Corporate Strategic Evaluation

Thailand

Unternehmensstrategische Evaluierung – Hauptbericht

Im Auftrag der GIZ durchgeführt von Particip

Prof. Dr. Jörn Dosch & Pituck Jongnarangsin

Impressum

Als Bundesunternehmen unterstützt die GIZ die deutsche Bundesregierung bei der Erreichung ihrer Ziele in

der Internationalen Zusammenarbeit für nachhaltige Entwicklung.

Als Stabsstelle Evaluierung der GIZ untersteht sie organisatorisch direkt dem Vorstand und ist vom operati-

ven Geschäft getrennt. Diese Organisationsstruktur stärkt ihre Unabhängigkeit. Die Stabsstelle Evaluierung

ist mandatiert, zur Entscheidungsfindung evidenzbasierte Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen zu generieren, ei-

nen glaubwürdigen Wirkungsnachweis zu erbringen und die Transparenz zu den Ergebnissen zu erhöhen.

Diese Evaluierung wurde im Auftrag der Stabsstelle Evaluierung von externen Evaluator/innen durchgeführt

und der Evaluierungsbericht von externen Evaluator/innen verfasst. Er gibt ausschließlich deren Meinung

und Wertung wieder. Die GIZ hat eine Stellungnahme zu den Ergebnissen und eine Management Response

zu den Empfehlungen verfasst.

Evaluator/innen:

Prof. Dr. Jörn Dosch, Pituck Jongnarangsin, Particip GmbH

Autor/innen des Evaluierungsberichts:

Prof. Dr. Jörn Dosch, Pituck Jongnarangsin, Particip GmbH

Consulting:

Particip GmbH

Merzhauser Str. 183

79100 Freiburg

T: +49 761 - 790 74 0

E: info@particip.de

I: http://www.particip.de/en/

Konzeption, Koordination und Management

Dr. Annette Backhaus, Stabsstelle Evaluierung,

Gruppenleiterin

Dr. Alexander Erich, Participatory Initiative for Social

Accountability (PISA), Auftragsverantwortlicher

Dr. Judith Müller-Gerold, GIZ Stabsstelle Evaluie-

rung, Fachkonzeptioinistin

Lennart Bendfeldt-Huthmann, GIZ Stabsstelle Evalu-

ierung, Fachkonzeptionist

Verantwortlich:

Dr. Ricardo Gomez, GIZ, Leiter Stabsstelle Evaluie-

rung

Herausgeberin:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Sitz der Gesellschaft

Bonn und Eschborn

Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36 + 40

53113 Bonn, Deutschland

T +49 228 4460-0

F +49 228 4460 - 1766

E evaluierung@giz.de

I www.giz.de/evaluierung

www.youtube.com/user/GIZonlineTV

www.facebook.com/gizprofile

https://twitter.com/giz_gmbh

Design/Layout etc.:

DITHO Design GmbH, Köln

Druck und Vertrieb:

GIZ, Bonn

Gedruckt auf 100 % Recyclingpapier, nach FSC-

Standards zertifiziert.

Bonn 2017

Das vorliegende Dokument ist auf der GIZ-Website

als pdf-Download verfügbar unter

www.giz.de/evaluierung. Anfragen nach einer ge-

druckten Ausgabe richten Sie bitte an

evaluierung@giz.de

Inhalt

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 5

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 6

Management Response ........................................................................................................ 9

Evaluationreport ................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Context ............................................................................................................................. 20

2.4 Evaluation Approach and Coverage ............................................................................... 24

2.5 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 28

2.6 Evaluation by DAC Criteria .............................................................................................. 35

2.7 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 78

2.8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 80

Annexes .................................................................................................................................. 83

Annex 1: Bibliography ................................................................................................ 83

Annex 2: Survey Report and Original Questionnaire ............................................... 87

Annex 3: List of active GIZ Thailand projects considered by the evaluation ......... 94

4

List of Figures

Figure 1: How satisfied are you with your relationship with GIZ? ....................................... 35

Figure 2: What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to the Thai context? ........... 36

Figure 3: What is your perception regarding the mission of GIZ? ....................................... 37

Figure 4: What is your perception regarding the collaboration with GIZ? ........................... 38

Figure 5: What are the challenges in working with GIZ? ..................................................... 38

Figure 6: Survey Question: What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to changing

circumstances? .......................................................................................... 43

Figure 7: In your view, to what extent has GIZ contributed to positive change in the following

sectors? ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 8: Impact of the project Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive

Parts Industries .......................................................................................... 65

Figure 9: Based on your experience, to what extent are the results achieved by GIZ-Thai

cooperation sustainable in the long-term? ................................................. 71

Figure 10: Based on your experience, to what extent are the results achieved by GIZ-Thai

cooperation sustainable in the lng-term? ................................................... 71

5

List of Tables

Table 1: Sectors of GIZ cooperation with Thailand since 1956 21

Table 2: GIZ in Thailand at a Glance (2016) 23

Table 3: Selection of Focal Sectors as the Evaluation Sample and Rationale 24

Table 4: Evaluation Matrix 32

Table 5: Timeline of main events and political developments in Thailand 2000-2016 40

Table 6: Disbursements of funds in Euro for the projects under the Trilateral Cooperation 50

Table 7: Outputs: results in line with the Theory of Change 54

Table 8: Outcomes: results in line with the Theory of Change 59

Table 9: Impact: results in line with the Theory of Change 65

6

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA Auswärtiges Amt / German Federal Foreign Office

ADB Asian Development Bank

AEDP Alternative Energy Development Plan

AGE Commissioning Parties and Business Development

AIZ Academy for International Cooperation

APA ASEAN Ports Association

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BDS Business Development Services

BMA Bangkok Metropolitan Administration

BMUB German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety

BMWi German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy

BMZ German Federal Ministry of Development and Economic Cooperation

CAP Clean Air Plan

CASC Clean Air for Smaller Cities

CBOs Community Based Organisations

CC Climate Change

CCMP Climate Change Master Plan

CET Clean Air for Smaller Cities in the ASEAN Region Project, later renamed Cities, Environment, Transport in the ASEAN-Region

CIM Centre for International Migration and Development

COMFA Center of Materials and Failure Analysis

CSCP Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production

CSE Corporate Strategic Evaluations

CSO Civil Society Organisations

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DED German Development Service

DEDE Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency

DoA Lao Department of Agriculture

DVT Diploma in vocational training

DWR Thai Department of Water Resources

EAG Evaluation Advisory Group

EE Energy Efficiency

EEP Energy Efficiency Plan

EPPO Energy Policy & Planning Office

EQ Evaluation Questions

EU European Union

EUR Euro

FTI Federation of Thai Industries

GAP Good Agricultural Practice

7

GCF Green Climate Fund

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

GMS Greater Mekong Subregion

GPP Green Public Procurement

GTZ Former name of GIZ

HDI Human Development Index

HQ Headquarter

IFIs International Financial Institutions

IKI BMUB International Climate Initiative

IL Intervention Logic

IMF International Monetary Fund

JC Judgement Criteria

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KFW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

KMUTNB King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok

LPP Laos Pilot Program

MTWG ASEAN Maritime Transport Working Group

NAP National Adaptation Plan

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NIC Newly Industrialised Country

OCCC Office of Climate Change Coordination

ODA Official Development Assistance

OECF Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund

ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning

OVEC Office of Vocational Education Commission

PAD People’s Alliance for Democracy

PCD Pollution Control Department

PDR People's Democratic Republic

PDRC People’s Democratic Reform Committee

PEC Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness

PEV Project Evaluation Mission

PM Prime Minister

PPP Public–Private Partnership

QA Quality Assurance

QI Quality Infrastructure

SAS Sustainable Agrifood System

SCP Sustainable Consumption and Production

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SHE Safety, Health and Environment

8

SME Small and medium enterprise

SPD Sustainable Port Development

TAI Thai Automotive Institute

TC Technical Cooperation

TCC Transport and Climate Change

TDRI Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation

TEI Thailand Environment Institute

TG Thai-German

THB Thai Bhat

TICA Thailand International Cooperation Agency

TPQI Thailand Professional Qualification Institute

TVET Technical Vocational Education and Training

TZ Technical Cooperation

UDD United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD US Dollar

VDA German Association of the Automotive Industry

WTO World Trade Organisation

9

Management Response

In its key conclusions, the corporate strategy evaluation found that the 11 projects/programmes evaluated in

the sectors climate change, energy, vocational education and training, promotion of SMEs and support for the

Thailand International Cooperation Agency (TICA) were of substantial effectiveness for Thailand and the part-

ner countries in the region (trilateral cooperation). In their assessment based on the five OECD-DAC criteria

relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, the evaluators give GIZ a positive overall rating.

The evaluation also came to the conclusion that GIZ successfully handled its transition from bilateral develop-

ment cooperation and dependence on BMZ as the main commissioning party to international cooperation and a

diversified client base, both at Head Office and in the field. In this respect, the evaluation produced findings and

recommendations that are also relevant for other emerging economies.

The reference group discussed the findings of the corporate strategy evaluation. Below is a statement by GIZ

on all the recommendations made.

Recommendations to the Country Office in Thailand

1. The ex-post evaluation found that the Thai partner organisations do not perform results-based monitor-

ing and evaluation, neither together with GIZ nor independently. This poses a problem with regard to owner-

ship, precludes a joint process of critical reflection and means that data and information obtained from monitor-

ing and evaluation are not sufficiently available in the long term (for ex-post evaluations, for example).

As a general rule, GIZ welcomes approaches for the joint recording of results (wherever possible), whether by

setting up joint monitoring systems or conducting joint evaluations. In connection with the joint procedural re-

form (GVR) and the 2030 Agenda, monitoring systems are required to meet more stringent requirements, es-

pecially as regards partner involvement. GIZ will take model advisory approaches in its field structure to ensure

that monitoring systems in projects and programmes are sustainably embedded in the institutional framework

of partner systems (relevance to the 2030 Agenda) and that information useful for steering purposes at pro-

gramme and country level is provided.

GIZ recognises that a lack of partner data presents a major problem for conducting ex-post evaluations. The

Evaluation Unit will address this problem and propose solutions.

2. The evaluators come to the conclusion that regional challenges and approaches will play a stronger role

in future, and that GIZ Thailand is essentially well-prepared to respond to this. The regional approaches should

therefore be expanded and cooperation with the regional organisations UNESCAP, ASEAN, APEC and GMS

increased. This would enable synergies with the existing support processes facilitated by GIZ with the regional

organisations. Although it is up to the commissioning parties to decide whether to expand regional approaches,

GIZ should use its scope to position itself strategically and harness opportunities for pro-active advisory ser-

vices.

GIZ basically shares this opinion. However, as the evaluators correctly assumed, it is BMZ’s prerogative to de-

cide whether to pursue a stronger regional approach.

For other emerging economies, the transferability of this recommendation to expand regional approaches

largely depends on the regional (geographical, political, economic, etc.) framework conditions. No specific im-

plementation measure is identified based on this recommendation.

10

3. The evaluation found that the Country Office in Thailand has made efforts to acquire smaller projects in

the EUR 100,000 range since the transition phase commenced in 2008. Although this approach also has disad-

vantages (e.g. opportunity costs as compared with the size of the intervention), they are outweighed by the ad-

vantages: employment opportunities for national personnel, pooling of resources for similar themes and

maintenance of working relationships with Thai partners. It is nevertheless recommended that criteria be estab-

lished to determine the circumstances under which it is worthwhile for GIZ to implement small-scale projects.

GIZ points out that small-scale projects also offer the advantage of opening up new partnerships and thematic

areas that may enhance GIZ’s relevance in the partner country. A study or an evaluation could be carried out to

examine the validity of this argument.

Small-scale commissions from German public sector clients are often extremely time-consuming and only en-

rich the portfolio in the medium to long term if they can be well embedded in the overall portfolio in terms of

their content, and efficiently carried out using existing structures. GIZ Thailand aims to develop selection crite-

ria for small projects. The Commissioning Parties and Business Development Department is currently develop-

ing indicators that will make it possible to better calculate the effort involved in pursuing business opportunities.

However, this is not restricted to small projects and/or emerging economies.

GIZ states that the Thai partners commission large consulting firms to provide management consultancy. GIZ

will therefore examine whether new service can be developed in this area. However, questions arise as re-

gards profitability, legal capacity and whether additional local support structures are required.

4. The evaluation establishes that GIZ supports Thai partners in developing strategies and plans, but that

partners frequently fail to put these into practice, or do not implement them adequately, due to a lack of capac-

ity (and funding).

In this context, GIZ recognises the risk that the plans drawn up will not be applied to a sufficient degree, and

intends to advise partners on implementation. The conditions required for implementing plans and mobilising

resources should be taken into consideration when advice is provided on drawing up the plans. In future, GIZ

will urge commissioning parties to take this into account in their commissions.

5. The evaluators establish that GIZ cooperates and coordinates its activities only to a limited degree with

other development partners. This is a problem, given that several development partners work in the same sec-

tors as GIZ. It is recommended that duplication be avoided and synergies be harnessed to increase GIZ’s own

effectiveness. This applies particularly to the vocational training sector.

GIZ agrees with this recommendation, but it is primarily up to its commissioning parties to take the correspond-

ing action. Without a political mandate, cooperation at implementation level is only possible or cost-effective to

a limited extent. In Thailand, other development partners have so far shown little interest in coordination and

cooperation. No specific implementation measure is identified based on this recommendation.

6. The evaluators consider trilateral cooperation between GIZ, Thailand (TICA) and other countries in the

region, especially Lao PDR, to be an innovative and effective model for cooperation between an industrialised

country and emerging economies. However, this approach does not appear sustainable owing to the limited

financial and human capacities of the partner organisation TICA. In the long run, TICA will not be able to con-

tinue its work without support from GIZ. The evaluators recommend that trilateral cooperation only be contin-

ued if TICA pledges greater financial contributions.

GIZ recognises the need to adapt the trilateral cooperation arrangement. However, this need must primarily be

addressed by the commissioning party. GIZ will arrange talks with BMZ and BMUB on this subject.

11

Recommendations to the company as a whole

7. The evaluators come to the conclusion that the overall political conditions, especially at government

level, played a much smaller role for GIZ’s work than initially presumed. They therefore recommend that GIZ

examine the extent to which political conditions affect the success of projects and programmes.

GIZ points out that its projects and programmes are designed to take a politically sensitive approach and can

therefore respond flexibly to changes in context. In Thailand, the partners’ need for support from GIZ in the joint

fields of activity persisted even under changing governments. Nevertheless, GIZ Thailand remained sensitive

to changes at working or bureaucratic level. The Evaluation Unit intends to carry out a cross-section evaluation

of project evaluations to examine the connection between political conditions and project success.

8. The evaluation comes to the conclusion that GIZ was most successful at handling its transition – from

bilateral cooperation and dependence on BMZ as the main commissioning party to international cooperation

and a diversified client base – in the field. In principle, GIZ agrees with this conclusion. However, the country

offices need additional guidance from Head Office in specific cases and contexts as regards possible options

and their assessment, and the issue of legal capacity. GIZ will develop options and scenarios for selected pilot

countries, but cannot guarantee that comprehensive guidance will be provided.

9. Having recognised that it is not a realistic option for partners to commission GIZ, the evaluators recom-

mend that GIZ should focus on one or only a few main commissioning parties/clients in similar situations in

emerging economies.

GIZ is preparing itself for the fact that its client base needs to be diversified at an early stage given the reduc-

tions in the BMZ portfolio. Although GIZ can understand the evaluators’ recommendation, no single commis-

sioning party has yet emerged to offset BMZ. However, BMUB has become established as a large commission-

ing party in a few countries such as Thailand. The German Federal Foreign Office is not suitable as a

substitute in the context of emerging economies. No specific implementation measure is identified based on

this recommendation.

10. The evaluation named several comparative advantages of GIZ versus other development agencies and

other potential competitors in the field of international cooperation in emerging economies. Based on these ad-

vantages, it is recommended that GIZ carry out a benchmarking study.

GIZ will examine whether it makes sense to carry out such a study for selected partner countries.

12

Evaluationreport

Prof. Dr. Jörn Dosch; Pituck Jongnarangsin

Particip GmbH

13

2.1 Executive Summary

Purpose

In March 2011, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Inter-

nationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) introduced Corpo-

rate Strategy Evaluations (CSE) as a new evaluation

tool. The Corporate Evaluation Unit (StS08) conducts

three to five CSE annually, the topics of which are

decided by GIZ’s Management Board in light of stra-

tegically relevant change processes and resulting in-

formation needs. On April 28, 2015, the Management

Board of GIZ commissioned the Evaluation Unit to

carry out an ex-post evaluation of the cooperation

programmes implemented in Thailand by GIZ and its

predecessor organisations. The evaluation was sub-

sequently conducted between March and November

2016.

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to improve

strategic decisions in GIZ in regard to how the or-

ganisation responds to the challenges arising from

adapting to the post-ODA world.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

To analyse, appraise and document the results of

projects implemented by GIZ and its Thai part-

ners.

To examine and identify factors influencing upon

the attainment of results, including changing po-

litical, legal and socio-economic framework con-

ditions.

To investigate the modes of collaboration be-

tween GIZ and its Thai partners.

By juxtaposing these aspects, to identify factors

that drive and hamper results.

Background and Approach

Development cooperation between the Federal Re-

public of Germany and the Kingdom of Thailand

dates back to 1956, when the two governments

signed a first agreement on Technical Cooperation

(TC). Since then, nearly 300 projects have been im-

plemented, covering a broad spectrum of thematic

areas. From January 2000 to February 2016, GIZ (in-

cluding the former GTZ) implemented a total of 111

projects in 14 sectors. The total budget amounted to

EUR 140.4 million which equals an annual average

of EUR 9.4 million. The cooperation reached a critical

juncture in 2008, when the German Federal Ministry

of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

decided on ending its bilateral support to Thailand, as

the country has developed into a newly-industrialised

country and into being a donor of Official Develop-

ment Assistance (ODA) itself. Subsequently, GIZ has

maintained a presence in Thailand and implemented

projects funded by a range of donors with the Ger-

man Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature

Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)

as the main one.

Ten major interventions in different fields were se-

lected as representative examples for the work of

GIZ in Thailand for the purpose of the evaluation.

These are: Climate Change, Technical Vocational

Education and Training (TVET), SME support, and

projects under the Thai-German Trilateral Coopera-

tion. While the first three areas are sectors, the fourth

(Trilateral Cooperation) is a mechanism to deliver

support across various sectors. Selection criteria in-

cluded data availability, temporal scope and duration

of the support, geographical scope, cross-linkages

with other sectors, and strategic relevance for the fu-

ture cooperation.

These sectors are presented in a reconstructed The-

ory of Change (ToC) which visualises the activities

and results at various levels of the interventions and

thus provides an explanation of the causal links that

tie a programme activity to expected outcomes and

impacts. The evaluation is based on four evaluation

questions (EQ) and related Judgement Criteria. The

report itself follows the five DAC criteria (relevance,

efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability)

but is guided by the EQs and Judgement Criteria.

The evaluation draws on an in-depth documentary

review, analysis of existing quantitative data along

the ToC, structured and semi-structured interviews

as well as an online stakeholder survey of GIZ’s part-

ners in Thailand.

Relevance in view of changing framework condi-tions

Across all sectors covered by the evaluation GIZ pro-

jects were highly relevant for Thailand’s develop-

ment needs and responded well to respective gov-

ernments’ policy agendas and strategies. Equally im-

portant, GIZ support to Thailand has been character-

ised by an adequate degree of flexibility in the de-

sign and implementation of interventions, which were

all based on participatory approaches and therefore

allowed for an ongoing alignment with partner needs

and priorities.

The environment sector has taken centre-stage for

the past half-decade within the context of climate

change to which Thailand is particularly vulnerable.

14

The relevance of the approach was strengthened by

its holistic nature, i.e. the fact that a whole range of

programmes and projects addressed the broad field

of climate change and environmental challenges from

different but related angles.

Assistance in the field of vocational education has

corresponded with government policy to strengthen

the qualifications, skills and competences of the

workforce as a crucial contribution to escaping the

middle income trap. Since 2004, interventions for the

benefit of small and medium sized companies

(SMEs) have directly addressed their needs arising

as the result of growing international competition.

The trilateral cooperation between GIZ, the Thailand

International Cooperation Agency (TICA) and third

countries, e.g. Lao PDR and Vietnam, was relevant

both in terms of strengthening TICA’s role as devel-

opment agency and in responding to development

needs of the two supported countries. However, the

relevance of these interventions for Lao PDR and Vi-

etnam was weakened due to the small size of the

projects and their implementation in isolation from bi-

lateral cooperation programmes.

The relevance of many interventions was strength-

ened by virtue of their regional dimension, i.e. the

alignment of projects with growing regional needs, in-

cluding on-going integration based on the agenda of

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

and the Mekong region.

During the evaluation period, Thailand experienced

thorough change, triggered by, inter alia, phases of

political instability and unrest, economic crises due to

the global financial crisis 2008 and the floods of

2011, as well as Thailand’s decision to transform

from being a recipient of ODA to acting as a donor.

Yet, the country has also made steady progress in

climbing up the ladder of economic and human de-

velopment. Overall, the modes of collaboration be-

tween GIZ and Thai partners did not significantly

change in response to changing framework condi-

tions because this was not needed to ensure effec-

tive project implementation. GIZ has supported Thai-

land in key sectors, which have stayed relevant

regardless of the specific situation and the govern-

ment of the day. As an implementing agency which,

unlike donors, does not engage in direct negotiations

with the Thai government, GIZ has largely been unaf-

fected by major political events. Furthermore, GIZ ad-

dressed technical, non-sensitive areas of support. If

adaption was necessary, this was usually in re-

sponse to changes in the organisational structure or

the top management of project partners.

Efficiency

The majority of programme activities was delivered

on time or without substantial delays. Only a small

number of cases encountered problems in the imple-

mentation process. If the implementation diverted

from the original project design, changes to the re-

sults framework were explained and well founded.

There are only a small number of instances when

project activities or components were completely

abandoned. Overall, the evaluation did not find any

differences regarding the efficiency of project imple-

mentation in different sectors.

Across all interventions GIZ support to Thailand was

perceived as being of high quality due to “top notch”

expertise in the delivery of technical solutions, trans-

parency and accountability of project implementation,

the results-oriented and often incremental and/or ho-

listic approach of interventions as well as generally

the participatory approach at all levels of the cooper-

ation.

Projects which developed standards – especially at

the regional level – can be seen as particularly effi-

cient as such results are easily replicable. GIZ also

developed several innovative approaches and “prom-

ising practises” to address Thailand’s changing de-

velopment needs as the country moves up the mid-

dle-income ladder. These methods include, but are

not limited to, value-chain approaches and integrated

resource management in urban planning. Both stand-

ards and value-chains represent economies of scales

approaches.

Effectiveness

The effectiveness criterion covers outputs and out-

comes. Outputs of all interventions focused on ca-

pacity building and training, addressing mainly state

actors and the private sector (SMEs) but to lesser ex-

tent civil society actors/NGOs. Equally important, in a

systematic manner all projects embedded technical

advice within broader structures of policy consulting,

network-building among different state and non-state

stakeholders as well as knowledge sharing and

transfer. This was particularly the case – and indeed

a necessary requirement – for the two phases of the

climate change project that were implemented at the

political level. Across the entire portfolio GIZ support

resulted in concrete, measurable products, mainly in

the form of standards, strategies, action plans or

studies.

Thai partners perceive environment, energy and edu-

cation as the sectors in which GIZ has made the

strongest positive contribution to change, achieving –

15

in comparative terms – high levels of effectiveness.

As one of their most important outcomes, the climate

change projects enabled government officials to de-

velop and follow better informed and ultimately more

effective approaches to climate change mitigation.

The projects also made a strong contribution to the

mainstreaming of climate change in policymaking.

GIZ support to SME projects achieved effectiveness

mainly through the innovative combination of different

approaches integrating eco-efficiency and economic

development in a comprehensive and systemic way.

The approach achieved or even exceeded the ex-

pected results, leading to stronger and more competi-

tive agricultural SMEs in Northern Thailand.

The GIZ-TICA trilateral projects expanded policy con-

sulting and inter-ministerial coordination beyond

Thailand’s border to include Lao ministries and state

agencies. As for the individual projects themselves,

the most effective part of the trilateral cooperation

programme has been the establishment and

strengthening of Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) in

Lao PDR.

However, the effectiveness of the introduction of

standards and technical solutions depended on

whether a standard or solution was the means to an

end or the project outcome itself. Projects were more

effective in cases where standards were means to an

end. A good example in this regard is the case of the

project Effective In-Company Vocational Training in

the Mekong Region in which the development of a

standard was the pre-condition for the actual training

of in-company trainers. The project established a re-

gional standard, which formed the basis for the Thai

national standard. On the other hand, the GIZ-sup-

ported “Low Carbon City” masterplans developed in

Ranyong and Nan as pilots under the climate change

project have provided the blueprint for similar ap-

proaches in 16 other provinces. Yet there is no evi-

dence that plans have yet been implemented any-

where.

Impact

Impact is most visible in areas, which have enjoyed

GIZ’s long-term support. In this regard, the projects in

support of SMEs achieved several visible and meas-

urable impacts. Most importantly, the productivity and

income of supported SMEs in the agricultural sector

in Thailand increased by at least 20% as envisioned

in the project design. In some cases, the productivity

and income of farmers increased by more than

100%.

As a policy advisory intervention, the climate change

project has not had a measurable environmental im-

pact yet. Thailand’s “National Climate Change Master

Plan 2013-2050” and the current Climate Change

Policy might well – and are indeed likely to – result in

reduced greenhouse gas emissions but it is too early

for any sound findings. As for low carbon procure-

ment and green labelling, data on energy savings is

not yet available due to project outcomes In fact,

there is no indication pointing at increased energy ef-

ficiency yet and available studies rather show an in-

crease in energy consumption between 2000 and

2014.

In a similar vein, the GIZ approach to creating a vo-

cational training system inspired by the German dual

system has the potential to achieve substantial im-

pact on the improvement of labour skills in Thailand.

However, the implementation has just started; there

is not a sufficiently strong base to prognosticate, if it

will be possible to firmly establish the system in Thai-

land, particularly since the German approach com-

petes with a similar Japanese system.

The impact of the trilateral cooperation programme

has to be seen from two angles. TICA officials con-

firmed that the collaboration with GIZ markedly con-

tributed to the agency’s effective transformation from

a donor-coordinating agency of a recipient country to

becoming a donor and development agency itself.

However, the impact of the four projects implemented

in Lao PDR and Vietnam is mixed. The Strengthen-

ing Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) Project created

the strongest impact because it has now firmly es-

tablished the GAP standard in Lao PDR. The other

three projects have achieved very limited impact, if

any, since they were too small to trigger change.

As the implementation of GIZ interventions was not

substantially affected by external factors, changing

framework conditions have not played a crucial role

regarding the achievement of long-term changes.

Sustainability

As in the case of effectiveness, Thai stakeholders

perceive environment, energy and education as the

sectors, which offer the greatest potential for sustain-

ability. GIZ’s participatory approach to project plan-

ning and implementation, elaborated approaches to

knowledge transfers and capacity-building were iden-

tified as crucial factors in achieving sustainability.

As mentioned, GIZ has developed standards and in-

novative solutions to challenges in the sectors of en-

vironment/climate change, SME support and educa-

tion. Where standards have been adopted, imple-

mented and are actively used, as in the case of the

standard on in-company vocational training and low

carbon emission procurement, the project outcomes

16

are sustainable. The development of regional stand-

ards offers the best prospect for sustainability in view

of expanding regional cooperation and integration.

Whether or not GIZ’s contribution to the shaping of

Thailand’s energy and climate change policy will

have a sustainable impact, depends on the extent to

which advised plans and strategies will be imple-

mented. The value-chain approaches developed and

applied by the SME support projects have created a

strong basis for sustainability. The participation of lo-

cal actors is a key to sustainability. Many projects in-

volved Thai experts and universities, which are still

providing advice – or are at least in a position to do

so – after projects have come to an end.

The sustainability level of the projects implemented

under the trilateral programme varies. Of the three

projects implemented in Lao PDR, the one on GAP

offers the best potential for sustainability. The low

level of sustainability of the trilateral projects in Lao

PDR is mainly due to the fact that TICA has not con-

sidered any funding for follow-up interventions once

the GIZ support had ended. Hence, although the tri-

lateral cooperation has made a contribution to the ca-

pacity building of TICA, it has not encouraged the

agency to embark on its own cooperation programme

with neighbouring countries.

Adaptation to the post-2008 setting

BMZ, GIZ’s main commissioner, phased out its bilat-

eral assistance with Thailand in 2008. It is against

this background that the portfolio of GIZ in Thailand

has grown to incorporate other forms of international

funding.

The transition to the post-BMZ environment was

mainly managed by the country office, with the sup-

port of headquarters. This approach proved to be ef-

fective and allowed the GIZ Thailand office clear stra-

tegic priorities for transition based on local framework

conditions.

GIZ’s main challenge in the early phase of the transi-

tion was to establish strong and mutually beneficial

partnerships. In the case of the BMUB, GIZ was able

to convince the ministry that smaller countries, such

as Thailand, should be included in the German Inter-

national Climate Initiative (IKI). The substantial

BMUB funding for IKI in Thailand provided the back-

bone for GIZ’s continuous operations in Thailand.

Stakeholders voiced their impression that without the

BMUB funding, GIZ would not have been able to sus-

tain its operations in Thailand.

Developing the GIZ office in Bangkok as a regional

hub proved to be a good strategic decision. Due to its

location and infrastructure Bangkok is a natural re-

gional hub for activities in mainland Southeast Asia

and the Mekong Region but also Southeast Asia as a

whole and even the wider Asia-Pacific region. Alt-

hough this might not be easily replicable in other

countries, the successful ”regionalisation” of activities

is an important lesson learnt which should be consid-

ered for GIZ operations in other countries.

The trilateral cooperation involving GIZ, TICA and

partner countries is an innovative approach to the

strengthening of South-South and North-South-South

cooperation. However, without sizable funding com-

mitment, the model is unlikely to be more than a pilot

project without much potential for sustainability.

Conclusions

A central factor in the efficient and effective imple-

mentation of GIZ programmes and projects across all

selected sectors was the fact that GIZ did not have to

change its approaches and modes of cooperation in

response to altering circumstances in any substantial

way. The frequent changes at the political level in

Thailand during the evaluation period did not signifi-

cantly affect GIZ as an implementing agency given

the technical, non-political nature of the support pro-

vided. Hence, as an important finding which might go

beyond the specific case of Thailand, it can be con-

cluded that political and economic framework condi-

tions are markedly less important for GIZ’s work than

it was assumed before the evaluation.

