W O R L D H E A L T H O R G A N I Z A T I O N
mm
O R G A N I S A T I O N M O N D I A L E D E L A S A N T ÉE X E C U T I V E B O A R D F o r t y ^ f o u r t h S e s s i o n
P r o v i s i o n a l a g e n d a i t e m 6.3
C O - O R D I N A T I O N W I T H O T H E R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E , B U D G E T A R Y A N D
O R G A N I Z A T I O N S F I N A N C I A L M A T T E R S R e p o r t s of the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t
R e p o r t by t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l
E B 4 4 / 2
15 July 1969
INDEXED
O '
B a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n
1.1 In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h P a r t 11 of r e s o l u t i o n W H A 2 0 . 2 2 a d o p t e d b y t h e T w e n t i e t h W o r l d H e a l t h 1
A s s e m b l y (May 1 9 6 7 ) the W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e s in the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t from t h e t i m e of i t s c o m m e n c e m e n t in J a n u a r y 1 9 6 8 . In p u r s u a n c e of t h i s r e s o l u t i o n , t h e
D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l t r a n s m i t t e d to t h e B o a r d at i t s f o r t y t h i r d s e s s i o n a r e p o r t , d o c u m e n t E B 4 3 / 4 5 , b y the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t o n " W H O A s s i s t a n c e t o D e v e l o p i n g C o u n t r i e s " t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s c o m m e n t s . T h e E x e c u t i v e B o a r d a d o p t e d r e s o l u t i o n E B 4 3 , R 4 8 ^ on t h e r e p o r t .
1.2 T h e B o a r d w i l l r e c a l l t h a t the D i r e c t o r — G e n e r a l a l s o r e f e r r e d in h i s r e p o r t to t w o o t h e r r e p o r t s r e c e i v e d from the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t :
(i) and
'Report on t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s A c t i v i t i e s in T u r k e y " r e c e i v e d o n 3 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 6 8 ,
(ii) " R e p o r t on C o - o r d i n a t i o n a n d C o - o p e r a t i o n at t h e C o u n t r y L e v e l " r e c e i v e d on 11 N o v e m b e r 1 9 6 8 .
A s b o t h r e p o r t s a f f e c t e d m o r e t h a n o n e o r g a n i z a t i o n in t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s s y s t e m , the D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l d e f e r r e d p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e r e p o r t s a n d h i s own c o m m e n t s to t h e f o r t y - f o u r t h s e s s i o n of the E x e c u t i v e B o a r d p e n d i n g t h e r e q u i r e d d i s c u s s i o n and c o n s u l t a t i o n in t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o m m i t t e e on C o - o r d i n a t i o n .
1.3 T h e c o n s u l t a t i o n s w e r e u n d e r t a k e n at t h e s e s s i o n of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o m m i t t e e o n C o « o r d i n a t i o n w h i c h w a s h e l d in R o m e d u r i n g A p r i l 1 9 6 9 .
2• P r o c e d u r e c o n c e r n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s
reports f r o m t h e J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t d i r e c t e d to s e v e r a l
2 . 1 R e g a r d i n g t h i s t y p e of r e p o r t , t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o m m i t t e e on C o - o r d i n a t i o n r e i t e r a t e d its e a r l i e r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e e x e c u t i v e h e a d s s h o u l d c o n s u l t t h e i r A C C c o l l e a g u e s b e f o r e sub- m i t t i n g t h e m to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e g o v e r n i n g o r g a n s . It w a s b e l i e v e d t h a t s u c h c o n s u l t a t i v e p r o c e d u r e w o u l d a v o i d a n y c o n f u s i o n w h i c h m i g h t r e s u l t if i n d i v i d u a l g o v e r n i n g o r g a n s m e e t i n g at d i f f e r e n t t i m e s w e r e to c o m m e n t i n d i v i d u a l l y and t a k e i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n on I n s p e c t o r s ' r e p o r t s d e a l i n g w i t h m a t t e r s of c o n c e r n to s e v e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , w i t h o u t c o n s u l t a t i o n a m o n g t h e e x e c u t i v e h e a d s c o n c e r n e d .
H a n d b o o k of R e s o l u t i o n s and D e c i s i o n s , 1 0 t h e d ” p . 4 2 4 . H a n d b o o k of R e s o l u t i o n s a n d D e c i s i o n s , 1 0 t h e d . , p . 4 2 6 .
E B 1 4 / 2 p a g e 2
2 . 2 In t h i s c o n t e x t A C C e x a m i n e d and c o m m e n t e d u p o n the t w o r e p o r t s r e f e r r e d to u n d e r 1.2 a b o v e and a g r e e d to s u b m i t c o m m e n t s t h e r e o n to t h e E c o n o m i c and S o c i a l C o u n c i l at its J u l y 1 9 6 9 s e s s i o n .
2 . 3 T h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l i s , t h e r e f o r e , p l e a s e d to p r e s e n t to the B o a r d A C C ' s c o m m e n t s on the t w o r e p o r t s , w i t h w h i c h h e is in a g r e e m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h an e l a b o r a t i o n of h i s o w n v i e w s r e l a t e d to s o m e s p e c i f i c p o i n t s r a i s e d in t h e I n s p e c t o r s ' r e p o r t s .
3 . j o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t r e p o r t on " T h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s A c t i v i t i e s in T u r k e y " r e p r o d u c e d as A n n e x 1 to t h i s d o c u m e n t
3•1 C o m m e n t s a g r e e d in A C C
" 3 . 1 . 1 W i t h r e g a r d to the 'Report on U n i t e d N a t i o n s A c t i v i t i e s in T u r k e yf, p r e p a r e d b y M r R o b e r t M . M a c y , the A C C u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s r e f e r r e d t o in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s of t h e s u m m a r y of f i n d i n g s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w i l l b e c o v e r e d in t h e
' C a p a c i t y S t u d y ' :
1 . W i d e v a r i a t i o n s in c o n t r i b u t i o n s of P r o j e c t s to D e v e l o p m e n t , 2 . R e c r u i t m e n t of UN field p e r s o n n e l ,
3 . A c r i t i c a l i n g r e d i e n t of s u c c e s s f u l S p e c i a l F u n d P r o j e c t s , 4 . C o - o r d i n a t i o n at C o u n t r y L e v e l ,
7 . C o n t r o l of f u n d s for S p e c i a l F u n d P r o j e c t s .
3 . 1 . 2 W i t h r e g a r d to r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 2 . a n d 4., the A C C n o t e d t h a t m e m b e r s of t h e j o i n t I n s p e c t i o n Unit w i l l c o n t i n u e t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n of the p r o b l e m s .
