement of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC). It was created in 1972 and the UN General Assembly changed the name of UNDP's Special Unit for TCDC in 2003, to reflect a new reality in international affairs. The new name — Special Unit for South-South Cooperation — covers a far broader range of activities the Unit undertakes than was possible when it was created nearly three decades ago to coordinate preparations for the 1978 Conference on TCDC in Buenos Aires. Accordingly, South-South Cooperation, being a broader concept, covers a very wide range of collaboration among developing countries, such as political, economic and technical.
The use of the term “South” to refer to developing countries collectively has been part of the shorthand of international relations since the 1970s. It rests on the fact that all of the world's industrially developed countries (with the exception of Australia and New Zealand) lie to the north of its developing countries. The term does not imply that all developing countries are similar and can be lumped together in one category. What it does highlight is that although developing countries range across the spectrum in every economic, social and political attribute, they all share a set of vulnerabilities and challenges.
And Turkey, being one of the 22 pivotal countries, is in a position to play a ‘lead' role in the promotion and application of TCDC, mainly by sharing their capacities and experience with other developing countries in their region or in other regions. And that is what happened in July 2006.
A very high level mission from Ghana, lead by the Chief Advisor to the President in Ghana, Mrs. Mary Chinery-Hesse, came to Turkey to try to see how Turkey has managed to monitor and evaluate government's programmes. In her words, they were looking for a best case practice. We asked her why they chose Turkey:
Mary Chinery-Hesse (M.C.H.): We chose Turkey because we were informed by somebody, who really should know, that miracle has happened here with economic performance. And a large part of is that we also have a good system for tracking government decisions and implementation to make sure that actually something was happening. And also they had a good system of feedback so that policies are adjusted and constraints are removed so that decisions of the country are realized. That's why we are here.
UNDP Turkey: What is the situation in your country?
M.C.H.: It is not bad, I cannot say it is bad but it needs to be improved. You know we have put ourselves on a fast track for development. And because of that we do not think we can do business as usual. We think there should be a change of pace, sort of changing gear, and make sure that things are happening much faster than they were happening before. We managed to track to make sure that mission of the President is being realized. So yes, it is not bad but of course there is always room for improvement and that's what we are doing now.
UNDP Turkey: Could you find what you have expected in Turkey? What best practice examples you can take to your country?
M.C.H.: Turkey has a very good system in place. In many areas we found that there was a system in place to make sure that the government progresses at the pace that it should. The programming of the government activities, such that indicators for measuring results are already embedded in the design stage. Also that there are systems in place, some of it I see there, for tracking to make sure that things are happening. So we picked up a lot of thing that we are going to take back with us to Ghana.
UNDP Turkey: What is UNDP Ghana's and UNDP Turkey's contribution in this?
M.C.H.: Actually, UNDP Ghana funded the programme, not only funded the programme but also set up all the appointments by using of course their contacts with UNDP Turkey. The contacts were really relevant to our circumstances and I think that whatever we manage to install in Ghana, we would need to give recognition to the involvement of both UNDP Ghana and UNDP Turkey.
UNDP Turkey: Do you need extra forces to implement what you decide to do in your country following this mission or is it just establishing the system?
M.C.H.: Well, I will not be establishing a different system; it will more be adjusting the system which we have in Ghana. I think we learnt major lessons. We will have to make the necessary changes to the way we have been doing business. The other good thing is, in the first phase of South-South Cooperation we have actually got the commitment of the officials. We met some very very high level people, even a deputy prime minister, that they would give technical cooperation and technical assistance to Ghana to be able to fast track some of the systems which we have weakness in.
UNDP Turkey: Whom did you meet with?
M.C.H.: It was a two-day mission, it was really packed. We met with the team involved in the accession of Turkey to the EU. They shared with us a model which was very very interesting, where the country as a whole has managed to have gathered around an objective to which so many people have believed in and where therefore it was quite easy to get the people to make necessary sacrifices. That was quite unique.
We also met with the officials of the Ministry of Interior who have responsibility for regional and provincial decentralization approaches. And I think there we learnt a lot of lessons which we have also taken with us.
Then we met with the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That's also very good because we could see a lot of areas for cooperation, beyond the core reason why we came here.
We also met with the officials of Planning Commission. We picked up so much from there. We also met with the Treasury and with of course Prime Ministry officials. There is so much attention to our mission. There was opportunity to meet such high level officials. People were open and prepared to share, so welcoming and the hospitality has been fantastic. We would like to give our special thanks to UNDP Ankara for being so helpful.
UNDP Turkey: That is basically the nature of the South-South Cooperation, isn't it?
M.C.H.: That's the basic nature of the South-South Cooperation! It is necessary to share with each other because in the sense maybe there are things that are more relevant to our own situation. Actually having listened to the Turkish Government, there were so many commonalities that we knew we made a right choice coming to Turkey. Therefore, I would like to thank specially to UNDP Resident Coordinator in Ghana, Mr. Daouda Toure, who has had accompanied us. Our intention is that the activities in this trip should also have UNDP involvement. So it was very important that he came along. We are very grateful that he facilitated the trip.
The Ömeriye Baths project took first place in the Conservation of Architectural Heritage category at the annual European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage/Europa Nostra Awards.
The awards ceremony took place at the Palacio Real de El Pardo of Madrid on 27 June, with H.M. Queen Sofía of Spain presiding and Ján Figel, European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, UNDP representatives and Michalakis Zambelas, Mayor of Nicosia in attendance.
The project is an initiative of the UNDP, EU-funded programme Partnership for the Future, in cooperation with Nicosia Master Plan. The Ömeriye Baths, built in the late 16th century by Ottoman administrator Lala Mustafa Pasha as a gift to the city, had suffered from years of neglect.
The UNDP restoration project aimed not just to preserve the original complex but also to enable the continued use of the baths. The restored complex was returned to full operation in early 2005.
