Evaluation of the European Union’s regional co-operation with Asia (2007-2012) : final report. Volume 1.
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Partnerships
Subjects: Asia, EU programme, EU strategy, added value, aid evaluation, economic support, regional cooperation

Evaluation of the European Union’s 
regional co-operation with Asia 

Final Report 
Volume 1 
 March 2014 

___________ 

Evaluation carried out on behalf of  
the European Commission 

Development 
Development 
and Cooperation 
and Cooperation 
EuropeAid 
EuropeAid 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consortium composed by 

DRN, ECDPM, Ecorys, Particip  

Leader of the Consortium: DRN 
mail@drn network.com 

Contract No EVA 2011/Lot 4 
Specific contract No 2012/305114 

This evaluation was commissioned by 

the Evaluation Unit of the 

Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid 

(European Commission) 

The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ points of view  
which are not necessarily shared by the European Commission  
or by the authorities of the concerned countries. 

This report has been prepared by  

Merzhauser Str. 183  
79100 Freiburg, Germany 
Phone:  +49 761 790 740 
Fax:  +49 761 790 7490 
E-mail: info@particip.de 
Web: www.particip.de 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evaluation team consisted of Jörn Dosch (Team 
Leader), Landis MacKellar, Jan Douwe 
Meindertsma, Steven Ney (senior evaluation 
experts), Chhaya Jha and Jatswan Singh (senior 
thematic experts).  
The team has been supported by: Georg Ladj (QA 
director), Christopher Dent (expert on Asia political 
economy), Virorth Doung, Natthanan Kunnamas, 
Vu Ngoc Uyen, Win Win Kyi (country specific 
experts), Julia Schwarz and Sarah Seus (project 
manager), Daniel Claus and Meike Pollakowski 
(supporting expert).  

The author accepts sole responsibility for this report, 
drawn up on behalf of the Commission of the 
European Union. The report does not necessarily 
reflect the views of the Commission. 

Cover Picture sources: SWITCH Asia, FLEGT Asia, 
EuropeAid  Multimedia  Library,  Jörn  Dosch  &  Jan 
Douwe Meindertsma 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, as part of the evaluations of the Directorate-General for International 
Partnerships (INTPA). However, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any consequence 
stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 
PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-52900-2 

MN-09-22-205-EN-N 

ISSN 2529-3338 

doi: 10.2841/231660 

Manuscript completed in March 2014 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 

reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a 

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is 

allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the 
respective rightholders. 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) 
Directorate D - Sustainable Development Policy and Coordination 
Unit D.4 - Performance, Results and Evaluation; Internal Communication, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Methods 
Email: INTPA-EVALUATIONS@ec.europa.eu  
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium 

EU International Partnerships: 
https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/our-impact/monitoring-and-evaluation_en 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of the European Union’s regional  
co-operation with Asia 
Final Report 

The report consists of 3 volumes:  
Volume I: Main report  
Volume II: Detailed information matrix 
Volume III: Annexes 

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT 
1. Introduction 
2. Overall methodological approach 
3. Background and context of regional-level EU support to Asia 
4. Answers to the Evaluation Questions 
5. Conclusions 
6. Recommendations 

VOLUME II: DETAILED INFORMATION MATRIX 
1. EQ1 on strengthening inter-regional dialogue & partnership 
2. EQ2 on regional added value to economic integration 
3. EQ3 on added value to regional integration in non-economic fields 
4. EQ4 on environment, energy and climate change 
5. EQ5 on higher education 
6. EQ6 on support to uprooted people 
7. EQ7 on regional strategy 
8. EQ8 on added value of the regional approach 

VOLUME III: ANNEX 1 TO 10 
1. Annex 1: Terms of reference 
2. Annex 2: Methodological approach during desk and field phase 
3. Annex 3: Background and context of the evaluation 
4. Annex 4: Inventory 
5. Annex 5: Intervention logic 
6. Annex 6: CSP analysis 
7. Annex 7: Results of the survey to the EU delegations 
8. Annex 8: List of people interviewed 
9. Annex 9: List of documents and sources of information 
10. Annex 10: Minutes of Dissemination Seminar (20 March 2014) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

i 

4 

3 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 

3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... vii 
Introduction: Objectives, scope and coverage of the evaluation .......................... 1 
1 
Overall methodological approach ............................................................................ 2 
2 
Data collection and analyses .................................................................................................... 3 
Sample of countries and interventions ...................................................................................... 4 
Challenges and limitations ........................................................................................................ 6 
Background and context of regional-level EU support to Asia ............................. 7 
The Asia context ....................................................................................................................... 7 
European development co-operation rationale with Asia .......................................................12 
Inventory of regional-level EU support to Asia ........................................................................14 
Intervention logic of EU co-operation with Asia ......................................................................16 
Answers to the Evaluation Questions ................................................................... 20 
EQ1 on strengthening inter-regional dialogue & partnership ..................................................21 
EQ2 on regional added value to economic integration ...........................................................29 
EQ3 on added value to regional integration in non-economic fields ......................................35 
EQ4 on environment, energy and climate change ..................................................................39 
EQ5 on higher education ........................................................................................................47 
EQ6 on support to uprooted people ........................................................................................56 
EQ7 on regional strategy ........................................................................................................62 
EQ8 on added value of the regional approach .......................................................................69 
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 74 
Relevance, strategic focus and co-ordination .........................................................................74 
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................76 
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 78 
Enhancing the added value of the regional strategy ...............................................................80 
Increasing outcomes of sectoral efforts ..................................................................................82 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 
4.8 

5.1 
5.2 

6.1 
6.2 

5 

6 

List of tables 

Table 1 
Table 2 
Table 3 
Table 4 
Table 5 

Table 6 
Table 7 
Table 8 
Table 9 
Table 10 
Table 11 

Table 12 

Selection of decisions and interventions during the desk phase .................................... 5 
Field study countries ....................................................................................................... 5 
Asia-19, key economic and development data ............................................................... 8 
Top 10 worldwide deadliest disasters: 2002-2011 ......................................................... 9 
Gross  domestic  product  in  constant  USD  prices,  changes  in  per  cent 
1990-2010 .....................................................................................................................10 
The Evaluation Questions .............................................................................................20 
Coverage of the evaluation criteria by the evaluation questions ..................................21 
Efficiency of import-export procedures, detailed indicators ..........................................34 
Overview of applications to the EM Action 1 programmes ...........................................49 
EM Partnerships Featuring Asia HEIs ..........................................................................51 
Development  of  Masters  and  Doctoral  Scholarships  for  Students  from 
Asian Countries .............................................................................................................52 
Double, Joint and Multiple Degrees ..............................................................................53 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
Table 13 

Table 14 

Comparison  between  thematic  priorities  of  EIDHR,  READI  and  ASEM 
Dialogue Facility ............................................................................................................68 
Prioritisation of recommendation ..................................................................................79 

ii 

List of figures 

Figure 1 
Figure 2 
Figure 3 
Figure 4 
Figure 5 
Figure 6 

Figure 7 

Figure 8 

Figure 9 

Figure 10 
Figure 11  
Figure 12 
Figure 13 

Figure 14 

Figure 15 
Figure 16 

Figure 17 

Figure 18 

Figure 19 

Figure 20 

Figure 21 

Figure 22 
Figure 23 

Figure 24 
Figure 25 

Key steps of the evaluation process ............................................................................... 2 
Coverage and application of main tools during the evaluation process ......................... 3 
Data collection process in this evaluation ....................................................................... 4 
EU Trade with Asia, 2002-2011 in million Euro ............................................................10 
EU-27 Direct Investment (FDI) in Asia, 2004-2011, in million Euro .............................11 
EU-supported  regional  and  inter-regional  organisations  and  dialogue 
mechanisms in Asia ......................................................................................................11 
Regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia:  Total  of  allocated,  committed  and 
disbursed amounts 2007-2012 (in million EUR) ...........................................................15 
Regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia:  Committed  and  disbursed  amounts 
per contract year 2007-2012 (in million EUR) ..............................................................15 
Regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia:  Overview  of  sector  breakdown, 
allocated, committed and disbursed amount for geographic budget line (in 
% and in million EUR) ...................................................................................................16 
Global simplified reconstructed intervention logic ........................................................18 
Main Pillars of the EU Asia Dialogue System ...............................................................23 
Intra-ASEAN Trade in % of total ASEAN trade 1998-2011 ..........................................33 
EUD  survey  results:  Contribution  of  regional-level  EU  support  to 
emerging diseases ........................................................................................................38 
Scoring  made  in  ROM  reports  of  28  grant  projects  from  2010-2012  on 
each DAC criteria ..........................................................................................................44 
Prevalence of Obstacles Relating to Joint Degrees .....................................................50 
Percentage of Women among Mobile Students and Scholars and gender 
balance among Action 2 beneficiaries ..........................................................................54 
EUD  survey  results:  AUP  contributed  to  creating  a  foundation  for 
sustainable livelihoods for refugees, IDPs, returnees, and ex-combatants 
in the civil sector in your country ...................................................................................59 
EUD  survey  results:  AUP  contributed  to  improving  access  to  basic 
services for refugees, IDPs, returnees, and ex-combatants ........................................61 
EUD  survey  results:  Dialogue  mechanisms  between  EU  and  the 
government of the EUD country ...................................................................................64 
EUD  survey  results:  Level  of  coherence  between  regional-level  EU 
support in the respective Asian country and other EU policies ....................................66 
EUD  survey  results:  Level  of  coherence  between  the  programmes 
thematic 
implemented  under 
programmes ..................................................................................................................67 
EUD survey results: Added value of regional framework vs. bilateral aid ....................72 
EUD  survey  results:  Exchange  mechanisms  between  EU,  other  donors 
(incl. EU MS) and the government of the EUD country ................................................73 
Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations ....................................78 
Prioritisation of recommendations ................................................................................79 

the  current  RSP  and 

the  different 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
List of boxes 

iii 

Box 1 

Box 2 
Box 3 
Box 4 
Box 5 
Box 6 
Box 7 

Definitions  of  key  terms  related  to  the  overview  of  EU  financial 
information ....................................................................................................................15 
Case Study: Policy Dialogues – the view of senior officials .........................................23 
Policy dialogues on Trade-Related Assistance ............................................................25 
Composition of the Policy Support Component (PSC) .................................................41 
ROM analysis of SWITCH grant projects .....................................................................43 
AUP Programme information ........................................................................................57 
Links between Thematic Programmes and Instruments and the RSP .........................66 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
List of acronyms and abbreviations 

iv 

AADMER 
AATIP 
ACD 
ACDD 
ACDM 
ACTFA 
ACTS 
ACU 
AEC 
AEGDM 
AEMM 
AENEAS 

AFTA 
AHIF 
AHTN 
AIF 
AIMO 
ALA 
AMS 
APRIS  
ARF 
ARISE 
ASB 
ASEAN 
ASEANStats 
ASEC 
ASEF 
ASEM 
ATIGA 
AUP 
AusAID 
AWGIPC 
BM 
BOMNAF 
CEPT 
CLE 
CLMV 
CRED 
CRIS 
CSCP 
CSR 
DAC 
DCI 
DF 
DG DEVCO 
DMC 
DPRK 
EACEA 
EAMPMB 
EAMR 
EASCAB 
EC 
ECAP  

ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Responses 
ASEAN Air Transport Integration Project 
ASEAN Cosmetics Directive 
ASEAN Customs Declaration Document 
ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management 
ASEAN-China Free Trade Area 
ASEAN Customs Transit System 
ASEAN Cyber University 
ASEAN Economic Community 
ASEAN Expert Group on Disaster Management 
ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting 
Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of mi-
gration and asylum 
ASEAN Free Trade Agreement 
Avian and Human Influenza Facility 
ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature 
Asian Investment Facility 
ASEAN Integration Monitoring Office 
Asia-Latin America 
ASEAN Member States 
ASEAN Project for Regional Integration Support 
ASEAN Regional Forum 
ASEAN Regional Integration Support 
Arbeiter - Samariter-Bund (German aid and welfare organisation) 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations 
ASEAN Statistical Unit 
ASEAN Secretariat 
Asia-Europe Foundation 
Asia-Europe Meeting 
ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement 
Aid to Uprooted People 
Australian Agency for International Development 
ASEAN Working Group on Intellectual Property Co-operation 
Border Management 
Border Management for Northern Afghanistan 
Common Effective Preferential Tariff 
Country-Level Evaluation 
Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam 
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 
Common RELEX Information System 
Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production 
Corporate Social Responsibility 
Development Assistance Committee 
Development Co-operation Instrument 
Dialogue Facility 
Directorate General Development and Co-operation 
Disaster Management Centre 
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 
Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency 
EU-ASEAN Migration and Border Management Programme 
External Assistance Management Report 
EU-ASEAN Statistical Capacity-Building Programme 
European Commission 
EU-ASEAN Project on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

ECHO 
ECW 
EEAS 
EEC 
EEE 
EEERR 
EIDHR 
EM 
EMJD 
EMMC 
ENRTP 

ENVforum 
EPU 
EQ 
ESCAP 
ESRT 
EU 
EUD 
EUTR 
FAO 
FDI 
FLEGT 
FSP 
FSTP 
FTA 
GDP 
GHS 

GIZ 

HDI 
HE 
HEI 
HPAI 
HPED 
HQ 
HS 
ICIMOD 
IDP 
IfS 
IL 
ILO 
IMF 
IMTS 
IPR 
ITSY 
JC 
JCC 
LDC 
LLDC 
LPI 
LRRD 
MCH 
MDG 
MIP 

v 

European Community Humanitarian Office 
External Co-operation Window 
European External Action Service 
European Economic Community 
Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
ASEAN Harmonised Electrical and Electronics Equipment Regulatory Regime  
European Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights 
Erasmus Mundus 
Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates 
Erasmus Mundus Masters Course 
EU’s thematic programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural 
Resources including Energy 
Asia-Europe Environment Forum 
Economic Planning Unit  
Evaluation Question 
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 
Environmentally and Socially Responsible Tourism capacity development programme 
European Union 
European Union Delegation 
EU Timber Regulation 
Food and Agriculture Organisation 
Foreign Direct Investment 
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade 
Food Security Programme 
Food Security Thematic Programme 
Free Trade Agreement 
Gross Domestic Product 
ASEAN’s UN Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemi-
cals  
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (the German agency for 
international co-operation) 
Human Development Index 
Higher Education 
Higher Education Institutions 
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
Highly Pathogenic Emerging Disease 
Headquarters 
Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System 
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development 
Internally Displaced People 
Instrument for Stability 
Intervention Logic 
International Labour Organisation 
International Monetary Fund 
International Merchandise Trade Statistics  
Intellectual Property Rights 
International Trade Statistics Yearbook 
Judgement Criteria 
Joint Co-operation Committee 
Least Developed Country 
Landlocked Developing Countries 
Logistics Performance Index 
Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development 
Maternal and Child Health 
Millennium Development Goal 
Multi-annual Indicative Programming 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