3e1 . 3 T h e A C C a g r e e d w i t h t h a t p a r t of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n 3 , w h i c h p r o v i d e s that e a c h p r o p o s a l for a p r o j e c t be r i g o r o u s l y t e s t e d to e n s u r e that a l l t h e t h i n g s that m u s t b e d o n e to a c h i e v e the d e s i r e d o b j e c t i v e s a r e i n c l u d e d , b u t d o u b t e d t h e p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of a l w a y s p l a n n i n g for P h a s e II at the s a m e t i m e as P h a s e I .
3 . 1 . 4 W i t h r e g a r d to r e c o m m e n d a t i o n 7 . ( C o n t r o l of F u n d s for S p e c i a l F u n d P r o j e c t s ) , the A C C c o n s i d e r e d that t h i s i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n could n o t be s e p a r a t e d from the t e c h n i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the E x e c u t i n g A g e n c y , and that the E x e c u t i n g A g e n c y m u s t t h e r e f o r e c o n t i n u e to b e r e s p o n s i b l e for all p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g the c o n t r o l of f u n d s , 3 . 1 . 5 A s to r e c o m m e n d a t i o n 5 . ( C o u n t e r p a r t T r a i n i n g ) , the A C C a g r e e d on the p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e of s u c h t r a i n i n g and that it w a s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e a c h of the a g e n c i e s to a r r a n g e for and f o l l o w up on the t r a i n i n g .
3 . 1 . 6 On r e c o m m e n d a t i o n 6 . ( F o r m s ) , A C C a g r e e d that a s t u d y s h o u l d b e m a d e of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of f o r m s , w h i c h s t u d y h o w e v e r c o u l d n o t b e l i m i t e d s o l e l y to f o r m s u s e d in the f i e l d . A C C h a s a r r a n g e d for a s t u d y o f t h i s s u b j e c t to b e u n d e r - t a k e n .M
3.2 In c o n n e x i o n w i t h the c o n t r o l of f u n d s , t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l d r a w s the a t t e n t i o n of t h e B o a r d t o p o i n t s (a) and (b) w h e r e it is u n c l e a r h o w the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y p r o p o s e d to be g i v e n to t h e R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e can b e s e p a r a t e d from the t e c h n i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the E x e c u t i n g A g e n c y . T h e two e s s e n t i a l s t e p s i n v o l v e d in c o n t r o l l i n g f u n d s , n a m e l y (i) t h e e s t i m a t i o n of f u n d s r e q u i r e d and (ii) c o n t r o l of e x p e n d i t u r e of the f u n d s a p p r o v e d , a r e b e i n g u n d e r t a k e n by W H O u s i n g (i) s p e c i a l i z e d e x p e r t i s e in the c o s t i n g of p r e - i n v e s t m e n t s t u d i e s and (ii) a p p l y i n g s o m e form of n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s for c a r e f u l s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e p r o j e c t s a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , e x p e h d i t u r e of f u n d s by t h e P r o j e c t M a n a g e r , R e g i o n a l O f f i c e a n d t e c h n i c a l s t a f f at h e a d q u a r t e r s . T h i s m e t h o d h a s p r o v e d s u i t a b l e w i t h o u t a d d i n g u n n e c e s s a r i l y to the w o r k - l o a d of e i t h e r W H O s t a f f or the R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the U N D P .
3 . 3 A l t h o u g h the m a l a r i a p r o g r a m m e a s s i s t e d by W H O is c i t e d as o n e of t h e s u c c e s s f u l p r o j e c t s w h i c h w e r e a n a l y s e d , it w a s s e l e c t e d as an e x a m p l e a n d n o a c t i o n t h e r e o n is r e q u i r e d by t h e B o a r d . A n u m b e r of p r o j e c t s of o t h e r s of the U n i t e d N a t i o n s s y s t e m of o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e a l s o c i t e d and a n a l y s e d as e x a m p l e s and t h e s e , of c o u r s e , d o n o t c a l l for a n y a c t i o n b y t h e
E x e c u t i v e B o a r d of the W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n .
4 . j o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t r e p o r t on " C o - o r d i n a t i o n and C o - o p e r a t i o n at the C o u n t r y L e v e l "
r e p r o d u c e d as A n n e x 2 to t h i s d o c u m e n t 4 • 1 C o m m e n t s of A C C
" 4 . 1 . 1 A C C h a s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s c o n c u r r e d w i t h the g e n e r a l t h e m e of t h e r e p o r t , n a m e l y t h a t as the o p e r a t i o n s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s in the U n i t e d N a t i o n s s y s t e m e x p a n d t h e r e is an i n c r e a s i n g n e e d for c o - o r d i n a t i o n and c o - o p e r a t i o n at the c o u n t r y l e v e l , in the i n t e r e s t of m a x i m u m o p e r a t i o n a l e f f i c i e n c y and t h e r a t i o n a l u s e of r e s o u r c e s . 4 . 1 . 2 A C C r e c a l l s t h a t the g e n e r a l s u b j e c t of c o - o r d i n a t i o n at the c o u n t r y l e v e l is u n d e r c o n s t a n t r e v i e w b y ECOSОС, w h i c h h a s a l r e a d y e x p r e s s e d c e r t a i n v i e w s o n t h e m a t t e r . A l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a v e t a k e n s t e p s to e n s u r e m a x i m u m c o - o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e w o r k of the U N D P R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , and t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s on t h e o t h e r . A C C c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e i r f u n c t i o n s d o n o t o v e r l a p , but r a t h e r c o m p l e m e n t e a c h o t h e r in a s p i r i t of c o - o p e r a t i o n a n d w i t h t h e c o m m o n a i m of h e l p i n g the g o v e r n m e n t s c o n c e r n e d .
4 . 1 . 3 A C C in g e n e r a l f a v o u r s t h e u s e of c o m m o n p r e m i s e s . H o w e v e r , in c e r t a i n c a s e s the d e m a n d for c l o s e c o - o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n e x p e r t s and the m i n i s t r i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s in w h i c h t h e y w o r k is l i k e l y to o u t w e i g h t h e p o s s i b l e a d v a n t a g e s of h o u s i n g all m e m b e r s of the U N f a m i l y in a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g . M o r e o v e r , w h e n an o r g a n i z a t i o n is a l r e a d y
a c c o m m o d a t e d a d e q u a t e l y , t h e r e m u s t b e c l e a r a d v a n t a g e s t o j u s t i f y a c h a n g e .
4.1.4 A C C f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e s the n e e d to a c h i e v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o - o r d i n a t i o n in t h e f i e l d , and c o n t i n u e s a c t i v e l y to p u r s u e t h i s i m p o r t a n t o b j e c t i v e .
