Some Important Lessons from Türkiye for Ukraine
EU Accession Process and Use of Pre-Accession Funding
As a country of a similar geographical scale to Ukraine and with a lengthy period as an EU accession candidate, Turkey offers valuable lessons for Ukraine's EU accession path, particularly in terms of territorial development and multi-level governance.
Governance in Turkey
Turkey's administrative and geographical division is characterised by its provincial system, the role of provincial governors, and the centralised nature of its governance model. This structure plays a pivotal role in the country's administration, ensuring the implementation of national policies at the local level. Municipalities form the backbone of urban administration, managing various services including urban planning, infrastructure development, environmental management, and cultural programmes.
In 2006, Turkey established Regional Development Agencies with the aim of fostering regional development, enhancing competitiveness, and reducing regional disparities in line with the European Union's cohesion policies. These agencies were created as part of Turkey's efforts to align its regional policies with EU standards and effectively manage and utilize EU Pre-Accession funds.
Territorial Development
Regarding territorial development, the "National Strategy for Regional Development" is a crucial blueprint prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Technology of Türkiye, setting out the basic strategies and priorities for regional development, aligning them with national and regional development objectives articulated in the National Development Plan and forming the overall targets for the Regional Plans. To ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach, the formulation process of the strategy involves collecting inputs from all relevant parties and stakeholders, including local administrations, development agencies, and civil society.
EU Pre-Accession Funds
The programming and monitoring of EU pre-accession funds at different levels in Turkey is a multifaceted process involving numerous stakeholders and layers of strategy, oversight, and implementation. The integration of EU funds into Turkey's development agenda involves aligning these funds with national priorities, detailed in various strategic documents. The process requires extensive planning and consultation with various stakeholders to ensure that the chosen strategies harmonise with Turkey's broader economic, social, and environmental goals.
The primary objective of the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) programme is to support Turkey in adopting and implementing the political, institutional, legal, administrative, social, and economic reforms required to comply with the EU's acquis communautaire. The financial scale of the IPA for Turkey has been moderate considering the size and scale of the country and its challenges. On the other hand, the purpose of the financial assistance is not to provide substantial support to Turkey in its development process. The financial support under IPA serves mainly as assistance for Turkey to increase its capacity to absorb funds and be ready for larger scale structural funds in the future.
EU IPA Assistance to Turkey: a comprehensive overview
Since 2002, Turkey has been a significant recipient of EU funds aimed at supporting its accession to the Union. From 2002 to 2020, Turkey benefited from a total of EUR 9.2 billion in funding (including EUR 1.3 billion in pre-accession assistance from 2002-2006). During the IPA I period (2007-2013), Turkey received the lion's share of 48.2% (€4.8 billion, out of which €3.96 billion was absorbed) and 25% (€3.2 billion) during the IPA II period (2014-2020), making it the largest beneficiary among countries preparing for EU membership. Nearly 900 projects have been implemented through this funding, significantly contributing to Turkey’s administrative and institutional capacity towards EU membership preparations.
Under IPA I, Turkey demonstrated a robust capacity for fund absorption and project implementation. The allocated budget was distributed across five key components, focusing on establishing institutional capacity, aligning with the EU acquis, and fostering economic and social cohesion.
Table 1: Breakdown of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance I
| Components | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Total |
| І – Transition Assistance and Institution Building | 256,7 | 256,1 | 239,6 | 217,8 | 231,2 | 227,5 | 238,5 | 1 667,40 |
| ІІ – Cross-border Cooperation | 2,1 | 2,8 | 3 | 3,1 | 5,1 | 2,1 | 2,2 | 20,40 |
| ІІІ – Regional Development | 167,5 | 173,8 | 182,7 | 238,1 | 293,4 | 356,06 | 366,88 | 1 778,44 |
| IV – Human Resources Development | 50,2 | 52,9 | 55,6 | 63,4 | 77,6 | 83,1 | 91,1 | 473,90 |
| V – Rural Development | 20,7 | 53 | 85,5 | 131,3 | 172,5 | 187,38 | 204,18 | 854,56 |
| Total | 497,2 | 538,6 | 566,4 | 653,7 | 779,8 | 856,14 | 902,86 | 4 794,70 |
Transitioning into the IPA II period marked a shift towards a sectoral approach that prioritised reforms in preparation for Union membership, socio-economic and regional development, and agriculture and rural development. This strategic allocation as shown in table 2 underscores the EU's commitment to supporting Turkey's comprehensive reform initiatives and development projects across vital sectors, such as democracy and governance, rule of law, environment, transport, energy, and rural development. The success of these initiatives largely hinges on Turkey's capacity to absorb and effectively implement EU-funded projects, highlighting the critical need for enhancing administrative capabilities and ensuring alignment with EU standards and practices for successful accession preparation.
