Results obtained through participatory methods were used in the qualitative analysis section of the project report. As a result of the evaluation of all works, a heat map was drawn on which developments regarding each goal were assessed. Policy and strategy-oriented recommendations were offered.8 Additionally, responsible and relevant institutions for the implementation of SDGs were designated by individual goals.9 At the same time, an inventory of the projects implemented in Turkey related to SDGs was prepared. In this work, areas with inadequate implementation were identified. Close cooperation with stakeholders in the project led to increased awareness on SDGs. Thereby, the representatives of stakeholders contributed to the inclusion of SDGs in their internal processes and policy documents. Through the synergy created, the ownership for SDGs enhanced for all stakeholders including particularly public institutions. At the same time, an inventory was prepared of the projects implemented in Turkey related to SDGs. In this work, areas with inadequate implementation were identified. The close cooperation with stakeholders in the project led to increased awareness on SDGs. Thereby, the representatives of stakeholders contributed to the inclusion of SDGs in their internal processes and policy documents. With the synergy created, the ownership for SDGs enhanced for all stakeholders including particularly public institutions. 3.2.4. Indicators for Monitoring National Policies in the Implementation of SDGs TURKSTAT is one of the most important stakeholder institutions in achieving SDGs. TURKSTAT follows up the international process conducted for determining the global SDG indicators. This is a significant advantage for the establishment of a monitoring framework in Turkey. As stated in the first VNR Report, Turkey has devised a set of SDG indicators since 2000, which includes 54 indicators. Following the identification of the global SDG indicators list subsequent to the adoption of SDGs, TURKSTAT started the 8 See Chapter 3.4.1. 9 See Chapter 3.5.2. 10 See Chapter 3.5.3. first domestic inventory work in April 2016, aimed to determine the availability of SDG indicators at the national level, and solicited views and recommendations of potential data producers and made initial assessments on the availability of data. This work was the first step to raise awareness on part of the official data producers on SDG indicators. Following the first domestic inventory in 2016, SDG indicators were reviewed at the working groups of the Official Statistics Programme (OSP)10,and responsible and relevant institutions for 218 indicators were identified and published in the 2017- 2021 OSP Supplement. With the transition to the presidential government system, the mandates and remits of ministries were amended, and the responsibilities for SDG indicators in the OSP Supplement were redistributed, eventually covering 215 indicators. Assigning institutional responsibilities through OSP was critical in creating institutional awareness and ownership for the indicators, and integrating SDGs into national policies. The first “SDG Indicators Newsletter, 2010-2017” was issued on 19 February 2019. Out of the 83 indicators in the Newsletter, 71 were identical to the global indicators and computed exactly through the same methodology, and 12 were proxies that were available at national level, appropriate for monitoring the respective target and considered to act for the respective global indicators. Acting on the principle that there would be no progress without monitoring, TURKSTAT undertook technical activities in line with the international process and by taking further disaggregation into account, which led to significant outcomes for the implementation of SDGs and preparation of VNR. In the future, new measures may be introduced in SDG monitoring system in parallel with global developments. 23 TURKEY’s 2nd VNR 2019 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS “Strong Ground towards Common Goals”
3.3. PROGRESS IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS 3.3.1. Turkey’s Current Situation vis-à-vis Global SDG Indicators Framework Global developments concerning SDG indicators as of February 2019 indicate that global metadata exist for 185 indicators out of the total number of 232 global SDG indicators (those under Tier I and II), while efforts are underway to develop methodology for 41 indicators (Tier III). As a result of evaluation of indicator performance, developments concerning metadata creation and of the other indicators that are now producible, revisions are planned on the set of global indicators in the years 2020 and 2025. In this perspective, it is recognized/acknowledged that the set of global indicators is a monitoring framework “that is still being worked on”. As a result of efforts to determine availability of and responsibility for indicators, 17 of the indicators