Due to its long-term engagement in Thailand, GIZ

has established and maintained close relations and

tight networks with a wide range of line ministries and

government agencies, which have survived govern-

ment changes. This allowed for efficient and effective

communication with key stakeholders, being an es-

sential condition for project planning and implementa-

tion.

In Thailand, GIZ had a flexible and participatory ap-

proach to project design and implementation. This in-

cludes an opportunity for stakeholders at the national

and sub-national levels to actively contribute to shap-

ing the scope and direction of interventions and facili-

tates an alignment of the GIZ support with national

needs. This aspect is further strengthened by GIZ’s

strong emphasis on local staff in project implementa-

tion. Moreover, the results-focussed approach often

leads to outcomes (standards, model action plans

etc.) which are replicable and thus offering a good

potential for sustainability.

17

GIZ in Thailand made a somewhat innovative contri-

bution to South-South and North-South-South coop-

eration based on its cooperation with TICA. This can

be a useful model for GIZ in other middle-income

countries, which aspire to transform themselves from

recipients to donors.

During the evaluation period, GIZ has increasingly

moved towards the implementation of regional inter-

ventions in alignment with the growing dynamics of

regional integration in Southeast Asia and particularly

the needs of regional actors, such as ASEAN. How-

ever, the situation of Southeast Asia is unique in this

sense as, for some time, it has been the region with

the strongest integration drive outside of Europe.

While “ODA-graduating countries” in other regions

might also be part of regional cooperation schemes,

the specific and highly successful approach of the

GIZ Thailand office of tapping into the opportunities

of supporting regional cooperation and integration

processes is not easily replicable elsewhere.

Recommendations

Recommendations are divided into two sets. The first

addresses primarily the GIZ office in Thailand. How-

ever, the recommendations can also be considered

by GIZ offices in other middle-income countries in

which bilateral development cooperation has been

phased out or where such a decision is imminent.

The second set comprises general recommenda-

tions, which go beyond the country level and are

therefore directed at GIZ headquarters.

Recommendations related to evidence-based de-

cision-making (focusing on the level of the GIZ

country office in Thailand):

Create and implement joint approaches to

monitoring and evaluation with partners to

strengthen ownership: The evaluation has re-

vealed that Thai partner organisations do not

monitor or evaluate their projects with GIZ. This

translates to lack of ownership in the sense of the

Paris Declaration and also reduces the oppor-

tunity for critical reflections and thus lessons

learnt.

The development of the country into a regional

hub and the related strong focus on regional pro-

jects should not only continue but be expanded:

Particularly the Bangkok-based UNESCAP pro-

vides multiple opportunities for cooperation in the

Asia-Pacific – not at least because the organisa-

tion will play a dominant role in the implementa-

tion and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda for Sus-

tainable Development. Although the further

development of the regional hub is mainly donor-

driven, GIZ can strategically position itself to take

advantage of relevant donor initiatives or can ac-

tively provide advice through established commu-

nication channels.

Develop clear criteria for the selection of part-

ner projects: Criteria should be developed to

guide the selection process to make sure that

small projects are well integrated into the country

office’s overall portfolio and are feasible. These

criteria should clarify the context and conditions

that render projects viable, not only from an eco-

nomic perspective but also regarding other rele-

vant points, such as presence in the country,

maintaining relationships or strategic relevance.

Assist Thai partners in the process of actually im-

plementing strategies and action plans which

were developed in the context of GIZ projects: It

seems important that projects do not stop at the

completion of strategies and plans but that GIZ

supports partners in the process of implementa-

tion, including the mobilisation of funds.

Increase exchanges with other development

agencies: During the evaluation period, little ef-

fort has been made to engage in structured dia-

logues or even cooperation with other develop-

ment agencies.

Only continue the trilateral cooperation if

TICA agrees on stronger financial commit-

ments: If the trilateral programme continues in

some way or is reactivated, TICA should be com-

mitted to ensure the sustainability of the interven-

tions.

Recommendations related to organisational

learning (Level of GIZ HQ):

Re-assess the importance of political frame-

work conditions: The lessons learnt of this eval-

uation should form the basis for a reassessment

of the importance of political framework condi-

tions which may lead to a revision of the ex-

pected role of politics and political changes for

GIZ’s cooperation programmes.

Decentralised strategy building process with

GIZ country offices leading transition pro-

cesses: It is important to consider various and

partly competing options to sustain GIZ opera-

tions in countries similar to Thailand (i.e. where

BMZ considers phasing out bilateral coopera-

tion). The different options need to be considered

carefully and strategically and this works best if

18

the respective GIZ office takes the lead in this

process, while being supported by headquarters.

Focus on one main donor: Efforts will need to

concentrate on identifying one (or few) main do-

nor(s), which replace(s) BMZ while at the same

time trying to diversify funding and contract port-

folios. If it is not possible to find one main donor,

an early strategic analysis of what is profitable

with regard to smaller projects is necessary.

Headquarters and country offices should engage

in strategic benchmarking together to identify

GIZ’s strengths and unique selling positions vis-

à-vis other development organisations: A full

benchmarking would require a detailed assess-

ment of other stakeholders’ strategies and imple-

mentation practises. Such an approach is beyond

the scope of this evaluation, but the findings of

this evaluation can be taken as the nucleus for

more detailed studies.

19

2.2 Introduction

In March 2011, GIZ introduced Corporate Strategic

Evaluations (CSE) as a new evaluation tool. The Cor-

porate Evaluation Unit (StS08) conducts three to five

CSE annually, the topics of which are decided by

GIZ’s Management Board in light of strategically rele-

vant change processes and resulting information

needs. CSE address the implementation of policies

and strategies throughout GIZ that relate to the deliv-

ery of services. CSE also examine issues that will

help develop corporate policies and strategies fur-

ther. CSE as an evaluation instrument aim to enable

evidence-based learning and decision-making

throughout GIZ. They should help boosting the effec-

tiveness, efficiency and quality of service provision at

GIZ and (further) develop key policies and strategies.

A CSE thus serves a dual purpose: it is best under-

stood as both an ex-post impact evaluation as well as

a contribution to formative learning and providing ad-

vice in the process of strategy-building.

On 28 April 2015, the Management Board of GIZ

commissioned the Evaluation Unit to carry out an ex-

post evaluation of the cooperation programmes im-

plemented in Thailand by GIZ and its predecessor or-

ganisations.

In middle-income countries, the emergence of new

modes of cooperation implies the need to adapt and

innovate processes and structures of development

and international cooperation. The development ef-

fectiveness agenda and the Sustainable Develop-

ment Goals (SDGs) reinforce this need. The case

study of GIZ’s engagement with Thailand provides

important insights and lessons learned in this regard.

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to contrib-

ute to improved strategic decision-making in GIZ with

regard to how the organisation responds to the chal-

lenges arising from adapting to the post-ODA world.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

To analyse, appraise and document the results of

projects implemented by GIZ and its Thai part-

ners.

To identify and examine factors influencing upon

the attainment of results, including changing po-

litical, legal and socio-economic framework con-

ditions.

To investigate the modes of collaboration be-

tween GIZ and its Thai partners.

By juxtaposing these aspects, factors driving and

hampering results are identified. In regard to as-

sessing the results of GIZ-Thai cooperation, the di-

verse “zones of influence” of interventions and the

heterogeneity of their goals and objectives are

acknowledged. “Second-order” and "spill-over" ef-

fects are also taken into account as far as possible.

In line with the general approach of a CSE, the evalu-

ation employs both an ex-post and a formative per-

spective with the specific aim of producing findings

regarding the results and, to the extent possible, their

sustainability and formulating recommendations on

the future direction of GIZ’s work in Thailand and po-

tentially beyond the specific case of Thailand.

The analysis focuses on a time-period of fifteen years

between 2000 and 2015, with particular emphasis on

the period since 2008, when the German Federal

Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development

(BMZ) decided on exiting bilateral assistance with

Thailand. Against this background the evaluation as-

sesses the results of GIZ’s work in Thailand to high-

light the lessons learned that could further guide the

transformation of GIZ’s role in the country. To the ex-

tent possible, this experience might also be applied in

understanding and approaching the transforming of

GIZ’s cooperation with other countries as they ap-

proach medium income status. Hence, in a formative

sense, findings of the evaluation might inform the

broader GIZ-strategy in newly industrialised countries

(NICs) and create space for internal learning about

NICs.

In line with the ToR and discussions with GIZ’s evalu-

ation unit, the evaluation does not engage in a pro-

spective market analysis.

Primary users of the evaluation are the GIZ Manag-

ing Board, the GIZ HQ, the GIZ country office in Thai-

land, and other GIZ country offices in NICs and GIZ’s

partners in Thailand. Secondary users might include

German line ministries (as donors), other develop-

ment partners and potentially the wider public if the

report is published.

20

2.3 Context

Country Background

Over the past half a century, Thailand has become

one of the most dynamic and diversified economies

in Southeast Asia. Between the early 1960s and mid-

1990s the economy grew at a sustained annual rate

of 7%. As a result, per capita income increased 30-

fold, from less than USD 100 in 1962 to over USD

3000 in 1996. This growth steered the country into its

current middle-income status. Although the Asian Cri-

sis of 1997-1998 put an end to rapid and sustained

growth and GDP figures have been highly volatile

since then (particularly since the 2008 global financial

crisis the Thai economy has not performed as

strongly as in the past), financial stability as well as

significant achievements in reducing poverty have

firmly established Thailand as a NIC. Generally, Thai-

land’s socioeconomic development has consistently

improved, paralleling an incremental rise on the

UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) since

2005. Yet, a large number of Thais continue to suffer

from poverty, social exclusion or discrimination due

to gender, ethnicity or geographic location. According

to UNDP data, 12.6% of Thais live below the interna-

tional poverty line (3.5% survive on less than $2 per

day). Furthermore, many observers identify Thailand

as a typical example of a country caught in the “mid-

dle-income trap”: once a country reaches middle-in-

come levels the growth rate often declines and grad-

uation from middle-income to higher-income levels

stalls. According to analysis of the Thailand Develop-

ment Research Institute Foundation (TDRI), Thailand

is at risk of remaining in the middle-income trap for

many years.1

In addition to much needed structural reforms, the

post-1997 period brought about a considerable

change in the role of the international financial institu-

tions (IFIs) in supporting Thailand to address the de-

velopment issues and challenges it faces as a mid-

dle-income country. Since Thailand graduated from

an IMF stand-by arrangement in 2000, its engage-

ment with the IFIs and other major development or-

ganisations has no longer been based on traditional

broad-based public sector borrowing programs. Dur-

ing the past and a half-decade development partner-

ships have primarily involved the transfer of

1 Peter Warr, Thailand, a nation caught in the middle-income trap, East Asia Forum, 18 December 2011, http://www.easta-siaforum.org/2011/12/18/thailand-a-nation-caught-in-the-mid-dle-income-trap/; Bishal Chalise, Can Thailand Avoid the Mid-dle-Income Trap? The Diplomat, 8 April 2016; Nakarin Srilert, Thailand 'stuck' in middle-income trap, The Nation, October 11, 2014; Nonarit Bisonyabut. Investment in Thailand following the

knowledge and skills rather than the transfer of finan-

cial resources in most cases (although Thailand con-

tinues to accept loans from Japan and China).

At the same time, authoritarian state control of poli-

tics and the economy have long been entrenched in

Thailand. The aftermath of the 1997 crisis helped get

Thaksin Shinawatra elected who immediately insti-

tuted welfare policies for the poor, established an

enormous base of loyal voters and kindled fear

among the traditional aristocracy that he would try to

overshadow the influence of the monarchy. Though

Thaksin was reelected in 2005, an anti-Thaksin pro-

test movement (aligned with opposition parties) took

to the streets to demonstrate against what it saw as

Thaksin’s growing personalist leadership approach.

In 2006, the anti-Thaksin military overthrew Thaksin.

The subsequent period of political turmoil has been

characterised by instable civilian governments, fre-

quent military intervention into politics, the ongoing –

at times violent – polarisation of society in two

camps: the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD)

and, since 2013, the People’s Democratic Reform

Committee (PDRC) on the one hand (“the Yellow

Shirts”) and the United Front for Democracy Against

Dictatorship (UDD) on the other (“the Red Shirts”)

along with other groups allied with each side. Since

the last military coup in 2014, the clash between the

two camps has stalled, given the military junta’s ap-

plication of martial law throughout Thailand. Never-

theless, a high level of conflict intensity remains be-

tween the two sides.2

In economic terms, Thailand suffered from both ex-

ternal and internal shocks, i.e. the global financial cri-

sis in 2008 and major floods in 2011. From July 2011

to January 2012, Thailand encountered the worst

flooding in five decades. The floods killed over 800

people and left millions homeless or displaced. Over

three quarters of Thailand’s provinces were declared

flood disaster zones, and the World Bank estimated

that the economic loss exceeded $45 billion. The

death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej on 13 October

2016 was the most recent shock for the country. The

monarch had reigned Thailand for 70 years and em-

bodied the unity and continuity of the nation. While

the king’s passing is beyond the temporal scope of

the evaluation, there are early signs that Thailand

has not faced major economic and political disrup-

tion in the aftermath.

global financial crisis and into the future: evidence from cross-country comparisons, in: TDRI Quarterly Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2015. 2 BTI 2016 | Thailand Country Report, https://www.bti-pro-ject.org/fileadmin/files/BTI/Downloads/Re-ports/2016/pdf/BTI_2016_Thailand.pdf; stakeholder interviews.

21

Thai-German Cooperation

In 1956, the first agreement on Technical Coopera-

tion (TC) between the Federal Republic of Germany

and The Kingdom of Thailand was signed. Subse-

quently, in 1959, the "Thai-German Technical

School" in Northern Bangkok (today the renowned

King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bang-

kok (KMUTNB) with three campuses) was estab-

lished, which represented the first milestone for the

technical cooperation between Thailand and Ger-

many. Nearly 300 projects have been implemented

since then, covering a broad spectrum of thematic ar-

eas.

Table 1: Sectors of GIZ cooperation with Thailand since 19563

Sector Short summary of cooperation in this sector

Vocational Educa-

tion

Education is the first and longest-running area of the cooperation.

The Thai-German Technical School was established to meet the huge demand for

technicians and skilled workers that the process of industrialising Thailand had cre-

ated. Initially, the German dual vocational training system was supposed to be

adopted. Later, cooperative efforts moved on to highly specialised training needs and

more advanced academic levels, especially in the field of engineering.

Important vocational education institutes have been established, and many other insti-

tutions have been supported, e.g., through curriculum development and scholarships.

Today, scientific and research cooperation continues, while education has become a

prime focus of Thai–German Trilateral Cooperation with third countries.

More recently, the project “Effective In-company Vocational Training in the Mekong Re-

gion” (2013-2016) which supports a localised form of the German Dual System of vo-

cational education in Thailand and other Mekong countries, and the GIZ Training Hub

Bangkok, a fully integrated branch of the company’s Academy for International Cooper-

ation (AIZ) in Germany, continue the strong focus on education.

Other projects in this field have been funded by the German Federal Foreign Office

and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The latter focused on mutual recognition

frameworks for skills in the region.

Agriculture and

Rural Develop-

ment

In 1965, the cooperation expanded to support Thailand’s plans for rural development

and economic growth. Initially, it focused on the improvement of agricultural produc-

tion, the development of infrastructure, and the promotion of land-settlement commu-

nity.

In the 1980s, an integrated rural development approach was introduced as a means of

achieving increased efficiency and sustainability. The activities involved multiple part-

ners and disciplines and addressed issues such as the environment, health, finance

and credit schemes, and smallholder economic development. A central part played the

promotion of alternative crops in the Golden triangle to combat cultivation of drugs.

In 1990, the cooperation shifted towards sustainable production and consumption with

the aim of reducing the latter’s social and environmental impact. New standards, pro-

duction, and services were introduced to boost the global competitiveness of Thai

products.

Agriculture and rural development remain a focal theme for trilateral and regional Thai–

German cooperation within the ASEAN and Mekong context. One of several examples

is the “Strengthening National GAP (Good Agricultural Practises) in Lao PDR” project

(2012-2014), which was jointly implemented under the Lao-Thai-German Trilateral Co-

operation.

Energy, Infrastruc-

ture and Climate

Change

Before the 1990s, cooperation efforts focused on strengthening agencies responsible

for basic infrastructure such as the power supply, transportation, traffic regulation, port

facilities, postal services, the state railway, dam construction, and irrigation.

Since 1990, Thailand and Germany have been exploring and promoting alternative en-

3 Source: compiled from various GIZ documents, including for example “Six Decades of Sustainable Development” (the out-put of the History Workshop), “GIZ in Thailand 2016”, “Thai-

German Trilateral Cooperation”, and stakeholder interviews.

22

Sector Short summary of cooperation in this sector

ergy sources such as biogas, hydropower, and solar energy. Additionally, they are co-

operating on energy savings and efficiency issues amidst the economic boom and on-

going modernisation. This has also led to efforts to promote sustainable urban devel-

opment, especially in the transport sector. Recent examples include, but are not limited

to, regional projects with a Thailand component, i.e. “Integrated Resource Manage-

ment in Asian Cities: The Urban Nexus” (2013-2015) and “Cities, Environment and

Transport in the ASEAN Region” (2009-2015).

Since 2000, energy has become one of the main issues addressed in various projects,

particularly under the BMUB International Climate Initiative (IKI).4 The current flagship

project is the “Thai-German Programme on Energy Efficiency Development Plan”

(2012-2016).

Together with sustainable infrastructure, energy has also become a focal theme of the

German–ASEAN cooperation based in Bangkok.

At the same time, recent GIZ projects, for example the BMUB-funded “Improved man-

agement of extreme events through ecosystem-based adaption in watersheds (ECOS-

Wat)” (2013-2016) directly address the effects of climate change by trying to adapt to

them.

Health In 1965, Thailand and Germany started supporting selected Thai public-health institu-

tions with equipment and skills development for medical personnel.

Later projects aimed at improving rural health care and dealing with specific health

challenges such as HIV/AIDS, drug abuse, and occupational health.

Health issues were also integrated into many other projects in the fields of agriculture

and rural and industrial development.

Furthermore, the cooperation supported health research and system reform for exam-

ple as part of the major EU-funded Health Care Reform project (2004-2009).

Health continues to be a focal theme of today’s Thai–German Trilateral Cooperation

and remains an important cross-cutting area for international cooperation with third

countries.

Economic Devel-

opment

In the 1960s, Thailand’s economy depended primarily on the agricultural sector. There-

fore, the technical cooperation in economic development started by facilitating trade

and investment activities between the two countries.

In the 1990s, small and medium enterprise (SME) promotion became an important fo-

cus of cooperation, with the aim of reducing economic and social imbalances among

different regions in the country.

Since 2000, Thailand and Germany have focused on improving the standing of Thai

SMEs through its extensive Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness (2004-2012).

This was the first project which combined economic, environmental, and social aspects

into a single large programme to promote Thai production value chains.

This multifaceted approach SME support continues in sustainable consumption and

production projects in the regional context.

Over six decades, GIZ has established itself as one

of the key stakeholders in the country’s development

process. At the same time, Thai-German cooperation

has experienced fundamental changes in its frame-

work conditions, most importantly – as outlined

above – Thailand’s development towards NIC status

4 Since 2008, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) has been financing climate and biodiversity projects in developing and newly industrialising countries, as well as in countries in transition. In the early years of the programme, its financial resources came from the proceeds of auctioning allow-ances under the emissions trading scheme. To ensure financial continuity, further funds were made available through the Special Energy and Climate Fund. Both funding mechanisms are now part of the Federal Environment Ministry’s regular budget. The IKI is a key element of Germany’s climate financing and the funding commitments in the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.international-climate-initiative.com/en/about-the-iki/iki-funding-instrument/).

and emerging market economy. This has been ac-

companied by the country’s transformation from be-

ing solely a recipient of ODA to also acting as a do-

nor through its Thailand International Cooperation

Agency (TICA). In March 2003, the then-Thai Prime

Minister Thaksin Shinawatra gave a speech entitled

23

“Forward Engagement” which would later become

the name of a policy characterising the country’s

emerging “recipient-turned-donor” identity. Subse-

quently the BMZ, GIZ’s main commissioner, phased

out its bilateral assistance with Thailand in 2008.

It is against this background that the portfolio of GIZ

in Thailand has grown to incorporate forms of inter-

national funding other than bilateral projects commis-

sioned by BMZ. This includes:

Thai participation in BMZ-funded regional and

global projects (for example ASEAN Sustainable

Agrifood Systems; and Effective In-company Vo-

cational Training in the Mekong Region)

Projects funded by other German line ministries,

such as environment (BMUB), economy (BMWi),

and foreign affairs (AA), as well as

Projects funded by other international actors as

the European Union (EU) and Asian Develop-

ment Bank (ADB).

Since 2009, GIZ also implements a triangular

programme between Germany, Thailand and its

neighbours in the region.

Furthermore, GIZ’s Academy for International

Cooperation (AIZ) has established its own train-

ing centre in Thailand, acting as a regional hub

for capacity development in the field of sustaina-

ble development cooperation.

From January 2000 to February 2016, GIZ (including

the former GTZ) implemented a total of 111 projects

in 14 sectors (according to GIZ’s own classification):

Agriculture, Banking & Financial Services, Business

& Economy, Disaster, Education, Energy, Environ-

ment, Government & Civil Society, Health, Industry,

Research & Development, Sustainable Economy,

Transport and Urban Development. The total budget

amounted to EUR 140.4 million which equals an an-

nual average of EUR 9.4 million. According to several

stakeholder interviews in Bangkok, there were no

projects implemented by DED and InWEnt5 in Thai-

land between 2000 and 2015. However, the DED in

Lao PDR provided volunteer services for Thailand

during that period.

For reading convenience, GIZ will be used through-

out the report even if findings refer to the pre-GIZ

era.

Table 2: GIZ in Thailand at a Glance (2016)6

Employs over 120 staff, incl. 30 international long-term experts

Implemented 111 projects in 14 sectors with a total budget of EUR 140.4 million during the period 2000-2015

Currently (October 2016) 21 projects in seven sectors (including projects which were completed in late 2015)

Currently (October 2016) provides three CIM-Integrated Experts to Thai and regional organisations

Currently (October 2016) over 70 training courses annually in various fields of sustainable develop-ment through the GIZ Training Hub in Bangkok

Cooperates with more than 100 Thai state and non-state stakeholders, including but not limited to, Departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (TICA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ-ment, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Commerce, National Economic and Social Development Board, business as-sociations, enterprises, banks, cooperatives, universities, think tanks, media, civil society organisa-tions and networks, provinces, cities, municipalities and communities

Current main clients/financing: German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (for regional projects based in Bangkok), German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Con-servation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), European Union (EU), Thai Government, Public–Private Partnerships (PPP)

5 In 2011, the two agencies were merged with GTZ to form GIZ. 6 Source: Various GIZ documents and stakeholder interviews.

24

2.4 Evaluation Approach and Cover-

age

This evaluation has a dual purpose. First, it aims at

providing GIZ with an independent assessment of the

development cooperation support given to Thailand

during the period 2000-2015 (ex-post evaluation). In

some cases, projects are still ongoing and, to the ex-

tent possible, findings on potential results and their

sustainability are presented, thus going beyond an

ex-post perspective. Second, the evaluation will iden-

tify key lessons and forward-looking recommenda-

tions.

Overall, this is a question-driven evaluation that

adopts a theory of change (ToC) approach for the as-

sessment of results visualised through an interven-

tion logic. The methodological approach is described

in detail in the following section

Selection of Focal Sectors

While the evaluation questions relate to GIZ-Thai co-

operation in general, due to the breadth of its cover-

age, the evaluation focuses on a selected number of

interventions in different sectors. These areas are:

Climate Change, Technical Vocational Education

and Training (TVET), SME support, and projects

under the Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation.

While the first three areas are sectors, the fourth (Tri-

lateral Cooperation) is a mechanism to deliver sup-

port across various sectors. In addition, the AIZ

Training Hub in Bangkok will be looked at in the con-

text of GIZ’s management of the transition to a post-

BMZ environment after 2008. The rationale for this

selection is based on specific criteria; the identified

sectors meet the following requirements:

Data availability: In line with the ToR the evalua-

tion is mainly based on secondary sources.

There is a good availability of data and docu-

ments for the selected sectors.

Temporal scope: Projects are reflective of the

entire evaluation period, i.e. both projects from

earlier phases and more recent interventions

were selected. However, in accordance with the

ToR, the evaluation will prominently focus on pro-

jects, which have been implemented since 2008,

when the BMZ phased out its bilateral coopera-

tion with Thailand.

Long duration: While GIZ’s approach to the spe-

cific support in individual sectors has seen sev-

eral changes in terms of both thematic ap-

proaches and beneficiaries during the evaluation

period, there are also clear continuities across

the GIZ portfolio in Thailand. Therefore, empha-

sis is given to sectors and sub-sectors which are

characterised by long-term support. This allows

for an assessment of the impact and sustainabil-

ity of interventions in the selected sectors.

Geographical scope: The selected sectors and

interventions are representative of the GIZ sup-

port in Thailand as a whole and include regions,

which are at different stages of development. In

addition, the selection should also give justice to

the increasing regional dimension and focus of

the GIZ support, particularly with regards to the

Mekong region.

Table 3: Selection of Focal Sectors as the Evaluation Sample and Rationale

Sector Temporal Scope

Long Duration Geographical Scope

Cross-link-ages with other sectors

Strategic Relevance

Climate Change

Entire evaluation period with a par-ticular em-phasis on the post-2008 pe-riod

Climate Change inter-ventions have gained im-portance under IKI but GIZ support in the field of en-ergy/climate change dates back to the 1990s

National, regional and local levels; the project “Support to the Development and Implementation of the Thai Climate Change Policy” has already covered 3 provinces and sev-eral municipalities; 17 additional prov-inces and 32 munici-palities

Energy

Agriculture

Governance

Vocational edu-cation

Most major interven-tions are still ongoing; significant BMUB fund-ing envisioned for sev-eral more years

Vocational Education

Entire evaluation

Sector with the longest running

While vocational ed-ucation and training

Vocational edu-cation and

GIZ has a well-estab-lished presence in this

25

and Train-ing

period GIZ support is mainly Bangkok-based, beneficiaries are located across Thailand and the en-tire ASEAN region

training is best described as an “umbrella sec-tor” which is linked with, and contributes to, the implemen-tation of inter-ventions in vir-tually all sectors

field. The promotion of approaches to voca-tional training which are inspired by the German “Dual Sys-tem” enjoys a strong take-up and offers sig-nificant potential for fu-ture expansion.

SME sup-port

Entire evaluation period

SME support in various sectors of the Thai economy and increasingly the neighbour-ing region has been the direct or indirect fo-cus of numer-ous interven-tions

All of Thailand and, more recently, other countries in the re-gion, e.g. Vietnam

Agriculture

Energy

Climate Change

Economic De-velopment

More than 95% of all businesses in the ASEAN region are classed as SMEs; The ASEAN Economic Community has a strong emphasis on SME support and de-velopment

Thai-Ger-man Trilat-eral Coop-eration

Since 2009

Still a young approach

Covers the regional dimension of GIZ support – projects have been imple-mented in Lao PDR, Vietnam and Timor Leste

Agriculture

Water manage-ment

Governance

Economic De-velopment

SME support

Innovative approach which sets standards in the field of North-South-South Coopera-tion and is often con-sidered the future of development coopera-tion; trilateral coopera-tion will be expanded to include more South-east Asian countries (e.g. Myanmar, Cam-bodia)

Selection of projects

In the chosen sectors a total of ten projects were se-

lected to provide the empirical basis for the evalua-

tion:

Climate Change (CC): CC, as a policy issue, has

the potential of integrating a wide range of technical,

economic, environmental, and social concerns into a

comprehensive and horizontal approach. This com-

plex task requires the connection of different sector

strategies towards the greater goal of supporting Low

Carbon Development in Thailand. CC policy there-

fore focuses on creating the political and economic

conditions for connecting economic growth to climate

protection.

The Thai-German Climate Protection Programme

(2009-2011) comprised three individual projects:

Climate Change Policy, Energy Efficiency in Me-

dium-Sized Enterprises and Climate-friendly

Tourism. Financed through the German Interna-

tional Climate Initiative (IKI) of BMUB, GIZ as-

sisted the Thai Ministry of Natural Resources and

the Environment (MoNRE) and its Office of Natu-

ral Resources and Environmental Policy and

Planning (ONEP) in the elaboration and imple-

mentation of the Thai National Climate Change

Master Plan 2012–2050 (CCMP). Corresponding

CC Strategies and Action Plans were then devel-

oped for two Provinces and two Municipalities in

an effort to connect Climate Change Policy with

regional and local development planning.

The Total Budget for the Thai-German Climate

Protection Programme is EUR 5.66 million con-

sisting of Climate Change Policy (EUR 3.117 mil-

lion), Energy Efficiency in Medium-Size Enter-

prise (EUR 1.332 million) and Climate Friendly

Tourism (EUR 1.211 million). There were two

26

phases for budgeting: First Phase 2009-2012: to-

tal EUR 3.6 million (EUR 1.6 million for Climate

Change Policy, EUR 1.332 million for Energy Ef-

ficiency and EUR 0.668 million for Climate

friendly tourism); Second Phase 2012-2013: total

EUR 2.06 million (EUR 1.517 million for Climate

Change Policy, EUR 0.543 million for Climate

friendly tourism)

The follow-up project Support to the Develop-

ment and Implementation of the Climate Change

Policy (2014-2017) (EUR 2.8 million) is based on

the objective of contributing to Thailand’s shift to

a low carbon economy by, inter alia, elaborating

a new Thai Climate Strategy (2014-2018) and a

corresponding guideline for its implementation;

and aligning all German IKI-financed project ac-

tivities with the goals of the CCMP and Climate

Change Strategy.

Clean Air for Smaller Cities in the ASEAN Region

Project, later renamed Cities, Environment and

Transport in the ASEAN Region (2009-2015)

(EUR 5.0 million) consisting of Phase 1 (EUR 2.5

million) and Phase 2 (EUR 2.5 million) aimed at

empowering cities to develop and implement

“Clean Air Action Plans” (Chiang Mai and Na-

khon Ratchasima participated in this project); im-

prove the basis for an increase of energy effi-

ciency and a reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions in the land transport sector; and to im-

prove the quality and efficiency of environmental

and safety management in ports.