4 . 1 . 5 It n o t e d t h a t t h e m e m b e r s of t h e J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t w i l l c o n t i n u e t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e p r o b l e m s r e f e r r e d to in the r e p o r t . "
4 , 2 T h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l h a s s o m e s p e c i f i c a d d i t i o n a l c o m m e n t s to o f f e r p a r t i c u l a r l y on p a r a g r a p h s 6 and 24 of the r e p o r t .
(i) A s i n d i c a t e d in p a r a g r a p h 6, " t h e W H O c o u n t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w o r k i n , and f u n c t i o n m o r e or less as a p a r t o f , the l o c a l M i n i s t r y of H e a l t h " • T h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l c o n -
s i d e r s t h a t t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t is e s s e n t i a l if t h e W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e to f u l f i l the f u n c t i o n s for w h i c h t h e y a r e a p p o i n t e d . T h e r e f o r e , h e is u n a b l e to a g r e e w i t h t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n in p a r a g r a p h 13 t h a t " E v e r y e n d e a v o u r s h o u l d b e m a d e to h o u s e a l l m e m b e r s of t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s f a m i l y in a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g " . F o r the W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to b e p h y s i c a l l y r e m o v e d from the M i n i s t r y of H e a l t h w o u l d m a k e it e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t , if n o t i m p o s s i b l e , for h i m to f u l f i l h i s d u t i e s . On the o t h e r h a n d , the D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l a g r e e s that t h e r e is p r o b a b l y r o o m for g r e a t e r
i m p r o v e m e n t in t h e c o - o r d i n a t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e r v i c e s and i n t e n d s to a s s i s t in t h e a c h i e v e m e n t of s u c h i m p r o v e m e n t , s u b j e c t to c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of e f f i c i e n c y a n d e c o n o m y . ( Ü ) w i t h r e g a r d to p a r a g r a p h 24 of t h e r e p o r t , the C o n s t i t u t i o n of W H O ( A r t i c l e 2 (b))
p r o v i d e s t h a t , in o r d e r t o a c h i e v e its o b j e c t i v e , a m o n g t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n s h a l l b e " t o e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n e f f e c t i v e c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h • • • g o v e r n m e n t a l
h e a l t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s • • T h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l w o u l d e m p h a s i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e of d i r e c t a c c e s s to h e a l t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s a n d t o n a t i o n a l h e a l t h o r g a n i z a t i o n s , if the W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n is to f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , it is r e c a l l e d
t h a t as e a r l y as J a n u a r y 1952 t h e E x e c u t i v e B o a r d , in r e s o l u t i o n E B 9 . R 2 1 , " A w a r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of h e a l t h to the t o t a l s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c e n v i r o n m e n t " . • • r e q u e s t e d
" t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l and t h e r e g i o n a l c o m m i t t e e s , in p l a n n i n g and c o - o r d i n a t i n g h e a l t h p r o g r a m m e s , to be g u i d e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s :
(1) t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n to a c t as the d i r e c t i n g я and c o - o r d i n a t i n g a u t h o r i t y on i n t e r n a t i o n a l h e a l t h w o r k ;
(2) the i n s e p a r a b i l i t y of s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c and h e a l t h factors；
(3) t h e m a j o r p u r p o s e for w h i c h a i d is p r o v i d e d ; and
(4) the k i n d of a s s i s t a n c e n e e d e d and t h e r a t e at w h i c h it can be a b s o r b e d in o r d e r l y development.“
It s h o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be c l e a r that the O r g a n i z a t i o n h a s a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t in c o - o r d i n a t i o n and c o - o p e r a t i o n at the c o u n t r y l e v e l .
5 . O t h e r r e p o r t s r e c e i v e d from the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n Unit
5.1 A t h i r d r e p o r t of i n t e r e s t to all o r g a n i z a t i o n s of the U n i t e d N a t i o n s s y s t e m w a s a l s o r e c e i v e d from the J o i n t I n s p e c t i o n U n i t . It d e a l s w i t h " T h e o v e r h e a d c o s t s of e x t r a -
b u d g e t a r y p r o g r a m m e s and on m e t h o d s of a s s e s s i n g p e r f o r m a n c e and costs•’’•
5.2 In e x a m i n i n g this r e p o r t , t h e A C C felt that s e v e r a l i t e m s c o n t a i n e d in t h e r e p o r t a r e c u r r e n t l y u n d e r s t u d y by o t h e r o r g a n s of t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s . It w a s a g r e e d , t h e r e f o r e , to a w a i t the o u t c o m e of t h e s e s t u d i e s b e f o r e s u b m i t t i n g the r e p o r t to t h e organizations‘
g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s , or to the E c o n o m i c and S o c i a l C o u n c i l at its J u l y 1 9 6 9 s e s s i o n .
5.3 In the e v e n t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l r e p o r t s are r e c e i v e d p r i o r to the f o r t y - f o u r t h s e s s i o n of the E x e c u t i v e B o a r d , t h e y w i l l be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e B o a r d in an a d d e n d u m to t h i s d o c u m e n t .
1 H a n d b o o k of R e s o l u t i o n s and D e c i s i o n s , 2 0 t h e d . , p . 2 0 5 .
EB44/2 ANNEX 1 JIU/REP/68/2
REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES IN TURKEY
Robert M . Macy
UN Joint Inspection Unit
Geneva
24 August 1968
GE.68-1)99斗
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Summary of F i n d i n g s and Re commend at ion s • • • • 1
I. Introduction 4
II。 R e v i e w of Successful United N a t i o n s
Activities • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • б
I I I , Shortcomings of Selected United
N a t i o n s Projects • • • • • • • • • • • • 10
IV, General Problem A r e a s • • 14
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONj
1. \7ide variations in contributions of Projects to D e v e l o p m e n t , It w a s disappointing to find such wide variations in the contribution
that each Special Fund and technical assistance project made to the Turkish economy. An attempt was made to identify those
• ».
ingredients that largely explained why certain projects were
u n u s u a l l y successful, and others left much to be d e s i r e d . Although considerable u n e v e n n e s s is to be expected because the local
environment is not equally favourable to different k i n d s of UN p r o j e c t s , and is subject to unpredictable political c h a n g e s , at i . ' '
¡least m o s t of the major shortcomings observed in various projects were m a t t e r s that should have been corrected long ago through a more alert evaluation system.
丨R e c r u i t m e n t of UN field personnel. The Turkish Government was 丨critical of the caliber of UN experts proposed for posts in that i c o u n t r ” and delays in .recruitment. Discussion with various Ш 丨officials indicated that this is one of the fundamental problems
facing the United N a t i o n s Specialized A g e n c i e s in developing
c o u n t r i e s , A member of the J o i n t Inspection Unit will concentrate on this probleri for several m o n t h s .
3, A critical ingredient of successful S p e c i a l Fund P r o j e c t s . A review of many Special Fund .projects in Turkey indicated that the single greatest we ajenes s was the failure of the Plan of Operation to include all of the. things that had to be done to carry the project to the "take off" point. In some cases this m e a n s that .only a multi-disciplinary project will achieve the r e s u l t s desired.
