The working skeleton (v10): theory of change with the Outcome-2→Outcome-1 sub-sector linkage, two outcomes / four outputs, EUR 2M budget, the EU CERC / Finnpartnership / GTP additionality table, and the results framework. GTP's scope stops at the bankable feasibility package — financing is out of scope.
Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines have each set industrial modernization and decarbonization targets they cannot meet with existing domestic technology. Vietnam needs emissions monitoring infrastructure for its newly launched ETS (83 plants covered, only 11% with verified emissions data), energy management systems for 478 industrial parks (of which fewer than 3% meet eco-industrial park standards against a 40-50% target by 2030), and green digitalization capacity aligned with its national digital transformation agenda. Indonesia needs to decarbonize an industrial sector responsible for 34% of national emissions, replace 25.9 GW of captive coal power, and comply with upcoming mandatory carbon pricing, while its own Ministry of Energy estimates 15-35% energy efficiency savings remain uncaptured. The Philippines needs to close a 350,000-person green skills gap, modernize MSME manufacturing that accounts for 99.6% of enterprises, and prepare exports for EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) compliance through its GSP+ obligation.
These are not imported priorities. They are targets each government has codified in national strategies, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and binding regulations. What each country lacks is the project-level feasibility work and technology partnerships to translate policy targets into financed investments.
Finnish companies hold demonstrated technology advantages in the segments where this demand is strongest — industrial heating and cooling, energy efficiency systems, environmental monitoring, and green digitalization — segments where Finnish suppliers are differentiated on merit and not in direct price competition with Chinese-dominated hardware (solar PV, batteries, EVs, wind turbines). GTP connects this supply to the demand identified above.
If GGGI (a) maps where specific industrial technology demand exists in each country through sector-level assessments, (b) produces feasibility studies matching Finnish technology to that demand, and (c) facilitates partnerships between Finnish and local counterparts, then local industrial facilities will adopt cleaner technology, cutting emissions and energy costs while opening market positions Finnish firms can sustain after the program ends.
Outcome 2 is not a parallel enabling-environment silo: each Outcome-2 intervention (awareness, policy, capacity, knowledge-sharing) is anchored to a named Outcome-1 sub-sector and runs the chain — activity → industry in that sub-sector understands the gain or faces a credible incentive → firms invest in that sub-sector's technology (where Finnish tech fits) → the Outcome-1 bankable-project pipeline thickens, sub-sector by sub-sector.
GTP's deliverable is the investment-ready feasibility study — the bankable project package. Whether a prepared project then secures financing depends on financiers and conditions outside GTP's control; financing itself is not part of GTP's scope. Studies include technology options analysis comparing Finnish technology against alternatives on performance, total cost of ownership (TCO), and local fit. Where Finnish technology is the best fit on development merit, it is recommended. Where it is not, the study says so.
The program funds technical assistance, feasibility studies, regulatory analysis, and facilitation. It does not fund companies directly, take equity positions, or require MFA to approve individual projects.
Vietnam signed a Strategic Partnership with Finland in October 2025 naming green technologies, circular economy, and energy efficiency as priority areas. GGGI and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) signed an MoU on “Digital Transformation and Innovation Technologies for Green Growth” in December 2025. GTP operationalizes these commitments. The pilot ETS launched August 2025 covering approximately 150 facilities across thermal power, steel, and cement. Gasmet (Finnish technology; Swedish parent, Nederman) already has a Vietnamese distributor deploying continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for exactly these sectors. Deputy Prime Minister Tran Hong Ha stated publicly that Vietnam urgently needs Finnish expertise and technology in green energy.
Indonesia has an Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap (Technical Report September 2025, Policy Report March 2026) targeting net-zero industry by 2050. Over 80% of industrial emissions come from heat generation. Finnish companies — Oilon (heat pumps), Valmet (biomass boilers), Sumitomo SHI FW (Finnish CFB/boiler technology under Japanese parent SHI; offices in Jakarta) — offer direct replacement solutions. Finland and Indonesia have signed three generations of energy cooperation MoUs (2015, 2022, 2025). Indonesian industrial exporters face EU CBAM exposure on USD 756M of goods. The Ministry of Energy estimates 15-35% energy savings potential by subsector, translating to significant OPEX reductions: a typical food & beverage or pulp & paper processing plant could save on the order of USD 150,000–200,000/year with a 3–4 year payback.