Sustainable Consumption and Production for

Low Carbon Economy: Green Public Procure-

ment and Eco-Labelling (2012-2015) (EUR 2 mil-

lion). The BMUB-funded project was based on

the assumption that climate-friendly public pro-

curement and the integration of climate relevant

criteria into existing ecolabels are two key ele-

ments for establishing a low-carbon economy.

The project supported the Thai government in im-

plementing its programme for the sustainable

(“green”) adjustment of public procurement.

Vocational Education and Training (TVET): As in

many other partner countries, GIZ’s support to Voca-

tional Education and Training has focused on mod-

ernising initial and continuing vocational training and

adjusting it to the needs of industry and the labour

market.7 Some projects had a specific emphasis on

7 The global GIZ support Vocational Education and Training was the topic of a meta-evaluation conducted in 2010-11, GIZ. Vocational Education and Training Evaluation results, findings

selected branches of industry or the requirements of

SMEs. Support to education dates back to the early

days of German-Thai development cooperation and

has been an integral part of GIZ’s mission in Thailand

for the past decades.

The project Effective In-Company Vocational

Training in the Mekong Region (2013-2016)

(EUR 1.5 million) aims to promote the German

Dual Vocational Education System, stressing the

role of private sector in workforce development

as an approach to tackle the skilled labour depri-

vation in the region. The project is based on the

following assumption: through the promotion of

cooperation between vocational schools and

companies and the demand-oriented establish-

ment of effective In-Company Training system

supplement to the in-school education, students

graduated from vocational schools possess the

skills that not only increase their employability,

but also match the demand of industrial sector.

SME Support: The competitive advantage of the

Thai economy in many sub-sectors is still based on

low wages not on high productivity through techno-

logical progress. New regional competitors such as

China and Vietnam are increasing competitive pres-

sure and thereby revealing weaknesses inherent in

Thai industry, particularly those of small and medium-

sized companies (SMEs). There is a risk that increas-

ing pressure from international competition combined

with low productivity will lead to low wages or the mi-

gration of jobs to other countries. Currently, sophisti-

cated industries with high added value are located al-

most exclusively in Bangkok and its environs. Many

companies still use outdated production technolo-

gies, which not only results in low competitiveness in

many sub-sectors but also causes environmental pol-

lution and poor product quality. In addition to facing

considerable competitive pressures, Thai producers

(especially SMEs) do not dedicate sufficient attention

to ecological matters. GIZ support to SME develop-

ment has a long history and the evaluation focusses

mainly on two major projects:

The long-term Thai-German Programme for En-

terprise Competitiveness (TG-PEC) project

(2004-2011) (EUR 18.2 million) aimed at

strengthening Thai SMEs in agro-industrial value

chains (mainly palm oil, shrimps, tapioca, fruit

and vegetable and mulberry paper). In partner-

ship with more than 20 Thai implementing agen-

cies it focused on oared business, eco-efficiency

and renewable energy services. It was also the

and conclusions, https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2013-en-vocational-education-training.pdf

27

first major project which worked together with dif-

ferent Thai line ministries.8

Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Automotive

Industry (2012-2015) (EUR 1.592 million): As

part of the SWITCH Asia Programme funded by

the EU, GIZ implemented the project in coopera-

tion with the Thai Automotive Institute (TAI), the

Federation of Thai Industries (FTI), Thai SME

Bank, and the Centre for Sustainable Consump-

tion and Production (CSCP). The objective was

to improve sustainable production of SMEs in the

Thai auto and automotive parts supply chains.9

Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation: In 2008, Thai-

land and Germany signed a Memorandum of Under-

standing (MoU) on Trilateral Cooperation to form a

joint partnership with pooled resources for regional

development. Within the programme, Thailand and

Germany jointly apply their development experiences

and technical know-how to support third partner

countries by implementing small-scale trilateral pro-

jects in selected sectors, i.e. education, rural devel-

opment, and health. Currently, the third country-part-

ners countries include Lao PDR, Vietnam, and Timor-

Leste, with a possible extension to Cambodia and

Myanmar in the future. The programme also aims to

enhance Thailand’s role as a provider of develop-

ment cooperation and to support South-South coop-

eration in order to promote regional know-how, and

ownership. The programme is co-funded by the Thai-

land International Cooperation Agency (TICA) within

the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the BMZ.

Since Thailand transformed itself from a recipient to

an (emerging) donor country in 2003-2004, TICA10

has played an active role in promoting development

cooperation among developing countries in South-

east Asia and beyond its own region, including South

Asia, Africa and Latin America. According to TICA,

there are two main types of assistance. One is pro-

ject cooperation, which is composed of dispatching

Thai experts to other countries in the areas of agricul-

ture, banking, economics, education, finance, public

health, transport as well as science and technology.

The other is in support of infrastructure projects in

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and the Maldives, in-

cluding roads, bridges, dams and power stations by

8 GIZ. Competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SME, project num-ber: 07.2170.4, Final Report, 2012; Alexander Mierke Bericht an das BMZ, Referat 200. Teil-Evaluierung des Programms „Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Ökoeffizienz von KMU, Thailand“, 22. Mai 2006; stakeholder interviews. 9 Switch Asia. Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts Industries. Final Technical Report, April 2016; Sustainable Consumption and Production: Switch Asia. Policy Support Component – THAILAND (DCI-ASIE/2011/ 270-471) Final Project Report, January 2015. 10 TICA was established on 19 October 2004 – succeeding the

means of concessional loans. However, despite its

growing portfolio and responsibilities, TICA is still a

relatively small Department within the Thai govern-

ment with an annual budget of just approximately 480

million Baht (ca. EUR 11.9 million).

The Evaluation particularly looked at the three pro-

jects, which have been implemented in Lao PDR.

This required a short stay in Vientiane.

The Nam Xong Sub-River Basin Management

project (2012-2014) followed the objective of im-

proving the water resource management in the

river basin through the strengthening and coordi-

nation of local authorities and community repre-

sentatives as well as practical water protection

regulations and technical solutions for the com-

munity. (EUR 128,000)

The Paper Mulberry Supply Chain project (2010-

2013) aimed at the enhancement of the paper

mulberry value chain in Northern Thailand and

Lao PDR. (EUR 114,000)

The ongoing Strengthening National Good Agri-

cultural Practice (GAP) in Lao PDR project

(2012-2016) aims at establishing a functioning

national GAP system which forms the basis for

increased competitiveness of Lao farmers and

small holders in the fresh fruit and vegetable sec-

tor.11 (EUR 108,000)

Lao PDR provides a good case because it has been

the main focus of the Thai-German Cooperation and

the country is also the most important in terms of

TICA support. About 25% of TICA’s budget is desig-

nated for the cooperation with Lao PDR.12

Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation (DTEC), founded in 1963 - by a Royal Decree to serve the Thai Govern-ment as a focal agency under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand in administrating international development copera-tions. TICA is principally responsible for the implementation of Thailand's development cooperation programmes in neighbour-ing countries in particular as well as other regions of the world. 11 GIZ, TICA. Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation. Projects un-der Implementation. 2015. 12 Interviews at TICA.

28

2.5 Methodology

The methodology was presented in the inception re-

port and subsequently agreed upon in the Reference

Group meeting in May 2016. In a nutshell, the meth-

odology for the ex-post dimension of this evaluation

is designed to verify to what extent the intended ob-

jectives of the GIZ support in the selected sectors

have materialised as originally foreseen. In other

words, did the modalities employed and activities un-

dertaken yield the results expected, and thereby con-

tribute to the overall objectives of the GIZ’s support to

Thailand?

This approach requires a causal examination based

on a reconstructed theory of change (ToC), which is

used to model how an intervention is expected to

bring or has brought about intended changes. A ToC

is a model of generative causality, showing the steps

that occur between some deliberate actions of an in-

tervention and subsequent observed changes, and

the assumptions needed for the steps to occur. The

assumptions are the events and conditions that need

to occur, according to the ToC, if the causal link is to

be realised.

Theory of Change

In use since the 1990s, ToC are tools for visualising

results and activities at various levels of interven-

tions. In other words: A ToC is an explanation of the

causal links that tie a programme activity to expected

outcomes.

In sum, ToC-based evaluations are designed to an-

swer three generic questions:

1. Was the strategy in question implemented

faithfully?

2. Did the strategy produce the desired results

as defined by the outcomes template?

3. Were the assumptions regarding the causal

outcomes correct?

The theory of change-based evaluation process ap-

plied in this CSE consists of four distinct steps:

13 For the above see: Barbara Befani and John Mayne. Process Tracing and Contribution. Analysis: A Combined Approach to Generative Causal Inference for Impact Evaluation; Julian, Da-vid A. Enhancing Quality of Practice Through Theory of Change‐Based Evaluation: Science or Practice? American Journal of Community Psychology, 2005, Vol.35(3-4), pp.159-168; Alan Dyson & Liz Todd (2010) Dealing with complexity: theory of change evaluation and the full service extended schools initiative, International Journal of Research & Method

1. Development of a results model reflecting

the relationships between a strategy, outputs

of strategy implementation, desired pro-

gramme outcomes and longer-term

changes;

2. Articulation of evaluation questions related to

the ToC;

3. Collection of data related to the evaluation

questions and

4. Review of the evidence to answer the evalu-

ation questions against the backdrop of the

ToC.13

The reconstructed intervention logic (IL) of GIZ’s sup-

port to the selected sectors (see below), which is vis-

ualised in the ToC, constitutes the backbone of this

evaluation, bearing in mind the specific context and

environment in which GIZ support exists and oper-

ates. While a reconstructed IL potentially faces the

criticism of bias (in the sense that a reconstructed

model might look “perfect” without inconsistencies

and incoherencies), in the absence of a “faithful” IL it

is the only option available. A faithful IL would require

for certain preconditions to be met which was not

given in this case. The reasons are as follows: In the

field of development cooperation, the evaluation of

an entire country programme, which tries to depict a

broad picture of the cooperation over a substantial

period of time and thus goes beyond the level of indi-

vidual projects, requires the presence of a country

strategy (or strategies) as a starting point.

A strategy document usually states the overall objec-

tives of the support provided to a partner country and

the expected outcomes and impacts of this coopera-

tion. However, since GIZ is not a donor but an imple-

menting agency it has not drafted explicit country

strategy to define and describe GIZ’s contributions to

Thailand’s development. Instead, GIZ has contrib-

uted to implementing the global, regional or country-

specific development strategies of its respective cli-

ents. Consequently, GIZ’s support to Thailand has

been guided by and embedded in the strategic ap-

proaches and thus the theories of change, of the

BMZ, BMUB or EU. An overarching “results model”

for the cooperation with Thailand in general does

therefore not exist.

in Education, 33:2, 119-134; Weiss, C.H. 1995. Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and fami-lies. In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts, ed. J. Connell, A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, and C.H. Weiss, 65–92. Washington, DC: The As-pen Institute.

29

The recently formulated Schwellenländer Strate-

giepapier Thailand is first and foremost a business

strategy which is based on the objective of sustaining

and possibly expanding GIZ’s operations in Thailand.

In other words, this is a strategy for GIZ operations

but not a document, which outlines the development

objectives of GIZ’s work in Thailand. While the docu-

ment refers to some of Thailand’s core development

challenges, it does so from the perspective of a ser-

vice provider and the steering and diversification of

its portfolio. From this, it becomes obvious that the

Schwellenländer Strategiepapier Thailand or any

other documents related to GIZ’s general approach

to Thailand cannot be used to reconstruct a ToC,

which captures the development cooperation be-

tween GIZ and Thailand.

30

31

In the absence of a country development strategy,

the following ToC (see Figure 1) can therefore only

be a simplified reconstructed intervention logic

based on the project results models of the selected

11 individual projects. To reduce complexity and to

make the ToC manageable, the intervention logic

identifies common outputs, anticipated outcomes

and impacts and syntheses them with the aim of

presenting the goals of GIZ interventions in Thai-

land at the level of sectors and the country. Out-

puts, outcomes and impacts are linked through

multiple assumptions, which are outlined below. The underlying assumptions for the ToC as a whole are described in the following.

Across all sectors the most significant outputs can

be clustered into three generic groups:

Capacity building and intensive training for rel-

evant state and non-state stakeholders groups,

including but not limited to officials of line min-

istries and state agencies, businesses, and

civil society organisations.

Policy and technical dialogues, awareness

raising and the transfer of know-how at differ-

ent levels including relations between German

and Thai stakeholders (and in the case of trilat-

eral cooperation also from other partner coun-

tries) and between stakeholder groups in Thai-

land, including the strengthening of inter-

ministerial collaboration.

Directly supported targeted issue-specific ac-

tivities to, inter alia, provide technical solutions,

increase economic activity, develop standards,

strengthen gender equality, etc.

These outputs are assumed to lead to results or

outcomes, which are mainly described as:

The strengthening of national and regional pol-

icy and legislative frameworks in the supported

sectors (including the alignment and harmoni-

sation of different policies and laws), leading to

more efficient and effective approaches by

state actors to address challenges;

Increased qualifications and competencies of

the supported stakeholder groups in a broad

range of areas, ranging from project planning

and management skills to specific qualifica-

tions in different sectors of the economy and

more efficient and effective approaches to pol-

icy formulation and implementation;

The implementation of national and regional

standards and the efficient and effective appli-

cation of technical solutions in various sectors

of the economy.

Between them these outcomes are expected to

lead to impacts, which are – for the sectors in-

cluded in the evaluation –, best summarised as:

Reduced environmental pollution, decreased

greenhouse gas emissions and increased en-

ergy efficiency;

A more responsive labour market in the sense

of a reduced gap between labour supply and

demand for skilled labour;

Increased competiveness of companies, partic-

ularly SMEs, from Thailand and the region; and

A strengthened role of Thailand as a donor

country in development cooperation.

An overarching general factor, which applies to all

levels and will thus be prominently taken into ac-

count by the evaluation is: To what extent is the

work of GIZ in Thailand (as elsewhere) affected by

external events and developments. External fac-

tors relate to:

First, the country context in which cooperation

takes place (e.g. changing political and/or eco-

nomic framework conditions). In the case of

Thailand these factors include, for example,

the military coups which happened during the

evaluation period, phases of political instability

and unrest, economic crises due to the global

financial crisis 2008 and the floods in 2011, as

well as Thailand’s decision to transform from

being a recipient of ODA to acting as a donor.

Second, to GIZ’s position within the institu-

tional setting of German and international de-

velopment cooperation (e.g. changes to BMZ’s

bilateral cooperation programmes). The most

decisive development in this regards was

BMZ’s decision to phase out bilateral coopera-

tion with Thailand.

Results (“Wirkungen”) of the cooperation (out-

comes and impact) and the external factors as in-

tervening variables will be juxtaposed to explain

how GIZ has responded to changing framework

conditions. As outlined above, GIZ does not formu-

late explicit assumptions about the higher-level

development goals of its interventions. However,

it can be deducted from the available documents

32

that GIZ support to Thailand is expected to make a

decisive contribution to the sustainable economic

development of the country and, through the em-

powerment of Thailand as a donor, to strengthened

South-South cooperation in development.

Evaluation Questions (EQ)

The evaluation is based on evaluation questions

and related judgement criteria. The report itself fol-

lows the five DAC criteria (relevance, efficiency, ef-

fectiveness, impact and sustainability) but is

guided by the EQs and Judgement Criteria.

Table 4: Evaluation Matrix

EQ 1

(Relevance, Ef-ficiency)

How did GIZ respond to changing policy environments?

Rationale: EQ 1 addresses the extent to which the GIZ-Thailand cooperation has pro-actively and flexibly reacted to changes in the structural framework conditions and made sure that the cooperation and its projects stayed relevant for overall development in Thailand. It also looks at the way the modalities and thematic approaches of collabora-tion between GIZ and Thai partner stakeholders reflected structural changes in the framework conditions.

Judgement Criteria:

GIZ support has maintained its relevance over time (JC 1.1)

GIZ support reflected partners’ development strategies and objectives (JC 1.2)

The modes of collaboration between GIZ and Thai partners have changed in line with changing framework conditions (JC 1.3)

The GIZ support was flexible and adapted to facilitate rapid responses to changes in circumstances (JC 1.4)

Any institutional, policy and technical constraints as well as impeding external fac-tors were addressed during planning and implementation (JC 1.5)

GIZ developed innovative approaches and “promising practises” in response to changing framework conditions for the cooperation (JC 1.6)

EQ 2

(Effectiveness, Impact)

What concrete development results were achieved by the GIZ-Thai cooperation 2000-2015?

Rationale: EQ2 assesses outputs, outcomes and impact in the selected sectors. Due to the complexity and long-term nature of the evaluation, a systematic and complete analy-sis of outputs across all chosen sectors is not feasible; however, outputs are taken into consideration whenever necessary to explain outcomes. The EQ also identifies and dis-cusses constraints, bottlenecks and unanticipated obstacles, which have impeded the implementation of activities.

Judgement Criteria:

Observable outputs and results are in line with the reconstructed theory of change (JC 2.1)

Aid delivery modalities were appropriate to the national context and to achieve the desired results (JC 2.2)

Impact of the outcomes was achieved in relation to the supported sectors (JC 2.3)

The achievement of longer-term changes was not influenced or constrained by ex-ternal factors (JC 2.4)

33

EQ 3

(Sustainability)

Are the development results achieved in GIZ-Thai cooperation being sustained?

Rationale: This question refers to the specific results (for the selected sectors) docu-mented under EQ 2. It reflects on the factors that have influenced sustainability.

Judgement Criteria:

Changes that have taken place are robust and likely to continue to yield benefits in the selected sectors (JC 3.1)

Measures have been taken by the government and other Thai stakeholders to en-hance the sustainability of the outcomes (JC 3.2)

Threats to future sustainability have been overcome or there is potential for this (JC 3.3)

Necessary actions have been identified and taken in response to any capacity gaps, information gaps, market failures or the presence of vested interests (JC 3.4)

The development results of the GIZ-Thai cooperation are replicable or there is po-tential for this (JC 3.4).

EQ 4

(Lessons Learnt)

What lessons learnt can GIZ draw from the experiences for its future engagement in Thailand and in other countries?

Rationale: The experience from GIZ-Thai cooperation might provide relevant lessons learnt which are useful for the further development of GIZ’s strategy towards Thailand. These lessons learnt might potentially also shape and guide strategic decisions for simi-lar situations in other countries. In answering the EQ, the approach of other development agencies in Thailand will also be consulted and reflected.

Judgement Criteria:

GIZ’s long term engagement in Thailand as well as flexible responses to changing circumstances were crucial factors in the implementation process (JC 4.1)

The GIZ country office managed the transition process to the post-BMZ structural environment pro-actively, efficiently and effectively (JC 4.2)

Thai state and non-state actors at national, provincial and local levels were promi-nently included in the planning, organisation and implementation of support (JC 4.3)

The GIZ approach to Thailand has taken the strategies of other development agen-cies into account to avoid duplication (JC 4.4)

The experiences of GIZ and other development agencies in Thailand allow for a benchmarking of success factors in the implementation of development cooperation (JC 4.5)

The specific experiences of the GIZ-Thai cooperation can be regarded as a “best case” or model for GIZ support in other middle-income / industrialising countries which have graduated from ODA or are about to do so (JC 4.6)

Data Sources and Tools

In-depth documentary review: The analysed

documents include GIZ programme and project

documentation (project descriptions/overviews, fact

sheets, logframes, progress reports, final reports

etc.), monitoring and evaluation reports, strategy

papers and annual planning documents, reports

and other material provided by GIZ and its partners

as well as media reports, research reports and ac-

ademic publications.

Analysis of existing quantitative data along the

theory of change: The evaluation uses project

monitoring data from GIZ and partners, as well as

existing surveys and statistical material from other

sources. However, quantitative data was only

available to a limited extent, mainly because GIZ’s

Thai partner organisations have neither conducted

monitoring nor did they conduct any project report-

ing on their own.

Structured and semi-structured interviews: The

interviews were prepared with interview guidelines

adapted for the stakeholders to be interviewed.

The field investigations in April 2016 (inception

34

phase) and in September 2016 (main field phase)

included site visits, stakeholder interviews with GIZ

staff as well as partners and beneficiaries of GIZ

interventions in Thailand (see Annex 5 and 6). The

team leader also conducted interviews with GIZ’s

current main clients for Thailand-focussed projects,

BMUB, AA, BMWi and EU (Delegation in Bang-

kok), as GIZ’s work in Thailand has to be assessed

against the backdrop of the development goals and

objectives of these donors. Some interviews were

conducted as small group interviews. However, it

was not possible to organise focus group inter-

views due to logistical hurdles. The evaluators also

requested to conduct a participatory observation of

AIZ training courses but this request was not

granted by the GIZ office.

An online stakeholder survey of GIZ’s partners in

Thailand was conducted. The online survey was

geared towards the collection of information on is-

sues related to: i) the perception of GIZ’s role and

mission in Thailand in general and ii) the collabora-

tion with GIZ in Thailand in particular. The survey

was targeted towards stakeholders (including ben-

eficiaries, partners, consultants, contractors, em-

ployees of organisations that have collaborated

with GIZ) of GIZ in Thailand and actors knowledge-

able of the role and activities of GIZ in Thailand.

The survey complemented the information gath-

ered through documentary reviews and interviews.

Limitations

As it is the purpose of this evaluation to capture the

GIZ support at country-level in a holistic way, and

with the objective of presenting findings, conclu-

sions and recommendations in relation to the coop-

eration between GIZ and Thai partners in general,

the evaluation cannot provide detailed assess-

ments of the individual projects, or even sectors,

included in the sample. In other words, this evalua-

tion does not replicate or duplicate project evalua-

tions and, consequently, does not and cannot sys-

tematically evaluate the results of projects against

their respective indicators and results models. In-

stead, project results across the portfolio of GIZ’s

support to Thailand are taken into account and are

elaborated on in an exemplary manner to present

aggregated and synthesised findings.

The evaluation was somewhat hampered by the

lack of documents, particularly monitoring and

evaluation reports, from GIZ’s Thai partners. While

the online survey and interviews provide a good

view on the partner perspective, more documented

evidence on project outputs, results and impact

would certainly have strengthened the comprehen-

siveness of the assessment. This gap is particu-

larly crucial with regards to sustainability. The as-

sessment of sustainability requires the availability

of data and documents, which show and prove on-

going effects of interventions long after they have

ended.

However, final project reports are written immedi-

ately after – or even shortly before – the conclusion

of a project and thus cannot provide empirical evi-

dence on sustainability. The same applies to most

project evaluations. The evaluation team expected

Thai partners to provide the necessary data and

documentary basis to allow for judgements on the

sustainability of project results. However, such in-

formation was unavailable in most cases. There-

fore, the evaluators had to almost solely rely on in-

terviews; but even then, it was difficult to obtain

information on projects, which had ended more

than two or three years ago and find stakeholders

who were still following-up on the results. Within

the given time-frame and considering the available

resources it was not feasible for the evaluation

team to conduct extensive primary research with

the view of generating data.

35

2.6 Evaluation by DAC Criteria

The following part assesses the GIZ support for

Thailand according to the DAC evaluation criteria

relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and

sustainability. The chapter begins with a short

analysis of main findings of the online survey,

which address several of these criteria.

The partner perspective: findings of the stake-holder survey

Main results of the online stakeholder survey

73% of respondents stated that they were satisfied with their relationship with GIZ to a great extent, while 27% were satisfied to some extent (figure 2).

71% of the respondents thought that “GIZ involves Thai partners in the development of cooperation strategies and projects” to a great extent. 63% believe that “GIZ responds to the needs” (“ideas, sugges-tions of Thai partners”) also to a great extent (figure 3).

72% of respondents agreed to a great extent that “GIZ follows a results-oriented approach”. 62% ap-proved to a great extent of the statement that “GIZ utilises its resources efficiently” (figure 3).

However, it should also be noted, that on the point of “GIZ’s cooperation strategies are clear and well communicated”, 12% of respondents answered that this statement was only true to a little extent or not at all. This is the highest negative score of all questions on perception (figure 4).

A large majority of respondents expressed positive views about their collaboration with GIZ. However, 19% of respondents agree with the statement “GIZ is uncomplicated to work with” only to a little extent or not at all (figure 5).

When asked about the challenges in working with GIZ, most respondents mentioned “Bureaucracy/ complicated work procedures” (53%), followed by “changes in policy direction” (48%), changes in fund-ing priorities (38%) and staff turnover (28%) (multiple answers were possible) (figure 5).

Individual open comments on challenges comprised statements such as “GIZ lack of the actual unde-standing of [Thai] culture and bureaucratic system which is different from GIZ culture”, “Be flexible in working with the government of Thailand”, “I think GIZ should try and get higher commitment for reach-ing project goals and be more realistic about Thai organisations’ ability to do so”; “GIZ is sometimes per-ceived as a consulting company, rather than a development partner”.

Almost all surveyed partners were satisfied with

their respective relationship with GIZ. This was

largely driven by a positive perception of a) GIZ’s

participatory approach to project planning and im-

plementation and b) the efficiency and effective-

ness of modalities. Follow-up stakeholder inter-

viewees confirmed that the participatory approach,

which has been applied throughout GIZ’s coopera-

tion portfolio, allowed to address institutional, pol-

icy and technical constraints as well as impeding

external factors during planning and implementa-

tion. As a high-ranking official of an international

organisation who has been working with GIZ for 12

years put it, “GIZ’s comparative advantage is its

ability to always mobilise top-notch expertise linked

to technical solutions and strategies. GIZ is open,

transparent, accountable and never pushes too

hard for a specific agenda. The platform is always

flexible enough to respond to the needs on the

ground”.

Figure 1: How satisfied are you with your relationship with GIZ?

72%

27%1%

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 67

36

Figure 2: What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to the Thai context?

The fact that the vast majority of survey respond-

ents perceived GIZ as standing out among devel-

opment partners in Thailand, confirms the global

findings of the AidData partner perception report

which mentions “GIZ’s above-average perfor-

mance in providing policy advice for reforms”.14

Overall, a large majority of respondents expressed

positive views about their collaboration with GIZ

and it can reasonably be assumed that this is also

reflective of efficient and effective GIZ-partner rela-

tions.

14 AidData, Deval. German Aid from a Partner Perspective: Experience-based Perceptions from AidData’s 2014 Reform

GIZ’s results-oriented approach and efficient utili-

sation of resources are seen as crucial success

factors. Albeit expressed by only a minority of sur-

vey respondents, some problems seem to exist in

the communication of GIZ’s cooperation strategies.

Follow-up interviews revealed that partners could

not always clearly distinguish between the strate-

gies and approaches of donors (such as BMZ) on

the one hand and those of GIZ as an implementing

agency on the other.

Efforts Survey, 2016, p viii.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GIZ stands out among Thailand’s development partners.

GIZ involves Thai partners in the development ofcooperation strategies and projects.

GIZ takes the Thai context in development intoconsideration.

GIZ responds on the needs (ideas, suggestions) of Thaipartners.

Thai partners have a high level of responsibility of andengagement in GIZ-funded projects (ownership).

GIZ has strong expertise on issues relevant to Thailand’s development.

GIZ plays an important role in Thailand’s development process.

GIZ’s aid delivery modalities have been adapted to the areas of your work in Thailand.

GIZ has flexibility in adapting to changing needs of Thaipartners.

The GIZ approach to Thailand has taken the strategies ofmy institution/organisation into account.

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 64

N = 63

N = 66

N = 65

N = 64

N = 65

N = 63

N = 62

N = 65

N = 64

37

Figure 3: What is your perception regarding the mission of GIZ?

Another critical point on efficiency and effective-

ness which emerged from the online survey and in-

terviews refers to the level of bureaucratic com-

plexity and challenges involved in the

implementation of projects, changes in policy direc-

tion, funding priorities and staff turnover. According

to open answers on the issue of challenges and

follow-up interviews, stakeholders who expressed

critical views about their relationship with GIZ did

so because they believed GIZ did not fully under-

stand work and administrative cultures at partner

organisations coupled with unrealistic expectations

regarding human resource capacities at Thai gov-

ernment agencies. While it is difficult to determine

if these views are reflective of structural problems

in relations between GIZ and its partners or mainly

perceptions of individuals, it seems important to

address these issues in GIZ-partner exchanges.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GIZ is governed by a clear mission.

GIZ addresses any emerging capacity gaps in thepreparation and implementation of projects.

The work of GIZ is characterised by innovativeconcepts and initiatives to solve problems.

GIZ follows a results-oriented approach.

GIZ utilizes its resources efficiently.

GIZ is effectively working for change.

GIZ effectively acts as a mediator betweendifferent stakeholders.

GIZ’s cooperation strategies are clear and well communicated.

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 65

N = 65

N = 67

N = 67

N = 66

N = 66

N = 64

N = 67

38

Figure 4: What is your perception regarding the collaboration with GIZ?

Figure 5: What are the challenges in working with GIZ?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GIZ has highly qualified staff.

Relations with GIZ are based on mutual respect.

Relations with GIZ are based on openness.

GIZ coordinates its work well with Thai partners.

GIZ’s collaboration with Thai partners takes place on a set of common aims and goals.

GIZ staff are recognized as team player.

GIZ always keeps its partners well informed ofthe progress of project implementation.

GIZ is uncomplicated to work with.

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 67

N = 67

N = 68

N = 67

N = 67

N = 66

N = 67

N = 68

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Bureaucracy / complicated work procedures

Changes in policy direction

Changes in funding priorities

Staff turnover

Other - Write In

There are no challenges in working with GIZ.

% of respondents who ticked the option

N = 64N = 64

39

Relevance in view of changing framework conditions

Overview

The section of Relevance addresses EQ 1 (How did GIZ respond to changing policy environments?) but

also elaborates in more general terms of the relevance of the support, thereby addressing the following

judgement criteria (JC):

GIZ support has maintained its relevance over time (JC 1.1)

GIZ support reflected partners’ development strategies and objectives (JC 1.2)

The modes of collaboration between GIZ and Thai partners have changed in line with changing

framework conditions (JC 1.3)

The GIZ support was flexible and adapted to facilitate rapid responses to changes in circumstances

(JC 1.4)

Any institutional, policy and technical constraints as well as impeding external factors were ad-

dressed during planning and implementation (JC 1.5)

GIZ has developed innovative approaches and “promising practises” in response to changing

framework conditions for the cooperation (JC 1.6)

The section also partly covers EQ 4, i.e. GIZ’s long-term engagement in Thailand as well as flexible

responses to changing circumstances were crucial factors in the implementation process (JC 4.1).