MR 
MS 
MTE 
MTR 
MUTRAP 
NF 
NGO 
NIP 
NREN 
NSA 
NSA-LA 
OECD 
OIE 
PDR 
PMC 
PPP 
PSC 
READI 
RG 
RNA 
ROM 
RoO 
RSE 
RSP 
RTD 
SAARC 
SARS 
SCP 
SGBV 
SME 
SPS 
SWITCH-Asia 
TA 
TBT 
TEIN 
TG 
ToR 
TRA 
TREATI 
UK 
UN 
UNDP 
UNEP 
UNHCR 
VET 
VPA 
WHO 
WWF 

vi 

Monitoring Report 
Member State 
Mid-Term Evaluation 
Mid-Term Review 
Multilateral Trade Project 
Network Facility 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
National Indicative Programme 
National Research and Education Network 
Non-State Actors 
Non-State Actors−Latin America 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties) 
People’s Democratic Republic 
Post-Ministerial Conferences 
Purchasing Power Parity 
Policy Support Component 
Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument 
Reference Group 
Ribonucleic Acid 
Results-Oriented monitoring 
Rules of Origin 
Regional Strategy Evaluation 
Regional Strategy Paper 
Research and Technology Development 
South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation 
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 
Sustainable Consumption and Production 
Sexual and Other Forms of Gender-Based Violence 
Small and Medium Entreprise 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards 
EU-funded Asia Programme to promote Sustainable Consumption and Production 
Technical Assistance 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 
Trans-Eurasia Information Network 
Target Group  
Terms of Reference 
Trade-Related Assistance 
Trans-Regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative 
United Kingdom 
United Nations 
United Nations Development Programme 
United Nations Education Programme 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
Vocational and Educational Training 
Voluntary Partnership Agreements 
World Health Organisation 
World Wide Fund for Nature 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
vii 

Executive Summary 

Objectives of the evaluation 

The  “Evaluation  of  the  European  Union's  re-
gional co-operation with Asia − Regional Level 
Evaluation”  was  commissioned  by  the  DG 
DEVCO Evaluation Unit and was implemented 
between  January  2013  and  November  2013. 
Covering  the  period  2007-2012,  the  evalua-
tion’s objectives were: 

  To  provide  the  relevant  external  co-
operation  services  of  the  European 
Union  (EU)  and  the  wider  public  with 
an  overall  independent  assessment  of 
the EU’s past and current co-operation 
relations with Asia;  

  To  identify  key  lessons  and  recom-
mendations  in  order  to  improve  the 
current  and  future  EU  strategies,  pro-
grammes and actions.  

The following points were assessed: 

  The  relevance  and  coherence  of  the 
EU’s  co-operation  strategies  (all  in-
struments 
the  period 
2007-2012; 

included) 

for 

  The  consistency  between  program-
ming and implementation for the same 
period; 

  The  implementation  of  the  EU’s  co-
operation,  focusing  on  impact,  sus-
tainability,  effectiveness  and  efficiency 
for the period under analysis  – and on 
intended  effects  for  the  next  program-
ming cycle, 2014-2020; 

  The value added of the EU’s interven-
tions  (at  both  strategic  and  implemen-
tation level); 

  The  3Cs:  co-ordination  and  comple-
mentarity of the EU’s interventions with 
other  donors’  interventions  (focusing 
on  EU  Member  States);  and  coher-
ence between the EU’s interventions in 
the  field  of  development  co-operation 
and other EU policies that are likely to 
affect the region. 

Context of the evaluation 

Asia is diverse in population, languages, ethnic 
groups,  religions,  traditions  and  cultures.  The 
region  accounts  for  more  than  half  of  the 
world’s  population,  a  quarter  of  the  economic 
wealth created every  year, and is home to the 

second  and  third  largest  economies  in  the 
world  (China  and  Japan),  with  another  econo-
my (India) in the top 10. While Japan and Sin-
gapore are among the 20 richest economies in 
the  world  in  terms  of  nominal  per  capita  in-
come,  countries  such  as  Afghanistan,  Bangla-
desh,  Nepal,  Cambodia  and  North  Korea  re-
main among the poorest, with a GDP per capi-
ta of less than USD 1,000.  

Although Asia as a whole has made some sig-
nificant progress towards meeting the MDGs – 
with six countries among the 20 top performers 
worldwide up to 2011 – poverty is still a major 
problem, as the region is home to two thirds of 
the world’s poor.  

The  RSP  2007-2013  covered  the  three  Asian 
sub-regions  South  Asia,  Southeast  Asia  and 
Northeast  Asia  but  excludes  the  Middle  East 
and  Central  Asia  for  which  different  strategies 
exist. The RSP was mainly directed towards 19 
“eligible  countries”  as  beneficiaries:  Afghani-
stan,  Bangladesh,  Bhutan,  Cambodia,  China, 
India,  Indonesia,  Democratic  People’s  Repub-
lic of Korea (DPRK), Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, 
Mongolia,  Myanmar/Burma,  Nepal,  Pakistan, 
Philippines,  Sri  Lanka,  Thailand  and  Vietnam. 
However,  in  line  with  DCI  rules,  other  Asian 
states, for example Singapore and Japan, also 
participated  in  programmes  implemented  as 
part of the strategy. 

Methodological approach 

The methodology applied for this evaluation is 
based on the methodological guidelines devel-
oped  by  the  DG  DEVCO  Evaluation  Unit.  It 
was  conducted  in  four  main  phases:  incep-
tion, desk, field, and synthesis.  

The  evaluation  used  a  mixed-methods  ap-
proach to data and information collection, con-
sisting  of  document  review,  semi-structured 
interviews and direct observation, as well as a 
web-survey  of  the  EU  Delegations  in  the  19 
“eligible  countries”.  Numerous  documents 
(such  as  EU  policies  and  guiding  documents, 
ROM  reports,  reviews,  evaluations,  project 
documentation)  were  consulted,  and  nearly 
300  interviews  and  group  discussions  were 
conducted.  The  team  conducted  field  visits  to 
nine  countries  that  were  selected  for  in-depth 
research as an illustrative sample for the areas 
of  co-operation  covered  under  the  RSP:  re-
gional 
integration  (in  economic  and  non-
economic  fields)  and  policy  dialogues;  envi-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
viii 

ronment,  energy  and  climate  change;  higher 
education; and aid to uprooted people.  

Conclusions 

Conclusions  are  grouped  into  two  clusters: 
Relevance,  strategic  focus  and  co-ordination; 
and outcomes. The conclusions are as follows: 

Cluster  1:  Relevance,  strategic  focus  and 
co-ordination 

Conclusion  1:  Overall  relevance  of  the  EU-
Asia Strategy 

While  the  vast  majority  of  individual  pro-
grammes and projects under the RSP have 
been  highly  relevant  to  the  needs  of  Asian 
partner  countries,  the  strategy  as  a  whole 
failed  to  develop  a  coherent  regional  ap-
proach.  

There  is  little  doubt  that  regional-level  pro-
grammes  have  completed  and  strengthened 
national  programmes,  and  thereby  increased 
the relevance of the EU-Asia development co-
operation  portfolio  as  a  whole.  This  applies 
across all thematic sectors of the strategy. The 
evaluation looked in detail at hundreds of indi-
vidual  interventions,  and  relevance  emerged 
as  an  issue  for  concern  in  only  a  very  small 
number  of  cases.  However,  it  was  noted  that 
most regional interventions would have had the 
same  degree  of  relevance  without  being  inte-
grated into a regional strategy. There was little 
attempt  to  develop  individual  bilateral  or  sub-
into  Asia-wide  ap-
regional  programmes 
proaches  in  sectors  where  this  could  have 
strengthened the relevance of the strategy as a 
whole.  For  example,  although  the  Association 
of  Southeast  Asian  Nations  (ASEAN)  and  the 
South  Asian  Association  for  Regional  Co-
operation  (SAARC)  were  clustered  together 
under  the  pillar  support  to  regional  economic 
integration,  EU  co-operation  with  the  respec-
tive  organisations  continued  in  a  separated 
and parallel manner. It did not try to link inter-
ventions for the benefit of the partner organisa-
tions,  which  face  similar  challenges.  Likewise, 
the Aid to Uprooted People (AUP) programme 
has  never  emerged  as  a  regionally-based  or 
active  programme,  despite  the  fact  that  many 
of  the  problems  associated  with  uprooting  are 
inherently regional. 

Conclusion 2: Level of ownership 

Most interventions under the RSP are char-
acterised  by  a  high  level  of  national  and 
regional ownership, and this has contribut-
ed  to  the  effectiveness  of  implementation. 
However,  donor  dependence  is  a  matter  of 
concern. 

The degree of ownership in the implementation 
of strategies varies across sectors and individ-
ual programmes. It is strongest in fields where 
Asian  partners  have  developed  a  sense  of  ur-
gency and have also built suitable capacities in 
addressing  existing  challenges. While  the  cor-
relation between the level of ownership and the 
effectiveness of an intervention is unsurprising, 
the more important finding  is that such owner-
ship  deficits  were  not  anticipated  in  the  pro-
cess  of  drafting  the  RSP.  Where  a  good  de-
gree of ownership exists, it is mainly in relation 
to  the  design  and  conceptual  dimension  of  an 
intervention,  but  not  to  its  funding.  The  com-
mitment  of  Asian  partners  to  contribute  finan-
cially  to  the  implementation  of  programmes 
and  projects  under  the  RSP  has  been  low. 
Given  the  growing  number  of  Asian  countries 
graduating  from  DCI  assistance,  the  existing 
donor  dependence  of  bilateral  and  regional 
partners  across  all  sectors  of  the  strategy 
should be a concern. It is to be questioned why 
including 
regional  co-operation  agendas  − 
trade-related  matters,  disaster  management 
and health, which rank high on the list of stra-
tegic  priorities  of  many  increasingly  better-off 
Asian states − should be fully funded by exter-
nal donors. 

Conclusion 3: Stakeholder participation 

The participation of non-government stake-
holders  in  the  design  and  especially  the 
implementation  of  programmes  and  pro-
jects has clearly grown during the duration 
of  the  RSP.  However,  this  does  not  yet  ex-
tend  to  a  systematic  and  institutionalised 
involvement of civil society across all major 
fields of the co-operation programme.  

While  some  consultation  with  state  and  non-
state stakeholder groups took place in the pro-
cess  of  drafting  the  RSP,  Asian  partners  did 
not participate directly in the design of the RSP 
as  such.  However,  programmes  and  projects 
implemented  under  the  strategy  involved  a 
broad  spectrum  of  stakeholders  and,  even 
more  important,  often  brought  different  stake-
holder  groups  together.  For  example,  a  key 
feature  of  SWITCH-Asia,  the  EU-funded  Asia 
Programme to promote Sustainable Consump-
tion and Production, is its focus of working with 
the private sector. The programme has thereby 
opened up a new target group and network for 
EU co-operation. 

Conclusion  4:  Co-ordination,  coherence  & 
complementarity 

is  three-fold.  First,  co-
The  conclusion 
ordination between regional-level and bilat-
eral 
in-
interventions  has  substantially 
creased.  Second,  the  RSP  is  coherent  with 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

ix 

the  EU’s  external  policies,  DCI-thematic 
programmes  and  other  financing  instru-
ments,  but  the  EU  has  failed  to  explicitly 
place  the  strategy  within  the  broader  con-
text  of  these  instruments.  Third,  EU  and 
Member  States  support  is  generally  com-
plementary,  but  possible  synergies  are  un-
derused  as  complementarity  efforts  do  not 
extend  to  joint  design  or  joint  financing  of 
interventions. 

the  early  years  of 

While  co-ordination  –  but  not  complementarity 
− between regional-level and bilateral interven-
tions was a problem and challenge, particularly 
the  RSP,  co-
during 
ordination  markedly  improved  during  the  later 
phase. Furthermore, EU interventions are gen-
erally  complementary  to  the  support  of  Mem-
ber  States.  No  cases  of  conflicting  or  contra-
dictory approaches were found. However, joint 
needs  analyses,  or  even  joint  financing,  are 
still  a  rare  exception.  The  programmes  in  all 
sectors  of  the  strategy  are  generally  coherent 
with  the  EU’s  external  policies  in  the  fields  of 
education,  environment,  health,  trade,  and 
non-traditional  security.  There  are  no  glaring 
mismatches. There are also no inconsistencies 
or  incoherencies  between  the  RSP  and  the 
DCI  thematic  programmes  and  other  instru-
ments.  However,  the  EU  could  have  done 
more to create explicit  links between the strat-
egy  and  the  respective  thematic  programmes 
and instruments.  

Cluster 2: Outcomes 

Conclusion  5:  Alignment  of  development 
co-operation and policy dialogues  

Development 
inter-
co-operation 
regional  policy  dialogues,  as  the  two  main 
strategic  approaches  towards  Asia,  have 
mutually  reinforced  each  other  and  in-
creased the EU’s leverage on key agendas. 

and 

It  is  a  particular  strength  of  the  RSP  that  it  is 
based on development co-operation and policy 
dialogues  as  mutually  reinforcing  pillars.  The 
cross-linkages  between  the  co-operation  pro-
gramme and institutionalised high-level political 
relations  have  increased  the  EU’s  and  Asian 
partners’  ability  to  respond  more  effectively  to 
emerging  challenges  in  political,  economic, 
social  and  environmental  fields.  This  applies 
within the contexts of the Asia-Europe Meeting 
the  EU-
(ASEM) 
ASEAN  dialogue  mechanisms,  but  also  at  the 
bilateral  level  with  individual  Asian  govern-
ments.  However,  the  evaluation  also  noted 
several  instances  of  policy  dialogues  in  which 
high-level  Asian 
representation  was  not 
matched  by  the  same  degree  of  seniority  on 

inter-regional 

forum  and 

the  EU  side.  This  has  had  repercussions  for 
EU-Asia relations 

Conclusion  6:  EU  contribution  to  policies 
and development practises 

Programmes and projects implemented un-
der  the  RSP  have  had  some  success  in 
contributing to new or revised national pol-
icy  frameworks  and  innovative  practises 
among  key  stakeholders  in  core  thematic 
areas.  However,  challenges  remain  to  de-
liver more tangible outcomes. 

