Evaluation of EU Support to PAR And PFM in Turkey

1. Specific Contract Nr 300011060 Report Desk Study DELEGATIONOFTHEEUROPEAN UNIONTOTURKEY–THEMATIC EVALUATION OF EUSUPPORT TO PAR AND PFM UNDER IPAI AND IPAII2004–2020 PROGRAMMING YEARS IN TURKEY EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi Specific Contract Number 300011060 Final Report 21 February 2022 An-EU Funded Project Managed by FCG Germany GmbH Consortium led by

2. Specific Contract Nr 300011060 Final Report THEMATICEVALUATIONOFEUSUPPORTTOPARANDPFMUNDERIPAIANDIPAII2004–2020 PROGRAMMINGYEARSINTURKEY Specific Contract Nr 300011060 DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views expressed herein are those of the consultants and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. REPORT PREPARED BY Nick Norvell Team Leader CONTRACTOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS FCG Germany GmBH Mr Andreas von Brühl Pohl, Project Director Fasanenstrasse 4, 10623 Berlin, Germany Tel. +49 (0)30 200 89-200 Fax: +49 (0)30 200-89-79 E-mail: lot05@fcgconsult.com REPORT REVISED BY Ms. Milica Simin Project Director Sefa Pamuksuz Supply Expert Coşkun Cangöz PFM Expert

3. Specific Contract Nr 300011060 Final Report CONTENTS ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 7 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Content and Scope of the Evaluation ................................................................................................ 13 1.2 The Reform Process ................................................................................................................................... 14 1.2.1 Public Administration Reform (PAR) ................................................................................................... 14 1.2.2 Public Finance Management ................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 EU and Government Policy Objective ................................................................................................ 19 1.3.1 EU policy objective ................................................................................................................................. 19 1.3.2 Government policy objective ............................................................................................................. 21 1.4 Programme, Projects and Complementary Project Description .............................................. 22 1.4.1 Pre-accession Financial Assistance for Turkey (2002/2006) ................................................... 22 1.4.2 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) I (2007-2013) ................................................ 22 1.4.3 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) II (2014 – 2020) ............................................ 23 1.4.4 IPA projects assessed in-depth ......................................................................................................... 25 1.4.5 Complementary projects ..................................................................................................................... 28 1.5 IPA III Regulation ........................................................................................................................................ 29 2 ANSWERED QUESTIONS / FINDINGS ........................................................................ 31 2.1 Were the PA and PFM selected areas of action and proposed measures relevant to the EU and Turkey’s policy objectives and thus conducive to accession progress? considering the limited availability of resources do they represent a priority in the context of the reform process?............................................................................................................. 31 2.2 Were the resources (budget and technical assistance) adequate and appropriate to achieve the critical mass able to put in motion changes? and was the quality of advice in line with international best practices? Were the institution buildings’ tools appropriate to identified needs and were they complementing each other? ................... 35 2.3 Was the institutional framework, partners ownership at political, managerial, and technical levels, and partners performance conducive to changes? ..................................... 37 2.4 Was the adopted operational strategy and concerning actions properly coordinated, sequenced, able to ensure efficiency and complementarity? ....................... 38 2.5 Were the expected short-term changes achieved? ...................................................................... 39 2.6 Were the short-term changes sustainable? what is left of the completed projects now? what factors have hampered the sustainability of the projects? ................................ 48 2.7 Were the expected progresses towards meeting accession criteria for a responsible and accountable public administration achieved? ....................................................................... 50 2.8 Were the expected progresses in the cross-cutting areas such as gender equality, environment, climate change, and equal opportunities for disadvantaged people achieved? ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 51 3.1 Lesson Learnt ............................................................................................................................................... 51