Main Findings on Relevance

While Thailand has gone through phases of profound political and economic change, GIZ had

not to adapt to altering framework conditions as GIZ, to a large extent, has addressed tech-

nical, non-sensitive areas of support (e.g. climate change), which have maintained relevance

over time and for subsequent governments regardless of the regime type. GIZ did also not

have to engage in direct negotiations with the Thai government because of its role as an imple-

menting agency (JCs 1.1, 1.3, 1.5)

Adaption was only necessary – and successfully achieved – in a few cases of changes in the

organisational structure or the top management of project partners and in response to exter-

nal developments such as the floods of 2011 (JC 1.4)

GIZ support to Thailand has apparently been characterised by a sufficient degree of flexibility

in the design and implementation of interventions which were all based on participatory ap-

proaches and therefore allowed for an ongoing alignment with partner needs and priorities (JCs

1.2, 1.4)

Support in the selected sectors, especially in the fields of vocational education and SME sup-

port, is deeply rooted in GIZ’s long-standing experience and continued involvement in Thai-

land. There can be no doubt about the relevance of this support for Thailand’s socio-economic

development. The environment sector has taken centre-stage for the past half-decade within

the context of climate change to which Thailand is particularly vulnerable (JCs 1.1, 1.2)

The trilateral cooperation of GIZ, TICA and third countries, e.g. Lao PDR and Vietnam, was

relevant both in terms of strengthening TICA’s role as a development agency and in response

to development needs of the two supported countries. However, the relevance of these inter-

ventions for Lao PDR and Vietnam was diminished due to the very small size of the projects

and their implementation in isolation from bilateral cooperation programmes (JC 1.2)

The relevance of many interventions was strengthened due to their regional dimension, i.e.

their alignment with growing regional needs, including ongoing integration based on the agenda

of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Mekong region (JCs 1.1, 1.2).

40

During the evaluation period, Thailand has been

characterised by frequent and often profound politi-

cal change. Factors, which potentially have im-

pacted on GIZ’s cooperation with Thailand include,

for example, the military coups which happened

during the evaluation period, phases of political in-

stability and unrest, economic crises due to the

global financial crisis 2008 and the floods in 2011,

as well as Thailand’s decision to transform from

being a recipient of ODA to acting as a donor. At

the same time, the country has made steady pro-

gress in climbing up the ladder of economic and

human development. GIZ has supported Thailand

in key sectors, which have stayed relevant regard-

less of the specific situation. Throughout the evalu-

ation period the supported sectors were closely

aligned with national needs and development prior-

ities.

The first part of this section assesses, in general

terms, the flexibility of the GIZ support and its abil-

ity to adapt to and facilitate responses to changes

in political and economic circumstances in Thai-

land. This section is largely based on stakeholder

interviews with GIZ staff, German line ministries,

other donors, such as the EU, Thai partner organi-

sations and the online survey. The second part dis-

cusses the relevance of support provided in the se-

lected sectors over time.

Relevance of Economic and Political Frame-work Conditions

With regards to main historic events and the politi-

cal situation, Thailand has experienced a very tu-

multuous time during the evaluation period (see

Table 5).

Table 5: Timeline of main events and political developments in Thailand 2000-201615

January 2001 New Thai Rak Thai (“Thais Love Thais”) party wins elections after partial re-run of poll. Leader and new Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra forms coalition gov-ernment.

February 2003 Controversial crackdown on drugs starts; more than 2,000 suspects are killed. The government blames many of the killings on criminal gangs; human rights groups say extra-judicial killings were encouraged by the authorities.

January-March 2004 Martial law is imposed in largely Muslim south after more than 100 killed in a wave of attacks blamed on Islamic militants; the violence has continued and more than 6,500 people have been killed to date.

December 2004 Thousands of people are killed when a massive tsunami devastates communi-ties on the south-west coast, including the resort of Phuket.

March 2005 Thaksin Shinawatra begins a second term as Prime Minister after his party wins February's elections by a landslide.

October 2005 Thailand fights avian flu as fresh outbreaks of the disease are reported.

April-May 2006 Snap election called by Thaksin amid mass rallies against him is boycotted by the opposition and is subsequently annulled, leaving a political vacuum. The Prime Minister takes a seven-week break from politics.

19 September 2006 Military leaders stage a bloodless coup while Thaksin is at the UN General As-sembly. Retired General Surayud Chulanont is appointed as interim prime min-ister in October.

15 Source: mainly based on BBC, Thailand Profile Timeline, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15641745

41

May 2007 Ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party is banned. Thousands of soldiers are put on alert.

August 2007 Voters approve a new military-drafted constitution in a referendum.

December 2007 General elections mark the first major step towards a return to civilian rule. The People Power Party (PPP), seen as the reincarnation of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party, wins the most votes.

February 2008 Return to civilian rule. Samak Sundaravej (PPP) is sworn in as prime minister. Ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra returns from exile.

June 2008- Decem-ber 2011

Thai-Cambodian border dispute involving the area surrounding the 11th century Preah Vihear Temple, resulting in 23 military and civilian casualties.

August 2008 Thaksin flees to the UK with his family after failing to appear in court to face corruption charges.

September 2008 Opposition protesters (“yellow shirts”) occupy Bangkok’s main government complex and begin mass anti-government protests calling for the resignation of PM Samak Sundaravej.

November 2008 Tens of thousands of opposition People’s Alliance for Democracy supporters rally around parliament in Bangkok and blockade Thailand’s main airports in “fi-nal battle” to topple the government.

December 2008

PM Somchai Wongsawat is forced from office by a Constitutional Court ruling disbanding the governing PPP for electoral fraud and barring its leaders from politics for five years.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva forms a coalition to become Thailand’s new PM.

March-April 2009 Supporters of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra (“red shirts”) hold mass rallies against the government’s economic policies.

March-May 2010

Tens of thousands of Thaksin supporters – in trademark red shirts – paralyse parts of central Bangkok with months-long protests calling for PM Abhisit’s res-ignation and early elections. Troops eventually storm the protesters’ barricades in a bid to break the deadlock and end the demonstrations. The death toll – the worst in the country’s modern history – is put at 91.

March-April 2011 Severe flooding happens during the monsoon season, described as the worst in Thailand’s history. 65 of the country’s 77 provinces are declared flood disas-ter zones.

July 2011 The pro-Thaksin Pheu Thai party wins a landslide victory in elections. Yingluck Shinawatra – the sister of Thaksin Shinawatra – becomes PM.

June 2012 Anti-government yellow-shirts blockade parliament to prevent debate on pro-posed reconciliation bill aimed at ending six-year-old political tensions.

November 2013 Tens of thousands of opposition supporters protest in Bangkok against a pro-posed political amnesty bill that critics say would allow ousted leader Thaksin Shinawatra to return to Thailand without facing jail.

December 2013 In response to opposition pressure, PM Yingluck announces that early elec-tions will be held in February 2014.

42

February 2014 General elections take place but the Constitutional Court declares them invalid because of disruption by the opposition.

May 2014

Constitutional court orders PM Yingluck and several ministers out of office over alleged irregularities in appointment of security adviser.

Army seizes power in coup.

June 2014 King Bhumibol gives his assent to an interim constitution enacted by the junta and giving the military sweeping powers.

August 2014 Coup leader General Prayuth Chanocha is made prime minister.

August 2016 Voters approve a new constitution giving the military continuing influence over the country's political life.

October 2016 King Bhumibol Adulyadej dies at the age of 88 after 70 years on the throne.

In spite of the significant and in some cases dra-

matic events in Thailand since 2000, the collabora-

tion between GIZ and Thai partners has been

largely unaffected by changing framework condi-

tions, triggered by, inter alia, government changes,

military coups, domestic conflicts, and natural dis-

asters. The major visible effect is that policy dia-

logues involving German and Thai line ministries,

which had been planned as part of individual inter-

ventions, have not taken place since the military

seized power in 2014.On 23 June 2014, the Coun-

cil of the European Union suspended all “official

visits to and from Thailand”.16 For example, this

has affected the Thai-German dialogue on energy

transition, which has not continued since an inau-

gural meeting in 2013. However, the cooperation

has continued at the working level of the ministries

and there is no indication that the implementation

of the project in general has been affected.

Otherwise, if adaptation was necessary, this was

usually in response to changes in the organisa-

tional structure or the top management of project

partners. For example, in the field of climate

change, the projects had to deal with several

changes in the leadership of ONEP and OCCC.

The effectiveness of cooperation depended on the

respective top officials in charge but overall the in-

terventions had apparently not been hampered by

fluctuations at the management level.17 In a small

number of cases, projects had to deal with unpre-

dictable events but were able to adjust accordingly.

For example, due to the flooding situation in Thai-

land in late 2011 the final events for the pro-

gramme Strengthening of the competitiveness &

eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand had to be post-

poned to January and February 2012, which was

agreed with BMZ.18 Also, as a result of the floods,

GIZ asked the EU as the donor of the Switch Asia

Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Automotive In-

dustry project to reduce the number of supported

SMEs to 100 as the industry was struggling at the

time to deal with the impact of the floods. However,

the EU did not agree and GIZ eventually managed

to complete the project with 502 SMEs.19

The online survey shows that an overwhelming

majority of respondents agreed that GIZ has flexi-

bly adapted its support to changing economic and

political circumstances to a great or some extent.

However, according to follow-up interviews with se-

lected respondents, most believed that there were

relatively few instances in which GIZ had to adapt

its support.

16 Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on Thailand. Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 23 June 2014. 17 This is also mentioned in GIZ. Entwicklung und Umsetzung der Klimawandelpolitik in Thailand, 2009-2014. Schlussbericht, Au-gust 2014. 18 GIZ. Strengthening of the competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand, Report number: 8 (last reporting period 1.5.2011-31.12.2011), Reporting period: 1.5.2008 - 31.12.2011. 19 Interview with the EU Delegation in Bangkok.

43

Figure 6: Survey Question: What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to changing circumstances?

The fact that GIZ’s work was not substantially af-

fected by changing framework conditions is mainly

related to GIZ’s status as an implementing agency

which, unlike donors, does not engage in direct ne-

gotiations with the Thai government. As an EU offi-

cial put it, “GIZ can interact with the Thai govern-

ment at a technical level. Unlike the EU and its

member states, GIZ is not bound by political rela-

tions and constraints.” Furthermore, GIZ mainly

works in politically “non-sensitive” areas. This

means, while GIZ is prominently involved in policy

consulting and directly works at the level of policy-

making, the issues that have been addressed in

Thailand are generally of a non-confrontational na-

ture. Climate change is a politicised issue but it is

not GIZ that creates the political framework for co-

operation but the German government, the EU or

other donors as GIZ’s clients. GIZ has contributed

to the design of BMZ-funded interventions but does

not bear political responsibility. The current Thai

military government has not been a stumbling

block for GIZ’s activities. To the contrary, it has

been supportive of the climate change initiative as

it is important for the government to find interna-

tional cooperation platforms.

Below the level of the overarching structural politi-

cal and economic framework conditions, all pro-

grammes, projects and their components covered

by the evaluation were characterised by a flexible

approach. This allowed for the amendment and ad-

aptation of project designs and logframes in line

with the specific interests and needs of Thai part-

ners and beneficiaries. Partners were prominently

involved in the design of interventions. Projects

started with stakeholder workshops, which set the

implementation agenda based on a participatory

approach. This has increased ownership. Partici-

patory approaches are not customary applied in

Thailand and, according to stakeholder interviews,

GIZ’s approach stood out among development

agencies. At the same time, however, as several

interviewees confirmed, Thai ministries often sent

junior staff to project meetings who are not in a po-

sition of decision making and are not the group of

participants GIZ is looking for. The participation in

projects also creates an extra burden for junior

staff as this is often on top of their workload at a

ministry for which no additional compensation is of-

fered.

Relevance of Sector-specific Support

In the following, the relevance of GIZ support for

the different sectors is discussed in detail. Such a

sector-specific approach and understanding is a

necessary pre-condition for an aggregated per-

spective on effectiveness, efficiency, impact and

sustainability in the subsequent chapters.

Vocational education

GIZ support to vocational education dates back to

the early days of German-Thai development coop-

eration and throughout the years and decades this

support has continued to be relevant in the Thai

development context as interviewed stakeholders

unanimously stated. There has always been a

strong interest on the Thai side to learn from the

German dual training system and from the long-

term experiences of German vocational education.

Questions such as how companies or social em-

ployers can get involved in the dual system take

centre stage in this debate. In 1995, based primar-

ily on the German model, the Department of Voca-

tional Education launched the initiative to introduce

dual vocational training programmes which involve

students in hands-on training in suitably selected

organisations in the private sector. The training is

for a period of three years with more than half of

the time devoted to practical training on-the-job,

spread over two days a week, or for longer periods

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GIZ has flexibly adapted its support to changing economiccircumstances in Thailand.

GIZ has flexibly adapted its support to changing politicalcircumstances in Thailand.

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 58

N = 56

44

depending on the distance, throughout the semes-

ters. Two levels of a diploma in vocational training

(DVT) are offered: the three-year certificate level

for skilled workers where students and trainees are

admitted at the age of 15 after completing Mattha-

yom 3 (Grade 9); and the two-year diploma techni-

cian level for students who have graduated with

the Certificate of Vocational Education after 12

years of formal education.

During the evaluation period, the Thai Office of Vo-

cational Education Commission (OVEC) has been

making substantial efforts to promote the study of

vocational schools and to persuade young people

to apply for vocational education. In relation to this

objective, the OVEC issued a 15-year Vocational

Education Policy (2012-2026) and specified mis-

sions, goals and strategies to try to nourish and

foster the Thai vocational education system. “This

aims to boost the number of young people attend-

ing vocational schools and train them to be compe-

tent and qualified employees, in both core and

functional competency. OVEC plans to work col-

laboratively with the industrial and commercial sec-

tors, and both local and international agencies.”

In May 2013, OVEC signed an agreement with the

German government in order to share the best

practices from Germany's vocational education

system. A memorandum of understanding on

Ger¬man-Thai Dual Excellence Education has

been drawn up between the Thai Ministry of Edu-

cation and Germany's Federal Foreign Office. The

German government and German-Thai Chamber

of Commerce cooperated with OVEC to set up a

'Dual Training Curriculum' for Thai vocational

schools with collaboration from German industrial

sectors. The aim is to tackle the region’s in-

tensi¬fying skilled-labour shortage by creating real

public-private partnerships, introducing efficient

mea¬sures and creating a recognised standard for

training through the development of minimum

stan¬dards for “In-Company-Trainers”. While the

GIZ project Effective In-Company Vocational Train-

ing in the Mekong Region (2013-2016) does not

and cannot replicate the German model – given

the different framework conditions in Thailand – it

is based on the key concept of the dual system. It

clearly responds to the needs of Thai economy to

expand and strengthen a well-educated and

trained workforce able to lift Thailand out of the

middle-income trap and thus can be considered an

intervention, which is particularly suitable to meet

the demands of middle-income countries. Further-

more, Thai-German collaboration on dual voca-

tional education in general has gone through an

evolutionary period in recent years and has now

reached a level at which there is buy-in from the

private sector, not at least major German compa-

nies, such as BMW, Bosch and B Grimm (almost

600 German companies operate in Thailand) which

have joined GIZ to address growing worries about

shortage of skilled labour.

As in all other sectors covered by this evaluation –

albeit to varied degrees – the GIZ TVET Mekong

project gains further relevance due its regional em-

beddedness. This is crucial against the backdrop

of ongoing and increasing regional cooperation

and integration in Southeast Asia, which is strongly

supported by the Thai government. While based in

Thailand – where the training courses take place

as well – the project has involved stakeholders

from countries in the Mekong region and has had

an explicit regional dimension.

SME support

SME support is a further sector in which GIZ has

been active for many years. Since 2004, the inter-

ventions have directly addressed the needs of

small and medium sized companies arising as the

result of growing international competition. Thai-

land was severely affected by the Asian Crisis of

1997-98. While the country had largely recovered

in the early 2000s, many challenges remained. As

GIZ correctly analysed, the competitive advantage

of the Thai economy in many sub-sectors was still

based on low wages and not on high productivity

through technological progress. New regional com-

petitors such as China and Vietnam had substan-

tially increased their competiveness creating pres-

sure on Thai companies. Particularly for SMEs, this

competitive pressure intensified due to low produc-

tivity, outdated production technologies (which also

cause poor product quality and environmental pol-

lution) and the migration of jobs to other countries.

Furthermore, sophisticated industries with high

added value were located almost exclusively in

Bangkok and the immediate region around the

capital. Although Thailand had to import a large

proportion of its energy, energy efficiency in pro-

duction was very low, especially in the agricultural

sector. SMEs were facing considerable competitive

pressures and did not dedicate sufficient attention

to ecological matters. This was the context in

which the Thai German Programme for Enterprise

Competitiveness (PEC) began to operate in 2004.

The project focused on the whole value chain of a

number of agroindustrial sub-sectors (palm oil,

mulberry paper, fruit & vegetable, shrimp and tapi-

oca), which are dominated by SMEs and have high

levels of employment or which are labour-intensive

and characterised by a significant need to improve

45

as well as a potential to achieve an increase in

productivity. Additional selection criteria were: the

priority of the sector on the partner side, the pro-

spect of structural effects and the presence of suit-

able partner institutions in the implementing pro-

cess to ensure sustainability after the end of the

intervention. The selected sub-sectors were rele-

vant to the Thai economy (employing around 1.5

million people at the time the intervention started)

enabling the programme to enhance the livelihood

of the rural population in the North and South of

the country. SMEs in those sectors face considera-

ble challenges and have substantial room for im-

provement with regard to competitiveness and eco-

efficiency. The sub-sectors also reflected the de-

velopment priorities on the Thai side. The project

was aligned with the 9th National Economic and

Social Development Plan (2002-2006).

The second phase of the project, strengthening of

the competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SMEs

(2008-2011) in Thailand focused on the improve-

ment of the competitiveness, eco-efficiency and

utilisation of renewable energies of Thai SMEs in

the agro-industry, addressing the framework condi-

tions and political dialogue, quality infrastructure,

innovation, technology and eco-efficiency. Particu-

lar emphasis was given to the improvement of

productivity and eco-efficiency in the production

process and the improvement of product quality.

The two phases built on each other, which was

particularly suitable for the Thai framework condi-

tions. While the first phase strongly focused on the

transformation to organic agriculture, the second

phase emphasised production methods, marketing

and match-making between Thai and foreign com-

panies. Furthermore, the project provided support

to develop the value chains for agro products for

which other kinds of assistance were not available

or only to a limited extent. As a beneficiary com-

mented, “there has not been a lot of opportunity to

get technical assistance for Longan.”

Environmental Sector and Climate Change

With regard to the environment sector, Thailand

will likely be one of the most affected countries by

climate change due to its geography, economy and

level of development. In fact, Thailand is already

experiencing the impacts of global climate change,

such as prolonged droughts, decreased agricul-

tural and fishery yields or sea level rise. Subse-

quent Thai governments have demonstrated their

commitment to address the causes of climate

change. To use energy more efficiently, among

other initiatives, Thailand’s Ministry of Energy intro-

duced the Power Development Plan, which sets a

target for achieving a 20% share of power genera-

tion from renewable sources in 2036. The Ministry

also introduced the Alternative Energy Develop-

ment Plan (AEDP) and the Energy Efficiency Plan

(EEP). The implementation has been supported by

the Thai German programme: Energy Efficiency

Development Plan (2012-2015) under the IKI of the

BMUB. The AEDP aims to achieve a 30% share of

renewable energy in the total final energy con-

sumption in 2036. The EEP plans to reduce Thai-

land’s energy intensity by 30% below the 2010

level by 2036. A challenge for Thailand’s reduction

in greenhouse gas emissions are the high costs

and capacity constraints in the energy sector. Fur-

thermore, Thailand largely lacks the technical ca-

pacity and effective coordination which are re-

quired to support energy efficiency reforms. To

address this problem, “Thailand has domestically

launched support mechanisms like feed-in tariffs,

tax incentives and access to investment grants and

venture capital for promoting renewable energy ex-

pansion. However, Thailand still has a long way to

go in terms of establishing effective energy

measures.”

GIZ support has been highly relevant as the three

components of Thai-German Climate Protection

Programme (2009-2011) – Climate Change Policy;

Energy Efficiency in Medium-Sized Enterprises;

and Climate-friendly Tourism – as well as the fol-

low up intervention Sustainable Consumption and

Production for Low Carbon Economy: Green Public

Procurement and Eco-Labelling (2012-2015) have

directly responded to climate-related challenges

and have been closely linked with the respective

government agendas. The relevance of the ap-

proach was strengthened by its holistic nature, i.e.

the fact that a whole range of programmes and

projects addressed the broad field of climate

change and environmental challenges from differ-

ent but related angles.

Most importantly, the programme Clean Air for

Smaller Cities in the ASEAN Region Project, later

renamed Cities, Environment, Transport in the

ASEAN-Region (CET) – with its modules Clean Air

for Smaller Cities (CASC), Sustainable Port Devel-

opment (SPD) and Transport and Climate Change

(TCC) – was relevant in addressing environmental

pollution caused by a rising demand for transport,

water, energy and solid waste management infra-

structure. Fast economic growth and a rapidly ex-

panding urban population have been causing a

negative impact affecting the quality of life and

health of citizens in Thailand. The three modules

addressed this core problem from different angles

but used similar approaches for capacity building

46

by harmonising the training approach. The CASC

module supported medium-sized cities in ASEAN

member states – in Thailand Chiang Mai and Na-

kornratchasima – in the development and imple-

mentation of clean air plans (CAPs). These plans

were designed to improve air quality and support

sus-tainable urban development. The Sustainable

Port Development (SPD) module assisted selected

ports to improve the quality and efficiency of their

Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) manage-

ment. Ports are commercial, logistic and industrial

nodes at the intersections of international trade

and play a key role in the economic development

of their countries and regions. Due to a rapid in-

crease in maritime transport in the ASEAN Region,

there are growing challenges to achieving ecologi-

cally and sustainably economic growth in the port

sector.

The TCC module worked towards improving en-

ergy efficiency and thereby mitigating greenhouse

gas emissions arising from land transport. Improv-

ing the energy efficiency and mitigation of green-

house gas (GHG) emissions has important co‐ben-

efits in terms of reducing congestion and air

pollution. The project developed strategies and ac-

tion plans towards the improvement of energy effi-

ciency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emis-

sions.

Overall, CET addressed issues of long-term rele-

vance in the process of Thailand’s industrialisation

process as well as its socio-economic and human

development. According to interviews, Thai part-

ners perceived CASC as the most relevant of the

three modules, which also generated the strongest

“buy in”. The relevance of CET was further en-

hanced through its embeddedness in regional ap-

proaches, e.g. the development of an ASEAN re-

gional policy to increase energy efficiency and

reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the land

transport sector. Thus, the programme also gained

relevance in terms of strengthening regional coop-

eration on key environmental agendas in South-

east Asia. Apart from Thailand CET was imple-

mented in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia and

involved the ASEAN Secretariat.

In the broader context of climate change, energy

security and resource efficiency, the project

Inte¬grated resource management in Asian Cities:

The Urban Nexus has been relevant in addressing

the challenges of cities. Managing rapidly growing

cities and their urban regions is one of the most

critical challenges facing Thailand, as well as Asia

in general, especially with regard to the relation-

ship between urban development and natural re-

source management. Of all natural resources, en-

ergy, water and food are essential to sustain devel-

opment efforts. The overall objective of the project

is to contribute to the long-term sustainable devel-

opment of rapidly growing cities. The project has

supported ten cities in six countries, namely:

China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand

(Chiang Mai and Korat) and Vietnam providing

technical advice to municipal administrations for

the design, planning and, where possible, imple-

mentation of practical nexus initiatives. While

there can be no doubt about the overall relevance

of the project, the criteria used by BMZ to select

the respective cities remain unclear.

Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation

The relevance of the Thai-German Trilateral Coop-

eration has to be judged against the programme’s

two-fold objective, i.e. the strengthening of TICA as

a development agency (within the context of Thai-

land’s role as an emerging donor) and the joint

GIZ-TICA implementation of projects in partner

countries in the region. According to interviews

conducted at TICA, collaboration with GIZ gained

its relevance particularly through the uniqueness of

the approach, i.e. GIZ has been TICA’s only part-

ner, which based its support on trilateral joint pro-

jects. In 2000, Thailand also signed a MoU with

Australia on trilateral cooperation but the agree-

ment was never implemented. Cooperation also

exists with New Zealand. Hence, GIZ’s support is

perceived as making a crucial contribution towards

1) Thailand’s transformation from a recipient coun-

try for 40 years to a donor, and 2) generally to the

strengthening of South-South and North-South-

South cooperation.

TICA has grouped its partner countries into three

categories: a) neighbouring/regional countries, b)

post-conflict countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ti-

mor Leste), and c) strategic countries. The coun-

tries supported by the trilateral cooperation – Lao

PDR and Vietnam – fall both in the first and third

category. Cooperation with Cambodia was also

planned but did not materialise for political rea-

sons.

The Mulberry Paper Supply Chain Project

(2010-2013) was the first project to be imple-

mented under the trilateral programme. It

aimed at improving the rural cross-border

economies in Northern Thailand and Lao PDR

by upgrading the Mulberry Paper Supply

Chain. Supporting the mulberry paper sector is

relevant for two reasons. First, it creates em-

ployment opportunities for socio-economically

47

disadvantaged groups. At the same time, the

traditional production process of mulberry pa-

per causes environmental pollution through the

extensive use of chemicals. Therefore, the ob-

jectives of the project did not only include the

creation of employment opportunities but also

the introduction of eco-friendly and eco-effi-

cient methods – also with the aim of reducing

production costs.

The project Nam Xong Sub-River Basin Man-

agement (2012-2014) addressed sustainable

water management in the watershed area of

the Nam Xong River in Lao PDR. The Nam

Xong watershed comprises 50 tributary rivers.

Nam Xong River is the lifeline for the people

living in the area as the water resources have

been utilised for all key economic activities,

e.g. tourism, agriculture, fishery, industry and

domestic consumption. Some 90% of the in-

habitants (64,000 in 2009) of the Nam Xong

watershed area make their living by working in

agriculture, fishing or the tourism industry, and

are therefore highly dependent on sufficient

and clean water supplies for their livelihoods.

The Strengthening National Good Agricultural

Practice (GAP) in Lao PDR project (2012-

2016) addressed the country’s needs in estab-

lishing a food safety certification system. At the

time of the project design phase, Lao PDR is

one of only a few ASEAN member states that

did not have a national GAP system harmo-

nised with ASEAN GAP in place. This lack of

GAP certification had negatively affected the

development of the fruit and vegetable indus-

try. Producers were unable to access important

regional markets for fresh horticultural prod-

ucts, while neighbouring countries such as

Thailand had moved forward with GAP certifi-

cation for both domestic and export markets.

The first two projects were relevant in addressing

the livelihoods of poor populations in the Thai-Lao

border area while the third project responded to a

clearly defined national need in the agro industry.

All three projects gained particular relevance within

the specific context of the trilateral cooperation as

they dealt with issues for which Thai experiences

and expertise could be utilised to provide a sub-

stantial added value in the implementation pro-

cess. Hence, the projects were ideally suited for

GIZ-TICA collaboration. Several interviewees sug-

gested that the projects were primarily chosen be-

cause they allowed TICA to develop its profile and

capacities as a donor and development agency.

This rationale is less clear in the case of the project

Vietnamese-Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation

Advanced Technical Services for SME in Selected

Industrial Sectors of Vietnam (2010-2014). The

project aimed at increasing the productivity and

competitiveness of SMEs in sugar, paper and auto-

motive industry through improved services of the

Center of Materials and Failure Analysis (COMFA)

within the Vietnamese Academy of Science and

Technology. The strengthening of the SME sector

has been a national priority in Vietnam’s ongoing

economic transformation process. Since the early

2000s, a large number of bilateral and multilateral

donors and development agencies has been active

in this sector, including the World Bank, the Inter-

national Finance Cooperation, United Nations De-

velopment Programme European Commission and

bilateral donors, most notably the Australian

Agency for International Development, Canadian

International Development Agency, State Secretar-

iat for Economic Affairs, Japan Bank for Interna-

tional Cooperation, United Kingdom Department

for International Development and the United

States Agency for International Development. Pro-

ject documents do not elaborate on the specific rel-

evance of the GIZ-TICA approach and particularly

TICA’s input and the final report does not even

mention TICA apart from its contribution to the

budget.

48

Efficiency

As the previous section, EQ 1 and the related JCs provide the framework for the following part, whichelabo-

rates on the degree of efficiency with which the support was delivered. Efficiency measures the outputs --

qualitative and quantitative -- in relation to the inputs. In other words, efficiency looks at how economically

resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time etc.) are converted to outputs. The efficiency criterion mainly ad-

dresses three questions: Were activities cost-effective? Were objectives achieved on time? Was the pro-

gramme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? 20 Efficiency is also

based on the assumption that differences in the way an intervention is approached and conducted can have

a significant influence on the effects.21 An examination of administrative and regulatory burden, aspects of

simplification, the mode of communication among stakeholder groups and economies of scale are thus im-

portant aspects of efficiency which are considered in the following.

In assessing efficiency, it is important to determine

whether and to what extent programmes were im-

plemented in the most efficient way compared to

alternatives. The same applies to the aspect of

cost-effectiveness.

20 OECD. DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance, OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, 2002, p. 21, https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf 21 EU. Guidelines on evaluation and Fitness Checks. Better Regulation, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_en.htm

Most programmes and projects provided support

for planning processes and the development of

strategies, policy and action plans at national and

local levels delivered by GIZ experts. In interviews

Thai partners almost unanimously stressed the

Main Findings on Efficiency

The vast majority of programme and project activities was delivered on time or at least without

substantial delays. There are only a very small number of cases which encountered significant

problems in the implementation process. This includes the Mulberry paper project under the

GIZ-TICA-Lao PDR trilateral cooperation which was not fully implemented (JC 1.4)

Projects which developed standards – especially at the regional level – can be seen as partic-

ularly efficient as such results are easily replicable (economies of scale) The evaluation did not

find any differences in the efficiency of project implementation in different sectors (JCs 1.2,

1.6)

Across all sectors GIZ support to Thailand is perceived as being of high quality due to “top-

notch” expertise in the delivery of technical solutions, transparency and accountability of

project implementation, the results-oriented and often incremental and/or holistic approach of

interventions as well as generally the participatory approach at all levels of the cooperation

(JCs 1.2, 1.3, 1.5)

GIZ developed several innovative approaches and “promising practises” to address Thailand’s

changing development needs as the country moves up the middle-income ladder. These meth-

ods include, but are not limited to, value-chain approaches and integrated resource manage-

ment in urban planning (JC 1.6)

Although there can be no doubt that a vast majority of Thai stakeholders is greatly satisfied with

their relations with GIZ, some problems exist – at least according to partners’s views – regard-

ing GIZ’s communication of strategies and occasionally a perception that GIZ lacks an appre-

ciation of the work and administrative culture of Thai partner organisations (JC 1.5)

49

high quality and efficiency of this approach. Ger-

man experts are seen as “modern development

workers” who are highly respected as reliable,

knowledgeable and have a systematic approach in

working with Thai partners. Interviewees saw the

multi-level and sequential nature of the GIZ sup-

port as a particularly important factor of efficiency.