Clear  evidence  of  EU  contribution  to  changed 
policy frameworks and practises is available in 
the  fields  of  regional  integration,  environment, 
and education. However, in the case of educa-
tion,  these  effects  have  been  highly  localised. 
There is, then, considerable scope for leverag-
ing  impacts  on  teaching  quality  and  research 
capacity  at  the  national  level.  As  for  AUP, 
cross-border  aspects  of  uprooting  have  been 
dealt with by – in some cases – previously re-
luctant  national  partners.  However,  there  is 
need  for  closer  cross-border  consultation  and 
programme co-ordination. 

Conclusion 7: Effectiveness of regional ap-
proaches  in  addressing  core  development 
needs 

Regional  approaches  have  addressed  core 
development  needs  −  particularly  with  re-
gard  to  socio-economic  agendas  –  to  dif-
ferent  degrees.  This  applies  to  all  areas  of 
intervention.  The  examples  at  the  opposite 
ends of the spectrum are environment (pos-
itive)  and  higher  education  (negative),  with 
health somewhere in between the two. 

All  three  regional  programmes  addressing  the 
environment,  energy  and  climate  change  − 
SWITCH-Asia,  the  Forest  Law  Enforcement, 
Governance  and  Trade  programme  (FLEGT-
Asia)  and  the  Voluntary  Partnership  Agree-
ment  (VPA)  −  have  had  a  specific  focus  on 
some of the most pressing development needs 
related to core socio-economic challenges and 
to  needs  at  national  and  local  levels.  In  con-
trast, regional-level higher education (HE) pro-
grammes  on  their  own  are  poorly  equipped  to 
address,  let  alone  redress,  local  development 
needs and specific patterns of socio-economic 
disadvantage.  In  health,  regional  co-operation 
has  helped  to  strengthen  networks  and  has 
contributed to capacity building, but the level of 
cross-border co-operation between human and 
animal  health  experts  needs  to  be  strength-
ened further. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations, which emerge 
from  the  conclusions,  are  presented  in  two 
clusters (enhancing the value added of the  re-
gional  strategy,  and  increasing  outcomes  of 
sectoral efforts) and are in order of their priori-
ty.  

Cluster 1: Enhancing the added value of the 
regional strategy  

Recommendation  1:  Strengthening  region-
wide approaches  

Strengthen  the  integration  of  all  interven-
tions  −  either  exclusively  directed  towards 
Asia  or  which  have  an  Asia  component  − 
into  the  regional  strategy.  In  this  process, 
more  thought  should  be  given  to  the  value 
added of the regional approach. 

It  is  not  always  possible  to  compartmentalise 
regional problems into neat boxes correspond-
ing  to  ASEAN  and  SAARC.  Therefore,  three-
way  communication  among  the  EU,  ASEAN 
and  SAARC  should  be  encouraged  for  issues 
of  common  concern  that  call  for  approaches 
covering  more  than  just  one  sub-region.  The 
Rohingya  humanitarian  crisis  affecting 
the 
Muslim  minority  community  in  Myanmar  and 
the control of infectious disease are two exam-
ples,  as  are  matters  of  regional  integration  in 
economic  and  non-economic fields  in  general. 
In  addition  to  which,  they  involve  both  South-
east Asian and South Asian countries. The EU 
should  consider  building  a  working  group, 
comprising  EU,  ASEAN  and  SAARC  repre-
sentatives, to discuss options for triangular co-
operation.  Such  approaches  already  exist  in 
other regional contexts − for example, with re-
gard to EU-Africa relations where co-operation 
in selected thematic areas includes more  than 
one regional organisation. 

Recommendation 2: Increasing ownership 

Consider expanding the direct participation 
of  regional  stakeholders  in  the  design  of 
the  strategy  and  programmes  under  the 
RSP. 

During the period evaluated, there was  no for-
mal mechanism in place for consultations with 
Asian  partners  on  the  design  of  the  RSP. 
There  are  at  least  two  feasible  approaches  to 
the  strengthening  of  participatory  elements  in 
the  design  of  future  strategies.  First,  Delega-
tions could be asked to organise country semi-
nars,  comprising  key  state  and  civil  society 
partners. Results from these meetings and dis-
cussions  would  then  be  synthesised  in  Brus-
sels  and  fed  into  the  process  of  drafting  the 

x 

strategy.  Second,  and  alternatively,  the  Euro-
pean  Commission  could  use  its  recent  ap-
proach  to  EU-Africa  relations  as  a model,  and 
organise  a  series  of  seminars  on  the  future 
relationship between the EU and Asia. The first 
of  the  EU-Africa  seminars  took  place  in  De-
cember  2013  and  was  attended  by  50  repre-
sentatives from 50 states. 

The  strengthening  of  participatory  elements  in 
the conception of thematic programmes should 
also  be  considered.  FLEGT-Asia  would  be  a 
suitable programme to pilot this approach. 

Recommendation  3:  Encouraging  burden-
sharing 

to  accept 

Asian  partners,  particularly  the  govern-
ments  of  non-DCI  countries,  should  be  en-
financial  burden-
couraged 
sharing for regional-level interventions that 
are  in  their  own  strategic  or  economic  in-
terest.  There  is  a  clear  necessity  to  reduce 
donor dependence in this field. 

The most striking example is ASEAN. There is 
no  aspect  of  the  proposed  ASEAN  Economic 
Community  2015  that  is  not  supported  by 
donor-funding.  The  same  applies  to  other 
initiatives  with a regional dimension  − such as 
border  management,  control  of  Highly  Patho-
genic  Emerging  Diseases  (HPEDs),  refugees 
and  migration,  disaster  management  and 
that  represent 
environmental  challenges  − 
policy  priorities  for  practially  all  middle  income 
and  high  income  countries  in  Asia.  The  EU 
should  consider  taking  the  lead  in  creating  a 
working  group  −  comprising  key  ASEAN 
stakeholders, relevant EU  Member States and 
other  donors  −  to  address  the  commitment  of 
ASEAN  member  states  to  fund  the  regional 
integration  process.  The  approach  to  ASEAN 
could serve as the test case and a model for a 
reduction  of  donor  dependence  in  other  areas 
of  the  RSP.  The  EU  should  therefore  initiate 
such  talks,  which  should  in  the  first  instance 
involve  the  European  Union  Delegation  (EUD) 
in Jakarta and the ASEAN Secretariat. 

Recommendation 4: Creating synergies 

Consider  the  strengthening  of  synergies 
between  the  regional  strategy  on  the  one 
hand  and  thematic  programmes  under  DCI 
and  other  financing  instruments  on  the 
other. 

To  strengthen  the  relevance  of  the  regional 
strategy and to highlight its specific added val-
ue  to  the  EU’s  development  co-operation  pro-
gramme, and to external relations in general, it 
needs  to  be  more  explicitly  and  firmly  embed-
ded  within  the  overall  framework  of  thematic 
programmes  and  financing  instruments.  It  is 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

also necessary that thematic programmes and 
financing  instruments  other  than  DCI  demon-
strate  more  clearly  how  and  where  they  inter-
act  with  the  regional  strategy.  Better  co-
ordination between the EU and member states 
to  increase  European  visibility  −  and  thereby 
leverage  −  in  Asia  is  an  additional  important 
aspect related to synergies. The European Ex-
ternal  Action  Service  (EEAS)  and  member 
states should put more effort into co-ordinating 
the  European  representation  in  policy  dia-
logues, with the objective of avoiding diplomat-
ic  set-backs  in  the  future  and  ensuring  that 
seniority  of  Asian  participants  is  matched  by 
the European counterparts.  

Cluster  2:  Increasing  outcomes  of  sectoral 
efforts 

Recommendation 5: Regional integration 

Objectives  for  the  support  of  regional  inte-
gration  –  in  economic  and  non-economic 
areas  –  should  be  based  on  realistic  as-
sessments of the partners’ needs, interests 
and 
approaches 
should  not  be  followed  as  a  matter  of 
course  where  bilateral  strategies  offer  the 
potential for success. 

capacities.  Regional 

The  EU’s  approach  to  SAARC  is  in  need  of  a 
comprehensive  and  critical  reflection.  There 
are  four  options  that  could  be  followed,  as  al-
ternatives or in parallel.  

First,  if  EU  co-operation  with  SAARC  as  an 
organisation  is  the  preferred  option,  support 
will  have  to  focus  on  thematic  areas  that  are 
not  seen  as  sensitive  or  highly  political  by  the 
SAARC member states, and consequently are 
of  interest  to  the  entire  group.  Consideration 
should also be given to putting the EU Delega-
tion  in  Kathmandu  in  charge  of  managing  the 
co-operation, given that the SAARC Secretari-
at is also located in Kathmandu.  

Second, an alternative regional-level approach 
could  involve  other  regional  organisations  in 
South  Asia  −  for  example,  the  International 
Centre  for  Integrated  Mountain  Development 
(ICIMOD)  −  being  the  EU’s  main  partner,  in-
stead of SAARC.  

Third,  following  on  from  findings  of  the  2010 
Mid-Term  Review  (MTR),  EU-SAARC  co-
operation could be re-designed as a network of 
bilateral interventions − that is, similar projects 
in  support  of  national  capacities  and  commit-
ments  in  the  process  of  regional  integration  in 
all or selected member states. 

Fourth, the current approach of subsuming co-
operation with SAARC under the pillar of “sup-
port  to  regional  integration”  could  be  aban-
doned altogether to allow for more flexibility in 

xi 

selecting 
operation.  

the  most  suitable  areas  of  co-

Selecting and pursuing the most promising and 
feasible  option  first  require  a  detailed  EU-
commissioned  assessment  of  the  relative  po-
tential  of  the  alternative  SAARC-strategies.  It 
then  requires  a  working  group,  comprising  EU 
and  SAARC  representatives,  to  discuss  and 
agree on the future co-operation agenda.  

Recommendation  6:  Environment,  energy 
and climate change 

Restructure  the  SWITCH-Asia  programme 
by  refocusing  its  various  components  and 
by  concentrating  on  fewer  sectors  to  gen-
erate more synergy and impact. 

There  is  a  need  for  more  integration  of  the 
three  main  components  −  the  grant  projects, 
the  Policy  Support  programmes,  and  the  Net-
working Facility.  

With regard to grant projects, they should con-
centrate  on  one  or  only  a  few  national  or  re-
gional  priority  sectors  and/or  specific  SCP 
themes.  Moreover,  it  is  recommended  that 
grant  projects  conduct  a  baseline  study  at  the 
start, and develop and run a monitoring system 
that  measures  not  only  outputs,  but  also  re-
sults.  

The regional Policy Support Component (PSC) 
should  establish  links  with  grant  projects,  and 
in general with the private sector. In addition, it 
is  recommended  that  the  national  PSC  pro-
grammes are redesigned to avoid dispersion of 
activities  and  to  generate  more  impact.  In  this 
context,  one  option  is  that  the  PSC  should  fo-
cus  on  furthering  sustainable  consumption, 
rather  than  sustainable  production.  This  is  be-
cause  the  PSC  is  in  a  much  better  position 
than  grant  projects  to  ensure  political  support 
and  to  mobilise  the  high  levels  of  government 
funding  required  to  roll  out  sustainable  con-
sumption  strategies  and  awareness  cam-
paigns.  

Recommendation 7: Higher education 

Keep  gateways  to  European  HE  systems 
open  for  Asian  higher  education  institu-
tions (HEIs) and explore ways of improving 
the  impacts  on  teaching  and  research  in 
Asian  HEIs  and  of  providing  HE  for  disad-
vantaged groups in Asia. 

In future, EU  interventions  could  explore three 
distinct  avenues  of  translating  the  unused  po-
tential  of  the  regional-level  HE  interventions 
into  real  impacts  on  teaching  and  research 
quality and capacity.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

xii 

bilateral  programmes  continue  to  strengthen 
health  systems  across  the  board  −  from  inter-
ventions  to  improve  access  for  the  poor  to 
health  care  finance  reform  −  country-level 
strengthening is increasingly seen as a neces-
sary  step  not  only  to  reduce  poverty  within 
borders,  but  also  to  address  global  health  se-
curity.  Due  to  Asia’s  key  role  in  the  dynamics 
of global infectious diseases, this presents op-
portunities  for  the  regional-level  co-operation 
programme.  These  should  be  understood  to 
include  not  only  the  dramatic  emergence  of 
novel  viruses,  but  also  the  creeping  problems 
of drug resistance. 

Both  ASEAN  and  SAARC  require 
further 
strengthening  to  address  these  issues.  Fur-
thermore,  better  co-ordination  is  needed  be-
tween  regional  initiatives  to  support  network-
ing,  national  programmes  of  health  systems 
strengthening, and sector reform. In particular, 
the  new  Global  Health  thematic  budget  line, 
Epidemiology,  needs  to  be  strengthened.  This 
task  can  be  co-ordinated  with  support  in  the 
field  of  higher  education  and  research,  where 
national and international training programmes 
can be financed and national research labora-
tories  −  the  first  line  of  defence  against  emer-
gent  diseases  -  can  be  financed.  Links  be-
tween  the  countries  of  Southeast  Asia,  South 
Asia  and  China  need  to  be  addressed  in  the 
context of an Asia-wide approach to infectious 
disease  surveillance  and  control.  A  first  step 
towards this could be the convening of an EU-
sponsored  pan-Asian  conference  to  bring  to-
gether  human  and  animal  health  experts  from 
Southeast Asia, China and South Asia. 

First, regional support should find ways to lev-
erage  the  potential  of  teaching  capacity  and 
research networks of EM graduates. 

Second,  EU  efforts  could  extend  the  reach  of 
existing gateways to European HE and gener-
ate  new  gateways  by  exploring  remote  and 
online forms of teaching and research collabo-
ration. 

Third,  extending  HE  to  members  of  disadvan-
taged  groups  would 
require  additional 
measures  aimed  at  raising  individual  capabili-
ties  to  meet  the  minimum  standards  for  HE 
participation in general and EM participation in 
particular.  