Philippines has the second-highest electricity rates in ASEAN (121% higher than Vietnam, 87.5% higher than Indonesia), which means energy efficiency improvements deliver proportionally larger savings than in any other GTP country. The Board of Investments (BOI) approved PHP 1.56 trillion in 2025, with 83% in renewables. BOI has explicitly requested external technical support for evaluating energy-efficient projects. The Department of Trade and Industry’s (DTI) Green Manufacturing program and CREATE MORE incentives (up to 27 years of tax relief) target green industrial investment. Business Finland has no dedicated Philippines office — GGGI fills the demand-side intermediary gap. TESDA has identified a 350,000-person green worker shortfall by 2030 and launched a Green Jobs HR Development Plan. The bankable PH entry points are MSME energy efficiency, EPR-driven RDF/SRF for cement co-processing (RA 11898), and used-cooking-oil aggregation for SAF feedstock.
Sector-level assessments that map where industrial demand for cleaner technology exists in each country. These are broader sector intelligence that embassies and Finnish industry associations can share with any relevant company, not company-specific studies.
Activities:
Indonesia: map industrial energy use and technology needs by subsector, focusing on process-heat efficiency and boiler/heat-pump replacement in the sub-sectors where Finnish technology and Indonesian local companies can collaborate to mutual benefit — pulp & paper/biomass, food & beverage, and palm-oil/agri-processing as lead candidates [lead set to confirm with the Indonesia team]; textiles excluded — through the Ministry of Industry (MOI)
Vietnam: identify industrial park clusters with active technology procurement needs, focusing on ETS-covered parks (Deep C, Hoa Khanh, VSIP III, Nam Cau Kien), through MST
Philippines: assess green manufacturing and clean technology demand through BOI and DTI’s Green Manufacturing program
Deliver sector demand assessments to Finnish embassies and industry associations for distribution
KPIs:
Demand assessments completed across the three countries by end of Year 1, with depth of coverage per country determined by pipeline strength
Number of demand-driven sector studies and number of Finnish companies reached to be confirmed at inception once country scoping is complete
Country allocation is flexible. The steering committee determines which countries receive deeper assessment based on pipeline quality, not a pre-set quota. A Year 1 gate reallocates Philippines resources to VN/ID if fewer than 3 viable projects are identified.
Activities:
Commission feasibility studies across the three countries (indicative: 4 VN, 3 ID, 1 PH; rebalanceable by steering committee within the EUR 800k envelope)
Each study covers technology options analysis, cost-benefit, regulatory pathway, financing structure, GESI assessment, and a technology readiness and operator training plan
KPIs:
6-10 feasibility studies completed (number depends on scope complexity per study)
6+ Finnish technology providers featured
Project selection: scored matrix (emissions reduction 25%, Finnish technology fit 25%, government priority 20%, investment-readiness potential 20%, GESI 10%). PMU scores; steering committee reviews. MFA has visibility, not approval authority.
Feasibility study envelope: EUR 800k total, per-study budgets capped at EUR 150k. The steering committee allocates per study based on demand assessment results and scope complexity. GGGI country teams handle preparatory work (site visits, data collection, counterpart coordination); external consultants deliver the technical analysis.
These studies are distinct from Finnpartnership grants: Finnpartnership funds company-initiated market exploration (the company applies and leads). GTP funds program-initiated feasibility studies commissioned by GGGI based on sector demand assessments, producing knowledge available to the broader market and Finnish industry, not proprietary to one firm.
Example: a study for replacing a coal-fired boiler at a food & beverage or pulp & paper processing facility in Indonesia with an Oilon high-temperature heat pump and Valmet biomass boiler hybrid, quantifying fuel cost savings of 25-35%, emissions reduction of 3,000-5,000 tCO2/year, and payback of 3-4 years. The study is a permanent asset that Finnish companies and potential financiers can use independently.
Activities and KPIs to be validated through direct consultation with Finnish companies (see Finnish Company Validation Questions, separate document). Preliminary scope includes local partner vetting, facilitated delegation visits, and coordination with Finnpartnership and Business Finland. Final design will reflect what Finnish companies identify as genuinely useful support.