This finding is in line with the study on “German

Aid from a Partner Perspective”, according to

which “the survey participants on average per-

ceived the advice and assistance provided by GIZ

to be particularly valuable at various stages (e.g.,

when reform priorities are being established, when

policy advice is provided and when reforms are be-

ing implemented)”.22

GIZ developed several innovative approaches and

“promising practises” to efficiently address Thai-

land’s changing development needs as the country

moves up the middle-income ladder. A case in

point is the project Integrated Resource Manage-

ment in Asian Cities: The Urban NEXUS (Water /

Energy / Food Security / Land Use) which was

based on, amongst others:

The introduction of innovative engineering

technologies in the area of waste water and

solid waste management, generation of en-

ergy, link to (urban) agriculture, energy effi-

ciency (EE) in/of buildings

Holistic/integrated urban planning/breaking

open of “silo-thinking” (multi sectoral)

Multi-level approach (micro, meso, macro, su-

praregional levels of decision-making)

Involvement of the private sector, civil sector,

state/communal bodies

In Chiang Mai, Urban Nexus supported urban

planning for waste-water management. Based on

the provision of technical advice, the project sup-

ported change in governance structures with the

objective of achieving more integrated planning

and management. This approach was particularly

efficient as it was implemented regionally and fa-

cilitated the exchange of ideas and best practises

making use of a regional exchange platform that

22 AidData, Deval. German Aid from a Partner Perspective: Experience-based Perceptions from AidData’s 2014 Reform Efforts Survey, 2016, p. vi. The study has a global approach and does not comprise specific findings on Thailand. 23 GIZ. Integrated Resource Management in Asian Cities: the Urban NEXUS (Water / Energy / Food Security / Land Use) 4th Regional Workshop, Nov. 05 / 07.2014, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, power point presentation; GIZ, Portfolio of GIZ

utilised external know-how (e.g. via private sec-

tor, universities etc.) to develop a better under-

standing and joint enhancement of integrated

management procedures. Synergies between the

project partners GIZ and the United Nations Eco-

nomic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific (UNESCAP) also contributed to efficiency

of project implementation. While GIZ has undis-

puted technical knowledge which enables it to

provide sound technical advice, UNESCAP’s stra-

tegic advantage lies in the utilisation of political

channels to provide policy advice.23

A second example of innovative approaches is the

TG-PEC project, which introduced organic farming

in North Thailand and a value chain approach to

the fruit and vegetable sector. Considering that the

project was mainly based on the deployment of

short-term experts, TG-PEC achieved a substantial

impact, i.e. an increase of production and income

for farmers between 20% and more than 100%

(see below) in a cost-effective manner, according

to stakeholder interviews.

Several final project reports and evaluations attest

regional projects a particularly high level of effici-

ency. For example, according to a regional pro-

gramme evaluation of “ASEAN region: Sustainable

Port Development (SPD)”, “with relatively low avail-

able resources for a regional coverage, the project

has carried out a large number of activities at the

port level and organized regional workshops and

training. To achieve this, one of the main factors is

the employment of permanently contracted country

managers to improve coordination and cooperation

with counterparts. These high qualified and enga-

ged persons are able to move forward the project

activities, supported by regional and international

[…] advisors.”24 Interviews confirmed that this find-

ing can be taken as being representative for re-

gional projects in general.

Based on final project reports, evaluation reports

and interviews, it can be concluded that the vast

majority of programmes and project activities was

delivered on time or at least without substantial de-

lays. There are several instances of final reports

claiming that all actions were delivered and imple-

mented on time. The Switch Asia project Greening

Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive

Projects in Asean Environment and Natural Resource Man-agement, 2013; GIZ. Integrated Resource Management in Asian Cities: the Urban NEXUS. Third Regional Nexus Workshop. Da Nang, June 25-27, 2014, power point presen-tation; interviews. 24 Project evaluation: summary report. ASEAN region: Sus-tainable Port Development (SPD), 2015.

50

Parts Industries is case in point: “The Action has

completed all activities as planned within 3 years

and 9 month no-cost extension. In total, 502 SMEs

have identified over 1,200 improvement measures.

As of November 2015, 590 measures were com-

pleted with all data assessed and verified.”

If the implementation diverted from the original pro-

ject design, changes to the logframe were ex-

plained and wellfounded. There are only a small

number of instances when project activities or

components were completely abandoned. This

was the case for the support of the tangerine sec-

tor under TG-PEC which was characterised by a

high degree of competition among farmers and a

lack of willingness to cooperation. Furthermore,

Tangerine plantations were severely affected by

parasites during the implementation phase.

According to interviews, the „Mulberry Paper Sup-

ply Chain Project“ under the Trilateral Cooperation

with Lao PDR could only partly be implemented,

i.e. a processing plant for Mulberry paper was not

built as planned due to a lack of investment and

demand for such a small factory. At the time of pro-

ject implementation, an electrical power plant was

constructed in the same area absorbing most of

the workforce from Lao the Northern districts of

Sayaboury Province, the target area of the project.

Furthermore, the interest of farmers to get involved

in Mulberry paper production was low. The regional

trade was still increased as farmers were able to

sell the bark of the Mulberry tree, from which the

paper is made, to Thailand and mainly China, but

no value added in the production process and sup-

ply chain was achieved.

Generally, however, the trilateral programme can

be considered a cost-effective approach for

strengthening of North-South-South cooperation in

development cooperation. All four implemented

projects had very small financial volumes and –

apart from the Mulberry paper project – achieved

their objectives. For example, the final report of the

Vietnamese-Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation

project noted, “The implementation of the trilateral

project in the time up to September 2012 can be

considered very successful for the Center of Mate-

rials and Failure Analysis (COMFA) and for the tar-

get SMEs. With relatively low project inputs (in

terms of man/months for consultancy and training

and funds for the improvement of equipment)

COMFA was able to open more subsectors and

more industries to become service partners.”

Equally important, they built TICA’s capacity in

managing and implementing projects and strength-

ened its ownership as a donor and development

agency. As one senior official stated, “TICA should

not cost-share and should be able to fund projects

such the ones implemented under the trilateral co-

operation on its own but at the moment there is no

other choice”. TICA’s share of the disbursed funds

of the four projects was between 30% and 39%

and thus, in most cases, slightly higher than the

originally planned 70:30 split between GIZ and

TICA – due to differences between committed and

disbursed funds. At the same time, even higher ef-

ficiency in terms of logistics and project manage-

ment could have been achieved through intra-GIZ

synergies with the GIZ country office in Vientiane,

which was not involved in the trilateral cooperation

programme.

Table 6: Disbursements of funds in Euro for the projects under the Trilateral Cooperation

Total GIZ TICA Other

Nam Xong Sub-River Basin Management

127,310 89,447 (70%) 37,862 (30%)

Strengthening Good Agri-culture Practice in Lao PDR

97,521 60,989 (63%) 36,532 (37%)

Mulberry Paper Supply Chain Project

132,000* 99,000 (75%)* 33,000 (25%)*

Advanced Technical Ser-vices for SME in Selected Industrial Sectors of Vi-etnam

147,470 86,082 (58%) 38,881 (26%) 9,717 (IMF) (16%)

(*) committed funds

Sources: Nam Xong Sub-River Basin Management, final report; Trilateral Cooperation Lao PDR – „Mulberry Paper Supply Chain Project“;

51

Vietnamese-Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation; Advanced Technical Services for SME in Selected Industrial Sectors of Vietnam, final re-

port.

When asked about the efficiency of project imple-

mentation, several interviewees criticised that GIZ

only provided technical expertise and advice for

planning but contributes no funds for the imple-

mentation of these plans. For example, in the case

of the Chiang Mai Urban Nexus project, the plan-

ning process for integrated waste-water manage-

ment was completed to the satisfaction of the

stakeholders involved, particularly Chiang Mai mu-

nicipality. However, interviews revealed that the

city had limited funds to implement the plan and

that the priority to spend the Baht 1,400 million an-

nual budget was for waste disposal in solid waste

and not waste water. In a similar vein, according to

interviews on the Thai partner side of the project

Sustainable Consumption and Production for Low

Carbon Economy: Green Public Procurement and

Eco-Labelling, GIZ’s policy advice was perceived

as having been delivered efficiently, i.e. on time. At

the same time, the partner would have liked to see

a GIZ contribution to implementation, for example,

through a pilot project.

However, while it might be a natural reaction on

the partner side to ask for direct financial support,

Thailand is in a position to mobilise the funds itself

and from a development perspective, it would not

be a sustainable approach for the donors commis-

sioning GIZ to provide grants for an upper middle-

income country. At the same time, it seems im-

portant to support partners in the process of imple-

menting plans and strategies (including the mobili-

sation if funds) which resulted from GIZ projects.

This is, for example, also in line with the recom-

mendation of the 2015 evaluation of CASC pro-

gramme, which advised to “mobilize available

funds at provincial or national level for continuity

and replication”. As the evaluation was only com-

pleted recently, no evidence has emerged for the

implementation of this recommendation.

52

Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability

The following parts of effectiveness, impact and sustainability address EQs 2,3 and partly EQ 4;

EQ 2 (What concrete development results were achieved by the GIZ-Thai cooperation 2000-2015?) is based

on the following judgement criteria:

Observable outputs and mainly outcomes are in line with the reconstructed theory of change (JC

2.1)

Aid delivery modalities were appropriate to the national context (JC 2.2)

Impact of the outcomes was achieved in relation to the supported sectors (JC 2.3)

The achievement of longer-term changes was not influenced or constrained by external factors (JC

2.4)

EQ 3 (Are the development results achieved in GIZ-Thai cooperation being sustained?) is based on the fol-

lowing judgement criteria:

Changes that have taken place are robust and likely to continue to yield benefits in the selected

sectors (JC 3.1)

Measures have been taken by the government and other Thai stakeholders to enhance the sustain-

ability of the outcomes (JC 3.2)

Threats to future sustainability have been overcome or there is potential for this (JC 3.3)

Necessary actions have been identified and taken in response to any capacity gaps, information

gaps, market failures or the presence of vested interests (JC 3.4)

The development results of the GIZ-Thai cooperation are replicable or there is potential for this (JC

3.5)

The section also partly covers EQ 4, i.e. Thai state and non-state actors at national, provincial and

local levels were prominently included in the planning, organisation and implementation of support

(JC 4.3)

Main Findings on Effectiveness

At the output level all interventions comprised capacity building and training addressing mainly state

actors and the private sector (SMEs) but to a much lesser extent civil society actors/NGOs (JCs 2.1,

2.2)

In terms of outcomes, all projects produced concrete, measurable products, mainly in the form of

standards, strategies, action plans or studies. However, the balance of the implementation of standards

and technical solutions is mixed and depends on whether a standard or solution was the means to an

end or the project outcome itself

Thai partners perceive environment, energy and education as the sectors in which GIZ has made

the strongest positive contribution to change (JCs 2.1, JC 2.2)

In the case of the project Effective In-Company Vocational Training in the Mekong Region the develop-

ment of a standard was the pre-condition for the actual training of in-company trainers. The project is

effective regarding the improvement of labour skills (JCs 2.1, 2.2)

The project Low-emission Public Procurement and Eco-Labelling supported the Thai Government in

developing standards and suitable criteria, which can be used to identify and label climate-friendly

products. The project can thus be regarded as having achieved effectiveness (JCs 2.1, 2.2)

At the other end of the spectrum, Urban Nexus developed a solution to integrated waste-water man-

agement in Chiang Mai which the municipality perceives as being most suitable to resolve a pressing

53

problem. However, city officials doubted that an implementation of the plan was feasible given the high

cost involved which reduced the potential for effectiveness (JCs 2.1, 2.2)

Across all sectors interventions embedded technical advice within broader structures of policy con-

sulting, network-building among different state- and non-state stakeholders as well as knowledge

sharing and transfer (systemic approach). This was particularly the case – and thus strengthened ef-

fectiveness – for the two phases of the climate change project, which were implemented at the political

level. The GIZ-TICA trilateral projects expanded policy consulting and inter-ministerial coordination be-

yond Thailand’s border to include Lao ministries and state agencies. The business support projects

equally involved policy consulting and dialogue, albeit in a more diffuse way, producing less concrete

output as these projects were not mainly directed towards the level of policy making (JCs 2.1, 2.2, JC

4.3).

In the following part, outputs, outcomes and im-

pacts are assessed against the reconstructed the-

ory of change (see methodology). The purpose is

to present aggregated findings on effectiveness,

impact and sustainability based on examples from

the programme/project portfolio covered by this

evaluation. A certain limitation to the assessment

of impact and sustainability exists due to the lack

of evaluations and monitoring conducted by GIZ’s

partners. Consequently, the partner perspective

can only be presented on the basis of stakeholder

interviews and the online survey but not partner re-

ports. Furthermore, gathering information and

views on projects which ended three or more years

ago was challenging as Thai project staff had

moved on to different areas and, if they could be

located, were often not in a position to provide a

full picture of project results. Unless interventions

continued through different phases, neither GIZ nor

Thai partners have followed-up on project out-

comes to determine their long-term impact and

sustainability. Final reports are often written even

before a project is completed providing only prelim-

inary findings on effectiveness, let alone impact.

While these reports are usually very detailed and

comprehensively assess the implementation

against the respective project’s logframe, objec-

tives and indicators, their usefulness in determining

the achievements of interventions beyond the sta-

tus quo is limited.

The following part is divided into 1) Effectiveness

(outputs), 2) Outcomes, 3) Impact and 4) Sustaina-

bility.

Effectiveness: Outputs

Outputs delivered in the sectors covered by this

evaluation can be clustered into three broad cate-

gories:

a. Capacity building and intensive training for

relevant state and non-state stakeholder

groups, including but not limited to, offi-

cials of line ministries and state agencies,

businesses and civil society organisations.

All interventions comprised capacity building and

training addressing mainly state actors and the pri-

vate sector (SMEs). The project Greening Supply

Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts In-

dustries is a typical example: 44 trainers/consult-

ants were trained and provided consultation on re-

source and energy efficiency to 502 SMEs in the

automotive sector; 29 SMEs were trained on

ISO14001 & 26000 as well Green Industry Mark;

78 SMEs were qualified for the Green Industry

Mark 2-3 level. All project reports include figures

on the number of trained persons and the capacity-

building they received. The capacity building was

always closely linked with the stated project objec-

tives and indicators.

Particularly the large policy advisory and support

projects – The Thai-German Climate Protection

Programme and Support to the Development and

Implementation of the Thai Climate Change Policy

as well as Sustainable Consumption and Produc-

tion for Low Carbon Economy: Green Public Pro-

curement and Eco-Labelling – strongly focused on

the training of government officials involved in the

drafting and implementation of the advised policies

and strategies. For example, in the case of the Cli-

mate Change projects the Thai partner organisa-

tion Office of Natural Resources and Environmen-

tal Policy and Planning (ONEP) and the sub-

ordinated Office for Climate Change Coordination

(OCCC) supported by the project, regularly trained

their staff as well as officials in selected provinces

and cities in relation to project objectives, i.e. the

implementation of the climate change policy/strat-

egy.

54

At the same time, capacity building for civil society

organisations has not been a main focus of the se-

lected projects. For example, the evaluation of the

project City, Environment and Transport found that

the involvement of civil society had been rather

low.

b. Policy and technical dialogues, awareness

raising and the transfer of know-how at dif-

ferent levels including relations between

German and Thai stakeholders (and in the

case of trilateral cooperation also from

other partner countries) and between

stakeholder groups in Thailand, including

the strengthening of inter-ministerial col-

laboration.

All interventions embedded technical advice within

broader structures of policy consulting, network-

building among different state- and non-state

stakeholders as well as knowledge sharing and

transfer. This was particularly the case – and in-

deed a necessary requirement – for the two

phases of the climate change project which were

implemented at the political level. GIZ first sup-

ported ONEP in applying the “Climate Change

Strategy 2008-2012” (which ONEP drafted) in

provinces and cities to decentralise Thailand cli-

mate change policy. The second phase advised

and assisted OCCC – which had been tasked by

ONEP – with the elaboration of the Thai “National

Climate Change Master Plan 2013-2050”. How-

ever, the project could not directly contribute to

drafting of the Master Plan as this was declared a

sovereign act by the Thai Ministry for Natural Re-

sources and the Environment (MoNRE). This was

only clarified after the project had started and thus

presented a clear hurdle, which should ideally have

been discussed between GIZ and its partner during

the design of the project phase. ONEP/OCCC facil-

itated inter-ministerial cooperation on Thailand’s

climate change policy and coordinated with the se-

lected partner regions and cities Kon Kaen,

Rayong, Nan and Bangkok Metropolitan Admin-

istration (BMA) within the context of the Low Car-

bon Cities’ initiative. However, while interministe-

rial coordination exists on paper, interviewees re-

vealed that achieving effective interactions among

different ministries was still a challenge.

The Green Public Procurement and Eco-Labelling

created a purpose-build network comprising state

and non-state agencies to facilitate effective pro-

ject implementation. The Pollution Control Depart-

ment (PCD), Thailand Environment Institute, the

Federation of Thai Industries and the Thailand

Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation col-

laborated in establishing and implementing ap-

proaches towards eco labels and low-emissions

procurement.

The GIZ-TICA trilateral projects expanded policy

consulting and inter-ministerial coordination be-

yond Thailand’s border to include Lao ministries

and state agencies. In the case of the Nam Xong

Sub-River Basin Management project for example,

the network comprised the District Office of Natural

Resources and Environment in Kasy, Vangvieng

and Hinheup as the main implementing agency in

cooperation with the Department of Natural Re-

sources and Environment of Vientiane Province

and the Department of Water Resources, Ministry

of Natural Resources and Environment of Lao

PDR. On the Thai side, the main agency involved

was the Thai Department of Water Resources

(Thai DWR), Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment. Interviewees stated that the involve-

ment of TICA was the main success factor in mak-

ing the cooperation with Lao state agencies work

as the Thai and Lao partners shared a common

understanding and there were no cultural and lan-

guage barriers.

The business support projects equally involved pol-

icy consulting and dialogue, albeit in a more diffuse

way, producing less concrete output as these pro-

jects were not mainly directed towards the level of

policy making. In a multi-level approach, the TG-

PEC supported state and private stakeholders in

strengthening the political dialogue and framework

conditions in the areas SME promotion, eco-effi-

ciency and renewable energy. The recommenda-

tions mainly concern to incentive mechanism e.g.

improve process and criteria of soft loan applica-

tion, standard infrastructure e.g. improve process

of standard approval, enhance capability of auditor,

increase benefit for qualified factory and regula-

tions e.g. broaden excise tax to cover pollutant

emissions from vehicles.

The Urban Nexus project was prominently based

on a peer-to-peer learning process among partici-

pants from partner cities across Southeast Asia

who met in five workshops. Referring purely to

quantitative output, the final project report notes

that “100% of the actors involved in the Nexus net-

work […] actively contributed to the exchange of

experiences at the city-, national and transnational

level”.

c. Directly supported targeted issue-specific

activities to, inter alia, provide technical

55

solutions, increase economic activity, de-

velop standards, strengthen gender equal-

ity, etc.

As in the case of the other two output categories,

all projects produced concrete, measurable prod-

ucts:

The City, Energy and Transport project resulted in

Air Pollution Control Plans for Chiang Mai and Na-

khon Ratchasima as well as other cities in the re-

gion. The action plans also included management

and legal provisions. The Urban Nexus project pro-

duced a comprehensive waste-water management

plan for Chiang Mai, which according to inter-

viewed stakeholders, is potentially replicable in

other Thai cities. The second participating Thai

city, Korat, benefitted from a feasibility study, which

assessed the energy efficiency of pumps for the

drinking water supply system. The project Green

procurement and eco labelling, later renamed Low-

emission procurement and eco labelling resulted in

24 standards for green procurement services (19

for products and 5 for services). As already out-

lined, while not directly a result of the climate

change projects, the projects played a decisive role

in advising the drafting of the “National Climate

Change Master Plan 2013-2050”, as noted in inter-

views. Localised strategies/action plans of the re-

lated “Climate Change Strategy” for the reduction

of greenhouse gases (GHG) at the local level were

a direct project output. The Switch Asia project de-

veloped and disseminated a guidebook on Sustain-

able Consumption and Production via national and

regional platforms e.g. of the Switch Network Facil-

ity, the SCP Leadership Programme for ASEAN or

UNEP SCP winter school. TG-PEC introduced or-

ganic standards in agricultural production in the

North of Thailand.

Within the framework of the project Effective In-

Company Vocational Training in the Mekong Re-

gion participants from six ASEAN member states

(Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand

and Vietnam) agreed upon a common standard for

in-company trainers. The standard was developed

by 60 experts from these countries during four

workshops between September 2014 and Febru-

ary 2015. The group consisted of experts from gov-

ernment institutions, chambers of commerce, pri-

vate enterprises, universities and other educational

and training institutions. The standard aims at sup-

porting a better cohesion between education and

training systems and the labour market by synchro-

nizing education standards and work demands in

the ASEAN countries. It is a standard that can be

applied by all participating countries. The underly-

ing occupational profile of an in-company trainer

ranges from analysing work requirements (in order

to adjust training to changing needs) to assessing

competencies, which trainees have acquired (in or-

der to assure a good quality of training). The core

of the in-company trainer’s activity is to plan and to

conduct Technical Vocational Education and Train-

ing (TVET) competently and effectively.

Table 5: Outputs: results in line with the Theory of Change

Sector Planned Outputs Level of Achievement

Climate Change

Regular Thai-German dialogue on energy transition

The dialogue was initiated with the “Thai-German Dia-logue on the Green and Low Carbon Economy” and took place in Bangkok 2013.25 However, there have not been follow-ups so far due to the political situation in Thailand (military government)

Elaboration of a strategy to strengthen the development of renewable energies and en-ergy efficiency

GIZ supported the development of the “Climate Change Strategy 2008-2012” and the “National Cli-mate Change Master Plan 2013-2035”

Political dialogue between BMUB and MoNRE

The conference on “Thai-German Dialogue on the Green and Low Carbon Economy”, (see above) was planned to be the starting point for a regular dialogue between the ministries. BMUB maintains contacts with

25 BMUB. Programme: Thai-German Dialogue on the Green and Low Carbon Economy. 11-12 September Bangkok.

56

Sector Planned Outputs Level of Achievement

its Thai counterpart but there is no regular dialogue yet due to the political situation

Support to the Office of Natu-ral Resources and Environ-mental Policy and Planning (ONEP) in the coordination of international donors

ONEP has been the key partner of the climate change project; GIZ supported ONEP with regards to the drafting of climate change strategies and capacity building of its staff

Development of policy recom-mendations

Policy recommendations have continuously been de-veloped at the national and sub-national levels of de-cision-making

Capacity building for staff of organisations that support cli-mate change projects

Staff of ONEP and OCCC has regularly been trained to build capacities for the implementation of the cli-mate change strategies

Awareness raising and use of participatory approaches to combat climate change

GIZ support had a very strong focus on awareness raising and continuously applied participatory ap-proaches

Cooperation with international partners

There is no evidence that GIZ has engaged in system-atic cooperation with international partners with re-gards to Thailand’s vulnerability to climate change and strategic approaches in response to this challenge

Development and implementa-tion of “Clean Air Plans”

Clean Air Action Plans were developed for Chiang Mai and Nakhon Ratchasima but they are not imple-mented yet (see under outcomes)

Vocational Education and Training

Development of a Standard for In-Company Trainers in ASEAN countries

A regional standard exists and forms the basis for na-tional standard in Thailand

Development of curriculum and training measures (Master Trainer Courses, In-Company Training Courses)

The curriculum und training materials for the course is fully developed and is already in use

Organisation of dialogue plat-forms and discussion rounds with relevant German minis-tries

Regular institutionalised exchanges do not currently exist due to the political situation in Thailand

Facilitation of dialogues be-tween different state and non-state stakeholders involved in vocational education

The drafting and implementation of the standard and the programme for the in-company training requires frequent and formal interactions among several gov-ernment agencies and non-state stakeholders which GIZ facilitated

High-quality training courses, seminars and study visits pro-vided by GIZ Training Services

AIZ Bangkok offers the same range courses which are also provided by AIZ in Bad Honnef. However, the quality of the courses has not been the focus of this evaluation

SME Support Dissemination of clean produc-tion technology tools to 500

The technology tools were disseminated to 502 SMEs

57

Sector Planned Outputs Level of Achievement

SMEs in the automotive indus-try

Support to raised productivity of SMEs in at least four agro-industrial sub-sectors

The support was provided and a significant rise in productivity has been achieved (see under impact)

Introduction of internationally recognised standards and tested with SMEs

GIZ contributed to the development and introduced or-ganic food standards in the agro-sector in Northern Thailand; these standards are continuously applied

Promotion of women in man-agement roles

Gender has been a cross-cutting issue for all projects, which however did not have an explicit focus on women in management roles

Initiation of cooperation agree-ments (MoU) between Thai and European research/ tech-nology institutes

The final reports of the project components under TG-PEC and the final report of the project “Greening Sup-ply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts In-dustries” mention such MoUs. Within the context of the latter a MoU for cooperation was signed between VDA (German Automotive Association) and Thai Au-tomotive Institute (TAI) was signed

Thai-German Trilateral Co-operation

Joint development and imple-mentation of small-scale trilat-eral projects

Three projects (two in Lao PDR and one in Vietnam) were developed and fully implemented; one project (in Lao PDR) was only partly implemented

Conducting of Capacity build-ing measures and training courses for TICA officials

Regular and comprehensive training for TICA officials on project management was conducted

Transfer of know-how between Germany and Thailand

There is no evidence that know-how transfer has hap-pened in a systematic way

Development of institutional-ised approaches to trilateral North-South-South coopera-tion

The four interventions played an important role as pi-lot projects but no institutionalised approaches to tri-lateral cooperation beyond the specific cases and in general terms have been developed

58

Effectiveness: Outcomes

Outcomes are equally clustered into three catego-

ries according to the specific GIZ contribution

a. Strengthening of national and regional pol-

icy and legislative frameworks in the sup-

ported sectors (including the alignment

and harmonisation of different policies and

laws), leading to a more efficient and ef-

fective approach by state actors to ad-

dress challenges.

According to interviews with Thai partner organisa-

tions, enabling government officials to develop and

follow better informed and ultimately more effective

approaches to climate change mitigation was

among the most important achievements of the cli-

mate change projects. Interviewees also stressed

that the projects made a strong contribution to the

mainstreaming of climate change in policy-making.

As one interviewee put it, “the project created

awareness that many issues, including energy, are

related to climate change. In the past the Thai gov-

ernment and ministries regarded energy and cli-

mate change as different and unrelated issues.

This is no longer the case”. In a similar vein, the

“Low Carbon City” masterplans in the supported pi-

lot cities had a similar effect in terms of creating

and strengthening awareness. The participatory

approach towards the drafting of the plans based

on ten or more meetings of dedicated working

groups, involving local government officials, indus-

try representatives, NGOs and a GIZ advisor, con-

tributed to the ownership of the plan. The drafting

process did not follow a one-size-fits-all approach

but addressed the specific environmental problems

regarding climate change of the supported munici-

pality. While the focus in Rayong was on industrial

GHG emissions, the plan for Nan addresses the

pressing local issue of deforestation. The planning

process and the resulting plans worked as a model

which is currently being followed in 16 other prov-

inces which are in the process of developing their

own Low Carbon plan.

Other projects, such as City, Energy and Transport

and Urban Nexus also addressed environmental

challenges, but they did not directly strengthen pol-

icy or legislative frameworks. However, CET

closely co-operated with the climate change pro-

ject, mainly through joint workshops on energy,

thus at least indi-rectly contributing to the changing

perceptions of climate change in Thailand. Some

interviewees suggested that GIZ’s climate change

support to Thailand played a role in its decision to

increase its original commitment of a reduction of

20% in GHG emissions by 2030 to 25%.

Other projects achieved effectiveness through the

innovative combination of different approaches.

For example, the mid-term evaluation of the first

phase of the SME support project stated, “The pro-

gram is the first German program that integrates

the eco-efficiency and economic development in

such a comprehensive and systemic way. It is

therefore an interesting test and show case for a

program that fully incorporates the idea of sustain-

able economic development following the concept

of a ‘socially and ecologically sustainable market

economy’”. Ten years on, there can be little doubt

that the approach achieved the expected results,

as support to agricultural SMEs in Northern Thai-

land has been one of the most effective projects

among those covered by the evaluation as it

achieved and in some cases exceeded the antici-

pated impact (see under impact).

However, while the projects in the environment

sectors gained effectiveness through synergies in

the implementation process and the SME was

commended for the novel blending of approaches,

the evaluation of CET noted missed opportunities

regarding outcomes/results due to a lack of syner-

gies among the three components. There were

“only few links between the [three] projects” which

hampered the programme’s potential to achieve re-

gional effectiveness. The evaluation also con-

cluded that “the regional character of the pro-

gramme” had only “limited visibility”. This led to the

recommendation to “support ASEAN, promote re-

gional networks (top-down) and make use of ‘fore-

runners’ in the region (bottom-up)”.

b. Increased qualifications and competencies

of the supported stakeholder groups in a

broad range of areas, ranging from project

planning and management skills to spe-

cific qualifications in different sectors of

the economy and more efficient and effec-

tive approaches to policy formulation and

implementation.