A possible option here might comprise the pro-
vision of foundation courses to raise individual 
academic  capabilities.  The  EU  could  consider 
from 
addressing  equity 
providing  access  to  (academically  excellent) 
European  HEIs.  EUDs  are  best  placed  to  de-
velop  foundation  courses  or  tailored  offerings 
for disadvantaged groups.  

issues  separately 

Recommendation 8: Aid to uprooted people 

Raise  issues  of  population  uprooting  and 
migration to the regional level, where solu-
tions need to be devised. 

The  EU,  in  its  regional  political  dialogue, 
should attempt to raise the profile of uprooting. 
This  will  be  especially  challenging  because 
ASEAN and SAARC countries are involved. At 
the  same  time  (and  related  to  Recommenda-
tion 5), the EU should build on its experience in 
dealing  with  labour  migration  and  immigration 
issues to raise the  profile  of this problem area 
at  the  regional  level.  In  many  cases,  technical 
assistance  on  international  good  practice  will 
need  to  be  provided.  This  is  an  area  in  which 
the European “brand” and the long and diverse 
experience among the Member States, both as 
importers  and  exporters  of  labour,  can  be 
brought to bear. The EU can certainly raise the 
profile  of  regional  labour  migration  to  a  higher 
level  in  its  bilateral  political  dialogue  in  many 
countries.  This  should  be  co-ordinated  wher-
ever  possible  with  relevant  International  La-
bour Organisation (ILO) offices. 

Recommendation 9: Regional health 

Improve  co-ordination  between  regional 
health  support,  bilateral  health  systems 
strengthening,  and  the  new  Global  Health 
budget line. 

As highlighted by the new emphasis on “global 
public  good”  in  the  Global  Health  budget  line, 
cross-border aspects of health and the need to 
address  free-riding  and  other  market  failures 
have  moved  to  the  centre  of  the  EU’s  devel-
opment  co-operation  agenda  in  health.  While 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

1 

Introduction: Objectives, scope and coverage of the evaluation 
1 
This  Final  Report  presents  the  outcome  of  the  “Evaluation  of  the  European  Union's  regional  co-
operation  with  Asia  −  Regional  Level  Evaluation”.  The  evaluation  was  commissioned  by  the  DG 
DEVCO Evaluation Unit1 and was implemented between January 2013 and November 2013. 

The Terms of Reference (ToR) point out the main objectives of this evaluation: 

  To provide the relevant external co-operation services of the EU and the wider public with an 
overall independent assessment of the EU’s past and current co-operation relations with Asia. 

  To identify key lessons and recommendations in order to improve current and future EU strat-

egies, programmes and actions.  

In terms of temporal scope, the evaluation addresses the EU’s regional co-operation with Asia during 
the  period  2007-2012.  The  evaluation  team  emphasises  that  it  is  fully  aware  that  the  complete  co-
operation framework should be taken into consideration, encompassing the agreements and other of-
ficial  commitments  between  the  EU  and  Asia.  The  ToR  also  indicate  that  changes  in  the  EU  institu-
tional set-up, with the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), should be taken into 
account. It is apparent that this reorganisation will have affected the way in which aid is planned and 
delivered. 

Based on the ToR, the following points have been assessed: 

  The relevance and coherence of the EU’s co-operation strategies (all instruments included) for 

the period 2007-2012; 

  The consistency between programming and implementation for the same period; 

  The implementation of the EU’s co-operation, focusing on impact, sustainability, effectiveness 
and  efficiency  for  the  period  under  analysis  –  and  on  intended  effects for  the  next  program-
ming cycle, 2014-2020. 

  The value-added of the EU’s interventions (at both strategic and implementation levels). 

The  3Cs  (co-ordination,  complementarity  and  coherence):  co-ordination  and  complementarity  of  the 
EU’s  interventions  with  other  donors’  interventions  (focusing  on  EU  Member  States);  and  coherence 
between the EU’s interventions in the field of development co-operation and other EU policies that are 
likely to affect the region. 

This report represents the main volume of the final evaluation report, and consists of the following el-
ements:  

1.  Section 1 – Introduction: gives an overall introduction to this report. 
2.  Section 2 - Key methodological elements: details the methodological approach, the tools and 

the sources of information used during the evaluation. 

3.  Section  3  –  Context:  provides  information  on  the  context  of  the  regional-level  EU  support  to 

Asia. 

4.  Section 4 - Answers to the Evaluation Questions (EQs): for each of the eight EQs, the detailed 

answer is provided, as well as a summary box. 

5.  Section 5 - Conclusions, clustered in groups. 
6.  Section 6 – Recommendations, clustered in groups and prioritised. 

1The Former Joint Evaluation Unit common to Directorate Generals of External Relations (RELEX), of Develop-
ment (DEV) and the EuropeAid Co-operation Office. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
                                                      
2 

2  Overall methodological approach 
The methodology  applied for this  evaluation is based on the  methodological guidelines developed 
by the DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit.  

The evaluation  was conducted in four main phases, as summarised in the figure below. It was man-
aged and supervised by the DEVCO  Evaluation Unit. Evaluation  progress  was  closely followed  by a 
Reference Group (RG), chaired by the Evaluation Unit and consisting of members of various EU insti-
tutions. The figure also lists the main tasks in each phase, RG meetings held, and the deliverables for 
each  phase.  In  line  with  the  ToR,  each  phase  was  started  after  formal  approval,  by  the  Evaluation 
Unit, of the deliverables of the previous phase. 

Figure 1 

Key steps of the evaluation process 

The evaluation process adopted a systematic approach that used a variety of building blocks to grad-
ually construct an answer to the EQs and to formulate conclusions and recommendations. The various 
phases  and  subsequent  “stages”  coincided  with  the  various  methodological  steps  undertaken  within 
the framework of the evaluation: 

  First, it was essential to form a clear understanding and overview of the objective of the evalu-
ation, by producing an inventory and intervention logic of regional-level EU support to Asia fall-
ing within the scope of the evaluation (for more details on the inventory, see Annex 4). Once 
this was available, the team built the methodological framework for the entire exercise during 
the inception stage. 

  On the basis of the established methodological framework, data collection could take place in 

two steps: 

  From the desk, during the desk study; 

  Through country visits in the field phase. 

  The synthesis phase was then devoted to constructing answers to the EQs, and to formulat-
ing conclusions and recommendations on the basis of the data collected throughout the pro-
cess. 

  A final step is a dissemination seminar. 

The  evaluation  used  a  mixed-methods  approach  to  data  and  information  collection.  Sources  of  in-
formation  were  documentary,  verbal  and  direct  observation.  Data  collection  methods  were  chosen 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Inception stageDesk stageField phaseSynthesis phaseDeliverablesMeetingsMain TasksOverview of cooperation context between the EC and AsiaIntervention logicsDetermination of EQs & JCsDetailing of the methodologyInterviews at HQDocument review & ROM analysisAnalysis of policy and strategic documentsList of all the activitiesRefinement of the methodologyDrafting of preliminary answers to the EQsField visits (observations, Interviews, group discussions)Debriefing with the Delegations in the field visit countriesDrafting  complete answers to the evaluation questionsDrafting conclusions & recommendationsDrafting final reportSeminar in Brussels to present results, conclusions and preliminary recommendations of the evaluationSlide PresentationInception ReportDesk ReportField reporting (presentations to the Delegation and to the RG)(Draft) Final reportDissemination presentationMinutes of the seminarRGRGRGRGDSRG: Reference Group meeting; DS: Dissemination SeminarRGDesk phase01/2013 –06/201306/2013 –09/2013 
3 

according to sources and used to gather sufficient and appropriate evidence − that is, findings of fact, 
to allow for analysis and evaluation, lessons learned and conclusions, as well as meaningful contextu-
al  knowledge  to  support  useful  recommendations  to  the  EU.  Data  collection  methods  consisted  of 
document review, semi-structured interviews, and direct observation.  
Construct validity2 was checked through in-team expert review, external expert review, and the refer-
ence  group.  Internal  validity  was  checked  through  logic  modelling,  explanation  building,  and  pattern 
matching3.  External  validity4  was  checked  through  replication  logic.  Reliability  of  information  was 
checked through triangulation. 

Each  evaluation  question  was  ‘unpacked’  consistent  with  the  methodological  guidelines  of  the 
DEVCO  Evaluation  Unit,  to  allow  for  the  gathering  of  information  that  can  be  reliably,  validly  and 
meaningfully analysed, compared and assessed.  

2.1  Data collection and analyses  

Numerous  documents  (such  as  EU  policies  and  guiding  documents,  ROM  reports,  reviews,  evalua-
tions, and project documentation) were consulted, and nearly 300 interviews were conducted. The fig-
ure below illustrates the coverage of funding and application of main tools during the evaluation pro-
cess. 

Figure 2 

Coverage and application of main tools during the evaluation process 

The main activities carried out during the desk phase are outlined in the list below:  

  Desk activities (such as general literature review, analysis of EU policies and guiding docu-
ments,  interviews  at  HQ  of  DG  DEVCO)  that  were  carried  out  at  the  overall  level  (covering 
the whole regional-level EU support to Asia).  

  Systematic  analyses  of  information  for  all  19  countries  covered  by  this  evaluation.  These 

systematic analyses were mainly related to: 
  A web-survey sent to EUDs5. 
  A systematic analysis of the CSPs and MIPs. 

  A  systematic  review  of  reports  −  such  as  External  Assistance  Management  Report 

(EAMR) − related to the EU co-operation strategy. 

  A systematic review of Country Level Evaluations (where available). 

2 Construct validity refers to the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the findings in the case 
studies to the theoretical constructs on which those results and analyses were based. 
3 Internal Validity is the approximate truth about inferences with regard to cause-effect or causal relationships. 
4 Like construct validity, external validity is related to generalising. But, whereas external validity involves general-
ising from the case study context to other interventions or context, construct validity involves generalising from the 
interventions to the overall concept or logic behind these interventions.  
5 The web-survey sent to EUDs was carried out for 15 Delegations, as some Delegations cover more than one 
country (e.g. EUD to Sri Lanka and the Maldives).  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Systematic analysis at overall levelGeneral literature review, analysis of EU policies and guiding documents, interviews at HQSystematic analysis for all 19 countries covered by the RSPSurvey to EUDs, review of CSPs, MIPs, EAMRs, CLEs, statisticsSelection of interventions, covering ~ 80% of the EU portfolioReview of project documentation, ROM reports, thematic evaluationsField visits to a selection of nine countries(Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Nepal, India and Singapore)Interviews, direct observation, focus group discussions, review of additional documents.Regional Strategy Paper for Asia 2007-2013(19 eligible countries) 
                                                      
4 

  Statistics on the national context (by the World Bank Group, or by other international 

institutions).  

  Systematic analyses for a selection of interventions  

  Project documentation (e.g. project evaluations, mid-term reviews). 

  Results-oriented monitoring (ROM) reports. 

  Analysis of thematic evaluations. 
 Field visits to a selection of nine countries. 

 

During the whole evaluation, the evaluation team followed a structured data collection process, as out-
lined in the figure below. 

Figure 3 

Data collection process in this evaluation 

2.2  Sample of countries and interventions 
In the desk phase, interventions6 were selected for systematic analyses on the basis of the following 
general relevance criteria: 

1.  Geographical coverage: the sample is illustrative for general tendencies in the Asian region 
and  covers  examples  from  all  three  sub-regions  (South  Asia,  Southeast  Asia  and  Northeast 
Asia). 

2.  Volume of funding: in most cases,  only the largest  interventions  have been selected under 

each thematic area. 

3.  Timeframe:  the  sample  is  representative  of  the  entire  period  evaluated  and  covers  already 
completed interventions, as well as ongoing and recently-started programmes and projects. 
4.  Availability of information: applying this criterion ensured that enough information (e.g. mon-

itoring reports, evaluations, final reports) was available to carry out the analyses.  

In addition to these general selection criteria, specific criteria were applied to the respective thematic 
sectors (e.g. for environment) to take into account differences in the approach and nature of interven-
tions in these fields.  

6 A complete list of interventions funded by the RSP can be found in Volume 2b. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Statistics Financial data Intervention-specific informationGeneral informationData is to be collectedData is to be cross-checked and/or complemented Data collected in a comprehensive mannerInformation gapHypothesesPreliminary findingsTo be collected & tested during further phasesTo be tested during subsequent phasesTo be confirmed during subsequent phasesIdentifying and gathering information in the data collection grid Feeds the level of the indicators in the data collection gridAssembling the information collected for each indicator at the level of the judgementcriteria   
                                                      
5 

Table 1 

Selection of decisions and interventions during the desk phase 

Sector 

Regional  
Integration 

Animal and  
Human Health 

Environment 

Higher  
Education 

Aid to uproot-
ed people 

Coverage during desk study 

The desk study looked across most decisions to gain a holistic view of the 
EU’s support – because none of the three supported organisations and 
dialogue mechanisms (ASEAN, SAARC and ASEM) is representative of 
the EU’s support to regional integration in Asia in general. 
Main funding in this sector was provided in support of “Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza (HPAI) and Emerging Diseases Preparedness and Control 
in Asia”, which has been implemented mainly in Southeast Asia, and inter-
ventions to combat Highly Pathogenic and Emerging Diseases (HPEDs). 
The desk phase looked at the largest individual interventions in at least 
three countries and at the regional level. A big decision that came into ef-
fect in 2012 was considered, to the extent that documentation already 
available allows for an assessment of the implementation process. 
For SWITCH-Asia, the desk phase was based on a selection of the funded 
grant projects of SWITCH-Asia − in particular, 28 grant projects that were 
subject to the ROM exercise, the National Policy Support Programmes and 
the Regional Programme, and the Network Facility. SWITCH-Asia is im-
plemented in 16 Asian countries. 
For FLEGT, the focus was on countries that received most support from the 
facility. For the Asian Investment Facility (AIF), the analysis focused on the 
current portfolio and planning (funded interventions are now due to be 
started). 
The desk phase focused on a sample of the largest interventions in South 
Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. 

The programme has been bilaterally implemented in Myanmar, Thailand, 
Indonesia, Afghanistan and Nepal, the Philippines, as well as in Bangla-
desh The desk phase focused on the largest bilateral programmes in this 
sector: Afghanistan, Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Moreover, AUP pro-
grammes for Indonesia and the Philippines were included in the Desk 
Phase review. 

EU portfolio7 
and % covered 
EUR 64 m  
(93%) 

EUR 43 m  
(98 %) 

EUR 90 m 
(61 %) 

EUR 76 m 
(74 %) 
EUR 169 m 
(90 %) 

The same criteria for selection of cases were applied during the field study analysis. Moreover, these 
criteria were complemented by the following considerations: 

  The field studies help to complement the information gaps identified in the desk phase. 