Outcome 2 is the demand-and-capability layer that feeds the Outcome-1 pipeline (see Theory of Change and the Results Framework). Design is country-differentiated: Philippines pursues a certified-workforce/TVET track (DOE-TESDA energy-audit regulation + CMVP/IPMVP M&V certification) plus an MSME-EE voluntary track and EPR co-processing accounting; Indonesia pursues policy teeth and MRV (ETS-2027 readiness, mandatory energy-management implementing rules, boiler MEPS, an investment-grade-audit/M&V certification scheme) — no TVET; Vietnam leads with 'basics-first' awareness (process-heat, industrial-EE demand, ETS/MRV literacy) plus implementation teeth, MRV/verifier accreditation, EPC standardisation and the EE Fund — the TVET/certified-workforce call for Vietnam is LEFT OPEN for decision. Every activity is anchored to a named Outcome-1 sub-sector via an explicit awareness/incentive → investment chain.
Recommendation on the Vietnam TVET call (proposed — left open in the framework for Pink to confirm): mirror Indonesia — no broad TVET, but fund a narrow certified-cadre line (investment-grade energy auditors + ETS/MRV verifiers), because Vietnam's Outcome-1-linked capacity bottleneck is specialist certification for bankability and ETS verification, not broad vocational training (ISO 50001 sits at ~75 certifications against 2,441 designated energy users).
| Outcome | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Means of verification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| O1 | # pre-feasibility / feasibility studies completed | 0 | 6–10 | study deliverables; GGGI records |
| O1 | # feasibility studies meeting an independent investment-ready (bankability) quality gate | 0 | majority of completed studies | external bankability review against a defined checklist |
| O1 | # Finnish–local technology/commercial partnerships | 0 | ≥6 (1 per study; aligns to 6–10 studies / 6+ Finnish providers) | MoUs / supply or JV agreements |
| O2 | # firms reached by sector-anchored O2 interventions that adopt EE/decarb measures | 0 | set at inception per demand-assessment scope (indicative: dozens of firms/country) | training/campaign records + adoption survey |
| O2→O1 | # O1 pipeline projects enabled by an O2 intervention in the SAME sub-sector | 0 | ≥ the O1 investment-ready target | cross-tagged O1 pipeline log |
| O2 | # enabling instruments operationalised via GTP (MRV methodology, certification scheme, MSME-EE track, EE Fund) | 0 | 2–3 across countries | gazetted rules/IRRs; launch records |
Mainstreamed across all outputs in all three countries. All feasibility studies include GESI impact assessment. Partnership facilitation targets women-led enterprises in adjacent value chains (food processing and agri-processing MSMEs) where women’s ownership is higher than in heavy industry. One regional GESI officer. Target: 20%+ of facilitated partnerships involve women-led or women-owned enterprises.
Output 1.1 (demand assessments): EUR 250,000 (12.5%)
Output 1.2 (feasibility studies): EUR 800,000 (40%)
Output 1.3 (partnership facilitation): EUR 200,000 (10%)
Output 2 (regulatory intel + policy): EUR 250,000 (12.5%)
Program management: EUR 400,000 (20%)
GESI + contingency: EUR 100,000 (5%)
Total: EUR 2,000,000
62.5% of budget on pipeline-development outputs (1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3). Management at 20%.
GGGI operates with delegated authority within pre-agreed parameters. MFA receives quarterly KPI dashboards and semi-annual narrative reports aligned to steering committee meetings. Steering committee: MFA (HQ + embassies), GGGI (PMU + country leads), Business Finland and Finnish industry observers.
How GTP differs from the two programmes it is most often confused with — the EU Circular Economy Resource Centre (EU CERC, the Sitra-run innovation-fund vehicle) and Finnpartnership. Both work the business / policy / knowledge space; the distinction is what each actually delivers and who it funds.
| | EU CERC (EU + Sitra / Enabel) | Finnpartnership | GTP (this programme) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Core role | • A global circular-economy resource centre — EU-funded (EUR 15M) with a EUR 2M co-contribution from Finland's Ministry for Foreign Affairs, delivered by Sitra and Enabel.
• Operates as a knowledge, policy and business help desk through three labs (Knowledge, Policy, Business).
• Brokers circular-economy know-how between the EU and partner countries; it neither finances nor develops projects. | • A Finnish MFA grant that reimburses a Finnish company for the early phases of its own venture in a developing country.
• Covers partner search, feasibility, business planning, piloting and training (EUR 15,000–400,000, paid retroactively).
• The company applies, leads and owns the resulting work. | • A host-led technical-assistance programme that develops bankable green-investment pipelines in partner countries.