In other cases a Phase II w i l l be n e c e s s a r y . Generally speaking, these findings strongly support a policy of fev/er but larger
S p e c i a l Fund Projects,. It is recommended that a) every Special
Fund proposal be rigorously tested to ensure that a l l the things that m u s t be done to achieve the desired objectives are included, and b) that if.a Phase II w i l l be n e c e s s a r y to achieve the take off p o i n t , it be approved at the time Phase I is a p p r o v e d .
4. Co-ordination at Country Level. In spite of all of the time and effort spent by v a r i o u s officials trying to improve co-ordin- ation of the UN family at the country level, the situation found in Turkey and several other ccnm.tries by m e m b e r s of the J oint Inspection U n i t left m u c h to be d e s i r e d . S e v e r a l m e m b e r s of the Unit w i l l examine this problem in.depth during the n e x t six to
twelve m o n t h s .
5. Counterpart training. It is recognized that perhaps the most important single o b j e c t i v e of UN technical assistance is to train locals so they can carry on after the experts leave, i.e. it is the task of the expert to "work himself out of a j o b " . It was therefore surprising to find that in a large number of S p e c i a l Fund Project m a n a g e r s1 reports no reference was found to the
status of counterpart training for the P r o j e c t . It is thus clear that the Headquarters of Specialized A g e n c i e s are not checking on the progress of the main j o b of most of their field p e r s o n n e l , and these personnel may n o t feel pressure to get on with this task and meet scheduled completion d a t e s . It is strongly recommended that a) at the time experts are briefed at their Agency Headquarters they be given firm instructions regarding reporting progress on training counterparts (for both S p e c i a l Fund and EPTA projects), and b) that appropriate personnel at Headquarters be assigned clear responsibility for m o n i t o r i n g the progress of such training.
6. F o r m s . At the country level, each Agency and the UNDP has its ovm series of forms for various administrative purposes such as
application for f e l l o w s h i p s , recruitment of local e m p l o y e e s , travel authorizations and travel expense claims, and so o n . Since at least m o s t of these f o r m s call for the same information in each A g e n c y , it would lead to more administrative efficiency and less confusion among local government officials if the forms could be standardized. It is recommended that the v a r i o u s A g e n c i e s and UNDP set up a working group to achieve this o b j e c t i v e .
7 . C o n t r o l of Funds for Special Fund P r o j e c t s . A t this time no
•one appears to be c h e c k i n g to ensure that Special Fund P r o j e c t s are completed at minimujn cost. I n s t e a d , there seems to be a strong propensity for the Executing Agency to spend a l l the money initially approved for the Project plus all the contingency money it can persuade UNDP Headquarters to c e r t i f y . It is recommended that a ) current expenditure data in S p e c i a l Fund Projects be made available to the R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , b) the R e s i d e n t R e p - resentative be held responsible for r e v i e w i n g a Project at regular intervals to ensure that it is being performed at a reasonable c o s t , and c ) that t}ie possibility be explored of r e t u r n i n g
"savings", defined as the difference between authorized, and actual e x p e n d i t u r e s , to the country programme as an -incentive to implement p r o j e c t s economically and terminate those, that are turning out b a d l y , at an early d a t e .
I . Introduction _丨_ ... ^^.•mu. mi I —
A visit w a s nade to Turkey, from lGth April, to 19th J u n e I960 to evaluate the United Tíationr, activities in that c o u n t r y , partic- u l a r l y in terms of their impact on social and economic
d e v e l o p m e n t . Since this was the first visit of this Inspector to a developing country as a member of the J o i n t Inspection U n i t , considerable though-с v a s given to the proper scope and approach of such an evaluation.
From the standpoint of scope, it w a s obvious that the United N a t i o n s family is engaged in different kinds of activities that may have an important effect on the economic and social develop- m e n t of a country, such as peace k e e p i n g , trusteeship-,, m o r a l
pressures on gcvernments, attempts to stabilise world commodity p r i c e s and improve the environraerit &>r trade between the
d e v e l o p e d and under-developed w o r l d , conferences and m e e t i n g s on a vide range of sxibjccts, regional economic c o m m i s s i o n s , capital d e v e l o p m e n t s , monetary control and country technical a s s i s t a n c e . U p o n r e f l e c t i o n , h o w e v e r , it seemed clear that at least most of
the se activities could not be properly evaluated through a visit to one country, and attention w a s limited on this trip to
technical assistance. It was r e c o g n i z e d , h o v e v e r , that in
limiting the scope of this evaluation to such； p r o g r a m m e s as UWDP，
the "regular" programme of the A g e n c i e s , U N I C E F , and the World Food P r o g r a m m e , in effect this Inspector raay have been "looking only at the top of the iceberg" and in at least some developing c o u n t r i e s some of these other a c t i v i t i e s nay be potentially more important to d e v e l o p m e n t than e.g. U N D P .
From the standpoint of approach, it quickly became clear that it was inappropriate to attempt to relate the UÎI d e v e l o p m e n t
assistance to e.g. the rate of growth of Тгдгкеу. The UN input
r e p r e s e n t s such a nmall percentage of the total economic effort in that country that any attempt to measure or evaluate its separate impact on the overall growth rate and other economic indicators for Turkey ic simply not r e a l i s t i c . Thus the approach had to be： linit.Kl to an evaluation of the impact of these activities on their particular sub-sectors of the e c o n o m y .
The objective was n o t to evaluate UN activities in Turkey per se tmt to study the whole spectrum of projects in that c o u n t r y , attempt to determine why some projects turned out much better than o t h e r s , and identify some major opportunities for improve- m e n t which may be applicable to m a n y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s . In Parts II and III belov/ the results of reviewing successful and not so successful projects are presented in summary form. In Part IV the key problem areas disclosed by this review and related investigations are d i s c u s s e d .
Detailed observations and comments on the various Projects
visited in Turkey were presented orally to the A g e n c i e s involved, but were excluded from this Report because they would n o t have contributed significantly to the more general analysis and conclusions presented b e l o w .
I I . R e v i e w of Successful United N a t i o n s Activities
In evaluating UN activities in Turkey, it was considered important to identify reasons for successful projects as w e l l as weaknesses of u n s u c c e s s f u l p r o j e c t s . The following four
successful projects are analyzed briefly and then an attempt is made to determine the key factors accounting for their above average contribution to Turkey's development programme.
a) UNESCO Several UN agencies made contributions during the early stages of the development of the Middle East Technical University at Алкага, but UNESCO h a s been largely responsible for the UN input into the institution since about I960, when a S p e c i a l Fund Project was initiated. It is the only govern- ment-supported institution of higher learning in which all c o u r s e s are taught in a w o r l dtl a n g u a g e , and it is a major force in breaking down the language barriers between Turkey and the other c o u n t r i e s . The curriculum of the University has been tailored to the n e e d s of a developing country with partic- ular emphasis on engineering and applied science, n o t on a classical education. There has also been some assistance on a bi-lateral basis, but UNES CO certainly deserves a major share of the credit for outside assistance to this institution.