  The field studies are diverse enough to validate the  hypotheses that emerged from the desk 

phase. 

  The field studies will help in highlighting potentially interesting lessons learned. 

The  table  below  presents  the  final  selection  of  field  study  countries  agreed  upon  with  the  RG,  each 
benefiting from focused research of between two-five days on specific issues. 

Table 2 

Field study countries 

Southeast Asia 

South Asia 

Nepal 

India 

Indonesia 

Malaysia 

Vietnam 

Cambodia 

Thailand 

Myanmar 

Singapore 

7 Committed amounts. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
6 

During the field mission, the evaluation team  implemented several clusters, which concerned the fol-
lowing topics: 

  Cluster 1: Regional integration (in economic and non-economic fields) and policy dialogue. 

  Cluster 2: Environment, energy and climate change.  

  Cluster 3: Higher education.  

  Cluster 4: Aid to uprooted people. 

These clusters were aligned according to the sectors8 and the EQs, and covered a selection of inter-
ventions  to  analyse.  Each  member  of  the  evaluation  team  also  collected  information  on  the  regional 
strategy and regional added value (i.e. EQ7 and EQ8). 

For each cluster, at least three short and focused in-country missions were made. As presented in the 
table below, some countries were covered by several clusters due to their importance, based on the 
selection criteria described above. 

2.3  Challenges and limitations 

During the desk and field phases, the evaluation faced a number of challenges: 

 

Information available on EU databases and from other DGs was not always easily retrievable. 
This  made  the  inventory  exercises  and  other  analyses  relatively  time-consuming.  Further-
more,  the  level  of  availability  of  documents  on  relevant  interventions  in  individual  countries 
varied  considerably.  For  some  countries  and  interventions,  CRIS  information  was  sketchy, 
while others were well documented. 

  Limited information was available on interventions that had only recently started (i.e. in 2012). 
Evidence  was  thin  in  these  cases.  While  additional  evidence  was  gathered  during  the  field 
phase, the overall picture did not change substantially. 

  The EUD Survey provided useful insights into many aspects of the EU-Asia strategy, but the 
response  rate  to  individual  questions  varied  markedly.  This  limited  the  use  of  the  survey  re-
sults. 

  While careful consideration was given to the selection of the countries visited  during the field 
phase, compromises were unavoidable. Therefore, the field phase could not cover all thematic 
areas of EU-Asia co-operation to the same breadth and depth.  

8 It is noteworthy that, due to the overlaps between regional integration and policy dialogue, the interventions to 
analyse in cluster 1 are presented together. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
                                                      
7 

3  Background and context of regional-level EU support to Asia 

3.1  The Asia context 

Asia  is diverse  in  population, languages, ethnic groups, religions, traditions and  cultures. The region 
accounts for more than half of the world’s population, a quarter of the economic wealth created every 
year, and is home to the second and third largest economies in the world (China and Japan), with an-
other economy (India) in the top ten. While Japan and Singapore are among the 20 richest economies 
in the world in terms of nominal per capita income, countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, 
Cambodia and North Korea remain among the poorest, with a GDP per capita of less than USD 1,000 
in 2011. 

The RSP 2007-2013 applies the common political definition  of Asia,  which comprises the three sub-
regions − South Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia (often also referred to as East Asia)  − but 
excludes  the  Middle  East  and  Central  Asia.  However,  the  coverage  of  the  RSP  is  ambivalently  de-
fined. On the one hand, 19 countries are identified as “eligible countries in Asia” under the Strategy (p. 
1): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Democratic People’s 
Republic  of  Korea  (DPRK),  Laos,  Malaysia,  Maldives,  Mongolia,  Myanmar/Burma,  Nepal,  Paki-
stan,  Philippines,  Sri  Lanka,  Thailand,  and  Vietnam.  There  was  no  official  development  co-
operation with the DPRK during the duration of the RSP. On the other hand, one of the RSP’s priority 
areas, “Support to Regional Integration”, focuses on the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Association of 
South-East  Asia  Nations  (ASEAN),  ASEAN  Regional  Forum  (ARF)  and  South  Asian  Association  for 
Regional Co-operation (SAARC) as “key dialogue partners” for the EU (p. 3). However, these organi-
sations  and  forums  also  comprise  members  that  are  not  among  the  19  “eligible  countries”,  such  as 
Brunei, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and several others. In fact, the Singapore-based Asia Europe 
Foundation (ASEF), the non-governmental arm of ASEM, has been one of the largest beneficiaries of 
EU-funding under the RSP. Furthermore, several activities and projects were funded in countries other 
than the 19 selected.  

This practice is in line with the provisions of DCI. Among the partners included for development assis-
tance  under  Article  1  of  the  Regulation  are  all  Asian  countries  and  territories,  with  the  exception  of 
Brunei, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Hong Kong, Japan, Macao, South Korea, and Singapore. However, 
according  to  Article  19,  Paragraph  7,  in  order  to  foster  regional  co-operation,  the  EU  may  decide, 
when  adopting  certain  annual  action  programmes,  multiannual  indicative  programmes  and  strategy 
papers  or  special  measures  for  co-operation,  that  projects  or  programmes  of  a  regional  or  cross-
border  nature  carried  out  with  non-developing  countries  are  eligible.  Annex  V  of  the  Regulation  in-
cludes  these  non-developing  countries  and  territories  as  identified  above.  Hence,  although  the  DCI 
clearly delineates the geographic scope of development co-operation, it does make exceptions. In this 
case, the exception allows the inclusion of all the countries of Asia as potential beneficiaries of devel-
opment assistance, in the context of regional co-operation activities.9 
In various sections, the RSP elaborates on relations between the EU and Asia in general, and outlines 
the context for the entire Asian continent, rather than just the 19 “eligible countries”. Consequently, the 
following context analysis adopts the same approach, but gives special emphasis to the 19 countries 
that form the core of the RSP. 

9 REGULATION (EC) No 1905/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
of  18  December  2006,  establishing  a 
financing 
lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:378:0041:0071:EN:PDF 

instrument 

for  development  co-operation,  http://eur-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
Table 3 

Asia-19, key economic and development data10 

Country 

Population 
(thousands)* 
2011 

GDP per cap-
ita in US$* 
2011 

Afghanistan 

Bangladesh 

Bhutan 

Cambodia 

China 

India 

Indonesia 

Korea DPR 

Lao PDR 

Malaysia 

Maldives 

Mongolia 

Myanmar 

Nepal 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

Sri Lanka 

Thailand 

Vietnam 

32,358 

150,494 

738 

14,305 

1,347,565 

1,241,492 

242,326 

24,451 

6,288 

28,859 

320 

2,800 

48,337 

30,486 

176,745 

94,852 

21,045 

69,519 

88,792 

586 

706 

2,336 

897 

5,439 

1,528 

3,495 

506 

1,303 

9,977 

6,405 

3,060 

1,144 

607 

1,182 

2,370 

2,812 

5,318 

1,392 

Human De-
velopment 
Index  
(HDI value)** 
2013 
0.374 

0.515 

0.538 

0.543 

0.699 

0.554 

0.629 

n/a 

0.543 

0.769 

0.688 

0.675 

0.498 

0.463 

0.515 

0.654 

0.715 

0.690 

0.617 

8 

HDI 
Rank** 
(2013) 

% of Population 
living below $1.25 
PPP per day ** (c) 
2013 

175 

146 

140 

138 

101 

136 

121 

n/a 

138 

64 

104 

108 

149 

157 

146 

114 

92 

103 

127 

n/a 

43.3 

10.2 

22.8 

13.1 

32.7 

18.1 

n/a 

33.9 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

24.8 

21 

18.4 

7 

0.4 

40.1 

Source: * UN Data, http://data.un.org;  ** UNDP, Human Development Report 2013 

Mean years 
of schooling 
(of adults; 
years)** 
2013 
3.1 

4.8 

2.3 

5.8 

7.5 

4.4 

5.8 

n/a 

4.6 

9.5 

5.8 

8.3 

3.9 

3.2 

4.9 

8.9 

9.3 

6.6 

5.5 

Life expec-
tancy at birth 
(years; F/M)* 
2010-2015 

Education 
Index* (a) 

Health Index* 
(a) 

49.5/49.2 

70.2/68.5 

69.8/65.9  

65.1/62.2 

75.6/72.1 

67.6/64.4 

71.8/68.3 

68.8 

69.4/66.4 

76.9/72.5 

78.7/76.0 

72.8/65.0 

67.9/64.1 

70.1/68.1 

66.9/64.9 

72.6/66.0 

78.4/72.1 

77.8/71.1 

77.4/73.4 

0.367 

0.415 

0.336 

0.502 

0.623 

0.45 

0.584 

n/a 

0.432 

0.73 

0.568 

0.722 

0.404 

0.356 

0.386 

0.684 

0.68 

0.597 

0.503 

0.452 

0.772 

0.744 

0.68 

0.843 

0.717 

0.779 

0.77 

0.749 

0.855 

0.897 

0.765 

0.713 

0.77 

0.717 

0.769 

0.867 

0.854 

0.87 

Gender Ine-
quality Index 
(GII), rank-
ing** 
2013 
147 

111 

92 

96 

35 

132 

106 

n/a 

100 

42 

64 

56 

80 

102 

123 

77 

75 

66 

48 

10 (a) One of the three indices on which the Human Development Index is built. It is based on mean years of schooling (of adults) and expected years of schooling (of children). The highest pos-
sible theoretical score is 1, indicating perfect educational attainment. 
(b) Life expectancy at birth expressed as an index using a minimum value of 20 years and observed maximum value over the period 1980-2010. 
(c) Most recent data. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
9 

3.1.1  The socio-economic context 

Although Asia as a whole has made some significant progress towards meeting the MDGs – with six 
of its countries among the 20 top performers worldwide up to 201111 – poverty is still a major problem, 
as the region is home to two-thirds of the world’s poor. Some sub-regions have seen greater progress 
than others. In India, poverty rates fell from 51% to 37% between 1990 and 2008 (latest available da-
ta), and in the South Asia region excluding India the rates fell from 52% to 26% in the same period. 
However, they remain high compared to other parts of the continent. Extreme poverty has most dra-
matically  fallen  in  East  Asia,  particularly  as  the  result  of  economic  growth  and  poverty  reduction  in 
China, where the number of workers living below the USD 1.25 a day poverty line decreased by 158 
million between 2000 and 2011, and by 24 million between 2007 and 2011.12 
On the Human Development Index 2013, Asian countries were ranked between 10th position (Japan) 
and 175th (Afghanistan), underlining the significant development gaps among the continent’s nations. 
The  political  diversity  is  equally  striking,  spanning  the  entire  range  of  political  systems  and  forms  of 
governments,  from  stable  or  consolidating  democracies  to  military-authoritarian  regimes  and  com-
munist systems. 

Major threats and challenges − including, but not limited to, intra-state and cross-border violence, hu-
man  trafficking,  illegal  trade  in  drugs  and  weapons,  the  risk  of  nuclear  proliferation,  the  potential 
spread  of  highly  infectious  diseases,  and  environmental  degradation  −  are  also  prevalent  in  Asia. 
Many parts of the region are prone to natural disasters.  

Asia  has  experienced  the  largest  share  of  global  disaster  occurrences  over  the  last  decade,  with 
seven out of the 10 deadliest disasters worldwide of the last decade occurring in South, Southeast and 
Northeast Asia. In 2012, natural disasters in Asia claimed more lives than anywhere else in the world. 
Countries  in  the  region  reported  83  disasters  –  mostly  floods  –  in  2012.  The  disasters  killed  some 
3,100 people, affected 64.5 million, and caused USD 15 billion in damage.  Between 2002 and 2011, 
eight of the most devastating natural disasters occurred in Asia; five of these were in countries includ-
ed in the list of 19 countries of the RSE. The situation is even more dramatic when looked at it from a 
long-term perspective: from 1950 to 2011, nine out of 10 people affected by disasters worldwide were 
in Asia.13 

Table 4 

Top 10 worldwide deadliest disasters: 2002-2011 

Disaster  

Date 

Country 

Number of deaths 

Earthquake 
Earthquake/ Tsunami 
Tropical cyclone “Nargis” 
Earthquake 
Earthquake 
Heat wave 
Earthquake/Tsunami 
Earthquake 
Heat wave 
Earthquake/Tsunami 

Jan 2010 
Dec 2004 
May 2008 
May 2008 
Oct 2005 
Summer 2010 
Dec 2004 
Dec 2003 
Summer 2003 
March 2011 

Haiti 
Indonesia 
Myanmar 
China 
Pakistan 
Russia 
Sri Lanka 
Iran 
Italy 
Japan 

222,570 
165,708 
138,366 
87,479 
73,3338 
55,736 
35,399 
26,796 
20,089 
19,846 

Source: USAID, CRED Crunch, Issue No. 30, “Disaster Data: A Balanced Perspective”, January 2013, p. 2. 

Ongoing conflicts or tensions in several countries, coupled with generally weak civil societies, add to 
vulnerability  and  contribute  to  human  rights  abuses,  including  discrimination  against  minorities.  Ac-
cording to the Conflict Barometer 201214, with a total of 124 active domestic, bilateral and multilateral 
conflicts  in  2012,  Asia  accounted  for  nearly  a  third  of  the  world’s  conflicts.  Most  conflicts  concerned 
intra-state disputes over political systems or ideology and subnational predominance, followed by re-
source conflict, and conflicts concerning national power, autonomy, and secession. 

11  China,  Vietnam,  The  Philippines,  Malaysia,  Mongolia  and  Nepal  (in  that  order),  according  to  the  Center  for 
Global  Development  MDG  Progress  Index,  which  measures  progress  towards  all  MDGs  on  an  annual  basis, 
based on a scores system, available at http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/poverty/mdg_scorecards. 
12 United Nations: The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012, New York 2012, p. 7-8. 
13 Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) (2012): Conflict Barometer 2012. 
14 Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) (2012): Conflict Barometer 2012. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
10 

On the other hand, Asia’s economic development has been impressive. Since the 1980s (with a short 
interruption  in  the  second  half  of  the  1990s),  the  continent  has  outperformed  most  other  regions  in 
terms of economic growth. In 2011, GDP per capita at constant US prices in Asia increased by 6.6%, 
compared with 4.1% global growth. 

