"The factors that led to the overall unsatisfactory assessment of the project can be summarised as follows:
• The project was not anchored in any overarching reference framework. Accordingly, neither its contributions to the strategic objectives of the German development cooperation nor to any other national or international development agenda were specified. While this has nothing to do with the actual quality of the project, as already outlined in the introduction, it leaves the question of whether the OECD/DAC criteria were suitable to evaluate it.
• The organisational setup of the project was inefficient. Having two intermediary organisations with separate overheads, trying unsuccessfully to change a national implementing partner, and finally needing to involve GIZ staff on the ground increased the costs and resulted in an inefficient use of financial resources.
• During the planning of the project, fundamental rules for German development cooperation projects were disregarded: there were no preceding government consultations; implementing partners were chosen without considering alternatives (particularly at political level); neither a risk assessment nor stakeholder mapping took place; and the instruments to be applied were defined beforehand. This procedure appears unusual for GIZ.
• The lack of results at impact level can partly be attributed to the fact that the project did not have a political partner. The professionalisation of an industry/economy requires support from political decision-makers as they have the ability to establish and enforce an appropriate regulatory framework. For instance, the introduction of a tax incentive for film productions could only be achieved through collaboration with the ministries for finance and culture." (Conclusions, page 45)