S e v e r a l government officials expressed the view that this is the best university in Turkey with the most promise for the future, even though it h a s been in full operation for only a few y e a r s .
b) ILO In Istabul, ILO is the Executing Agency for a Special Fund Project providing for the development of a management training centre which is in effect the "action arm" of the
Turkish Management A s s o c i a t i o n . S e v e r a l Turks who had studied in the United States and were impressed with the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the American M a n a g e m e n t Association joined forces with a number of forv/ard-looking Turkish businessmen and have given strong support to the Turkish M a n a g e m e n t A s s o c i a t i o n and to this project. Training courses in m o d e m m e t h o d s of m a n a g e m e n t , with a u s e f u l tie-in vrith the University of Istanbul, and m a n a g e m e n t consulting work with the assistance of personnel from a leading British m a n a g e m e n t consulting firm, are gradually adding гяр- to a focal point in Istanbul for
introducing modern management practices to industry.
The visitor to Turkey is impressed with the high o v e r a l l rate of industrial development, the ability of the Turk to make things, and the willingness of the Turkish businessman to incur risks and make d e c i s i o n s . H o w e v e r , it is widely recognized that Turkey has a very high cost industrial structure. Turkish businessmen understand this, and it-was very stimulating to attend training classes in Accounting for Management and Modern P e r s o n n e l M e t h o d s , and note the caliber of business officials attending these classes and their serious attitude toward their t r a i n i n g .
c) WHO One of the largest UN activities in Turkey has been the malaria programme of W H O , carried out with major financial
support Ъу U N I C E F . The programme h a s had its "ups and d o w n s " , due partly tp difficulties in penetrating the rugged country in Eastern Turkey, but WHO and Turkish personnel are n o w concen- trating on the last area of stubborn resistance in the east, and this disease should be under control in all parts of Turkey within two or three y e a r s . F u r t h e r m o r e , in order to keep it
under c o n t r o l , WHO experts are assisting m developing a N a t i o n a l Public Health S e r v i c e . The gradual absorption of Turkish employees from the Malaria Programme into this Health Service will be the m o s t important task during the n e x t few y e a r s . The Turkish Gov eminent had been struggling with this disease for many y e a r s before WHO came into the p i c t u r e , and it h a s taken their combined ePforts to finally liclc this problem»
The importance, of M a l a r i a Control to development is too well Icnovn to require re-telling here,
d ) FAQ Turkish planning officials were high in their praise of the usefulness of the FAO Special Fund Project to evaluate the economic potential of the Anatalya area. The Project was w e l l m a n a g e d , provided the State Planning Office with a
starting point for determining the potential of that area and assessing the priorities, and has led to a number of promising d e v e l o p m e n t projects. U n t i l very recently, the "forest villager*' including perhaps nine million people and a large part of
underemployed in Turkey, has received only limited attention in d e v e l o p m e n t plans, and this project helped to open the door to expanding economic opportunities for these villagers.
It is n o t always easy to determine just what were the key
• .. . . . •.." ； • t1
ingredients of success in UN projects. There is a great temp- tation simply to conclude that if a project is w e l l managed y o u are almost sure to have a successful project, Howe v e rt what d o e s good management of UN projects include? After careful review of each of these four projects, it was concluded that the following four things common to each project were the principal reasons for their success;
1. Take off The Plan of Operation of each Project included all
of the things that had to be done to carry the project to the stage where the Turks were in a position to follow through with- out further UN help and the Turkish economy would enjoy the intended benefits from the project; i.e. it was carried to the 'take off" point before the project was terminated.
2. Local Support There appears to have been widespread support by impottant Turkish officials for each project. This did not result just from high pressure selling tactics by visiting Agency officials.
3. Quality of Experts The caliber of international experts assigned to each project was aboye average.
4. Timing Each project was well timed in terms of the country i ••‘
stage, cf development and ability to make effective use of this assistance.
It is n o t difficult, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticise certain aspects of the handling of each of these projects, particularly their rate of implementation. However, the fimda- m e n t a l s for success were present for each of the four projects, and Turkey is already receiving important benefits from each one.
This is the ultimate test.
I I I , S h o r t c o m i n g s of Sélected United N a t i o n s P r o j e c t s
Many UN projects in Turkey fell considerably short of the hopes and expectations of their sponsors. Stic h shortcomings could usually be explained largely by the absence of one or mere of
the four ingredients for G L I C C C S S outlined above. Let u s con- sider first the importance of planning the wo.'k so that the project will be carried to the take off stage.
Take o f f
In P e n d i l there is a particularly w e l l managed S p e c i a l Fund
P r o j e c t (FAO) to d e v e l o p a Sheep and Goat Diseases Laboratory. In m o s t r e s p e c t s this Project easily rates as; one of the best UN.
activities in T u r k e y . H o w e v e r , after the various d i s e a s e s have been identified and cures in the form .of v a c c i n e , e t c . , have been developed and field tested during the next few y e a r s , the experts are scheduled to go h o m e . No provÍ3Íon h a s been m a d e in the p r e s e n t Plan of O p e r a t i o n s for a "Phase II" anticipated follov/-on p r o j e c t for training people in the field to identify these,
d i s e a s e s , and to u s e properly the cures developed at P e n d i k , With- out such follow-on training and d e v e l o p m e n t of field i n s t r u c t i o n s , comparatively little benefit may result from the work n o w under way at Pendik.
Near Izmir is the Poplar Institute, developed through a Special Fund Project which w a s terminated a couple of y e a r s a g o . This P r o j e c t was well m a n a g e d , and met its objectives of expanding the cultivation of poplar trees, and d e v e l o p i n g a variety particularly adapted to industrial u s e s . H o w e v e r , this latter d e v e l o p m e n t was n o t carried to the ^take off11 p o i n t . Businessmen would like to
expand the industrial u s e s of poplar trees, but are n o t sure of an adequate future supply of w o o d . On the other h a n d , farmers would like to expand their cultivation of poplar for industrial p u r p o s e s , but are n o t sure of a future m a r k e t . FAO is n o w
p l a n n i n g to send two experts to Turkey to explore ways and m e a n s to m e e t this problem.