Table 5 

Gross domestic product in constant USD prices, changes in per cent 1990-2010 

Asia and the Pacific 
LLDC 
LDC 
ASEAN 
SAARC 
Central Asia 
Low income economies 
Lower middle income econ. 
Upper middle income econ. 
High income economies 
Africa 
Europe 
Latin America and Caribbean 
North America 
Other countries/areas 
World 
Source: ESCAP, Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2012 and 2013. 

1990-2000 
1.3 
-2.7 
4.3 
5.0 
5.2 
-3.8 
2.2 
7.3 
-0.5 
2.1 
2.3 
1.8 
3.2 
3.4 
4.1 
2.3 

2000-2005 
4.3 
9.0 
6.9 
5.0 
6.6 
9.1 
6.4 
8.1 
5.7 
2.1 
5.2 
1.9 
2.6 
2.4 
4.4 
2.9 

2008 
3.2 
6.8 
6.5 
4.0 
4.7 
6.8 
6.3 
7.7 
3.5 
-0.2 
4.9 
0.4 
3.8 
-0.3 
5.7 
1.5 

2009 
0.8 
3.6 
5.5 
1.4 
8.2 
3.3 
4.9 
8.0 
-4.8 
-3.9 
1.1 
-4.2 
-2.1 
-3.5 
1.3 
-2.1 

2010 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
8.1 
8.2 
6.8 
6.1 
9.4 
5.5 
4.5 
4.0 
2.0 
5.9 
3.0 
5.1 
4.1 

2011 
4.3 
7.1 
6.3 
4.5 
6.5 
7.2 
5.7 
6.3 
7.6 
0.8 
-2,5 
1.6 
4.1 
1.9 
n/a 
2.6 

Asia’s above-average economic performance has established the continent as Europe’s main trading 
region. In  2011, EU-27 trade  with Asia amounted to  EUR 1,237,693 million, representing 38% of the 
EU total external trade in goods, EUR 3,267,467 million. The EU-Asia trade volume steadily increased 
between 2002 and 2011, with 2009 being the only year of a decline in exports and imports, due to the 
global economic crisis. Total trade almost doubled during this period, while the EU’s trade deficit also 
increased sharply. 

Figure 4 

EU Trade with Asia, 2002-2011 in million Euro 

Source: Eurostats data 

The  economic  significance  of  Asia  for  the  EU  is  also  reflected  by  fast-growing  EU  direct  investment 
flows. European direct investment in Asia amounts to roughly a third of EU-27 Foreign Direct Invest-
ment (FDI) in non-EU countries. Both FDI stocks and FDI inflows from EU sources in Asia more than 
doubled between 2004 and 2011. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

0100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.0002002200320042005200620072008200920102011EU Exports to AsiaEU Imports from Asia 
 
 
Figure 5 

EU-27 Direct Investment (FDI) in Asia, 2004-2011, in million Euro 

11 

Source: Eurostats data 

3.1.2 

Institutional context 

All of the 19 countries are also members of one or more regional or inter-regional organisations, which 
are supported within the framework of the RSP − namely, ASEAN and the related ARF, the SAARC, 
and the dialogue mechanism ASEM. The following figure depicts membership and overlaps of regional 
and inter-regional organisations in Asia, while the subsequent boxes provide additional information − 
for example, on the organisational structure and achieved milestones of ASEAN, SAARC and ASEM. 

Figure 6 

EU-supported regional and inter-regional organisations and dialogue mechanisms in 
Asia 

Source: Particip analysis 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

0100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.00020042005200620072008200920102011FDI flowsFDI stocksBrunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, VietnamEU (representedbytheEC)ASEMARFSri LankaAustralia, China, RepublicofKorea, Mongolia, New Zealand, RussiaCanada, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, Papua New Guinea , Timor Leste, United StatesEU Member StatesBangladeshAfghanistan, Bhutan, The Maldives, Nepal EU –ASEANEU –SAARC Note: The highlighted countries are those covered under the RSP India, Pakistan 
 
12 

3.2  European development co-operation rationale with Asia  

3.2.1  Global EU development policy strategic objectives and priorities 

Article 177 of the Amsterdam Treaty (entry into force on 1st of May 1999) defines the EU development 
policy priorities as follows: 

  Sustainable economic and social development in favour of developing countries; 

  With a particular emphasis on the most disadvantaged countries. Progressive and harmonious 

integration of developing countries in the world economy;  

  Fighting poverty in developing countries. 

The  European  Consensus  on  Development,  signed  20th  December  2005,  is  intended  to  guide  both 
Community and Member State development co-operation and sets out common objectives and princi-
ples for development co-operation.15 

3.2.2  The Treaty of Lisbon (2009) and Agenda for Change (2011) 

The Treaty of Lisbon set out for the first time a specific legal basis for humanitarian aid. This provision 
stresses the specificity of the policy and the application of the principles of international humanitarian 
law − in particular, impartiality and non-discrimination. The Treaty of Lisbon states that the reduction 
and eradication of poverty is the primary objective of the EU’s development co-operation policy. This 
goal  must  be  respected  when  the  EU  implements  policies  likely  to  affect  developing  countries.  This 
implies also that development policy is a policy in its own right, and not an accessory of common for-
eign and security policy. 

The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  classifies  development  co-operation  and  humanitarian  aid  as  “shared  parallel 
competences”.  This  means  that  the  EU  conducts  an  autonomous  policy,  which  neither  prevents  the 
Member States from exercising their competences nor makes the EU’s policy merely “complementary” 
to those of the Member States.16  

The  Agenda  for  Change,  presented  by  the  EC  in  October  2011,  stipulates  that  EU  development  aid 
spending  should  target  countries  that  are  in  the  greatest  need  of  external  support  and  where  it  can 
really make a difference, including fragile states. Co-operation should take different forms for countries 
that are already experiencing sustained growth or that have sufficient resources of their own. 

EU assistance should focus on two priority areas: 

1.  Human rights, democracy and other key elements of good governance; 
2. 

Inclusive and sustainable growth for human development. 

The EU aims to help create growth in developing countries so that they have the means to lift them-
selves out of poverty. Aid will therefore target particular areas: 

  Social protection, health, education and jobs; 

  The business environment, regional integration, and world markets;  

  Sustainable agriculture and energy. 

The EU should also try to further improve the effectiveness of the aid it delivers. Furthermore, the EU 
will  explore  innovative  ways  of  financing  development,  such  as  the  blending  of  grants  and  loans.  It 
should also improve the coherence of its internal and external policies: A significant share of EU aid is 
delivered in the form of budget support.17 

3.2.3  ALA regulations (1996-2006) 

The main legal basis for co-operation with Asia between 1996 and 2006 was EU Regulation 92/432, 
the  “Asia-Latin  America”  (ALA)  regulation.  This  covered  financial  and  technical  assistance  and  eco-
nomic co-operation. ALA included partnerships with states, regions (e.g. Asia regional programmes), 
decentralised  authorities,  regional  organisations  (e.g.  ASEAN),  public  agencies,  local  or  traditional 

15 The European Consensus on Development, 20 December 2005, p. 4. 
16 Treaty of Lisbon. Taking Europe into the 21st century, http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm. 
17  European  Commission  (2011):  Increasing  the  impact  of  EU  Development  Policy:  an  Agenda  for  Change, 
COM(2011) 637 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/documents/agenda_for_change_en.pdf.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
13 

communities, private institutes and operators, including co-operatives and non-governmental organisa-
tions. 

Whereas reducing poverty did not become official EU development policy until 2000, the ALA regula-
tion highlighted that aid should primarily target the poorest sections of the population and the poorest 
countries in the two regions. The Regulation specified a long list of priority sectors, ranging from drugs 
to  the  environment,  rural  development,  and  democracy  and  human  rights.  The  main  interventions 
specified are economic co-operation and technical and financial assistance, which both take the form 
of grants. The Regulation specified that economic co-operation should be in the mutual interest of the 
EU  and  the  partner  country  or  organisation.  No  similar  requirement  was  stipulated  for  financial  and 
technical assistance. 

The 2002 evaluation of the ALA regulation made this conclusion: “As a strategy document, despite a 
high level of detail, it quickly became obsolete. Only a few years after its entry into force, more target-
ed regional strategy documents had already been adopted by the Commission (in 1994 for Asia and in 
1995 for Latin America); these documents were updated on several occasions in following years. Fur-
thermore, Regulation 443/92 did not provide for bringing different budget lines together in a  coherent 
way, especially in the early years before the clarification of budgetary rules on separate legal bases for 
separate budget lines. Overall, the amount of financial resources devoted to both regions is perceived 
to be disproportionate (too small) in relation to the Commission’s ambitious stated goals. This is not to 
say  that  increases  in  global  resources  should  be  approved  automatically  without  stronger  allocation 
criteria and co-ordination of horizontal budget lines.”18 
In 2007, the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) replaced the wide range of geographic and 
thematic  instruments  that  had  been  created  over  time.  The  objective  was  to  increases  the  effective-
ness of the EU development co-operation. 

3.2.4  DCI regulations (2007-2013) 

The regulation establishing the DCI was adopted on 18 December 2006. The geographic part of it re-
placed the ALA regulation for developing countries in Asia. The instrument is valid for the period from 
2007 to 2013. 

The overall goal of the instrument is the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions, in the 
context  of  sustainable  development,  including  pursuit  of  the  MDGs,  as  well  as  the  promotion  of  de-
mocracy, good governance and respect for human rights and for the rule of law. 

In Asia, priorities stated by DCI are: pursuing MDGs in the field of health, including HIV/AIDS, and ed-
ucation; addressing governance issues to help build an active and organised civil society, and to en-
hance  the  protection  of  human  rights,  including  the  rights  of  the  child.  Priorities  are  country-specific. 
Funds  are  allocated  following  country  strategy  papers,  which  include  multi-annual  indicative  pro-
grammes, specifying the priority objectives, and the indicative multi-annual financial allocations. 

Furthermore,  the  EU  prepares  annual  action  programmes  that  specify  the  objectives  pursued  in  the 
fields  of  intervention,  the  expected  results,  the  management  procedures,  and  the  total  amount  of  fi-
nancing  planned.  They  contain  a  description  of  the  operations  to  be  financed,  an  indication  of  the 
amounts allocated for each operation, and an indicative implementation timetable. 

3.2.5  Regional strategic objectives and priorities with Asia 

The overall strategic framework for the EU’s action in Asia is based on the Commission’s 2001 Com-
munication  “Europe  and  Asia:  A  Strategic  Framework  for  Enhanced  Partnerships”.19  The  strategy’s 
core  objective  was  “strengthening  the  EU’s  political  and  economic  presence  across  the  region,  and 
raising this to a level commensurate with the growing global weight of an enlarged EU”. 

In particular, the strategic framework aimed to: 

  Contribute to peace and security  in the region and globally, through a  broadening of our en-

gagement with the region; 

18  Evaluation  of  Regulation  443/92  (Asia,  Latin  America)  –  ref.  951614,  Summary,  2002,  available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2002/951614_docs_en.htm  
19  European  Commission  (2001):  Europe  and  Asia:  A  Strategic  Framework  for  Enhanced  Partnerships, 
COM(2001) 469 final, available at 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0469:EN:HTML  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
14 

  Further strengthen our mutual trade and investment flows with the region; 

  Promote the development of the less prosperous countries of the region, addressing the root 

causes of poverty; 

  Contribute to the protection of human rights and to the spreading of democracy, good govern-

ance and the rule of law;  

  Build global partnerships and alliances with  Asian countries, in appropriate international fora, 
to  help  address  both  the  challenges  and  the  opportunities  offered  by  globalisation  and  to 
strengthen joint efforts on global environmental and security issues; and 

  Help strengthen the awareness of Europe in Asia (and vice versa). 

These general objectives and priorities were elaborated further in a series of specific action points for 
the region as a whole, and for each of the four key sub-regions (South Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast 
Asia, Australasia).  

The first Regional Programming Document for Asia was prepared in 2004, covering the period 2005-
2006. It included three All-Asia programmes (on trade and investment, higher education, and environ-
ment), two sub-regional programmes (SAARC and ASEAN), and a small budget for reserve.20  

The subsequent Regional Strategy 2007-2013 focused on three priority areas: 

1.  Support to Regional Integration − the key dialogue partners for the EU being ASEM, ASEAN, 

ARF and SAARC; 

2.  Policy and Know-How based Co-operation in: 

  Environment,  Energy  and  Climate  Change,  through  Sustainable  Consumption  and 
Production  (SCP-Asia)  and  the  Forest  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade 
(FLEGT) programme; 

  Higher Education and Support to Research Institutes; 
  Cross-border Co-operation in Animal and Human Health; 

3.  Support to Uprooted People. 

Further  to  the  three  priority  areas,  cross-cutting  issues  (such  as  the  promotion  of  human  rights  and 
democracy, gender equality, good governance, the rights of the child, indigenous peoples' rights, envi-
ronmental  sustainability,  and  combating  HIV/AIDS)  are,  in  addition  to  being  addressed  in  thematic 
programmes and instruments, streamlined in each component of the Regional Programme, when rele-
vant.21 

3.3 

Inventory of regional-level EU support to Asia 

In line with the ToR, the inventory of the regional-level EU support to Asia provides an overview of the 
interventions  financed  by  the  EU  in  the  countries  covered  by  the  evaluation  during  the  period  2007-
2012. The analysis of the captured interventions gives a detailed overview in terms of temporal evolu-
tion, geographical breakdown, breakdown by sector and subsector, and regional versus bilateral inter-
ventions 
The inventory is based on data from the EU’s CRIS22 database. In order to identify interventions relat-
ed  to  Asia,  the  Evaluation  Team  undertook  a  comprehensive  and  systematic  screening  of  the  infor-
mation contained in the CRIS database. The approach and the detailed related analysis are presented 
in Volume 3, Annex 4. 

The box below summarises definitions of key terms as used in this evaluation. 

20  Strategy  Paper  and  Indicative  Programme  for  Multi-country  Programmes  in  Asia,  2005-2006,  available  at 
http://eeas.europa.eu/asia/rsp/05_06_en.pdf  
21 European Commission (2007): Regional Programming for Asia. Strategy Document 2007-2013. 
22 Common RELEX Information System. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
15 

Box 1 

Definitions of key terms related to the overview of EU financial information  

Commitment: refers to the "contracted amount" that has been agreed between the EU and a contracting party in 
charge of implementing the part of the intervention related to a specific contract. The information on this financial 
amount is found at "contract level" in CRIS, and is marked as “planned amount” in the database. 
Disbursement: refers to the financial amount that has been paid by the EU in relation to a specific contract. 
These sums are found at "contract level" in CRIS, and are marked as “paid amount” in the database. 
Allocation: refers to the “allocated amount” that has been approved in a given year by the EU on decision level. 