were not included in OSP as they were irrelevant to our country or institutional responsibility could not be clarified in their cases. Therefore, attainability was evaluated for Turkey based on 215 indicators. Accordingly, 39% of the 215 indicators included in OSP is under the responsibility of TURKSTAT whereas the remaining 61% are under the responsibility of other institutions. According to the 2017-2021 OSP, TURKSTAT has responsibility for the highest number of indicators followed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Following the compilation of the indicators that are available at the TURKSTAT and other institutions, and the assessment of indicators against statistical quality criteria (consistency, reliability, comparability, timeliness etc.), it was determined that 83 indicators (36%) were publishable. Of the 83 indicators published in the Newsletter, 47 are produced by TURKSTAT, and 36 by other national data producers that are listed in OSP. Of the 132 indicators that are not produced, 38 fall under the responsibility of TURKSTAT, and 94 under other institutions that are listed in OSP. Considering the published indicators, the Ministry of Health produces data for 8 indicators, the highest number when TURKSTAT is excluded. TURKSTAT is responsible for compiling, monitoring, reporting the indicators that are under the responsibility of other institutions at national level. Table 3. Indicators Produced in Turkey by Tiers, February 2019 Number (%) Produced 83 100.0 Tier I 56 67.5 Tier II 20 24.1 Tier III 3 3.6 Multiple Tier* 4 4.8 Table 3 demonstrates that 67.5% of the published indicators are listed in Tier I, and 24% in Tier II. In addition, TURKSTAT published data on some of the indicators in Tier III. Distribution of 215 indicators included in OSP reveals that “SDG 3. Good Health and Well-being” with 20 indicators with the highest number of published indicators accounting for 24% of the total number of published indicators. Of the 20 indicators published under this goal, 17 indicators fully match the definitions of global metadata, and 3 are presented as proxy indicators. As a ranking of SDGs with respect to the number of indicators included, SDG 3 is followed by “SDG 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth” with 9 indicators and “SDG 9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure” with 8 indicators. 24 TURKEY’s 2nd VNR 2019 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS “Strong Ground towards Common Goals”
Figure 1. Distribution of Indicators by SDGs 7% 7% 15% 63% 11% 38% 8% 18% 9% 60% 20% 35% 18% 11% 33% 10% 67% 40% 45% 86% 85% 26% 54% 73% 20% 47% 35% 65% 25% 75% 56% 90% 25% 75% 100% 100% 33% 60% 55% Produced Proxy Not produced 25 TURKEY’s 2nd VNR 2019 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS “Strong Ground towards Common Goals”
The substantially varying numbers of SDG indicators make
the process of proportional monitoring of indicator availability
all the more significant. The rates demonstrates that 80% of
SDG 7 indicators are available in Turkey (Figure 1). SDG 3 has
the second highest rate of indicator availability (75%) and SDG
9 has the third highest rate of indicator availability (67%). For
SDG 12, 10% of indicators is produced. For SDG 1 and SDG 2,
86 and 85% of indicators respectively are not produced. No
indicators are available in our country for SDG 13 and SDG 14.
3.3.2. Increasing Awareness and Ownership for SDG
Indicators
In the context of its responsibility to encourage production of
unavailable SDG indicators, TURKSTAT engaged in various
activities to raise awareness of SDG indicators for institutions
included in OSP. Various meetings were held with institutions
in charge of administrative records concerning SDG indicators,
and with other actors involved in the process.
SDG indicators are also discussed on a regular basis at
technical level by the Working Groups formed under OSP.
Information on SDG indicators is provided at events organised
by the institutions.
Despite significant gaps in awareness and ownership for SDG
indicators among various institutions in OSP, these institutions
have made considerable effort to develop new indicators
during the 2017 data compilation process. It is believed that
various factors have a bearing on their efforts:
• Increased requests (as of 2018) by UN agencies (custodian
agencies) in charge of submitting reports on global
indicators to the UN Statistics Division concerning the
compilation and verification of the indicators have actually
contributed to increased ownership of indicators by
institutions listed in OSP.
• Expectations from institutions listed in OSP were clarified in
a workshop held prior to data compilation by TURKSTAT.
• A letter by the President, communicated by PSB to all
institutions emphasising the importance and necessity of
ownership by all institutions was another major contributor
to increase ownership of the indicators.