Table 2: Breakdown of indicative Allocations per policy areas and sectors for Pre-Accession Assistance II
| Türkiye | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Total 2014-2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Total 2018-2020 | Total 2014-2020 | Of which climate change relevant |
| a) DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW | 350 | 197 | 234 | 123 | 904 | 97 | 220 | 210 | 527 | 1 431 | |
| Democracy and governance | 238 | 29 | 115 | 110 | 493 | 87 | 173 | 163 | 423 | 916 | |
| Rule of law and fundamental rights | 112 | 167 | 119 | 13 | 411 | 10 | 47 | 47 | 104 | 515 | |
| b) COMPETITIVENESS AND GROWTH | 264 | 429 | 386 | 370 | 1 449 | 289 | 175 | 189 | 654 | 2 103 | |
| Environment, climate action and energy | 46 | 91 | 85 | 85 | 307 | 62 | 34 | 35 | 131 | 438 | 90% |
| Transport | 72 | 128 | 115 | 10 | 325 | 23 | 12 | 12 | 47 | 372 | 80% |
| Competitiveness, innovation, agriculture and rural development | 109 | 147 | 120 | 205 | 581 | 164 | 110 | 118 | 393 | 975 | 50% |
| Education, employment and social policies | 37 | 63 | 66 | 69 | 235 | 40 | 19 | 24 | 83 | 318 | |
| TOTAL | 614 | 626 | 620 | 493 | 2,352 | 387 | 395 | 399 | 1 181 | 3 533 |
Source: Revised Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey (2014-2020), adopted on 10/08/2018. The above allocations do not include amounts coordinated by the Facility for Refugees in Turkey.
Just as in previous IPA periods, the IPA III phase, spanning the years 2021 to 2027, is designed to further the objectives of enhancing Turkey's capacity for the harmonisation and implementation of the EU acquis, as well as building capacities for economic and social cohesion. In this new period, unlike its predecessors, there is no country-specific allocation. Instead, a total of 14.2 billion Euros has been allocated for all beneficiary countries, with the distribution based on the principle of a fair share.
Lessons for Ukraine
Before the Russian invasion, Ukraine had made significant strides forward with decentralisation and regional development. The scale of reconstruction funding required, and the approved EU Ukraine Facility (EUR 50bn) means that Ukraine must effectively prepare for and implement funds beyond the scale of full Structural and Cohesion funding. This cannot be achieved without a systematic national/regional development approach and dynamic central and local government relations.
While Turkey has adopted a more centralist management approach to the EU accession process, the scale of the EU and other donor funding that Ukraine must manage and implement cannot be effectively realised without the pro-active participation of local government, including local project preparation, selection, implementation, and funds management. The principle of subsidiarity should be applied in terms of what can be achieved more effectively at the central level and at the local level. Projects of national significance in key sectors such as transport and energy could have a stronger centralist governance approach with sectorally determined Operating Structure/Managing Authorities in key line ministries.
Türkiye's experience with the IPA management structure highlights the delicate balance between centralization for efficiency and the need for broader engagement and ownership at the local level to ensure effective implementation of regional development strategies.
While the centralist approach may enable effective utilization of limited resources and achieved program targets, it has also introduced challenges such as disparities in operational practices, concentrated responsibilities at the central level, and higher staff turnover in central government ministries.
Ukraine should build on the progress made with decentralisation reform and foster an inclusive and sustainable management central/local enabling framework. This may involve enhancing the status and support for personnel within EU Fund structures at the central level, promoting uniform practices across ministries, and developing mechanisms to decentralize responsibilities at the local level to deliver programmes/projects on the ground. Such adjustments could improve the resilience and effectiveness of fund management structures, making them more adaptable to changing conditions and better aligned with the overarching goals of regional development and EU integration.
***
This article has been produced by U-LEAD with Europe Programme with the assistance of the European Union and its member states Germany, Denmark, France, Poland and Slovenia. The contents of this paper are the sole responsibility of its author and do not necessarily represent the views of U-LEAD with Europe, the European Union and its member states Germany, Denmark, France, Poland and Slovenia. All terms in this article are meant to be used neutrally for men and women.
Hüseyin Ali Âlî Tangürek
An international development expert and policy advisor with more than 20 years of experience in social policy reform, EU pre-accession fund management, and strategic planning. He has worked with national governments, international organizations, and financial institutions on designing and implementing programs related to employment, social inclusion, and institutional capacity building. As an international expert of U-LEAD with Europe, he provides expertise on aligning policy and funding mechanisms with EU standards, drawing on his previous work with the European Commission, ILO, and UN agencies.
The OpenMind authors, as a rule, are invited experts and contributors who prepare the material on request of our editors. Yet, their point of view may not coincide with that of the Mind editorial team.
However, the team is responsible for the accuracy and relevance of the opinion expressed, specifically, for fact-checking the statements and initial verification of the author.
Mind also thoroughly selects the topics and columns that can be published in the OpenMind section and processes them in line with the editorial standards.