Overall,  the  EU  has  allocated  about  618 million EUR  in  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia 
through geographic budget lines under the Regional Strategy Paper (RSP).  

The  figure  illustrates  the  committed  and  disbursed  amount  at  contract  level.  The  overall  committed 
amount adds up to 552 million EUR and whereas 330 million EUR have has been disbursed. 

Figure 7 

Regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia:  Total  of  allocated,  committed  and  disbursed 
amounts 2007-2012 (in million EUR) 

Source: CRIS and Particip analysis (2013) 

The figure below compares the totals of committed and disbursed amounts per contract year. It clearly 
highlights  that  the  later  the  evaluation  period  the  more  significant  the  difference  between  committed 
and disbursed amounts becomes. 

Figure 8 

Regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia:  Committed  and  disbursed  amounts  per  contract 
year 2007-2012 (in million EUR) 

Source: CRIS and Particip analysis (2013) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

618   552   330   0 €100 €200 €300 €400 €500 €600 €700 €Allocated amountCommitted amountDisbursed amountMillions53   89   94   79   97   140   51   72   73   56   36   43   0 €20 €40 €60 €80 €100 €120 €140 €160 €200720082009201020112012MillionsCommitted amountDisbursed amount 
 
16 

The figure below depicts the allocated, committed and disbursed amounts per sector and subsector in 
the case of policy and knowhow-based co-operation for the geographic budget line. It illustrates: 

  9% (55 million EUR) was allocated for animal and human health. 

  30% (185 million EUR) of allocations was aimed at environment, energy and climate change. 

  17% (109 million EUR) went to higher education and support to research institutes. 

  13% (79 million EUR) was allocated to regional integration. 

  31% (189 million EUR) was aimed at supporting uprooted people. 

Figure 9 

Regional-level EU support to Asia: Overview of sector breakdown, allocated, commit-
ted and disbursed amount for geographic budget line (in % and in million EUR)  

Source: CRIS and Particip analysis (2013) 

3.4 

Intervention logic of EU co-operation with Asia 

3.4.1  Objectives and focal sectors 
The objective of the diagram is:23 

  To provide an overview of the expected impacts of the actions supported by regional-level EU 

support to Asia, and the underlying logic; 

  To  provide  an  accurate  overview  of  the  main  strategies,  objectives  and  actions  mentioned  in 
the  EU  policy  documents  −  in  particular,  the  Regional  Programming  for  Asia  2007-2013, 
Multiannual  Indicative  Programming  (MIP)  for  Asia  2007-2010,  MIP  2011-2013,  and  relevant 
project documentation; 

  To  facilitate  identification  of  the  most  relevant  themes  and  questions  related  to  regional-level 

EU support to Asia. 

According to the RSP, five focal sectors could be identified24:  

  Regional integration; 

  Animal and Human Health; 

  Environment, Energy and Climate Change; 

23 Evaluation methodology for EC external assistance: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/introduction/introduction_en.htm. 
24  In  the  RSP  “Animal  and  Human  Health”,  “Environment,  Energy  and  Climate  Change”  and  “Higher  Education 
and Support to Research Institutions” are located under the heading “Policy and Know-how based co-operation”.  
Together  with  “Regional  Integration”  and  “Support  to  up-rooted  people”,  the  RSP  thus  refers  to  three  strategic 
areas. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

55   185   109   79   189   44   148   103   69   188   37   67   75   35   116   0 €20 €40 €60 €80 €100 €120 €140 €160 €180 €200 €Animal andHuman HealthEnvironmentHigher educationRegionalIntegrationSupport touprooted peopleMillionsAllocated amountCommitted amountDisbursed amount 
 
                                                      
17 

  Higher Education and Support to Research Institutions; 

  Support to Uprooted People. 

3.4.2  The global reconstructed intervention logic25 

In  the  strand  of  regional  integration,  higher  levels  of  regional  integration  and  inter-regional  co-
operation are expected to result in explicit development gains in economic, socio-economic, political, 
environmental, cultural and related fields at the intermediate impact level. This, in turn, contributes di-
rectly to the advancement of MDG8, as well as sustainable economic development and improved se-
curity in the region. 

For  animal  and  human  health,  the  specific  impacts in the  intervention logic  lead  to combatted highly 
and  pathogenic  diseases  which  contribute  directly  to  improved  security  in  Asia.  Particularly  stressed 
were interventions designed to strengthen regional and national institutions, ranging from public health 
agencies and research institutions to agencies responsible for animal health. 

In the strand environment, energy and climate change, the results and specific impacts were expected 
to  lead  to  increased  sustainable  consumption  and  production,  reduced  illegal  logging  and  increased 
protected forest, and improved environmental co-operation between Europe and Asia and within Asia. 
Consequently, the overall objectives or global impacts in the IL to which the regional support contrib-
utes are threefold: improved environmental protection; sustainable or green growth; and mitigation of 
climate change. 

For higher education and support to research institutes, the intermediate impacts increased academic 
standards  and  improved  co-operation  and  networks  between  EU  and  Asia  and  within  Asia  are  ex-
pected to contribute directly to the economic, scientific and social development of Asia. 

In  the  support  to  uprooted  people  strand,  the  protection,  improved  status,  and  physical  and  mental 
well-being of displaced population groups are expected to contribute to sustainable integration of refu-
gees, returnees, ex-combatants and internally displaced people (IDPs) into the socio-economic fabric. 
In emphasising Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD), the strategy recognised  that 
displacement is often a long-term phenomenon, and that solutions must be durable to be effective. 

25 Please refer to Annex 5 for the sector and faithful diagrams. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
Figure 10 

Global simplified reconstructed intervention logic 

18 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

≈ 20% of allocated amount Intervention areasStrengthening of dialoguePlatforms for information exchange improved & networks strengthenedEU-Asia dialogue enhanced (on various topics, see above)Dialogue  between Asian countries enhanced (on various topics, see above)Co-operation & co-ordination of activities within Asia  and between Asia & Europe improvedDevelopment of integrated border management systemFacilitation of regional flow of goods & services (e.g. trade agreements, civil  aviation)Regional integration (governance & economic) facilitated & deepenedImproved  security in the Asia regionTrading & financial systems within the region and between Asia & Europe enhancedImproved legal movement of persons and goods at bordersIncreased awareness of Europe in Asia & vice versaImproved partnerships and alliances with and between Asian countries Combatted HighlyPathogenicandEmerging diseasesIntermediate ImpactsGlobal ImpactsSpecific ImpactsStrengthening regional institutions and governanceTopics include economic and financial matters, employment, social policy, energy, environment, cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, regional integration, disaster and disease risk reduction, SCP, FLEGTExchange civil societies Asia-Europe &links between civil society and governmentsRegional Integration≈ 12% of allocated amountAnimal & Human HealthSectoral dialogue on Avian influenza control,Reinforcement of veterinary & human health servicesRegional added valueCapacities of regional institutions strengthened & regional approaches and strategies  developed (e.g. disaster risk reduction)CCI: Human rights , democracy, gender equality, good governance, the rights of the child and indigenous peopleIncreased regional co-operation and co-ordination in the field of animal health, food safety and human health crisis responseGeographical Budget Line (RSP and MIP)ASEM: (ASEM Dialogue Facility, ASEF, TEIN)SAARC: (SAFTA Trade development, Sectoral Dialogue Facility, Civil Aviation)ASEAN: (Regional capacity building and region to region dialogue, Statistical cooperation, Coop and Policy Reform in the field of security)Sustainable economic developmentImproved natural resource management and enhanced risk managementCombatted transnational crime and illegal migrationIncreased added value of regional specialised structuresStrengthened capabilities in  LDCs in Asia to address and prepare for risks related to infectious diseasesStrengthened interface between animals, humans and ecosystemsEQ 1EQ 2EQ 3EQ  7EQ  8  
19 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Intervention areasIncreased awareness of  environmentally friendly goods and services Forest governance and law enforcement improvedEnhanced  institutional capacity and improved institutional framework for the development and uptake  of SCP and FLEGT related policies and instruments Wide-scale application of SCP practices by private sector and governmentInvestments by governments & public institutions in energy & environment increasedIncreased awareness of Europe in Asia & vice versaAcademic standards increased (e.g. Erasmus Mundus)Sustainable consumption & production increasedImproved environmental protectionReduced  illegal  logging  and protected forest areas increasedIntermediate ImpactsGlobal ImpactsSpecific ImpactsIncreased trade of legal timber within Asia  and between EU and AsiaInterconnectivity between research and education networks strengthenedSustainable reintegration of refugees, ex-combatants and IDPs into the socio-economic fabric≈ 28% of allocated amountSupport touprootedpeopleInterventions in the Afghan crisis, the Burmese crisis, Indonesia, Nepal and India, the Philippines and Sri Lanka≈ 25% of allocated amountEnvironment, Energy & Climate Change•SWITCH Asia•Forest Law Enforcement, Governance & Trade•Asian Investment Facility (AIF)≈ 15% of allocated amountHigher Education and Support to Research Institutions•Erasmus Mundus•Promoting Understanding between EU & Asia•TEINGeographical Budget Line (RSP and MIP)Mitigation of climate changeSustainable green growthEnhanced policy dialogue on SCP, FLEGT and climate changeImproved environmental cooperation between Europe & Asia and within Asia Enhanced EU-Asia dialogue & debate on various topicsImproved inclusive participation of Asian countries in higher education schemesImproved co-operation and networks between EU and Asia and within AsiaPromoted peace building and reconciliation Improved access to basic servicesImproved foundation for sustainable livelihoodsStrengthened capabilities of local communities and resettlement areas to facilitate integration of uprooted people Political dialogue on legal status and rights of refugees promotedImproved status of uprooted peopleProtected uprooted people  & ex-combatantsImproved legal aid and human rights protectionPhysical and mental well-being of displaced population groups Addressed needs of refugees, displaced people and ex-combatantsEconomic, scientific & social development of Asia enhancedEQ 4EQ 5EQ  6 
 
20 

4  Answers to the Evaluation Questions 
In accordance with the ToR, and as agreed in the structuring stage, the evaluation exercise is based 
on a reconstructed intervention logic and a structured process of defining Evaluation Questions (EQs).  

In the end, eight EQs were formulated. These questions were selected with a view to covering, as far 
as reasonably possible, the various aspects of the intervention logic, but with a sharper focus on some 
specific aspects. The focus was directed at aspects that would provide information and analytical ma-
terial  contributing  to  an  analysis  of  a  number  of  issues  that  became  apparent  from  desk  work  done 
during  the  production  of  the  inception  report,  and  from  the  inventory.  For  each  EQ,  a  number  of 
Judgement Criteria (JC) and Indicators were defined. The EQs were discussed and agreed upon with 
the Evaluation Unit and the Reference Group. 

Table 6 

The Evaluation Questions 

No. 

Evaluation Question 

EQ 1 

EQ 2 

EQ 3 

EQ 4 

EQ 5 

EQ 6 

EQ 7 

EQ 8 

To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  broadened  and 
deepened  the  dialogue  between  the  two  regions  and  encouraged 
greater  integration  and  co-operation  on  political,  economic,  social  and 
environmental matters? 

Dialogue 

To  what  extent  has  EU  support  Asia  contributed  to  progress  towards 
regional economic integration? 

To  what  extent  has  EU  support 
strengthened regional problem-solving capacities? 

to  human  security  challenges 

To  what  extent  has  the  regional  EU  support  to  Asian  key  stakeholders 
contributed  to  enhancing  the  adaptation  to  and  mitigation  of  climate 
change and the promotion of sustainable growth? 

To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  higher  education 
institutions  and  networks  in  Asia  and  between  Asia  and  Europe 
contributed  to  enhancing  academic  and  research  standards  and  to  the 
internationalisation of universities in Asia? 

To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  uprooted  people  con-
tributed to reintegrating refugees, returnees, ex-combatants and internal-
ly displaced people into the socio-economic fabric?  

To  what  degree  has  the  regional-level  EU  support  been  responsive  to 
the  priorities  and  needs  of  the  key  partners  in  Asia  and  in  line  with  the 
overall EU development and policy framework? 

To  what  extent  did  the  EU  regional-level  support  add  value  to  -  and 
complemented  –  bilateral  co-operation  and  the  intervention  of  EU 
Member States? 

Sector  results 
and impacts 

Relevance, 
3Cs and added 
value 

The  EQs  can  also  be  linked  to  one  or  several  of  the  five  DAC  evaluation  criteria  (relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability), the coherence and EU added-value criteria, and 
other key issues (3Cs or cross-cutting issues) identified in the ToR of this evaluation. These linkages 
are illustrated in the following table, and further detailed in the individual EQs. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
21 

Table 7 

Coverage of the evaluation criteria by the evaluation questions 

Evaluation criteria 

Other key 
issues 

Question 

EQ1 on strengthening  
inter-regional dialogue & 
partnership 

EQ2 on regional added 
value to economic 
integration 

EQ3 on added value to 
regional integration in  
non-economic fields 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

t
c
a
p
m

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
S

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

e
u
l
a
v
d
e
d
d
A

s
C
3

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

g
n
i
t
t
u
c
-
s
s
o
r
C

s
e
u
s
s
i

 

 

EQ4 on environment, 
energy and climate change 

 

 

 

 

EQ5 on higher education 

 

 

 

 

EQ6 on support to uprooted 
people 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ7 on regional strategy 

 

EQ8 on added value 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

The criterion is largely covered by the EQ 

 

The criterion is partially covered in the EQ 

4.1  EQ1 on strengthening inter-regional dialogue & partnership 

EQ1:  To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  broadened  and  deepened  the  dia-
logue between the two regions and encouraged greater integration and  co-operation on politi-
cal, economic, social and environmental matters? 

Relations between the EU and Asian partners have long moved beyond traditional donor-recipient pat-
terns and are characterised by equal partnership. Against this backdrop, the strengthening of dialogue 
mechanisms between  Europe and  Asia  has been a key feature of the EU  approach to  co-operation. 
The  oldest  and  most  developed  of  the  existing  co-operation  mechanisms  with  Asia  is  the  multi-level 
EU-ASEAN dialogue. 