Thematic workshops are planned in the future under the
coordination of TURKSTAT to focus on production of new SDG
indicators that are needed but yet to be produced. It is intended
during these workshops to discuss indicator metadata in
detail, evaluate current and potential data sources for indicator
production, and identify indicators that can be produced.
It is planned that SDG indicators be published through a
national reporting platform with powerful visual features
that could be updated regularly. This platform, in addition
to allowing monitoring changes on indicators over time
via graphs, will also enable any indicator that has become
producible to be incorporated into the system instantly without
waiting for the next publishing date.
3.4. INTEGRATION OF THREE DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Integration of three dimensions of SDGs could be discussed
in two stages, namely inter-policy integration and applicable
actions. Integration of SDGs into macro policies is ensured
through NDPs and Annual Programmes. In terms of
implementation, it involves legislation, strategic plans, action
plans and SDG indicators that will support implementation.
The following is a summary of the reflections of sustainable
development on the multi-sectoral NDPs that determine main
goals and priorities for Turkey’s development in economic,
social and cultural spheres and constitutes a framework for
institutional and structural arrangements.
• The 6th NDP (1990-1994) adopted the prevention of waste in
the use of natural resources and recognized that protection
of environment as an essential factors for economic and
social development.
• The 7th NDP (1996-2000) included policies that prioritised
integration of environment and economy in line with the
sustainable development approach.
• The 8th NDP (2001-2005) adopted a sustainable development
approach that was essentially based on protecting human
health, ecological balance, historical and aesthetic values
while achieving economic and social progress.
• The 9th NDP (2007-2013) integrated sustainable
development principles into the national development goals
to a large extent, and adopted an integrated perspective
by defining main goals and development axes. Turkey’s
country-specific priorities in line with the principle of
“common but differentiated responsibilities” of sustainable
26
TURKEY’s 2nd VNR 2019
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
“Strong Ground towards Common Goals”
development.were included in this plan and in Medium-Term
Programmes which has beenprepared since 2006.
• In the 10th NDP (2014-2018), the “green growth” approach
with increased global importance for sustainable
development was one of the main concepts that shaped
the plan; and policies and strategies were developed to
implement principles of sustainable development and
internalise the green growth approach.
Sustainable development approach is already mainstreamed
in many sectoral and thematic policy and strategy documents
in line with NDPs.
PSB is the Turkish national focal point for sustainable
development which, by its three dimensions, falls in the remit
of various public institutions. Managing the process of multi-
sectoral planning and programming, PSB coordinates, across
the country, implementation, monitoring and reporting of
SDGs, and ensures that NDPs are in line and consistent with
SDGs.
All relevant public institutions in charge of implementing SDGs
reflect them into their thematic strategies, particularly on their
own institutional strategic plans; and undertake activities to
implement SDGs.
One good example is a project implemented by the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF) in cooperation with FAO to
integrate SDGs into the strategic plan (see SDG 15). 11
3.4.1. SDG Heat Map
In the Stocktaking Analysis Project, analyses were conducted
on the state of consistency with SDGs. Stakeholders’ inputs
were assessed through Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-
Threats (SWOT) and qualitative assessment tools. Based on
the results, SDG heat map was created to demonstrate the
compliance level by identifying baseline and gaps for each SDG
in terms of policy-strategy, legislation institutional framework,
project inventory and implementation.
Consistency level in the heat map is evaluated over 5 scalar
intervals. “Advanced level” is expressed in terms of 80-100%
range, which denotes adequacy in more than two thirds of
the targets; “medium-advanced level” in terms of 60-80%
11 See the Good Practices at SDG 15.
range, which denotes adequacy in at least half of the targets;
“medium level” in terms of 40-60% range, which denotes
adequacy in less than half of the targets; “medium-low level”
in terms of 20-40% range, which denotes that achievement on
goals is inadequate to a large extent, and “low level” in terms
of 0-20% range, which denotes that the development level in
the goals is very low to a large extent.
27
TURKEY’s 2nd VNR 2019
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
“Strong Ground towards Common Goals”