#
A somewhat similar problem is arising in connection with the S p e c i a l Fund Project for developing a Research and Training
Centre for the P r o d u c t i o n , Processing and Marketing of Fruits and V e g e t a b l e s , with headquarters at Y a l o v a . There is a growing interest in going beyond the present research in 1) developing v a r i e t i e s , 2) improving processing practice, and 3) making
economic surveys ôf the m a r k e t , to focus on a few crops with the best export prospects and actually "test the Market" with
substantial shipments to Western E u r o p e , Again we are confronted with farmers who do not want to expand production unless there is a sure market at profitable prices, ând businessmen who not only w a n t the results of testing the m a r k e t , but are not sure a supply of export quality fruit and vegetables will be available. Unless these further steps necessary to achieve a "take off" are provided f o r , this project may n o t lead to substantial increases in exports for many y e a r s .
In Ankara a United N a t i o n s mission in public administration, financed by EPTA, carried on for fourteen y e a r s , from May 1952 to December 1966. Total UN expenditures during this period
approached 1,000,000 U . S . $ . Attention was focused on development of an Institute for Public A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The Institute carried on some training activities for civil servants, and did a con- siderable amount of research, but always resisted being tied
closely enough with the administration to,really become a powerful
force in helping to achieve improved administration of the
Turkish Government. The n e t impact of their whole effort on the administration of the Government appears to have been m i n i m a l . From the standpoint of getting action on some of the more
important aspects of Turkish a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , it may be that the timing was wrong - that the Government was n o t y e t ready to consider such r e f o r m . H o w e v e r , it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the UN experts were remiss in not pressing for an action arm of the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s office or some ministry that could take advantage of the research of the Institute and follow through e f f e c t i v e l y .
In Western Anatolia is a Geothermal Energy Survey Project that brought in its first w e l l a few w e e k s ago. It was very exciting to see the big geyser of hot steam with some water blowing high into the ai г, which when harnessed to a steam turbine would generate very substantial amounts of electricity (based on preliminary e s t i m a t e s ) . There were many indications that 'his P r o j e c t had been very well managed and had the strong support of the Turkish Government. H o w e v e r , as far as this Inspector could d e t e r m i n e , there h a s been no provision so far for careful
economic studies to determine the comparative cost of this kind of energy vis-a-vis hydroelectric and convential thermal power, and then to furnish guidance on how intensely this and other fields under consideration should be d e v e l o p e d . A l s o , if further testing is f a v o u r a b l e , the alternative forms of energy available to Turkey suggest the need for developing a N a t i o n a l Energy-
Policy in the near f u t u r e . Such further steps would appear to be necessary to reach the "take off" point in development of sources of energy.
Timing
An Institute was launched in Istanbul in the late 1950's on a r e g i o n a l basis primarily to promote industrial health and safety standards. Turkey v a s n o t ready for it, m d the situation was.
complicated by Turkish insistence on emphasizing regionalism before an institute w a s rirrr.ly established on a n a t i o n a l b a s i s . The project was poorly nanageci and the laboratory work for example never really got under w a y . After the IL0 experts left around I960 the Institute w e n t d o w n h i l l , and has only recently been re- vived by a very encrgetic Turkish o f f i c i a l , but largely for
d i f f e r e n t purposes than originally i n t e n d e d . O b s e r v a t i o n s by this Inspector (e.g.) in a number of State-ovned enterprises near
A n k a r a , indicated that health and safety standards still do n o t havs a sufficiently high priority. It is also noted that administra- tivc regulations to implement a law regarding industrial safeguards have not y e t been issued.
M a n a g e m e n t
The Crop Research and Introduction Centre at Izmir is a good ехапрЗс oí a project that has been in deep trouble due particularly to poor project leadership and lack of proper communication with Turkish o f f i c i a l s . There is little evidence of a realistic work programme limited to a manageable number of c r o p s . FAO officials state that this project was originally proposed by Turkish officials because of concern over pressure on rangelands due to expansion of cultivated land. This original concept of dealing only with fodder and forage crops was later expanded by Ш officials to native grasses and leg- u m e s , c e r e a l s , v e g e t a b l e s , fruits and other crops in the region.
FAO officials go on to point out that the project's u l t i m a t e aim is to "collect, protect and store for the future the genetic material of local varieties of v a r i o n s plants found in Turkey", an objective which bears little resemblance to the original objective of the T u r k s . A close look at this project in Izmir suggested that it either ought to be closed out soon, or reoriented to m o r e Hmited objectives desired ty those Turkish officials who malee the décisions on development p r o j e c t s .
IV, General Problem Areas
A close look at a country like Turkey rather quickly reveals c e r t a i n limitations on the effectiveness of UN assistance
activities for which no practical solutions are possible at this t i m e . H o w e v e r , the review of projects discussed above plus activities of the UN "country team" in action did reveal certain major problem areas probably common to many countries for which
solutions appeared to be feasible n o w . These are discussed below.
Caliber of Experts
Turkish officials have been openly c r i t i c a l of the caliber of foreign experts assigned to Turkey. They feel that the average quality of such experts for both m u l t i l a t e r a l and b i l a t e r a l programmes leaves much to be d e s i r e d . In private talks with Turkish officials they frequently-
initiative and o c c a s i o n a l l y cited
UN officials in A n k a r a emphasized
raised this matter on their own specific n a m e s .
that Turkey is more developed than many other r e c i p i e n t s of foreign assistance, and is n o w at the stage where only first class foreign experts can be of much help in m o s t f i e l d s . Turkish officials resent Agency n o m i n a t i o n s of w h a t they regard as second class experts, particularly when only one name is submitted for c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
A l m o s t every UN o f f i c i a l in the field and Agency headquarters contacted on this r e c r u i t m e n t problem emphasized the same point, n a m e l y , that you cannot expect a really first class expert to accept temporary e m p l o y m e n t for as long as two y e a r s in the U N , particularly if he would n o t have r e - e m p l o y m e n t rights at h o m e . This observation would then lead to a discussion of problems faced in developing a career service for UN e x p e r t s and officials
in the field, and conversation usually ends with the query as to how y o u can expect Specialized A g e n c i e s to give a career status to the field employees v/ho are paid for by UNDP for only a temporary period. Some officials think an expanded use of contracting for technical assistance is part of the a n s w e r . H o w e v e r , the one Turkish Special Fund Project being implemented on a contract basis was in such deep trouble that there was talk of cancelling the c o n t r a c t . Other factors such as f i n a n c i a l aspects of the terms of employment may be m e n t i o n e d , but the primary emphasis is usually centered on the lack of a career system.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about "capacity1 1 and Ability to deliver" regarding UN c o m m i t m e n t s to provide experts
to developing c o u n t r i e s , particularly because of the possibility of d o u b l i n g the size of the UN programme in a few y e a r s . Unless a more effective r e c r u i t m e n t programme is developed, h o w e v e r , the prospects for greatly expanding the UN assistance programme arc dim indeed. The J o i n t Inspection Unit has put this problem on its agenda for further study.