Virtually all interviewed stakeholders at Thai part-

ner organisations claimed that the respective pro-

jects and the capacity building measures that went

along with them, positively impacted on their and

other participants’ planning and management

skills. On the one hand, it is plausible that both tar-

geted capacity building across the entire portfolio

of GIZ support to Thailand as well as the participa-

tory approaches to project planning and implemen-

tation have indeed increased qualifications and

competencies. On the other hand, it is not possible

to empirically prove that this has really been the

59

case, except in those instances when training was

the main purpose of the project and participants

achieved a certified qualification. This is particu-

larly the case for the 24 in-company trainers who

have completed the course to-date.

Based on partner and beneficiary interviews, it can

be concluded that farmers who participated in the

project Strengthening of the competitiveness &

eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand were able to

improve their livelihoods – in some cases substan-

tially – due to the technical advice and support they

received.

The final technical report of the Switch Asia project

makes a valuable point in stressing the utility of

linking capacity-building with a more formalised

TVET approach: “[An] aspect which future projects

shall work further on is to improve the content and

levels of technical vocational education and train-

ing (TVET) systems in the country. Although the

Action [Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto

and Automotive Parts Industries] has achieved all

indicators, with showcases and the guidebook

helping to sustain the results in the system, a more

sustainable effort to integrate SCP principles must

in the end also reach the TVET and skill labour

trainings as well as entrepreneurship development

in all sectors – combined with economic personal

gains on the workers’ side”.

As confirmed by stakeholder interviews, the Ger-

man-Thai trilateral projects strengthened TICA’s

management capacities and general knowledge

and ability to conduct development cooperation. In

this regard, the programme was effective but the

same does not apply to all four projects with re-

gards to achieving development outcomes in the

partner countries, i.e. Laos PDR and Vietnam. The

Strengthening Good Agriculture Practice (GAP)

project was the most successful of the three pro-

jects implemented in Lao PDR. It introduced and

developed a national Good Agricultural Practice

(GAP) system in line with ASEAN standards and

enabled the Lao Department of Agriculture (DoA)

to introduce the GAP logic into the ministry and

train further staff and multipliers. The Nam Xong

watershed project produced legal standards and

regulations concerning water use as well as tech-

nical measures to improve water quality. However,

according to interviews, the water quality has not

improved. At the same time, it has not deteriorat-

ed either, which some stakeholder regarded as a

success. The Mulberry Paper Supply Chain Project

was not completed and the anticipated value chain

approach could not be implemented as explained

in the chapter on efficiency. According to the final

project report of the Vietnamese project: “The SME

manufacturing automotive parts has reduced their

production costs (by saving the input materials, la-

bour and energy) and improved their final product

quality.”

c. The implementation of national and re-

gional standards and the efficient and ef-

fective application of technical solutions in

various sectors of the economy.

The balance of the implementation of standards

and technical solutions is mixed and depends on

whether a standard or solution is the means to an

end or the project outcome itself. In the case of the

project Effective In-Company Vocational Training

in the Mekong Region the development of a stand-

ard – together with the Office of Vocational Educa-

tion Commission (OVEC) – was the precondition

for the actual training of in-company trainers (also

referred to as the programme for master trainers).

The project established a regional standard, which

formed the basis for the Thai national standard.

The government adopted the standard, which is

managed by the Thailand Professional Qualifica-

tion Institute (TPQI), founded in 2011.

In a similar vein, the project Low-emission Public

Procurement and Eco-Labelling has established

standards to achieve higher-level objectives. Sus-

tainable consumption and production are essential

to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) and established

eco-labels play an important role on the way to a

low-emission economy. Thailand introduced a GPP

programme in 2008. The project has supported the

Thai Government in developing suitable criteria

which can be used to identify and label climate-

friendly products. These criteria have been applied

during the procurement processes of public author-

ities. Thirteen product groups were selected based

on priorities in the product directories and the inter-

est of the Thai partners for the development and

integration of climate relevant criteria. These in-

cluded printers, heavy goods vehicles, water foun-

tains, display refrigerators and computers. Climate-

friendly criteria were developed for all thirteen

products. However, the Green label awarded for

eco-friendly products and services is 100% volun-

tary. Interviewees also stressed that the label

should be awarded by the Department of Industry,

which has provided a budget for the label every

year, and not the Thailand Environment Institute

(TEI) as the certified body to issue the label. The

label would carry substantially more prestige and

significance.

60

Urban Nexus developed a solution to integrated

waste-water management in Chiang Mai which the

municipality perceives as being most suitable to re-

solve a pressing problem. The plan is based on a

vacuum technology, which reuses treated water for

irrigation and simultaneous fertilisation of green ar-

eas. At the same time, biogas can be produced

through fermentation of the black water. The

waste-water treatment plant is operated by the

generated energy. Furthermore, treated water can

be used to substitute for missing rain water in the

city’s moat. However, city officials doubted that an

implementation of the plan was feasible given the

high costs involved which are estimated to be EUR

6.3 million. In Korat, the recommendations of an

Urban Nexus-supported feasibility study on the en-

ergy efficiency of pumps for the portable water sys-

tem were implemented. The city used its own

funds to replace the existing pumps with more effi-

cient ones supplied by the German company KSB

and its Dutch subsidiary. The monthly energy sav-

ings are in the region of EUR 25,500 or 30% of the

previous energy bill. The city also improved the en-

ergy efficiency of its biogas plant based on a fur-

ther project supported study. Overall, Korat in-

vested EUR 692.000 for the implementation of the

two studies.

The “Low Carbon City” masterplans developed in

Ranyong and Nan as pilots under the climate

change project have provided the blueprint for sim-

ilar approaches in 16 other provinces (see above).

However, available documents and interviews did

not produce any conclusive evidence that plans

have yet been implemented anywhere.

Table 6: Outcomes: results in line with the Theory of Change

Sector Projected Outcomes Results

Environment/ Climate Change

New Thai Climate Change Strat-egy and implementation guide-lines in place

The “National Climate Change Master Plan 2013-2050” and related implementation guidelines build the official framework for the government approach towards climate change. However, there is no data available yet to show that energy efficiency has im-proved. In the quarter of 2014 the capacity of re-newable energy was 3,969 megawatts, accounting for 12.2% of total power capacity in Thailand. The capacity is expected to increase by 570 megawatts in 2017 from about 100 megawatts in 2014.26

Thai Climate Change Master Plan (CCMP) and Climate Change Strategy integrated into the development plans of 17 Thai provinces and 32 mu-nicipalities

To date, “low carbon city” plans have been devel-oped to integrate CCMP into the development plans of two municipalities. Others will follow but the pro-cess has not yet been completed.

Inter-ministerial coordination on CC strengthened

Within the context of the climate change projects ONEP/OCCC facilitated inter-ministerial cooperation on Thailand’s climate change policy and coordi-nated with the selected partner regions and cities. It can reasonably be assumed that inter-ministerial cooperation had been strengthened.

National, provincial and local de-velopment-based strategies on CC mitigation and adaption con-nected

The climate change projects made a strong contri-bution to the mainstreaming of climate change in policy making at all levels.

26 Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. Ministry of Energy. Energy in Thailand: Facts & Figures Q1/2014, p. 4, http://weben.dede.go.th/webmax/content/energy-thailand-facts-figures-q12014 (latest official data available); Anuchit Nguyen. Thailand's Energy Absolute to Invest $1.4 Billion in Solar, Wind Projects. Bloomberg, 22 August 2014,; interviews. For example: 500 megawatts can provide power for up to 500,000 households.

61

Sector Projected Outcomes Results

Vocational Edu-cation/Training

Demand-oriented, effective In-Company training system (to supplement in-school education) established

The in-company training programme is in the pro-cess of being implemented and the first trainings have taken place. However, the extent to which the system will be demand driven and effective de-pends on the level of buy-in from Thai companies. Despite verbal commitments of many businesses, it is too early to make a judgment on effectiveness.

Role of private sector in the pro-vision of vocational education strengthened

By definition, dual education increases the role of the private sector in vocational education. Thus, in-house company training programmes make a strong contribution to this end.

Regional standard for vocational education established

The regional standard is established

Regional standard integrated into national Thai system for vo-cational education

A national standard which is based on the regional standard forms the basis for dual education in Thai-land

SME Support

The Thai quality infrastructure (QI) is consolidated as a net-worked, nationally coordinated system and provides efficient services which are bench-marked with international re-quirements

No evidence has emerged that a national system which meets the anticipated criteria has been estab-lished and is working for the benefit of SMEs.

Private sector and state institu-tions are strengthened in their ability to enhance the framework conditions in the areas eco-effi-ciency, renewable resources, re-newable energy and SME com-petitiveness

The GIZ supported strategies and action plans pro-vide a framework for the strengthening of different stakeholders groups in the environmental sector. The capacity of key state agencies to address eco-effi-ciency and other challenges has been improved but the evaluation did not look at the private sector.

Supply and demand for state and private BDS and finance services for innovation and tech-nology, particularly in the area of eco-efficiency, are improved

The government supports leasing through the En-ergy Conservation Fund. Energy service companies can acquire loans for equipment, which they then lease to SMEs. As a result of reduced energy costs, the SMEs have the funds to meet their lease pay-ments back to the service companies.27

Energy efficiency tax incentives have been estab-lished with the Revenue Department and the Board of Investment. These incentives include a 25% tax credit for the purchase of electrical appliances and other products labelled as meeting energy efficiency standards under the Revenue Department scheme. Energy conservation investments are supported by favourable corporate income tax and import duty provisions under the Board of Investment scheme.28

27 International Energy Agency. Accelerating Energy Efficiency in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Paris 2015, p. 36. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/SME_2015.pdf 28 Asian Development Bank. Energy efficiency developments and potential energy savings in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Man-daluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2015, p. 55.

62

Sector Projected Outcomes Results

Thai-German Trilateral Coop-eration

Improved capacity regarding project design and preparation, project management and project monitoring and evaluation

According to stakeholder interviews, this capacity has been strengthened but there is no documented evidence to substantiate this claim.

Methods and instruments for the conduct of trilateral cooperation strengthened

TICA officials confirmed that the GIZ projects helped TICA to implement trilateral cooperation projects in general, including with other donors (for example Ja-pan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)). How-ever, there is no evidence that the GIZ-TICA projects developed or strengthened methods and instruments in a systematic way.

Project specific outcomes in tar-get countries, e.g. value chains enhanced; Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) established; water resources management improves; performance and in-come of cooperatives and SMEs

The most effective part of the trilateral cooperation programme has been the establishment and strengthening of GAP in Lao PDR. Other projects have only been effective to a limited extent.

63

Impact

As a starting point, it is useful to look at the online

survey according to which environment, energy

and education have been the sectors in which GIZ

contributed to positive change in a particularly

strong way. While it should be noted that the result

might have been affected by the respondents’ bias

towards their own sector, this result is reflective of

views which also transpired in interviews. In educa-

tion, especially vocational education, GIZ is almost

a “household name” in Thailand given the agency’s

decades-long contribution to the development of

this sector. According to interviews, throughout the

evaluation period media reports have regularly

mentioned and elaborated on the German model of

dual education and GIZ’s role in helping this ap-

proach to gain traction in Thailand. The positive as-

sociation between change in the environment sec-

tor and GIZ’s cooperation with Thailand is mainly

driven by the agency’s substantial engagement in

this field since 2009 based on the German Interna-

tional Climate Initiative and synergies created with

other interventions in the field of environment.

Main Findings on Impact

Enabling government officials to develop and follow better informed and ultimately more

effective approaches to climate change was among the most important achievements of

the climate change projects. The projects also made a strong contribution to the main-

streaming of climate change in policy-making. However, as a policy advisory intervention,

the climate change projects have not had a measurable environmental impact yet. The

“National Climate Change Master Plan 2013-2050” and the current Climate Change Policy

might well – and are indeed likely to – result in reduced GHG emissions but it is too early

for any sound findings (JC 2.3).

The GIZ approach to creating a vocational training system inspired by the German dual

system has the potential to achieve substantial impact on the improvement of labour skills.

However, the implementation has just started and there is not a sufficiently strong base to

prognosticate if it will be possible to firmly establish the system in Thailand, particularly

since the German approach competes with a similar Japanese system (JC 2.3).

The projects in support of SMEs in Thailand achieved several visible and measurable im-

pacts. Most importantly, the productivity and income of supported SMEs in the agricultural

sector in Thailand increased by at least 20% as envisioned in the project design. In some

cases, the productivity and income of farmers increased by more than 100% (JC 2.3).

The impact of the trilateral cooperation programme has to be seen from two angles. TICA

officials confirmed that the collaboration with GIZ markedly contributed to the agency’s ef-

fective transformation from a donor-coordinating agency of a recipient country to becoming

a donor and development agency itself. The trilateral projects strengthened TICA’s man-

agement capacities. However, the impact of the four projects implemented in Laos and Vi-

etnam is mixed. The Strengthening Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) Project was the most

successful of the three projects implemented in Lao PDR while the others have achieved

very limited impact, if any (JC 2.3).

As already outlined under the relevance criterion, the implementation of GIZ interventions

was not substantially affected by external factors. Consequently, changing framework

conditions have not played a crucial role regarding the achievement of long-term changes

(JC 2.4).

64

Figure 7: In your view, to what extent has GIZ contributed to positive change in the following sectors?

Project-specific impacts are grouped into four cate-

gories:

a. Reduced environmental pollution, de-

creased greenhouse gas emissions and

increased energy efficiency

As a policy advisory intervention, the climate

change project has not had a measurable environ-

mental impact yet. The “National Climate Change

Master Plan 2013-2050” and the current Climate

Change Policy might well – and are indeed likely to

– result in reduced GHG emissions but it is too

early for any sound findings. As for low carbon pro-

curement and green labelling, the Thai partner or-

ganisations were not in a position to provide any

data on energy savings due to project outcomes.

Detailed impact data is available for Switch Asia

project Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto

and Automotive Parts Industries. As part of the

project, a total of 590 resource efficiency measures

were implemented with SMEs in the Thai automo-

tive sector to conserve energy, reduce greenhouse

gas emissions, increase productivity and improve

working conditions. All of these measures are doc-

umented as good practices to showcase the eco-

nomic, environmental, social and productivity ben-

efits that can be achieved through the tools applied

through the project. As of November 2015 cost

savings from all verified measures amounted to ap-

proximately EUR 7.9 million (THB 318 million) an-

nually with a total once-off investment of about

EUR 2 million (THB 80 million) by the SMEs. The

average annual cost savings achieved per imple-

mented measure was about THB 537,433 per

year. The average return on investment is about 4

months. Average energy saving in percentage in

specific company processes is 27% and average

raw material and waste reducing saving in percent-

age in specific company processes is around 49%

.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Environment

Energy

Industry

Business & Economy

Agriculture

Research & Development

Education

Transport and Urban development

Sustainable economy

Government & Civil Society

Health

Banking & Financial Services

Disaster

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 53

N = 45

N = 39

N = 30

N = 33

N = 32

N = 31

N = 31

N = 29

N = 15

N = 17

N = 19

N = 35

65

Figure 8: Impact of the project Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts Industries

The Evaluation of the Sustainable Port Develop-

ment (SPD) project under the City, Energy and

Transport programme found that SPD strength-

ened the legal and organisational capacity for envi-

ronmental and climate protection at the regional,

national and sub-national levels.”

b. A more responsive labour market in the

sense of a reduced gap between labour

supply and demand for skilled labour

The project Effective In-Company Vocational Train-

ing in the Mekong Region has the potential to

achieve substantial impact on the improvement of

labour skills. The implementation has just started

and 24 master trainers have completed their train-

ing. This is a good start but not a sufficiently strong

base to prognosticate if a vocational training ap-

proach inspired by the German dual system will

take hold in Thailand. Thailand-based German

companies have shown a strong interest in the pro-

gramme but it is not well known among Thai busi-

nesses yet. Private sector buy-in needs to increase

to make the programme successful. According to

the FTI, despite generous tax breaks for a partici-

pation in the programme, Thai companies are gen-

erally rather reluctant to send their employees on a

10-day training course. Besides, with a small num-

ber of master trainers it will be difficult to train a

sufficient number of trainers to meet a nationwide

demand for vocational training if the programme

rapidly gains in popularity.

A systematic coordination with other development

partners, such as particularly JICA, with regard to

vocational education has not yet taken place. Like

Germany, Japan has shown strong interest in

working with Thailand to jointly produce a work-

force in vocational fields. Japan has its own voca-

tional education system, called Kosen, which is

similar to, but not identical with the German ap-

proach to dual education. Kosen (Colleges of

Technology) was founded in 1961 in response to a

strong demand from the industrial sector to foster

engineers who sustained the high Japanese eco-

nomic growth at that time. Today, Kosen has con-

tributed not only to the industrial world but also to

the academic sector. The Thai Education Minister

said that some vocational colleges under the su-

pervision of the Thai Office of the Vocational Edu-

cation Commission would be selected to develop

their curricula based on the guidelines of the

Kosen system. By doing so, a Thai-Japanese

Technical College would be established in the fu-

ture. It would be important for GIZ to engage in

discussions with both the respective Thai govern-

ment agencies and JICA to coordinate the efforts

towards TVET to avoid the development of parallel

systems and to increase the potential for impact

(see also under recommendations).

c. Increased competiveness of companies,

particularly SMEs, from Thailand and the

region

The project Strengthening of the competitiveness &

eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand achieved sev-

eral visible and measurable impacts. Most im-

portantly, according to the project’s final report and

66

interviews, the productivity and income of sup-

ported SMEs increased by at least 20% as envi-

sioned in the project design. The price of organic

food increased six times since the project intro-

duced organic food standards. For Longan, a 20%

increase in quality output was achieved and the

fruit can be marketed as premium quality, thus

achieving a higher price. According to interviews,

in some cases the productivity and income of farm-

ers increased by more than 100%.

In terms of impact on poverty, although TG-PEC

was not designed to address poverty directly, TG-

PEC does not only promote enterprise competitive-

ness, but also spreads and opens economic oppor-

tunity to those with lower incomes and those living

in more rural regions. The impact of TG-PEC in

this regard can be assessed through three chan-

nels of poverty reduction: employment, income and

spill-over benefits. GIZ estimates indicate that TG-

PEC’s interventions have directly resulted in an an-

nual income gain of roughly THB 124 million (EUR

3.1 million) to lower income farmers. As some in-

terventions promoted by TG-PEC resulted in em-

ployment losses as a result of more efficient labour

usage, while others resulted in employment gains,

the net effect on employment levels seems to be

rather neutral. Despite this, it can be said with rela-

tive certainty that the competitive edge of Thailand

has been strengthened in many key agricultural

sectors, within which job security has been pro-

moted. Additionally, the promotion of environmen-

tal and workplace safety standards have certainly

had a tangible impact on the health and liveli-

hoods of employees and their communities.

d. A strengthened role of Thailand as a do-

nor country in development cooperation.

The impact of the trilateral cooperation programme

has to be seen from two angles. TICA officials con-

firmed that the collaboration with GIZ markedly

contributed to the agency’s effective transformation

from a donor-coordinating agency of a recipient

country to becoming a donor and development

agency itself.

However, the impact of the four projects imple-

mented in Laos and Vietnam is mixed. According

to the final project report of the Vietnamese project

“The technical staff of COMFA now has more tech-

nical competence and can deal with their specific

problems.” However, as already noted, the report

does not mention TICA’s specific contribution and

it is thus not known if TICA’s participation made a

difference in achieving impacts.

The Strengthening Good Agriculture Practice

(GAP) project developed a certification system for

organic agriculture and 300 small farms have al-

ready certified as GAP farms. The project also pro-

duced a roadmap to transform the 2015-2025 strat-

egy of the Department of Agriculture to concrete

action. Inter alia, the roadmap foresees the up-

grading the Lao GAP to meet international stand-

ards. However, this impact has not yet been

achieved. According to project partners at DoA, the

role of TICA was crucial in achieving impact: “TICA

provided a resource person to DoA, a technical ex-

pert from the Thai ministry of Agriculture. He devel-

oped the approach to the roadmap and also pro-

vided the capacity building for the Lao trainers and

advisors. This was useful because of the similari-

ties between the Thai and Lao farming systems

and agricultural sectors. It was valuable for us to

learn from Thailand. Also, this input could not have

been provided by an English-speaking resource

person”.

The amount of work in preparing, implementing

and reporting allowed the Thai Department of Agri-

culture to reflect the ministry’s capacity in providing

training. For further application and extension of

project results, course curriculum and training ma-

terials in packages can be adjusted and updated to

be used in future training for other neighbouring

countries.

The Nam Xong watershed project produced legal

standards and regulations concerning water use as

well as technical measures to improve water qual-

ity. The „Nam Xong water quality protection regula-

tion“ was officially endorsed at district level with

agreement of provincial office and the Department

of Water Resources (DWR) in December 2013 and

subsequently implemented in early of 2014 through

its dissemination and awareness raising. According

to the final project report, approximately 10% of the

population living in the Nam Xong sub-river basin

were aware of the legal provisions and technical in-

struments for water use. More than 100 house-

holds made use of the technical instruments

(waste separation and recycle, bio-fertilizer, house-

hold waste treatment, simple grease trap and eco-

fishing) and other households were planning to do

so. However, the envisaged impacts did not mate-

rialise to the anticipated extent according to inter-

views.

The Mulberry Paper Supply Chain Project was not

completed and did not achieve any impact beyond

slightly improved business opportunities for the lo-

cal population to engage in cross-border trade of

Mulberry bark (Lao: Posaa) for paper production.

67

It seems particularly useful to engage in more for-

mal discussions with JICA, which, in some cases,

operates in the same or closely related sector.

There was only one instance of collaboration, i.e.

the GIZ-TICA trilateral project on GAP in LAO PDR

collaborated with the ASEAN-JICA project named

“Laos Pilot Program”-LPP project that supported

the introduction of ASEAN GAP in Lao PDR. This

networking with JICA-LPP project was established

to enhance the implementation impact and syner-

gise resources of the two projects effectively. To

what extent this has happened is not clear.

Table 9: Impact: results in line with the Theory of Change

Sector Anticipated Impacts Level of Achievement

Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emis-sions are reduced

WTO data shows an increase of carbon dioxide emissions (in metric tonnes per capita) from 255.358 (2008) to 303.117 (2013, latest data avail-able), but a slight decrease by 2.11 from 2012 to 2013.29

Energy efficiency is in-creased

Energy efficiency had not been systematically measured in Thailand due to lack of agreed indica-tors. GIZ developed an Energy Efficiency Indicator database, which was handed over to the statistical offices of the Energy Policy & Planning Office (EPPO) and Department of Alternative Energy De-velopment and Efficiency (DEDE) for further use and maintenance.30 Interviewees stressed that the indicators are being used but there is no current energy efficiency data available. All Thai govern-ment reports and other studies solely refer to planned efficiency gains in line with existing strate-gies or forecasts. However, an academic study conducted at Mahidol University shows that total energy consumption between 2000 and 2014 in-creased by 3.2% per year. The petroleum-based energy source was the highest increasing con-sumption rate of 7.4% annually. The electricity con-sumption increased by 5.2%. The traditional re-newable energy also increased by 1.7% – despite the promotion of high-efficiency equipment and materials to energy conservation labelling etc.31

Climate-friendly public procurement is strength-ened

According to the Pollution Control Department (PCD), the 1st Green Public Procurement Plan (GPP Plan) for 2008 – 2011, which was supported by the Thai-German Climate Protection Pro-gramme (2009-2011) resulted in:

Of all products purchased through public procurement 861 Million baht (41%) of a total of 2,090 Million baht were for “green products”

29 World Bank. CO2 emissions (kt) database, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?locations=TH 30 Milou Beerepoot. Energy Efficiency Indicators in Thailand. GIZ Energy Efficiency Programme Thailand, power point presentation, http://www.cepal.org/drni/biee/_include/img/Paris15/Milou%20Beerepoot.pdf. 31 Anucha Tiangketa, Bunyongvut Chullabodhia, Kanoksak Eam-O-Pasa, Sarawoot Watechagita. The Energy Saving Calculation for a Residential Sector in Thailand with Top-Down Methodology. Energy Procedia 79 (2015), pp. 415 – 422.

68

Green procurement resulted in an overall reduction of 25.685 tons of CO2 emis-sions.32

Documented data for the period since 2011 is not yet available, but according to interviews at PCD, on average 60% of public procurement is now cli-mate friendly with some government departments achieving more than 80%. The low-emission pro-curement and eco labelling project substantially contributed to this result according to interviews.

Vocational Education and Training

Gap between labour supply and demand for skilled labour in Thailand and the Mekong region is reduced

There is no data available to allow for a robust as-sessment.

Efficiency of state and non-state agencies and organisations is strengthened

The cooperation between state agencies, non-state agencies and the private sector within the context of the In-House vocational training pro-gramme is institutionalised and provides a solid ba-sis for achieving impact in terms of fostering a dual education system in Thailand which responds to the needs of the labour market.

Human capacity in so-cial change processes is strengthened

There is good potential for this and given the long-term involvement of GIZ in Thailand’s vocational education sector there can be no doubt that human capacity in social change processes has been strengthened. For example, the GIZ supported "Thai-German Technical School" in Northern Bang-kok, which is today the renowned King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB) with three campuses and is the most important vocational education institute. Hundreds of KMUTNB have assumed influential positions in government, society and the private sector and have made sizable contributions to Thailand’s de-velopment. However, in the narrower sense, the In-House Vocational Training project is too young to allow for findings on its contribution to change pro-cesses.

SME Support

Environmental protec-tion in production pro-cesses is improved

The TG-PEC project introduced organic farming in North Thailand and a value chain approach to the fruit and vegetable sector. Organic farming and the related production process contributes to environ-mental protection through a more sustainable ap-proach to agriculture and the abandonment of pes-ticides. That way, environmental protection achieved through organic farming is attributable to GIZ.

Competitiveness, eco-efficiency and utilisation of renewable energies of Thai SMEs in the agro-industry are improved

The competitiveness of Thai SMEs in the agricul-tural sector in Northern Thailand has been strengthened (see also under outcomes). How-ever, there is no available data on eco-efficiency and the utilisation of renewable energies of Thai

32 Jarinporn Tippamongkol Pollution Control Department (PCD). Green Public Procurement in Thailand. Regional Workshop on Sus-tainable Public Procurement and Harmonization of Eco-Labelling 21th May 2014, power point presentation.

69

SMEs which are (former) beneficiaries of GIZ inter-ventions.

Thai-German Trilat-eral Cooperation

Development goals in the target countries fos-tered

The introduction and implementation of the GAP standard has been a priority of the Lao government and the trilateral cooperation was instrumental in achieving this goal. Thus, the basis for impact in terms of a widespread application of GAP has been established. Other projects did not achieve impact or only to a very limited extent.

Thailand’s role as a pro-vider of development co-operation strengthened

The trilateral cooperation programme made a siza-ble contribution to improving TICAs position. By that, the GIZ has contributed to the strengthening of South-South development cooperation as a higher level development goal according to the re-constructed ToC.

70

Sustainability

Main Findings on Sustainability

Thai stakeholders perceive environment, energy and education as the sectors which offer

the greatest potential for sustainability. GIZ’s participatory approach to project planning

and implementation, elaborated approaches to knowledge transfers and capacity-building

were identified as crucial factors in achieving sustainability (JC 3.1).

GIZ has developed standards and innovative solutions to challenges in the sectors of envi-

ronment/climate change, SME support and education. Where standards have been

adopted, implemented and are actively used, as in the case of the standard on in-company

vocational training and low carbon emission procurement, the project outcomes are sus-

tainable (JCs 3.1, 3.5).

The development of standards and training manuals and methods is principally a contribu-

tion to sustainability as such standardised approaches are replicable. This applies, for ex-

ample to TG-PEC, In-Company Vocational Training in the Mekong Region and Clean Air

for Smaller Cities in the ASEAN Region Project/Cities, Environment and Transport in the

ASEAN Region and Sustainable Consumption and Production for Low Carbon Economy:

Green Public Procurement and Eco-Labelling (JCs 3.1, 3.5).

The development of regional standards offers the best prospect for sustainability in view of

deepening and expanding regional cooperation and integration and a growing demand and

need for standardised approaches (JCs 3.3, 3.5).

Whether or not GIZ’s contribution to the shaping of Thailand’s energy and climate change

policy will have a sustainable impact, depends on the extent to which advised plans and

strategies will be implemented (JC 3.4).

The value-chain approaches developed and applied by the SME support projects – TG-

PEC and Switch Asia Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Automotive Industry – have cre-

ated a strong basis for sustainability (JC 3.5).

The involvement of local actors is a key to sustainability. Many projects involved Thai ex-

perts and often universities which are still providing advice – or at least are in a position to

do so – after projects have come to a conclusion (JCs 3.1, 3.4).

The sustainability level of the projects implemented under the trilateral programme varies. Of

the three projects implemented in Lao PDR, the one on Good Agricultural practice offers the

best potential for sustainability, if the GAP standard is consequently implemented and certifi-

cates issued accordingly. The low level of sustainability of the trilateral projects in Lao PDR is

mainly due to the fact that TICA has not considered any funding for follow-up interventions

once the GIZ support had ended and thus disengaged with the interventions it implemented.

Hence, although the trilateral cooperation has made a contribution to the capacity building of

TICA, it has not encouraged the agency to embark on its own cooperation programme with

neighbouring countries based on the lessons learned of the trilateral programme. A further lim-

iting factor regarding sustainability of the trilateral cooperation was a lack of coordination with,

or even involvement of, the GIZ country office in Vientiane, missing an opportunity to create

synergies with the Lao country programme (JC 3.2).

71

It is perhaps not surprising that those sectors in

which Thai partners perceived GIZ support as be-

ing particular effective – environment, energy and

education – are also those that are seen as having

the greatest potential for sustainability. In open an-

swers of the survey, respondents identified GIZ’s

participatory approach to project planning and im-

plementation, elaborated approaches to knowledge

transfers and capacity-building as crucial factors in

achieving sustainability. It seems plausible that the

case of education GIZ’s long-standing support in

this field, which has already achieved sustainabil-

ity, forms the basis for stakeholders’ expectation

for future sustainability. In the environment and en-

ergy sectors, sustainability is all but assured and

will depend on the Thai government’s and its agen-

cies’ political will as well as financial capacities and

human resources to implement the GIZ-advised

strategies and action plan. Yet, interviews left no

doubt that Thai stakeholders have high hopes con-

cerning the sustainability of GIZ interventions

mainly because of GIZ’s sizable investments and

the outstanding reputation the agency enjoys in

providing technical advice and solutions in the en-

vironment sector.