• Commissions investment-grade feasibility and matches differentiated Finnish technology to verified host demand.
• Delivers public-good project preparation rather than company-owned outputs. |
| Who initiates it | • Demand reaches the centre as partner-country requests to its help desk.
• The agenda and delivery are EU- and Sitra-led. | • The Finnish company initiates and drives each application.
• Support follows the firm's own commercial strategy. | • GGGI and the host government set the agenda together.
• Activities flow from a host-side demand assessment, not a single firm's plan. |
| Who is funded | • Funds knowledge and policy services; no capital reaches projects.
• The beneficiary is the wider circular-economy community in partner countries. | • The grant is paid to the individual Finnish firm.
• The benefit accrues to that company's market entry. | • Resources fund GGGI-managed project preparation.
• Feasibility studies are a public good, available to the host government, financiers and multiple Finnish suppliers. |
| What it delivers | • Expertise, policy roadmaps, foresight and matchmaking.
• Compliance guidance for EU rules (CEAP, ESPR) to ease market access.
• Knowledge products and an expert roster — no feasibility studies and no financed projects. | • One company's feasibility study, business plan, pilot or staff training.
• Outputs that remain proprietary to that firm. | • Programme-commissioned, investment-grade feasibility studies.
• An investment-ready project package — bankable feasibility, technology-options analysis and MRV design — that GTP hands over on completion.
• Shared MRV and host-government engagement around each project. |
| Domain and geography | • Circular economy — materials and resource loops, eco-design.
• Global reach across EU partner countries, provided on request. | • Any sector in which the applicant company operates.
• Any eligible developing country the firm selects. | • Industrial energy efficiency and process-heat decarbonization, with named circular-economy sub-areas.
• Concentrated in Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines. |
| How GTP is distinct | • GTP draws on EU CERC's circular-economy knowledge rather than recreating it.
• GTP operates one level down, converting policy and know-how into bankable, investment-ready projects. | • Single-firm feasibility is referred to Finnpartnership.
• GTP funds the public-good layer a single firm will not pay for — host standards, shared MRV and aggregated demand. | • The only one of the three that undertakes in-country, host-led project development.
• It converts demand and knowledge into a bankable, financier-ready pipeline. |
In short, EU CERC supplies circular-economy knowledge and Finnpartnership finances a single company's venture; GTP develops the host-owned, bankable pipeline that both instruments presuppose — routing single-firm feasibility to Finnpartnership and drawing on EU CERC's knowledge base rather than duplicating either.
EU CERC is a global knowledge helpdesk with no country programs. GTP deploys technology at project level. Zero overlap.
EU Green Economy Programme Philippines (EU-GEPP, EUR 60M, DENR-led): GGGI is already a partner in SO3 (circular business models, with DTI + Expertise France). Division of labour — GEPP SO3 = circular business models + mechanical recycling (grant-funded); GTP = energy efficiency, thermal recovery, feedstock-to-fuel, bankable feasibility. GTP feeds SO3's MSME pipeline rather than rebuilding it.
GTP adds Finnish technology and bankable project preparation through MST/MOI.
GCF FP196 in Indonesia (~USD 100M headline; the USD 247.7M figure is unverified — confirm before citing) finances industrial energy efficiency but needs bankable project proposals; GTP produces them. GTP prepares the proposals — it does not provide or mobilise the financing.
Business Finland does supply-side trade promotion. GTP does demand-side feasibility preparation. Complementary.
Finnpartnership funds company-initiated market exploration grants. GTP funds program-initiated sector feasibility studies. Different trigger, different ownership, different purpose.
Finnish companies decline to participate: pre-engage 3-4 companies before submission; target firms already in SEA
Studies fail quality standards: confirm scope requirements before commissioning
Vietnam ETS delayed: strategy also targets non-ETS parks; CEMS demand exists regardless
Indonesia TKDN tightened: TKDN navigation in Output 2; local assembly pathways explored in studies
Philippines pipeline insufficient: Year 1 gate reallocates to VN/ID; low financial exposure
Validate Output 1.3 and Output 2 design through Finnish company consultations (see validation questions)
Secure 3-4 Finnish company expressions of interest (Oilon, Valmet, Vaisala, Sumitomo SHI FW)
Confirm Vietnam counterpart (MST or Ministry of Industry and Trade)
Share with country teams for validation