Take off
Experience in Turkey certainly points the finger to the import- ance of carrying p r o j e c t s to the point where the local country can follow through by itself and get some real benefit from the expenditure m a d e . This does not mean y o u let a project drag on and on for y e a r s . What it does mean is that at the initial
planning stage you identify all the items involved in carrying the project to the o p e r a t i o n a l stage and cover them either in the o r i g i n a l project or in an anticipated "Phase II". . Otherwise
the chanccs arc that after the experts leave the project simply withers on the v i n e .
- l o 一
The crux o£ the p r o b l e m seems to be this# Suppose Turkey wants help in d e v e l o p i n g \n export m a r k e t for p e a c h e s , A study shows that te» g^ four t с oui things m u s t be dene to achievc this r e s u l t , ranging all the way from improving varieties cf peaches grown, to r e d u c i n g the price of the tin cans to competitive l e v e l s . Of the se foixrteen items only par t are within the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the Ministry of A g r i c u l t u r e , and n o t all of then are w i t h i n the competence of the unit in FAC that would backstop this p r o j e c t . The project is finally written up without, covering some of the fourteen items thcxt are outside the competence of the Ministry and the PAO bâclerto)>pir>g u n i t .
K e c e n t l y Turkey launched what many consider itq m o s t successfiil a g r i c u l t u r a l project invc.lving a great expansion in the cultiv- ation of Mexican v h d It was clear to the State Planning office that this p r o j e c t could n o t reach the "take o f f ' point v/ithout involving rncrc than the M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e , so they
set up д steering committee with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from all the d i f f e r e n t parts of the Turkish Government who were concerned with one or more of the i tens involved in reaching the "take off1 1 point.
It w o r k e d . FAO is n o w working on an integrated livestock pro- gramme that may be handled in the same way*
Go-ordination
In spite of the endless d e b a t e s , and sincere efforts of many UN officials during the past 15 y e a r s to achieve proper co-ordinatiai between the d i f f e r e n t m e m b e r s of the UN family at the country level, the situation found in Turkey left nuch to be d e s i r e d . In attempting to appraise this situation, the following items were examined : .
!• Provision of common services by the UNDP m i s s i o n .
2. Co-ordination of various administrative m a t t e r s other than common services.
3. Programme c o - o r d i n a t i o n .
4 . Implementation and e v a l u a t i o n . Common Services
The oldest and most fully accepted role of the UNDP R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e since the early 19501 s is to provide such common
services as a post office for personal m a i l o£ UN p e r s o n n e l , clearance of items through customs, renewal of p a s s p o r t s , handling the pouch, taking care of visitors and putting them in touch with Turkish officials or UN experts^ as appropriate, e t c . These activities were being handled satisfactorily by an experienced and able UNDP administrative officer.
Administrative Co-ordination
UN activities in A n k a r a were largely centralized in one building, including the mission of the UNDP R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , the World Food Programme, and the UN High Commissioner for R e f u g e e s . It would have been helpful if the UNICEF office were n o t on the other side of A n k a r a , and the IL0 office were not located in I s t a n b u l , (This latter matter is the subject of a separate note to ILO)» This dispersion adds to administrative costs and
p r o b l e m s of communication.
Communications between different parts of the UN family in Ankara and with their headquarters was n o t satisfactory and w a s an
important contributing factor 'to the lack of a desirable degree of co-ordination within the UN family.
For e x a m p l e , this Inspector was shown the m o s t extreme case of failure to get an answer from headquarters^ The R e s i d e n t Rep- resentative had sent several letters and eight cables to a
Specialized A g e n c y , for which he is also the country representative
r e g a r d i n g a request from the Turkish Government, but still had not received a single r e p l y . This Inspector followed up on this matter at the Agency headquarters and found that the responsible office had corresponded directly with the office of the Turkish Government that was requesting the project and settled the mattei;
but no one informed the Resident R e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
The country representative of another Specialized Agency w a s corresponding direct with individuals and Turkish Government o f f i c e s , without advising or sending copies of correspondence to the R e s i d e n t Representative or the State Planning O f f i c e . On two or three occasions the Agency representative ran into difficulties and called on the R e s i d e n t Representative for help on an
emergency basis, but the latter was unable to respond promptly because he did not have any background, on the matter in question.
The State Planning Office finally protested formally to the R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e . This Inspector raised this matter with
the country r e p r e s e n t a t i v e1s Agency headquarters, and was
advised that their country representative was acting contrary to instructions and would be so advised.
Other examples could be cited, but the major difficulty appears to be simply a lack of discipline — a failure to follow instructions.
Programme Co-ordination
Turkey established a central office for planning about six y e a r s a g o , and fully recognizes the Resident Representative as its key contact point for UNDP projects. There w a s much evidence that the R e s i d e n t Representative was aggresively reviewing all n e w
proposals for UNDP a s s i s t a n c e , and keeping his headquarters fully informed» He was d o i n g a particularly thorough job of checking on the administrative feasibility of p r o p o s a l s , ascertaining the attitude of the Turkish Government, and maintaining pressure on the UN family to respond p r o m p t l y . The question c^n be r a i s e d ,
h o w e v e r , as to whether the programming role of the R e s i d e n t Representative shcmld go further.
For example there were nearly 150 UN experts and o f f i c i a l s in Turkey. The collect ion of first-hand experience of these
employees in Tarx;:y tould provide valuable guidance for further programming of iJN activities in terms of priorities, co-ordination between programmes, ïiew opportunities for a s s i s t a n c e , etc. There w a s no specific evidence that the R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e was proceeding in an organized way to get experts in related fields acquainted with each o t h e r , and through grcup discussion tap the best thinking of these individuals on future programming for
forwarding to Agency and UNDP h e a d q u a r t e r s , perhaps after informal discussion vith Turkish officials.
It was quite evident that the U K I C E F , WHO and ILO representatives in Turkey were n e t discussing their 'Iregular" pro gramme s (i-e, m n - U N D P financed programmes) with the Office of the Resident Representative.
H o w e v e r , in view of the present rather limited role assumed by the R e s i d e n t Representative it is not clear just what he would do if he v/ere fully infermed in advance on these other programmes, Deyond checking for d u p l i c a t i o n .
Implementation
The R e s i d e n t Representative had fully assumed the leadership in getting out in the field and evaluating UNDP projects. Even during the few months he had been in Turkey he had examined all UNDP
activities on the spot at least o n c e .