As outlined above, across the entire portfolio of

programmes and projects, which are covered by

the evaluation, GIZ has developed standards and

innovative solutions to challenges in the sectors of

environment/climate change, SME support and ed-

ucation. Where standards have been adopted and

implemented, as in the case of the standard on in-

company vocational training and low carbon emis-

sion procurement, the project outcomes are sus-

tainable. However, whether or not the GIZ’s contri-

bution to the shaping of Thailand’s energy and

climate change policy will have a sustainable im-

pact, depends on the extent to which advised plans

and strategies will be implemented. What can be

concluded, though, is that GIZ created strong

awareness among Thai government stakeholders

and other actors about the interlinkages and mu-

tual dependencies of different factors in climate

change. In this way, a contribution was made to a

new thinking of Thai stakeholders on climate

change and the environment in general.

Furthermore, the development of standards and

training manuals and methods is principally a con-

tribution to sustainability as such standardised ap-

proaches are replicable. This applies, for example

to TG-PEC, In-Company Vocational Training in the

Mekong Region and Clean Air for Smaller Cities in

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Environment

Energy

Education

Industry

Sustainable economy

Business & Economy

Research & Development

Transport and Urban development

Agriculture

Government & Civil Society

Banking & Financial Services

Disaster

Health

Great extent Some extent Little extent Not at all

N = 48

N = 37

N = 26

N = 38

N = 27

N = 25

N = 28

N = 26

N = 29

N = 22

N = 16

N = 15

N = 15

Figure 9: Based on your experience, to what extent are the results achieved by GIZ-Thai cooperation sustainable in the long-term? Figure 10: Based on your experience, to what extent are the results achieved by GIZ-Thai cooperation sustainable in the lng-term?

72

the ASEAN Region Project/Cities, Environment

and Transport in the ASEAN Region and Sustaina-

ble Consumption and Production for Low Carbon

Economy: Green Public Procurement and Eco-La-

belling. Plans and management solutions are de-

veloped, for example, in Urban Nexus. How¬ever,

apart from the application of the in-company voca-

tional education standard in the countries which

participated in the programme and an expansion of

organic standards to agricultural products which

were not included in the original TG-PEC projects,

e.g. rice, vegetables and banana, no evidence for

the systematic replication of results of other pro-

grammes/projects has emerged. However, the cur-

rent second phase of the Low Emission Public Pro-

curement and Eco-Labelling project, which

developed several standards for Thailand, now ad-

dresses eco labelling among selected ASEAN

countries, i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines

and Thailand. Generally, the development of re-

gional standards offers the best prospect for sus-

tainability in view of deepening and expanding re-

gional cooperation and integration and a growing

demand and need for standardised approaches.

Within the context of the ASEAN Economic Com-

munity, for example, common regional standards

across a wide range of sectors have been agreed

or at least discussed but are not developed yet.

The value-chain approaches developed and ap-

plied by the SME support projects – TG-PEC and

Switch Asia Greening Supply Chains in the Thai

Automotive Industry – have created a strong basis

for sustainability. In the case of organic agriculture

in Northern Thailand local stakeholders are still fol-

lowing the same value chain approach long after

the project has ended and some ten years after the

approach was introduced.

The involvement of local actors is a key to sustain-

ability. Many projects involved Thai experts and of-

ten universities, which are still providing advice –

or at least are in a position to do so – after projects

have come to a conclusion. The project Cities, En-

vironment and Transport in the ASEAN Region

provides a good example. The project established

a network of local and regional experts and univer-

sities who are supported by international experts in

conducting quality assurance processes. The

strong emphasis on regional human capacities

strengthens regional cooperation on and owner-

ship of approaches to urban environmental protec-

tion. The sustainability of training and capacity

building approaches is notoriously difficult to as-

sess as it depends on the multiplier effect and staff

turnover rates. For example, interviewees at TICA

doubted the sustainability of capacity-building as

part of the trilateral programme in view of high staff

turnover. The evaluation of Sustainable Port Devel-

opment under the CET project offers a valid point

on the difficulties in achieving sustainability of train-

ing and capacity building. “Regarding the training

approach, the project has not achieved a sustaina-

ble concept how to maintain the services in the re-

gion. There are enough quality training providers in

the region who can perform as ‘knowledge and re-

sources centers on SHE matters, but the institu-

tional framework for ongoing training activities

(without the projects interventions) is not yet con-

solidated. As main challenge remains the upscal-

ing of the results and therefore the question which

institution is able and willing to continue with the

project’s interventions and services after the end of

the project. In terms of sustainability the project is

rated “rather successful”.

The degree of sustainability of the projects imple-

mented under the trilateral programme varies. Of

the three projects implemented in Lao PDR, the

one on Good Agricultural practise offers the best

potential for sustainability, if the GAP standard is

consequently implemented and certificates issued

accordingly. The Department of Agriculture has the

overly ambitious goal of increasing the number of

certified GAP farms from 300 in 2016 to 100,000 in

2020. However, the implementation of the stand-

ards, farm inspections and the technical and bu-

reaucratic procedures of issuing of certificates re-

quire a high number of qualified staff, which DoA

currently does not have. For the DoA, however, the

main bottleneck of the sustainability of the project’s

outcomes is funding, not staff. The low level of sus-

tainability of the trilateral projects in Lao PDR is

also related to the fact that there has not been any

further engagement and involvement of TICA,

which did not consider any own-funded follow-up

interventions once the GIZ support had ended.

This demonstrates that while the trilateral coopera-

tion has made an important contribution to the ca-

pacity building of TICA, it has not encouraged the

agency to embark on its own cooperation pro-

gramme with neighbouring countries based on the

lessons learned of the trilateral programme. A fur-

ther limiting factor regarding sustainability was a

lack of coordination with the GIZ country office in

Vientiane, thus losing an opportunity for synergies

with the Lao country programme.

73

Main findings on Adaptation to the post-2008 setting

The transition to the post-BMZ environment was mainly managed locally, by the coun-

try office, with the support of headquarters but not vice versa. This approach proved to be

effective and allowed the GIZ office clear strategic priorities for transition based on local

framework conditions (JC 4.4).

GIZ’s main challenge in the early phase of the transition was to get to know other Ger-

man ministries. In the case of BMUB, GIZ was apparently able to convince the ministry

that smaller countries, such as Thailand, should be included in the German International

Climate Initiative (IKI). The substantial BMUB funding for the IKI in Thailand provided the

backbone for GIZ’s continuous operations in Thailand. There was general agreement

among interviewed stakeholders that without the BMUB funding GIZ would not have been

able to sustain its operations in Thailand. It is likely that GIZ offices in other middle-income

countries will face the necessity of finding one main donor

Adaptation to the post-2008 setting

This section is mainly based on EQ 4 (What lessons learnt can the GIZ draw from the experience

for its future engagement in Thailand and in other countries?). It addresses the following judgement

criteria:

The GIZ country office managed the transition process to the post-BMZ structural environment

pro-actively, efficiently and effectively (JC 4.2)

The GIZ approach to Thailand has taken the strategies of other development agencies into ac-

count to avoid duplication (JC 4.4)

The experience of the GIZ and other development agencies in Thailand allow for a benchmark-

ing of success factors in the implementation of development cooperation (JC 4.5)

The specific experience of the GIZ-Thai cooperation can be regarded as a “best case” or model

for GIZ support in other middle-income/industrialising countries, which have graduated from

ODA or are about to do so (JC 4.6).

JC 4.1 is covered under relevance and JC 4.3 under effectiveness.ODA or are about to do so

(JC 4.6).

JC 4.1 is covered under relevance and JC 4.3 under effectiveness.

74

Responses to the phasing out of BMZ-funded bilateral cooperation

The analysis of the specific way that GIZ ap-

proached the transition towards the post-BMZ envi-

ronment merits some detailed analysis. As ex-

plained, as an implementing agency it is not the

mandate of GIZ to think strategically about devel-

opment policy. However, in relations with BMZ and

other line ministries GIZ is actively involved in de-

liberations and strategy-building on the directions,

perspectives and options of development coopera-

tion vis-à-vis partner countries, including Thailand.

Thus, GIZ contributes an important voice in the

shaping of German development policy. This ena-

bles GIZ to proactively interact with ministries with

the objective of project acquisition and formed one

part of the post-BMZ approach towards sustaining

the country office in Thailand. Overall, the transi-

tion was mainly managed locally, by the country of-

fice, with the support of headquarters but not vice

versa. This is an important finding which potentially

also applies to GIZ’s presence in other higher mid-

dle-income countries which are in a similar position

as Thailand. The successful transition from an

ODA to a post-ODA structural setting requires a lot

of local knowledge and is thus best managed lo-

cally, at least primarily.

The GIZ office in Thailand developed clear strate-

gic priorities for the post-BMZ period as reflected

by the annual planning document for 2009:

Development of a strategic approach for regional

BMZ-funded projects based in Bangkok

Structured approach to the acquisition of pro-

jects for German public clients

Establishment of a foundation

Promotion of at least two service sectors vis-à-

vis Thai or international clients to develop the

foundation business

Support to the development and implementation of

regional CIM positions.

In the following years, the strategic objectives were

modified but the focus on regional projects and the

establishment of Bangkok as GIZ’s regional hub,

as well as new approaches to the contracting of

projects with different clients (i.e. German govern-

ment ministries, European Commission, Thai Gov-

ernment, private enterprises), access to new mar-

kets and the development of new products

continued to take centre-stage. For 2012, the utili-

sation of the GTZ, InWEnt and DED merger to

form the new GIZ and the integration of the new

broad set of instruments in the portfolio of the

country office became an additional priority.

The merger of the different German institutions for

technical cooperation offered the opportunity to di-

versify GIZ’s portfolio in Thailand internally. This

also marked the definite end to any discussions

about the establishment of a foundation as an al-

ternative approach to continuing GIZ’s activities in

Thailand. The idea was modelled on the Kenan-In-

stitute in Bangkok which USAID founded as part of

the United States’ exit strategy for its bilateral de-

velopment cooperation with Thailand. A founda-

tion, in form of an NGO, would have allowed GIZ to

continue activities in Thailand if the GIZ office had

to close. The foundation would also have created

an employment perspective for the local GIZ staff.

It was planned that the NGO would maintain close

links, also in terms of funding, with the GIZ head-

quarter, and attract projects both from national and

international sources. Part of the vision was that

this organisation could establish itself as a service

provider for neighbouring countries. However, it

was soon realised that the establishment of a foun-

dation/NGO was challenging from a legal point of

view. Furthermore, there were doubts that it would

be able to compete in an already tight and compet-

itive consulting market. The creation of the “new

GIZ” provided the framework and long-term basis

to stay engaged in Thailand with an own office.

According to GIZ staff involved in the early phase

of the transition, the main challenge was to position

itself as service provider at the level of other minis-

tries. As for the BMUB, GIZ was able to convince

the ministry that smaller countries, such as Thai-

land, should be included in the IKI. BMUB originally

planned to concentrate on larger countries but later

included Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and

Vietnam in Southeast Asia in IKI. The substantial

BMUB funding for IKI in Thailand provided the

backbone for GIZ’s continuous operations in Thai-

land. There was general agreement among inter-

viewed stakeholders that without the BMUB fund-

ing, GIZ would not have been able to sustain its

operations in Thailand. At the same time, environ-

ment is a sector in which Germany is perceived as

being particularly strong. According to the AidData

study on German aid from a partner perspective,

“Germany has a comparative strength in the envi-

ronmental sector. Survey participants, on average,

report that reform advice and assistance from offi-

cial German development actors is particularly

useful in the environmental sector. Across various

measures, Germany outperforms the average DAC

bilateral donor in this policy area.” GIZ had to get

75

used to the competitive setting of project acquisi-

tion and different operating modes at BMUB (as

compared to BMZ) and, according to the ministry,

there was a phase of “getting to know each other”

but the cooperation soon stood on solid grounds.

BMUB, like other ministries and the EU, sees the

long-time presence of the GIZ in Thailand as well

as the organisations’ well-established networks in

the country and its proven and outstanding tech-

nical expertise as factors, which make GIZ an ideal

cooperation partner. For the EU, GIZ’s long track

record in implementation, its ability to “deliver what

is promised”, its approach of also basing its project

proposals and applications for interventions in

Thailand and the region on experience from its co-

operation with other countries, cost effectiveness

and the substantial involvement of local staff are

GIZ’s comparative advantages as compared to

other development agencies.

Overall, it can be concluded that the transition was

managed efficiently and effectively and that the

GIZ office has managed to consolidate its position

in Thailand. However, GIZ has not given much

thought to the strategies of other development

agencies to avoid duplication or to actively create

synergies, which also constitutes an important les-

son learnt for GIZ in other middle-income coun-

tries. The evaluation has not come across any in-

stances of significant overlap with the interventions

of other development partners (except for the case

of JICA regarding vocational education). There is

no evidence of duplication either. However, this

could well be coincidental and not be the result of

strategic thinking.

Further reactions and aspects of the adaptation by

GIZ to the post-2008 setting will be presented

hereafter.

Positioning as a Regional Hub

Developing the GIZ office in Bangkok as a regional

hub proved to be a good strategic decision, which,

as already mentioned above, bears relevance for

GIZ’s strategic approach to other higher middle-in-

come countries where a phasing out of bilateral de-

velopment cooperation is being considered or al-

ready decided. Thailand’s beneficial geostrategic

position might not be easily found elsewhere but

lessons learnt should still be considered in other

33 http://training.thai-german-cooperation.info/; Interviews. 34 GIZ. Die Internationale Zusammenarbeit der GIZ mit Schwellenländern. Am Beispiel von sechs Schwellenländern

cases. Due to its location and infrastructure, Bang-

kok is a natural regional hub for activities in main-

land Southeast Asia and the Mekong Region but

also Southeast Asia as a whole and even the wider

Asia-Pacific region. 80% of all GIZ events in main-

land Southeast Asia take place in Bangkok.

USAID, Australia, UNESCAP have established re-

gional hubs in Bangkok and the EU is in the pro-

cess of doing so. In recent years Bangkok has de-

veloped into a regional institutional centre “where it

is easy to communicate, maintain a regular dia-

logue and negotiate with multilateral organisations

and other stakeholders” as one interviewee put it.

The regional hub concept enables GIZ to tap into

the increasing market for regional projects within

the context of growing regional integration as fos-

tered by ASEAN for Southeast Asia as a whole or

within sub-regions such as the Mekong region. The

regional perspective also means that GIZ can con-

tinue to implement BMZ-funded projects, which fol-

low regional approaches.

The establishment of GIZ Training Services –

Bangkok as a branch of the AIZ in early 2013 has

significantly strengthened the role of GIZ Bangkok

in the region as a provider of in-house training for

GIZ and for external stakeholders, such as TICA

officials. GIZ Training Services - Bangkok offers a

broad range of training and seminar courses in a

wide array of sectoral focus areas such as agricul-

ture, energy, environment, communication, consul-

tancy, leadership development, and trade, among

others. Modules can range from one-day work-

shops to one-week seminars or one-year program-

mes, combining a whole range of methodologies

such as case studies, project-based assignments

or study trips.33 Furthermore, the Training Hub

gains importance as a pilot project for the AIZ’s in-

ternationalisation strategy.34 According to interview

information provided by the team, which works on

the Business Plan for the AIZ in Bangkok, the AIZ

contributes to sustaining the GIZ operations in

Thailand. It has the potential to generate a surplus

of approximately EUR 200,000 and to create five

jobs by 2021. The estimate is based on a total ca-

pacity of 120 training courses offered per year.

However, the legal position of the AIZ in Bangkok

is currently still under consideration. Germany and

Thailand do have a bilateral cooperation agree-

ment dating from 1970 but this covers only projects

for which a project agreement has been concluded.

Such an approach is not feasible for the Training

hub. The situation would be the same in any other

des Bereichs Asien/Pazifik und Lateinamerika/Karibik. Feb-ruar 2015.

76

country including Indonesia or the Philippines. GIZ

has applied for a foreign business license in order

to create a legally registered branch office of GIZ

under Thai corporate laws, in order to supply a le-

gal base for the Training Hub and other projects.

A further issue, which according to the draft report

on the AIZ Business Plan needs to be addressed is

the complex reporting structure. While the Hub is a

direct subsidiary of AIZ in Germany, it reports to

the GIZ country director in Bangkok - in line with

GIZ policy that every staff member should have a

local supervisor.

Positioning in Export Promotion

Other strategies for the post-2008 setting have

successfully been followed but overall have been

less significant than the regional hub concept and

project acquisition in the environment sector. The

German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and

Energy (BMWi) wanted to see GIZ moving more in

the field of supporting the interests of German

companies and export promotion. GIZ has indeed

become a partner of BMWi’s Project Development

Programme Southeast Asia, which follows the ob-

jective of supporting German renewable energy

enterprises to tap into Southeast Asian markets. “A

challenging business climate in Southeast Asia

tends to restrict the development of markets for in-

novative products and services, which is a particu-

lar strength and unique selling point of German

providers. Other hurdles include a lack of technical

and business resources and shortfalls in the exper-

tise of local partners, as well as insufficient trans-

parency regarding the current market situation,

promotion opportunities and changes in the con-

tract law.” The Project Development Programme

Southeast Asia helps German companies in the re-

newable energy sector to access the Thai, Viet-

namese and Myanmarese markets. It supports bi-

lateral business partnerships and contributes to the

promotion of sustainable market structures as well

as the wider use of renewable energy. GIZ has

been implementing the Project Development Pro-

gramme Southeast Asia since 2011. Besides its

activities to share information and prompt contacts

between German and local companies, the pro-

gramme has also supported, for example, the initi-

ation of municipal renewable energy projects in

Thailand.35However, according to a BMWi inter-

view, many German companies do not perceive

GIZ as a stakeholder who can support their inter-

ests or facilitate access to markets and contracts.

This view was also expressed in communications

35 https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/27280.html

with GIZ staff who said that the German Chambers

of Commerce and Industry in partner countries, in-

cluding Thailand, were better positioned to support

the interests of the German industry.

At the same time, GIZ Bangkok has intensified its

cooperation and collaboration with the German-

Thai Chamber of Commerce and Industry in fields

that are relevant for the private sector in general

and German companies in Thailand in particular.

GIZ has a clear advantage over the Chambers as it

has direct access to ministries. That way GIZ and

the Chamber complement each other.

Further Diversification of the Project and Client Portfolio

Of the relevant German line ministries, the Federal

Foreign Office has had the smallest stake in GIZ’s

project portfolio since 2008. It founded two small

projects on dual education: Quatätsverbesserung

in der Beruflichen Bildung Südostasiens durch

Duale Berufsbildung (2015, EUR 250,000) and

earlier Exzellente Berufsbildung für Thailand (Ger-

man-Thai Dual Excellence Education) (2013, EUR

150,000) which were initiated by the visit of a Ger-

man member of parliament to Thailand. The pro-

jects were slightly hampered by long decision-mak-

ing processes and delays in communication and

reporting. In addition, the projects have to be as-

sessed by the Federal Office of Administration

(Bundesverwaltungsamt) which currently has a

backlog of two to three years. Generally, however,

contacts between GIZ and the Federal Foreign Of-

fice went very well as does the triangular communi-

cation among GIZ, the Federal Foreign Office and

the German Embassy in Bangkok. However, the

question needs to be asked if such a diversification

of donors/clients which includes relatively small

projects is useful and effective, considering that

such projects are not easily integrated within exist-

ing sector programmes (funded by other sources)

and pose additional bureaucratic hurdles.

As an additional pillar of sustaining GIZ’s opera-

tions in Thailand the office has embarked on at-

tracting Thai partner projects. However, it soon

turned out that while GIZ’s partners appreciated

the cooperation, they were not able or willing to

provide funding for activities after the phasing out

of bilateral development cooperation. The country

office has nevertheless followed a strategy of the

flexible acquisition of smaller projects (in the range

of EUR 100,000 or less) which allows GIZ to re-

77

spond to new dynamics and agendas in the coop-

eration with Thailand. This has been successful to

a limited extent and first small projects could be se-

cured. It is difficult to determine whether or not GIZ

should concentrate on small projects and several

criteria need to be taken into account to assess

this question in a differentiated manner. On the

one hand, the margin on these projects is negligi-

ble while the bureaucratic and organisational bur-

den and opportunity costs are high in relation to

the size of the interventions. On the other hand,

these projects provide employment opportunities

for local staff, allow for resources to be pooled if

small projects are thematically in the same area,

and enable GIZ to sustain working relations with

Thai stakeholders and keep “the foot in the door”

for potentially larger contracts in the future. Alt-

hough the latter does not seem to be an overly re-

alistic perspective at the moment, it might still be

successful in the mid-term in terms of “catching a

big fish”. Moreover, other reasons such as strategi-

cally relevant projects or the representation of Ger-

man cooperation abroad might also be justifiable

arguments in order to pursue smaller projects,

even though these factors are not quantifiable and

the projects not economically very profitable in the

first place.

78

2.7 Conclusions

The Role of Political and Economic Framework Conditions

As an important and highly relevant finding, which

goes beyond the specific case of Thailand, it can

be concluded that political and economic frame-

work conditions are markedly less important for

GIZ’s work than it was assumed – mainly by GIZ it-

self – before the evaluation.

As discussed in the previous chapters, a crucial –

perhaps the most central – factor in the efficient

and effective implementation of GIZ’s implementa-

tion of programmes and projects across all se-

lected sectors was the fact that GIZ did not have to

change its approaches and modes of cooperation

in response to changing circumstances in any sub-

stantial way. The frequent changes at the political

level during the evaluation period did not signifi-

cantly affect GIZ as an implementing agency as it,

unlike other Development Partners, does not have

to – and is in fact not expected to – interact with

partner countries at a high political level with the

view of negotiating the terms and modalities of co-

operation. Consequently, GIZ does not carry any

“political ballast” in Thailand. It is thus more flexible

in providing technical support to key sectors rele-

vant to the country’s socio-economic development.

Furthermore, GIZ has engaged mainly in technical

areas of cooperation, which can be politicised

(such as climate change) but are generally consid-

ered “non-sensitive”. In instances in which GIZ had

to adapt its support due to structural changes or

staff turnover at the management level in partner

organisations, changes in government or due to

other reasons and external factors such as the

2011 floods, adjustments in project implementation

were swiftly ensured. Overall, the evaluation has

not come across any examples of substantial dis-

ruptions due to changing framework conditions.

Success Factors

From the evaluation, a comprehensive picture of

GIZ’s role in Thailand has emerged which allows

for a first general benchmarking of success fac-

tors in the implementation of development cooper-

ation.

Success factors of GIZ’s support to Thailand

As an implementing agency, which concentrated mainly on technical, politically non-sensi-

tive areas of intervention in Thailand, GIZ has not so much depended on the political frame-

work conditions for cooperation.

GIZ’s decades-long presence in the country and its reputation as an agency which provi-

des and mobilises top-expertise and concrete, implementable solutions makes it a trusted and

reliable partner.

Due to its long-term engagement in Thailand, GIZ has established and maintained close rela-

tions and tight networks with a wide range of line ministries and government agencies, which

have survived government changes and allow for efficient and effective communication with key

stakeholders. This is an essential condition for project planning and implementation.

The result-focussed approach (standards, model action plans etc.) often leads to outcomes

which are replicable and thus offering a good potential for sustainability.

GIZ has demonstrated a flexible and participatory approach to project design and implemen-

tation. This includes an opportunity for stakeholders at the national and sub-national levels to

actively contribute to shaping the scope and direction of interventions. Ultimately, this approach

facilitates a strong alignment of the GIZ support with technical needs and any changes in the

priorities of Thai stakeholders. This aspect is further strengthened by GIZ’s strong emphasis on

local staff in project implementation.

During the evaluation period GIZ has increasingly moved towards the implementation of re-

gional interventions in response to, and alignment with, the growing dynamics of regional inte-

gration in Southeast Asia and particularly the needs of regional actors, such as ASEAN. ODA or

are about to do so (JC 4.6).

JC 4.1 is covered under relevance and JC 4.3 under effectiveness.ODA or are about to do so

(JC 4.6).

JC 4.1 is covered under relevance and JC 4.3 under effectiveness.

79

Most of the above mentioned factors might also ap-

ply to GIZ’s position and role in other countries.

However, the specific experience of the GIZ-Thai

cooperation can only be regarded to some extent

as a “best case” or model for GIZ support in other

middle-income/industrialising countries. This is

mainly related to the fact that the last of the points

mentioned in the table above – the regional ap-

proach of the GIZ office in Thailand – has been

one of the most crucial factors, which helped GIZ

to put its position on solid ground after the termina-

tion of the bilateral German-Thai cooperation in

2008. The situation of Southeast Asia is unique in

this sense as, for some time, it has been the region

with the strongest and most concrete integration

drive outside Europe. While “graduating countries”

in other regions might also be part of regional co-

operation schemes, the specific and highly suc-

cessful approach by the GIZ Thailand office of tap-

ping into the opportunities of supporting regional

cooperation and integration processes is not easily

replicable elsewhere.

Cross-cutting Conclusions from Past Project Implementation

There are a number of areas which require atten-

tion both with regards to the specific situation of

GIZ in Thailand as well as in other middle-income

countries. Most crucially, perhaps, Thai partners

have not yet been systematically involved in project

evaluation and have not shown much initiative in

applying own approaches to monitoring and evalu-

ation. This shortcoming potentially impacts on the

sustainability of interventions as project out-

comes/results are not being followed up after the

completion of the respective intentions. Further-

more, the national ownership of programmes and

projects is likely to be limited in the absence of in-

volving Thai partners in the assessment of inter-

ventions. There is also a lack of GIZ-commissioned

impact evaluations after the completion of projects.

Currently, final project reports are written by project

managers and are finalised shortly before the end

of an intervention or around the time of completion.

There is also a need to improve communication

strategies with Thai partners particularly with re-

gards to clarifying the role, mission and mandate of

GIZ as an implementing agency in contrast to a do-

nor’s. A particular challenge in this regard is to es-

tablish a modus operandi to the implementation of

policies, strategies, actions plans and studies,

which were directly advised by GIZ. In Thailand, as

probably in other middle-income countries which

are no longer ODA recipient countries or are at the

brink of experiencing this step, expectations to-

wards development agencies have often not

changed yet; i.e. many stakeholders still expect not

only expert advisory support in the process of for-

mulating polices and strategies but also grants to

implement these plans. During this transition phase

it would be important to assist partners to source

and mobilise the needed funding without GIZ, in-

stead of directly providing funds.

Trilateral Cooperation

Last but not least, GIZ in Thailand made an innova-

tive and original contribution to South-South and

North-South-South cooperation based on its coop-

eration with TICA. This can be a very useful model

for GIZ in other high middle-income countries,

which aspire to transform themselves from recipi-

ents to donors. However, there are also important

lessons learnt from the Thai case. While the trilat-

eral cooperation has achieved an impact in

strengthening the capacities of TICA, the sustaina-

bility of the approach is questionable both with re-

gards to the mid- and long-term effects on TICA’s

role as a donor and, even more, considering the

TICA-implemented projects in other countries

which in some cases were effective only to a lim-

ited extent. The budget for the trilateral cooperation

has been very small – both on the side of GIZ and

TICA – and more a token contribution towards im-

plementing a promising concept. There needs to

be much stronger financial commitment to put the

North-South-South cooperation on solid ground.

This of course also depends on the priorities of po-

tential donors.

80

2.8 Recommendations

The following recommendations are divided into

two sets. The first addresses primarily the GIZ of-

fice in Thailand. However, the recommendations

can also be considered by GIZ offices in other mid-

dle-income countries in which bilateral develop-

ment cooperation has also been phased out or

where such a decision is imminent. The second set

comprises general recommendations which go be-

yond the country level and are therefore directed at

GIZ headquarters.

Recommendations related to evidence-based

decision-making (focusing on the level of the

GIZ country office in Thailand):

Create and implement joint approaches to

monitoring and evaluation with partners to

strengthen ownership: The evaluation has re-

vealed that Thai partner organisations do not

monitor or evaluate their projects with GIZ.

This translates to lack of ownership in the

sense of the Paris Declaration and also re-

duces the opportunity for critical reflections and

thus lessons learnt on development impacts

and sustainability. It is recommended that a

system of joint and participatory monitoring

and/or evaluation is introduced for future inter-

ventions. It would be particularly important in

the case of policy advisory projects, which

have resulted in the formulation of plans and

strategies to follow up on implementation. This

recommendation is also addressed at GIZ

Headquarters and relevant for BMZ and BMUB

as it underscores the need for joint M&E ap-

proaches in the planning and design of pro-

grammes and projects.

The development of the country into a regional

hub and the related strong focus on regional

projects should not only continue but be ex-

panded: Due to the ongoing processes of re-

gional cooperation and integration, for example

with regard to the ASEAN Economic Commu-

nity, the demand and need for regional ap-

proaches and solutions to address commonly

perceived or cross-border problems and chal-

lenges will grow. GIZ is well positioned to

strongly contribute to regional cooperation

through regional project approaches. Further-

more, as the evaluation has confirmed, re-

gional standards or other approaches tend to

be particularly sustainable. The expansion of

regional activities should be based on agree-

ments with regional organisations and stake-

holders such as UNESACP, the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia

Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or the

Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Such an

approach could also make stronger use of syn-

ergies with GIZ projects which are based at the

ASEAN Secretariat and directly support

ASEAN. Particularly the Bangkok-based UN-

ESCAP provides multiple opportunities for co-

operation in the Asia-Pacific – not at least be-

cause the organisation will play a dominant

role in the implementation and monitoring of

the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

and the SDGs. Although the further develop-

ment of the regional hub is mainly donor-

driven, GIZ can strategically position itself to

take advantage of relevant donor initiatives or

can actively provide advice through established

communication channels.

Develop clear and context-related criteria for

the selection of partner projects: As outlined,

as one strategic approach to the post-2008

transition the country office has been active in

attracting Thai partner projects. Despite the dif-

ficulties in attracting funding from Thai sources,

the GIZ office has nevertheless followed a

strategy of the flexible acquisition of smaller

projects (in the range of EUR 100,000). This

approach has advantages and disadvantages

but the former dominate as small projects are

often a leeway to enter new markets and might

offer opportunities for larger government con-

tracts as Thailand proceeds further in its socio-

economic development. However, criteria

should be developed to guide the selection

process to make sure that small projects are

well integrated into the country office’s overall

portfolio and are feasible. These criteria should

clarify the context and conditions that render

projects viable, not only from an economic per-

spective but also regarding other relevant

points, such as presence in the country, main-

taining relationships or strategic relevance.

Assist Thai partners in the process of actually

implementing strategies and action plans which

were developed in the context of GIZ projects:

It seems important that projects do not stop at

the completion of strategies and plans but that

81

GIZ supports partners in the process of imple-

mentation, including the mobilisation of funds.