The periodic reports of experts and Special Fund project managers could be more helpful to the R e s i d e n t Representative in evaluation activities if they were modified in two respects;
1. Timincj Although the Resident Representative is required to submit periodic confidential reports to UNDP head- quarters reflecting his personal views, he draws
heavily on experts' and project m a n a g e r s ' reports for v a r i o u s facts and f i g u r e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y the timing of submission of at least some of these latter r e p o r t s w a s not properly co-ordinated with the R e s i d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' s reporting d a t e s . 2. Content A review of a substantial sampling of r e p o r t s of
project m a n a g e r s in Turkey did n o t d i s c l o s e any d i s c u s s i o n or evaluation whatsoever of the status of training of Turkish c o u n t e r p a r t s . D i s c u s s i o n s at Agency headquarters confirmed the impression gained at Ankara that the A g e n c i e s are n o t requir- ing or checking on how w e l l the counterparts are d o i n g , even though this is supposed to be the end- product of a large part of Ш assistance activities.
Perhaps the failure of Headquarters to hold the field accountable for progress in counterpart training is a major reason why training activities often move so slowly and result in repeated extensions of the expert's tour until the local counterpart is able finally to carry on a l o n e .
There was evidence in Turkey of problems encountered in implement- ing programmes because various UN A g e n c i e s have overlapping
a u t h o r i t i e s . The most serious problem at the time of this
I n s p e c t o r1s visit involved a n e w Special Fund Project for a Small Industries Development Centre and Industrial Estates at Gazientep.
UNIDO w a s designated the Executing A g e n c y , with the assistance of IL0. So far, attempts by staff of these two A g e n c i e s to agree on their respective roles in this Project have failed. Part of the work involved in the Project clearly falls within the authorized a c t i v i t i e s of U N I D O . One third of the work is of the type carried on for many y e a r s by IL0, but also is included in the authorized
a c t i v i t i e s of the newly established UNIDCK The d o c u m e n t
approved by the Governing Council provided no guidance cn this m a t t e r , and UNDP officials are r e l u c t a n t to ,fget into the middle"
and attempt to settle it. In the m e a n t i m e , the m o n t h s go by and some Turkish officials are beginning to ask whether UNDP funds involved could be transft rred to another project. The identical problem arises in connection with a Special Fund Project for an In-Plant Training Centre for Graduate Engineers, involving UNIDO as Executing A g e n t , with the assistance of both ILO and U N E S C O , but six months after approval of thé Project by the Governing Council negotiations have not even started between the three A g e n c i e s .
There is a lack of long term planning and evaluation in Turkey by UN A g e n c i e s and UNDP headquarters. Over a dozen n e w Special Fund P r o j e c t s , which, if approved during the next two or three y e a r s , would extend to 1975 or beyond, are currently under active con- sideration. They appear to have been chosen on the basis of a series of Ad Hoc judgements without specific recognition that Turkey is widely acclaimed as one of the developing countries n e a r e s t to "take o f fn point. What should be the future strategy under such circumstances? Instead of sending relatively junior o f f i c e r s to discuss technical points of projects, would it not be bettex to send some representatives to discuss the broad strategy
•of aid with high Turkish officials?
The strategy certainly should include identification of the three or four priority areas for further assistance to Turkey during the n e x t f e w y e a r s , developed in collaboration with Turkish officials.
Presumably part of the strategy would also be to help Turkey keep in touch with n e w technological developments taking place abroad after UN advisors go h o m e . For e x a m p l e , FAO made the necessary
a r r a n n e m e n t s for the Poplar Institute^ which it helped to
establish in Turkeyy to become associated v/ith an international v^rganizatiom that did a good job in keeping its m e m b e r s up to date on the latest d e v e l o p m e n t s in its f i e l d . The strategy m i g h t also incliide greater emphasis on rigorous screening of all 1Ш fellowships for training in other covaitries. Fragmentary n a t a indicates that a comparatively high proportion of these Turkish fellowships were n o t tied to any particular p r o j e c t , and in any event were n o t adequately reviewed from the standpoint of availability of training facilities in Turkey (particularly Special.Fund f e l l o w s h i p s ) . In view of the amount of money and effort expended through various assistance programmes on
educational institutions in Turkey during the past 15 y e a r s , it is only reasonable to expect the Turks to make maximum use of the se faci1i t ie s•
F o r m s
One specific opportunity for improving co-ordiriation in the field is through the standardization of f o r m s . Over the y e a r s each Specialized Agency and the UNDP have developed separately their forms for travel a u t h o r i z a t i o n s , travel claims, application fcr e m p l o y m e n t , fellowship nomination f o r m s , periodic reporting to h e a d q u a r t e r s , etc. The lack of standardization of these forms is unnecessarily confusing to local g o v e r n m e n t s , and an added burden to centralized common services in the field, increases the total cost of printing forms, and inhibits further mechanization of administrative activities- The standardized form for m e d i c a l examinations now in use for all UN A g e n c i e s in Geneva is an excellent example of co-operation in standardizing f o r m s . It is recommended that the various UN A g e n c i e s set up a working group to standardize other forms, such as those identified a b o v e , that are used in the field• ‘
In m a k i n g the above r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , it is recognized that some minor differences in terms of employment between A g e n c i e s may- p r e v e n t complete standardization of one or two of the f o r m s .
(Perhaps this is one additional a r g u m e n t for uniformity of terms of employment)• •
C o n t r o l of Funds for Special Fund P r o j e c t s
There has been a tendency over the y e a r s to spend all of the money approved by the Governing Council for a project as well as all of the additional contingency funds the Agency can get N e w Y o r k to approve. When pressed for a reason for extending a p r o j e c t , the key answer frequently is "there is still some money l e f t " .
Experts in the field who do n o t k n o w if they will be discharged or n o t when the project is finished (see discussion of "caliber of experts" above) have an understandable tendency not to be in a h u r r y . Officials in Agency headquarters want to build up the total of their expenditure in the field as justification for a m a x i m u m number of projects for their department in the future.
Under the present system no one is going to be criticised for extravagant expenditures provided expenditures do n o t exceed authorized amounts. Experience shows it is most difficult to terminate a project, that has n o t turned out well, at an early stages
In order to correct this situation, someone must be firmly assigned the task of watching and reporting on this situation 一 presumably the UN Resident R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , He should receive reasonably-
current expenditure data from N e w Y o r k , and be asked to report at regular intervals on any problems faced in holding down expend- iture to reasonable levels. "Savings" realized through this
p r o c e s s might revert back to the country just as under the rules for EPTA. Such funds m i g h t be used for fellowship or other projects without prejudice to those then under review for a p p r o v a l by N e w Y o r k h e a d q u a r t e r s .
August 1968
EB44/2 ANNEX 2 JIU/REP/68/2
HEPOET OK CO-ORDHBLTIOli AID OO-OEEEATIOK A T COUfiTRY LEVEL by
S . ILIC R.S. МАЙ1 A . F . SOKIRKIN oint Inspection Unit