For this purpose, it is important and necessary

to consider the partners’ implementation ca-

pacity and preconditions already during the

planning process of projects working on strate-

gies and action plans. Such an approach would

help to prevent plans from just being shelved.

This is, for example, also in line with the rec-

ommendation of the 2015 evaluation of the

CASC programme which advised to “mobilize

available funds at provincial or national level

for continuity and replication”. The ongoing

Green Climate Fund (GCF) project develop-

ment, for example, already mobilises interna-

tional funding for Thailand.

Increase exchanges with other development

agencies: During the evaluation period, little ef-

fort has been made to engage in structured di-

alogues or even cooperation with other devel-

opment agencies. There is no formal

requirement to do so in a post-ODA environ-

ment. However, given that some agencies –

most prominently JICA – often work in the

same or closely related sectors and share

many of GIZ’s respective partners - it seems

important that efforts are made to avoid dupli-

cation and, in the best-case scenario, produce

synergies to increase outputs and impact. This

is particularly the case for the field of voca-

tional education where there is serious risk of

overlap and potentially parallel system in the

implementation of German and Japanese ap-

proaches.

Only continue the trilateral cooperation if TICA

agrees on stronger financial commitments:

GIZ‘s trilateral cooperation with Thailand

(TICA) and several other countries in the re-

gion (most importantly Lao PDR) is an innova-

tive and effective model of both South-South

cooperation and emerging new approaches to

partnerships between industrialised and mid-

dle-income nations. However, the sustainability

of the approach depends on the financial and

staff capacities (including staff numbers) of

TICA, which is not yet given to an extent that

would enable TICA to implement regional de-

velopment cooperation programmes without

the substantial assistance of GIZ or other part-

ners. If the trilateral programme continues in

some way or is reactivated, TICA should be

committed to ensure the sustainability of the in-

terventions.

Recommendations related to organisational-

learning (focusing on the level of GIZ HQ):

Re-assess the importance of political frame-

work conditions: No development cooperation

programme can ever be implemented without

giving consideration to a country’s politics and

diplomatic/international relations. However, as

the evaluation has shown, the political

frame¬work conditions play a less crucial role

for GIZ’s work in Thailand than assumed. Cur-

rent strategic thinking at GIZ seems still promi-

nently directed towards such political condi-

tions. The lessons learnt of this evaluation

should form the basis for a reassessment of

the importance of political framework condi-

tions, which may lead to a revision of the ex-

pected role of politics, and political changes for

GIZ’s cooperation programmes.

Decentralised strategy building process with

GIZ country offices leading transition process-

es: Transition processes from bilateral devel-

opment cooperation programmes to post-BMZ

environments are best managed locally. As the

case of Thailand has shown, it is important to

consider various and partly competing options

to sustain GIZ operations in such a situation.

The different options need to be considered

carefully and strategically and this works best if

the respective GIZ office takes the lead in this

process, while being supported by headquar-

ters.

Focus on one main donor: Partner Funding is

unlikely to be a sustainable option. Experience

from Thailand has shown that it is unrealistic to

believe that BMZ funding can largely be re-

placed by partner funding. Unless the structural

setting in other countries substantially differs

from the situation in Thailand, it is not likely

that governments of middle-income countries

provide the funding for services they used to

receive for free or with a small national contri-

bution – regardless of how highly the former

cooperation with GIZ is valued. Efforts will

therefore need to concentrate on identifying

one (or few) main donor(s), which replace(s)

BMZ while at the same time trying to diversify

funding and contract portfolios. If it is not possi-

ble to find one main donor, an early strategic

82

analysis of what is profitable with regard to

smaller projects is necessary.

Headquarters and country offices together

should engage in strategic benchmarking to

identify GIZ’s strengths and unique selling

points vis-à-vis other development agencies:

This evaluation has presented some first and

preliminary criteria that put GIZ in a favourable

position to determine its relative strengths as

compared to other development agencies and

other actors in general. However, a full bench-

marking would require a detailed assessment

of other donors/agencies/ stakeholders’ strate-

gies and implementation practises. Such an

approach is beyond the scope of this evalua-

tion and would require a good number of addi-

tional interviews. The findings of this evaluation

can be taken as the nucleus for more detailed

studies. These bench-marking analyses need

to be countryspecific to give justice to the spe-

cific socioeconomic factors for development.

83

Annexes

Annex 1: Bibliography

AidData, DEval. German Aid from a Partner Perspective. Experience-based Perceptions from AidData’s

2014 Reform Efforts Survey, 2016, https://www.deval.org/files/content/Dateien/Evaluierung/Ber-

ichte/2016_DEval_AidData_Final_WEB.pdf

Anucha Tiangketa, Bunyongvut Chullabodhia, Kanoksak Eam-O-Pasa, Sarawoot Watechagita. The En-

ergy Saving Calculation for a Residential Sector in Thailand with Top-Down Methodology. Energy

Procedia 79, 2015, pp. 415–422, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1876610215022444/1-s2.0-

S1876610215022444-main.pdf?_tid=a5ffaea2-ac06-11e6-b121-00000aab0f01&ac-

dnat=1479305703_a1c3472e8aab5d20576e81fb853397af

Anuchit Nguyen. Thailand's Energy Absolute to Invest $1.4 Billion in Solar, Wind Projects. Bloomberg, 22

August 2014, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/08/thailands-energy-absolute-to-

invest-1-4-billion-in-solar-wind-projects.html

Asia News Monitor [Bangkok]. Thailand: Thailand Is Preparing New Strategic Plan for Climate Change in

the Agriculture Sector, 9 July 2016, http://thailand.prd.go.th/ewt_news.php?nid=3458&filename=in-

dex

Asia News Monitor [Bangkok]. Thailand: Developing Vocational Education to Produce Workforce of High

Quality, 14 May 2016, http://thailand.prd.go.th/ewt_news.php?nid=3195&filename=index

Asian Development Bank. Second Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Development Program, Vietnam,

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/41360-01-vie-dc.pdf

Asian Development Bank. Energy efficiency developments and potential energy savings in the Greater

Mekong Subregion. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2015,

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/161894/energy-efficiency-savings-gms.pdf

Beerepoot, Milou Energy Efficiency Indicators in Thailand. GIZ Energy Efficiency Programme Thailand,

power point presentation, http://www.cepal.org/drni/biee/_include/img/Paris15/Mi-

lou%20Beerepoot.pdf

Befani, Barbara; John Mayne. Process Tracing and Contribution. Analysis: A Combine Approach to Gen-

erative Causal Inference for Impact Evaluation, IDS Bulletin, volume 45, issue 6, November 2014,

pp. 17–36.

Bertelsmann Stiftung. BTI 2016, Thailand Country Report, https://www.bti-project.org/filead-

min/files/BTI/Downloads/Reports/2016/pdf/BTI_2016_Thailand.pdf

BMUB. Programme: Thai-German Dialogue on the Green and Low Carbon Economy. 11-12 September

2013, Bangkok.

Carle, Manon. Emerging Donors and Development Cooperation: Thailand and Malaysia. Lund University:

Centre for East and Southeast Asian Studies, 2015, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=down-

loadFile&recordOId=7855312&fileOId=7855314

Chalise, Bishal.Can Thailand Avoid the Middle-Income Trap? The Diplomat, 8 April 2016, http://thediplo-

mat.com/2016/04/can-thailand-avoid-the-middle-income-trap/

Climate Scorecard.Thailand Emission Reduction Challenges. Climate Scorecard 2016, http://cli-

matescorecard.org/2016/08/30/thailand-emission-reduction-challenges/.

Council of the European Union. Council conclusions on Thailand. Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Lux-

embourg, 23 June 2014, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/workarea/downloadAs-

set.aspx?id=15958

Deboonme, Achara. The Nation March 18, 2013. Initiative between German corporates and Education

Ministry aimed at tackling shortage of skilled labour, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Dual-

vocational-training-gets-a-new-lease-of-life-30202154.html

84

Department of Agriculture. Technical Report on Strengthening. Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) in Lao

PDR, Period: 1 March – 31 August 2012, 17 December 2013.

Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. Ministry of Energy. Energy in Thailand:

Facts & Figures Q1/2014, http://weben.dede.go.th/webmax/content/energy-thailand-facts-figures-

q12014

Dyson, Alan and Liz Todd. Dealing with complexity: theory of change evaluation and the full service ex-

tended schools initiative, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33:2, 119-134,

2010.

European Commission. Switch Asia. Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts In-

dustries. Final Technical Report, April 2016.

European Commission. Switch Asia. Sustainable Consumption and Production: Switch Asia. Policy Sup-

port Component – THAILAND (DCI-ASIE/2011/ 270-471) Final Project Report, January 2015.

EU. Guidelines on evaluation and Fitness Checks. Better Regulation, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regula-

tion/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm

Fadu, Jose al. Insights from Emergent Education Systems in Selected Countries. Raleigh et al.: Lulu,

2011.

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. Low-emission

Public Procurement and Eco-labelling, project data, 2016.

GIZ Office Bangkok. Dokumente der Landesplanung, 2009-2016.

GIZ - TICA. Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation. Projects under Implementation, 2015.

GIZ ASEAN region: Sustainable Port Development (SPD). Project evaluation: summary report, 2015.

GIZ. Förderung eines nationalen GAP-Standards in der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Laos Report num-

ber: 1, Reporting period: May 2012 – May 2014.

GIZ. Cities, Environment and Transport (CET). Findings of the Project Evaluation Mission (PEV) Mission,

Workshop, Bangkok, 28 January 2015, power point presentation.

GIZ. Competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SME, project number: 07.2170.4, Final Report, 2012.

GIZ. DC programme: Strengthening of the competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand. Report

number: 8, Reporting period: 1.5.2008 - 31.12.2011.

GIZ. Die Internationale Zusammenarbeit der GIZ mit Schwellenländern. Am Beispiel von sechs Schwel-

lenländern des Bereichs Asien/Pazifik und Lateinamerika/Karibik, Februar 2015.

GIZ. Entwicklung und Umsetzung der Klimawandelpolitik in Thailand, 2009-2014. Schlussbericht, August

2014.

GIZ. Integrated Resource Management in Asian Cities: the Urban NEXUS (Water / Energy / Food Secu-

rity / Land Use) 4th Regional Workshop, Nov. 05 / 07.2014, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, power point

presentation.

GIZ. Lao-Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation. Strengthening Good Agriculture Practice in Lao PDR Pro-

ject. Final Report, 2014.

GIZ. Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Learning from evaluations Processes and instruments used by GIZ

as a learning organisation and their contribution to interorganisational learning. Bonn and Eschborn,

2013.

GIZ. Portfolio of GIZ Projects in Asean Environment and Natural Resource Management, 2013; GIZ. Inte-

grated Resource Management in Asian Cities: the Urban NEXUS. Third Regional Nexus Workshop.

Da Nang, June 25-27, 2014, power point presentation.

GIZ. Schlussbericht zu einer TZ-Maßnahme. EZ-Programm: Asien NA TZ-Maßnahme: Integriertes Res-

sourcenmanagement in asiatischen Städten: der urbane Nexus. Berichtszeitraum: 01.01.2015 –

31.03.2016.

GIZ. Six Decades of Sustainable Development (output of the History Workshop).

85

GIZ. Stadt, Umwelt und Verkehr in der ASEAN-Region (Asien NA), Luftreinhaltung und Klimaschutz in

mittelgroßen Städten der ASEAN-Region, Schlussbericht.

GIZ. Stadt, Umwelt und Verkehr in der ASEAN-Region (Asien NA). TZ-Maßnahme: Luftreinhaltung und

Klimaschutz in mittelgroßen Städten der ASEAN-Region. Projektnummer: 2011.2279.5, Berichtszeit-

raum: 01/2014–12/2014.

GIZ. Stadt, Umwelt, Verkehr in der ASEAN-Region. TZ/IZR-Maßnahme: Nachhaltige Hafenentwicklung in

der ASEAN-Region. Schlussbericht, Januar 2006.

GIZ. Standard for In-Company Trainers in ASEAN Countries. Effective In-Company Vocational Training in

the Mekong Region, Politikfeldübergreifender Kooperationsfonds Einzelmaßnahme: Förderung be-

trieblicher Aus- und Weiterbildung Mekong. Nummer des Berichts: 2 Berichtszeitraum: 01.09.2014 –

31.08.2015.

GIZ. Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Öko-Effizienz von KMU, Thailand, Berichtszeitraum:

01.07.2006–30.06.2007; Thai German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness (PEC) Presenta-

tion of the findings of the PPR Mission, 28 April 2006.

GIZ. Strengthening of the competitiveness & eco-efficiency of SMEs in Thailand, Report number: 8 (last

reporting period 01.5.2011 – 31.12.2011), Reporting period: 01.05.2008 – 31.12.2011.

GIZ. SWITCH Asia, Greening Supply Chains in the Thai Auto and Automotive Parts Industries, Final

Technical Report (01 February 2012 – 31 October 2015), April 2016.

GIZ. TZ mit ASEAN, Berichterstattung zum EZ-Programm Stadt Umwelt und Verkehr in der ASEAN-Re-

gion; Terms of Reference for Project Evaluation and Appraisal of a Follow-on Measure for the Pro-

gramme “Cities, Environment and Transport in the ASEAN Region”.

GIZ. Verbesserung der Wasserqualität im Wassereinzugsgebiet Nam Xong. Final Report, Report number:

1, Reporting period: March 2012 – March 2014.

GIZ. Vietnamese-Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation Advanced Technical Services for SME in Selected

Industrial Sectors of Vietnam, Reporting period: August 2010 – September 2012, brochure,

http://www.thai-german-cooperation.info/admin/uploads/publica-

tion/2e18b1c7f46ac18ac02aa45f662b7c7fen.pdf

GIZ. Vocational Education and Training Evaluation results, findings and conclusions, 2013,

https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2013-en-vocational-education-training.pdf

International Energy Agency. Accelerating Energy Efficiency in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.

Paris 2015, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/SME_2015.pdf

Jarinporn Tippamongkol Pollution Control Department (PCD). Green Public Procurement in Thailand. Re-

gional Workshop on Sustainable Public Procurement and Harmonization of Eco-Labelling 21th May

2014, power point presentation.

Julian, David A. Enhancing Quality of Practice Through Theory of Change‐Based Evaluation: Science or

Practice? American Journal of Community Psychology, 2005, Vol. 35 (3-4), pp.159-168.

Kraisoraphong, Keokam. Thailand Environmental Policies: Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change

and Implications for Human Security. In: Antonio Marquina (ed.). Global Warming and Climate

Change Prospects and Policies in Asia and Europe, Houndmills and New York: Palgrave MacMillan

2010, pp. 444-464.

Kisner, Corinne. Climate Change in Thailand: Impacts and Adaptation Strategies, July 2008. http://cli-

mate.org/archive/topics/international-action/thailand.htm

Marks, Danny. Climate Change and Thailand: Impact and Response: Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.

33, No. 2 (August 2011), pp. 229-258.

Mierke, Alexander. Bericht an das BMZ, Referat 200. Teil-Evaluierung des Programms „Stärkung der

Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Ökoeffizienz von KMU, Thailand“, 2006.

86

Moxay Thantavong Vangvieng. Nam Xong Sub-River Basin Management & Practices: from local per-

spectives and participation, Vientiane Province, Lao PDR, power point presentation, http://www.mrc-

mekong.org/assets/Publications/Events/Watershed-man-2011/Nam-Xong-Sub-river-basin-mngt-n-

practices-by-Mixay-Thantavong.pdf

Nakarin Srilert, Thailand 'stuck' in middle-income trap, The Nation, October 11, 2014.

Nirawan Pipitsombat, Acting Director, The Office of Climate Change Coordination. Thailand Climate Pol-

icy: Perspectives beyond 2012. Power point presentation, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/thai-

land/documents/thailande_eu_coop/environment_energy/onep_climate_policy_en.pdf

Nonarit Bisonyabut. Investment in Thailand following the global financial crisis and into the future: evi-

dence from cross-country comparisons, in: TDRI Quarterly Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2015.

Priyakorn Pusawiro. Lessons learned from Germany's dual system, The Nation, 19.08.2013,

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Lessons-learned-from-Germanys-dual-system-

30212922.html

Santi Nindang, v. Teigan Allen. Ahead of Flood Season, Thailand’s Communities Demand Greater Pre-

paredness. Asia Foundation, 8 August 2012.

Sullivan, Boris. Bangkok among Asia’s Cities Most At Risk from Climate Change. Thailand Business

News, May 11, 2015, http://www.thailand-business-news.com/news/headline/50757-bangkok-

among-asias-cities-most-at-risk-from-climate-change.html

UNESCAP. Integrated Resource Management in Asian Cities: The Urban Nexus. http://www.unes-

cap.org/our-work/environment-development/urban-development/urban-nexus

United Nations. 2012. Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing The report of the United

Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, http://www.ipu.org/splz-

e/rio+20/rpt-panel.pdf

Warr, Peter. Thailand, a nation caught in the middle-income trap, East Asia Forum, 18 December 2011,

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/12/18/thailand-a-nation-caught-in-the-middle-income-trap/

Weiss, C.H. Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive

community initiatives for children and families, 1995. In: New approaches to evaluating community

initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts, J. Connell (ed.), A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr and C.H.

Weiss, pp. 65–92. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

World Bank. CO2 emissions (kt) database, 2016, http://data.worldbank.org/indica-

tor/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?locations=TH

87

Annex 2: Survey Report and Original Questionnaire

Overall purpose and structure of the questionnaire

The online survey was geared towards the collection of information on issues related to: i) the percep-

tion of GIZ in Thailand and ii) the collaboration with GIZ in Thailand. The survey was targeted towards

stakeholders (including beneficiaries, partners, consultants, contractors, employees of an organisation

that have collaborated with GIZ) having worked with or for GIZ in Thailand or knowledge of the role and

activities of the GIZ in Thailand. The survey complements the information gathered through documen-

tary reviews and interviews. It was translated to Thai and available in English and Thai.

The questionnaire featured three sections. The first section aimed at identifying the type of respondent

and his/her involvement with GIZ in Thailand. The other two sections aimed at gathering information on

the perception of and collaboration with GIZ in Thailand. The survey provides the evaluation team with

additional subjective views on main issues at stake.

The questionnaire was structured – with some exceptions – in a series of closed questions with a four

option rating scale, ranging from “Great extent” to “Not at all” (plus the “don’t know” answer). In addition,

respondents had the possibility to further develop their answers through optional text boxes for com-

ments.

Respondents

Five target groups were identified:

Public sector;

Private sector;

Academic institutions and think tanks;

Development partners; and

Other resource persons (e.g. independent consultants, CSOs, NGOs).

The survey featured the same set of questions for all categories of respondents, although – according

to the group and the question – there are differences in the depth of the replies and the views ex-

pressed. 246 resource persons with contact details were identified, mostly by GIZ. A total of 70 persons

responded to the questionnaire. The table below provides the number of respondents by category.

Table 1: Overview of respondents

Target group Final number of re-

spondents

1. Public sector 2. 41

3. Private sector 4. 8

5. Academic institutions and

think tanks 6. 8

7. Development partners 8. 6

9. Other 10. 7

11. Total 12. 70

Source: Online Survey.

More than 80% of the respondents have been working or been in contact with GIZ between 2008 and

2015. A quarter of the respondents have been working or been in contact with GIZ in 2016, about 10%

between 2000 and 2007 and about 10% before 2000.

The full questionnaire is presented hereafter.

88

Appendix: original questionnaire

Survey: Perception of and collaboration with GIZ in Thailand

How would you describe your working relationship with GIZ?*

Required questions are marked with a red star *

Check all answers that apply.

I have directly worked with GIZ in the implementation of activities as a beneficiary or partici-pant.

I have directly worked with GIZ in the implementation of activities as a partner.

I have worked as a consultant or contractor for GIZ.

I am an employee of an organization which has collaborated with GIZ but I have not per-sonally been involved in the implementation of activities.

I have knowledge of the role and activities of the GIZ in Thailand, but I have not been per-sonally involved in the implementation of activities.

I have not been involved with GIZ in Thailand and have a very limited knowledge of GIZ’s work and activities in Thailand.

To what extent are you familiar with GIZ’s work and activities?*

Not at all Little extent Some extent Great extent Do not know

Over which of the following periods did you work or have you been in contact with GIZ?*

Please tick all that apply.

Before 2000

2000-2007

2008-2015

Identification of respondent

13. Using the survey:

Click 'Next' at the end of each page to save the current page and to get to the next set of questions.

It is possible to use the ‘Back’ button at the end of each page to refer to earlier pages and/or edit earlier answers if you wish. However, the data you entered on any page is only saved by clicking ‘Next’ on that page. Do not go back before saving the current page by clicking Next first, to avoid losing data you entered on the current page.

A 'Save and continue survey later' bar can be found at the very bottom of each page of the sur-

vey. By clicking the button, a link will be sent to your email address, which allows you to con-

tinue the questionnaire at the point where you have interrupted it.

89

After 2015

Which type of institution are you associated with while being involved / working with GIZ?*

Tick one answer.

Public Sector

Private Sector

Development partner (including bilateral and multilateral organizations)

Civil society (including CBOs and international and locally based non-governmental organiza-tions)

Academic institutions and think tanks

Other (including e.g. independent consultants and associations)

In which sector have you collaborated with GIZ?*

Tick all answers that apply.

Agriculture

Banking & Financial Services

Business & Economy

Disaster

Education

Energy

Environment

Government & Civil Society

Health

Industry

Research & Development

Sustainable economy

Transport and Urban development

Other: _________________________________________________________________

Section 1: GIZ-Thai Cooperation – Results and Lessons Learnt

In your view, to what extent has GIZ contributed to positive change in the following sectors?

Not at all Little ex-

tent

Some ex-

tent

Great ex-

tent

Do not

know

Agriculture

Banking & Financial Services

Business & Economy

Disaster

Education

Energy

Environment

Government & Civil Society

90

Health

Industry

Research & Development

Sustainable Economy

Transport and Urban Develop-

ment

Please specify reasons for the sectors you assessed above.

Based on your experience, to what extent are the results achieved by GIZ-Thai cooperation sustainable in the long-term?

Not at all Little ex-

tent

Some ex-

tent

Great ex-

tent

Do not

know

Agriculture

Banking & Financial Services

Business & Economy

Disaster

Education

Energy

Environment

Government & Civil Society

Health

Industry

Research & Development

Sustainable Economy

Transport and Urban Develop-

ment

Please specify reasons for the sectors you assessed above.

In your view, which of the activities of the GIZ-Thai Cooperation do you think are worth replicating in other countries and why?

Activities Why?

1.

2.

3.

4.

What are, in your view, the main lessons learnt from the implementation of GIZ projects that should be taken into account for the future cooperation?

Lessons learnt

1.

91

2.

3.

4.

If you have any other remarks regarding the topic GIZ-Thai Cooperation please indicate them be-low.

Section 2: Working with GIZ

If you had to select two words best representing GIZ’s work and image in Thailand, what would they be?

_____________________________________AND____________________________________

What is your perception regarding the mission of GIZ?

To what extent do you agree to the following statements?

Not at

all

Little ex-

tent

Some

extent

Great

extent

Do not

know

GIZ is governed by a clear mission.

The work of GIZ is characterised by

innovative concepts and initiatives

to solve problems.

GIZ’s cooperation strategies are clear

and well communicated.

GIZ addresses any emerging capac-

ity gaps in the preparation and imple-

mentation of projects.

GIZ is effectively working for change.

GIZ effectively acts as a mediator be-

tween different stakeholders.

GIZ utilizes its resources efficiently.

GIZ follows a results-oriented ap-

proach.

What is your perception regarding the collaboration with GIZ?

To what extent do you agree to the following statements?

Not at

all

Little ex-

tent

Some

extent

Great ex-

tent

Do not

know

GIZ is uncomplicated to work with.

Relations with GIZ are based on mu-

tual respect.

Relations with GIZ are based on

openness.

GIZ staff are recognized as team

player.

GIZ has highly qualified staff.

92

GIZ always keeps its partners well

informed of the progress of project

implementation.

GIZ coordinates its work well with

Thai partners.

GIZ’s collaboration with Thai partners

takes place on a set of common aims

and goals.

What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to Thai context?

To what extent do you agree to the following statements?

Not at

all

Little ex-

tent

Some

extent

Great

extent Do not know

GIZ plays an important role in Thai-

land’s development process.

GIZ takes the Thai context in devel-

opment into consideration.

GIZ has strong expertise on issues

relevant to Thailand’s development.

GIZ has flexibility in adapting to

changing needs of Thai partners.

GIZ responds on the needs (ideas,

suggestions) of Thai partners.

GIZ involves Thai partners in the de-

velopment of cooperation strategies

and projects.

The GIZ approach to Thailand has

taken the strategies of my institu-

tion/organization into account.

GIZ stands out among Thailand’s de-

velopment partners.

Thai partners have a high level of re-

sponsibility of and engagement in

GIZ-funded projects (ownership).

GIZ’s aid delivery modalities have

been adapted to the areas of your

work in Thailand.

What is your perception regarding GIZ’s adaptation to changing circumstances?

To what extent do you agree to the following statements?

Not at

all

Little ex-

tent

Some

extent

Great

extent

Do not

know

GIZ has flexibly adapted its support to changing political circumstances in Thailand.

GIZ has flexibly adapted its support to changing economic circum-stances in Thailand.

93

In your view, has there been a change in GIZ strategies and projects since 2008?

Yes

No

Do not know

Please explain and highlight any potential changes that occurred since 2008 (what happened and when).

What are challenges in working with GIZ?

Tick all that apply.

Changes in policy direction

Bureaucracy / complicated work procedures

Changes in funding priorities

Staff turnover

There are no challenges in working with GIZ.

Do not know

Other: _________________________________________________________________

Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your relationship with GIZ?

Not at all Little extent Some extent Great extent Do not know

If you have any other remarks regarding the topic Perception of GIZ please indicate them be-low.

94

Annex 3: List of active GIZ Thailand projects considered by the evaluation

Climate Change and Environment

Project: Greening Supply Chains in Thai Auto & Automotive Parts Industries

Stakeholders: Federation of Thai Industries

Location: Bangkok

Project: SCP for Low Carbon Economy - Low Emissions Public Procurement and

Eco-Labelling (SCP4LCE)

Stakeholders: Pollution Control Department (PCD), Thailand Greenhouse Gas Manage-

ment Organisation (TGO), Thailand Environment Institute (TEI)

Location: Bangkok

Project: National Energy Efficiency Plan as Core Element of Action - and MRV-Based

Emission Reduction Strategies Thailand (TGP-EEDP)

Stakeholders:

Ministry of Energy, Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO), Joint Gradu-

ate School for Energy and Environment (JGSEE), Thailand Greenhouse Gas

Management Organisation (TGO)

Location: Bangkok

Project: Risk based - National Adaptation Plan (NAP)

Stakeholders: Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (ONEP)

Location: Bangkok

Project:

Advancing and Measuring Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)

for a Low-Carbon Economy in Middle Income and Newly Industrialised Coun-

tries (Advance SCP)

Stakeholders: Pollution Control Department (PCD)

Location: Bangkok

Vocational Education & Training

Project: Effective In-company Vocational Training in Mekong Region (BB Mekong)

Stakeholders: Office of Vocation Education Commission (OVEC)

Location: Bangkok

SME Support

Project: Promotion of Northern Agro-Industry Clusters (PNAC)

Stakeholders: Thai-German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness (TG-PEC), Depart-

ment of Industrial Promotion, Ministry of Industry

Location: Bangkok and Chiangmai

95

Project: Promotion of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) through Eco-

Efficiency Services and Business Enabling Environment for SMEs in Thai-

land

Stakeholders: Thai-German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness (TG-PEC), Depart-

ment of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP), Ministry of Natural Re-

sources and Environment

Location: Bangkok

Project: Promotion of Thai Organic Fruit and Vegetable Industry

Stakeholders: Thai-German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness (TG-PEC), Thai

Organic Trade Association (TOTA)

Location: Chiangmai

Project: 50 Years Dairy Development in Northern Thailand; Thai-German Dairy Prod-

uct

Stakeholders: Livestock Industry Development Centre

Location: Chiangmai

Trilateral Cooperation

Project: Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation with Laos

Stakeholders: Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Vientiane Province,

Standard Division under Lao Department of Agriculture (Loo DOA)

Location: Vientiane, Laos

Project: Thai-German Trilateral Cooperation with Laos: Paper Mulberry Supply Chain

Stakeholders: Department of Small and Medium Enterprise Promotion and Development

(DOSMEP) in Laos, Industrial Promotion Centre Region

Location: Vientiane, Laos

96

Fotonachweise und Quellen

Fotonachweise/Quellen:

© GIZ / Harald Franzen, Samuel Goda, Ala Kheir, Florian Kopp

URL-Verweise:

In dieser Publikation befinden sich ggf. Verweise zu externen Internetseiten. Für die Inhalte der

aufgeführten externen Seiten ist stets der jeweilige Anbieter verantwortlich. Die GIZ hat beim erst-

maligen Verweis den fremden Inhalt daraufhin überprüft, ob durch ihn eine mögliche zivilrechtliche

oder strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit ausgelöst wird. Eine permanente inhaltliche Kontrolle der

Verweise auf externe Seiten ist jedoch ohne konkrete Anhaltspunkte einer Rechtsverletzung nicht

zumutbar. Wenn die GIZ feststellt oder von anderen darauf hingewiesen wird, dass ein externes

Angebot, auf das sie verwiesen hat, eine zivil- oder strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit auslöst, wird

sie den Verweis auf dieses Angebot unverzüglich aufheben. Die GIZ distanziert sich ausdrücklich

von derartigen Inhalten.

Kartenmaterial:

Kartografischen Darstellungen dienen nur dem informativen Zweck und beinhalten keine völker-

rechtliche Anerkennung von Grenzen und Gebieten. Die GIZ übernimmt keinerlei Gewähr für die

Aktualität, Korrektheit oder Vollständigkeit des bereitgestellten Kartenmaterials. Jegliche Haftung

für Schäden, die direkt oder indirekt aus der Benutzung entstehen, wird ausgeschlossen.

97

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Sitz der Gesellschaft Bonn und Eschborn

Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36 + 40 53113 Bonn, Deutschland T +49 228 44 60-0 F +49 228 44 60-17 66

Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 65760 Eschborn, Deutschland T +49 61 96 79-0 F +49 61 96 79-11 15

E info@giz.de I www.giz.de