In addition to the group-to-group dialogue between the EU and ASEAN, the ASEM has provided a fo-
rum for dialogue between Europeans and Asians since 1996. Together, the ASEM member countries 
represent  around  58%  of  the  world’s  population,  half  of  global  GDP,  and  more  than  60%  of  interna-
tional commerce. Heads of government meet every two years to set the agenda of ASEM, which was 
established to provide the structure for a regular policy dialogue among a highly diverse group of gov-
ernments that do not necessarily share the same interests, strategies and priorities in international re-
lations. ASEM offers its members the opportunity of carefully testing the waters for new initiatives that 
can later be followed up in smaller and more formalised diplomatic settings, either within the context of 
bilateral relations or less diverse multilateral groupings. 

This EQ seeks to assess the extent to which the EU’s external aid has contributed to the fostering of 
inter-regional dialogues and the strengthening  of regional  co-operation in the fields of economic and 
financial  matters,  employment,  social  policy,  environment,  and  the  promotion  of  cultural  diversity,  in-
tercultural  dialogues  and research collaboration in relations between  Europe and Asia. The question 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22 

covers  interactions  at  both  governmental  and  societal  levels  −  that  is,  the  EU-ASEAN  dialogue,  the 
ASEM Dialogue Facility, the ASEF programmes, and the Trans-Eurasia Information Network (TEIN). 
The  question  also  considers  if,  and  to  what  extent,  these  dialogues  and  networks  have  increased 
awareness of Europe in Asia, and vice versa. 

EQ1 – Overall assessment 

Inter-regional co-operation between the EU and Asia has expanded and deepened during the period 
evaluated. EU funded or co-funded co-operation mechanisms, including the multi-level policy dialogue 
with  ASEAN,  ASEM  in  general  and  the  ASEM  Dialogue  Facility  in  particular,  as  well  as  ASEF,  has 
provided a suitable framework and fertile ground for the sharing of information and analysis.  Through 
this, regional-level EU support has contributed to developing joint policy positions in EU-Asia relations 
and deliberations on responses to emerging challenges in political, economic, social and environmen-
tal fields. This process has been particularly successful where and when synergies between bilateral 
and  multilateral  policy  dialogues  were  achieved,  and  when  the  two  approaches  mutually  reinforced 
each other. However, this finding does not apply to EU-SAARC relations, which lack a dialogue setting 
comparable  to  EU-ASEAN  relations.  The  EU  stakeholders  (EC  and  Member  States)  usually  speak 
with one voice in dialogue relations with Asian counterparts, indicating a well co-ordinated EU position, 
and have thereby increased the leverage in crucial co-operation areas, such as generally governance 
and political matters (including human rights), security, and environment.  

At the same time, the existence of policy dialogue mechanisms does not always translate into effec-
tiveness of inter-regional exchanges. Furthermore, some studies suggest that the inter-regional meet-
ing agenda is mainly driven by the EU, implying insufficient Asian inputs. While outputs of co-operation 
are well documented, hard evidence for impacts is rare. Evaluations and monitoring reports regularly 
find  that  policy  dialogues  are  insufficiently  aligned  with  individual  interventions  −  for  example,  under 
the ASEM dialogue facility. The particular critical view emerged on ASEF based on a 2010-11 evalua-
tion which suggested that ASEF largely failed to make a strategically well-planned and effective con-
tribution  to  enhancing  the  multi-actor  and  multi-faceted  co-operation  processes  in  EU-Asia  relations, 
as envisioned in the  Regional Strategy. Significant changes have taken place since then, and stake-
holder interviews left no doubt that ASEF successfully fulfils its mandate as the main institutionalised 
channel for civil society co-operation. Civil society participation could be considered the weakest ele-
ment  of  EU-Asia  dialogue  relations  and  partnerships  during  the  early  days  of  the  EU-Asia  strategy. 
However, lessons have been learned and interventions that started more recently − such as ASEAN 
Regional  Integration  Support  (ARISE)  and  the  Regional  EU-ASEAN  Dialogue  Instrument  (READI)  − 
provide  more  opportunities  for  civil  society  participation.  Overall,  EU  support  has  facilitated  links 
among civil society stakeholders and between civil society and governments, most prominently within 
the  context  of  ASEF  and  the  ASEM  Dialogue  Facility,  but  there  is  only  very  limited  evidence  for  a 
judgement  on  the  effectiveness  of  civil  society  engagement.  However,  this  is  due  to  a  lack  of  infor-
mation  (i.e.  insufficient  attention  given  to  this  aspect  in  evaluation  and  monitoring  reports)  and  does 
not point to a deficiency in EU-Asia relations. 

Overall,  the EU-Asia inter-regional dialogue and partnership comprise of a  network of multi-level co-
operation mechanisms and interventions that are, as individual actions, highly relevant in response to 
the  Asia strategy, and generally  well-aligned  with  the strategy. However,  while  co-ordination  has im-
proved  in  the  duration  of  the  strategy,  activities  are  still  often  conducted  in  parallel  and  are  not  well 
linked and connected. There is hardly any exchange happening among programmes geared towards 
the strengthening of regional dialogues in mainly non-economic areas − that is,  ASEF, TEIN, READI 
and the EU-Asia Dialogue project.  

Quantity  and  quality  of  existing  policy  dialogues  and  partnerships  inevitably  depends  on  the  institu-
tional development and matureness of the partners. Most activities have centred on ASEAN/Southeast 
Asia,  while  SAARC  hardly  features  with  regard  to  many  areas  of  the  Regional  Strategy.  The  strong 
focus  on  Southeast  Asia  is  unsurprising  –  and  justified  −  given  the  long  history  of  effective  co-
operation  between  the  EU  and  ASEAN,  dating  back  to  the  early  1970s.  In  contrast,  EU-SAARC  co-
operation  was  initiated  only  in  1996,  and  the  RSP  admits  that  “the  development  of  concrete 
intervention  has  been  slow”  (p.  7).  The  RSP  presented  an  ambitious  agenda  for  EU-SAARC  co-
operation, but this did  not  materialise to the extent  envisioned  in  the  RSP. The approach to SAARC 
was consequently revised, based on the MTR 2010. However, there is no doubt that policy dialogues 
have strengthend the relevance and effectiveness of co-operation in EU-Asia relations. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

23 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Policy Dialogues 

Political  and  policy  dialogues  play  an  important  part  in  the  Regional  Strategy,  as  confirmed  by  the 
MTR/MIP  of  the  Asia  RSP:  “Recognising  that  EU  policies  other  than  development  co-operation  can 
have a substantial impact on our partner countries, relevant policies are systematically included in dia-
logues with our partners in the region to ensure policy coherence for development.” (p. 12). According 
to this approach, policy dialogues as “non-spending activities”, and development co-operation ideally 
reinforces each other to deepen Asia-Europe relations and to broaden their thematic spectrum. Over 
the years, dialogue relations have significantly expanded to cover a wide range of areas, including po-
litical  and  security,  economic  and  trade,  social  and  cultural  agendas.  However,  dialogues  are  rarely 
looked at in programme and strategy evaluations. Therefore, the following short assessment provides 
an  overview  of  tangible  achievements,  but  also  prevailing  challenges,  in  EU-Asia  dialogue  relations 
during the  period  2007-2013. It  is based on  interviews  and group  discussions  conducted  with senior 
officials in Brussels, at ASEAN, and in the countries selected for the field phase. Hence, the following 
“case study” is a reflection of the views of European and Asian stakeholders actively involved in dia-
logue relations.  

Box 2 

Case Study: Policy Dialogues – the view of senior officials 

The  prominent  position  of  Asia  in  the  EU’s  external  relations  dates  back  to  the  formalisation  of  EC-
ASEAN  relations  in  1977,  and  especially  the  signing  of  the  ASEAN-EC  Co-operation  Agreement  in 
Kuala Lumpur in 1980. It was the first international treaty that the then European Community signed 
with any other regional organisation. Of particular importance was the statement in the agreement that 
“such co-operation will be between equal partners”. Closely connected with – but formally independent 
from − the EU-ASEAN dialogue is the ASEM, which aims to strengthen the relationship and increase 
mutual  understanding  between  the  two  regions,  in  a  spirit  of  mutual  respect  and  equal  partnership. 
The EU is also a member of ARF, which was founded in 1994 and meets annually to discuss security-
relevant  developments  in  the  Asia-Pacific  region.  The  most  recent  addition  to  the  dialogue  relations 
with Asia is the EU’s status as an observer in SAARC, which was granted in 2006. The importance of 
policy dialogues is stressed in core documents, such as the MTR/MIP of the Asia RSP in 2010, “EU-
Asia relations are expanding, and the EU is seeking an increasingly close relationship with Asia, going 
beyond traditional co-operation, to encompass economic integration and political co-operation” (p. 4).  

Figure 11  

Main Pillars of the EU Asia Dialogue System 

There was broad agreement among Asian and European stakeholders that the embeddedness of de-
velopment  co-operation  in  well-established  political  dialogue  mechanisms  has  increased  the  EU’s 
weight and leverage in Asia − particularly with regard to key EU agendas, such as good governance 
and human rights − and has strengthened the EU’s visibility in Asia. For example, the fact that ASEAN 
officials  consider  the  EU  as  ASEAN’s  most  relevant  and  trusted  partner  is  not  only  the  result  of  the 
sizable development co-operation programme; it is also, to a large extent, a reflection of the long histo-
ry of regular high-level political exchanges, and especially the way that the EU has been consistent in 
its strategic approach towards ASEAN. In other words, development co-operation and policy dialogues 
have been treated as the two sides of the same coin to promote a multi-level and holistic agenda in 
inter-regional relations, which – in its breadth – is unique among ASEAN’s partners, including the US, 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
24 

Canada, Australia, Japan, China and Russia. As a result, the EU has also successfully promoted Eu-
ropean “best practices” in areas such as regional economic integration, climate change, environmental 
sustainability, and disaster preparedness.  

Senior officials almost unanimously identified the Nuremberg Declaration on an EU-ASEAN Enhanced 
Partnership, adopted in 2007, as the most significant milestone of recent dialogue relations, providing 
a solid basis for EU-ASEAN co-operation. The Declaration sets out the long-term vision and commit-
ment  of  both  sides,  and  has  provided  the  basis  for  the  strengthening  of  co-operation  in  newly-
emerging fields such as energy security. The Nuremberg Declaration has been further extended and 
deepened by the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Part-
nership (2013-2017), which adds or strengthens “gender equality, well-being of women, children, the 
elderly and persons with disabilities and migrant workers”, “building together disaster-resilient commu-
nities” and co-operation in “Science and Technology (S&T)” as central action points.  

In comparison, the institutionalisation of EU-SAARC dialogue relations is still at the very early stages. 
However,  there  was  broad agreement that EU observer status  −  which entitles  the  EU  to  attend the 
summit meetings of the SAARC head of state and government and, the accreditation of the Head of 
the EUD in Nepal to SAARC − has opened an important window of opportunity for the strengthening of 
EU-SAARC relations, although this has not  yet been used to its full possible extent. SAARC and EU 
officials identified the rather low-level representation of the EU in meetings with SAARC as an irritating 
factor. As a high-ranking EU official pointed out, “a lot of time and effort went into achieving observer 
status, and then we don’t send the appropriate people to meetings”. Very similar concerns were voiced 
with  regard  to  ASEAN-EU  relations  and  ASEM  summits.  In  both  cases,  Asian  representatives  have 
often been more senior than their European counterparts − a fact that has displeased Asian govern-
ments.  The  ASEAN-EU  Commemorative  Summit  in  Singapore  on  22  November  2007,  marking  the 
30th  anniversary  of  the  establishment  of  official  relations,  was  a  case  in  point.  The  summit  was 
planned to be held at the level of heads of state and government, but – unlike the ASEAN states - only 
a small majority of EU member states were represented accordingly. Participants referred to a major 
embarrassment for the EU and to a “loss of face” for Singapore. This still resonates negatively in EU-
ASEAN diplomacy today.  

Other stumbling blocks in EU-Asia dialogue relations have been the Myanmar question, and – accord-
ing  both  to  Asian  and  European  interviewees  –  unrealistic  expectations  and  a  lack  of  flexibility  on 
some  occasions.  Markedly  different  European  and  Asian  views  on  how  to  deal  with  Myanmar  had 
been a constant thorn in the side of EU-ASEAN relations and within ASEM, and also played a part in 
the failure of free trade negotiations between the EU and ASEAN. Officials mentioned that – due to the 
opening-up and process of political liberalisation in Myanmar – this was now much less of a factor than 
previously, but said that diverging viewpoints still played a role in political dialogues. The notion of un-
realistic expectations refers mainly to EU-SAARC relations where both sides underestimated existing 
hurdles and challenges and tried to “start too big”, as one senior official summarised the problem. Lack 
of willingness to compromise on both sides was mentioned as a factor in the stalled negotiations for 
the  EU-ASEAN  FTA  and  the  unsuccessful  attempt  to  enshrine  the  EU-ASEAN  co-operation  pro-
gramme  in  a  memorandum  of  understanding.  Instead,  a  less  formal  version,  under  the  title  “EC-
ASEAN Co-operation during the Period 2011-2013”, became part of the MTR/MIP of the Asia RSP in 
2010 (see Annex VII).  

A certain amount disappointment was evident in many conversations about ASEM. According to sev-
eral  interviewees,  ASEM  has  not  fulfilled  expectations  as  “Europe’s  main  multilateral  channel  for 
communication with Asia”, as the EU put it in a factsheet on ASEM that was circulated until 2010. Offi-
cials with insight knowledge of ASEM mentioned that co-operation had become very technical and that 
too much time had been devoted to the drafting of formal statements, rather than the promotion of the 
co-operation agenda. For example, in the key area of economic co-operation, progress was hindered 
by the fact that no meeting of the ASEM economic ministers has taken place since 2003. Some inter-
viewees also stressed the necessity for a tighter ASEM strategy, particularly against the backdrop of 
the forum’s heterogeneity (ASEM currently has 51 members). However, there was strong agreement 
that  the  ASEM  progress  has  facilitated  interaction  among  civil  society  actors  from  both  continents  – 
centred on ASEF – in a way that it had never been possible prior to ASEM. Some referred to the con-
structive  and  highly  visible  multi-level  civil  society  dialogue  in  EU-Asia  relations  as  one  of  ASEM’s 
most valuable achievements. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

25 

4.1.1  JC  11:  Degree  to  which  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  has  deepened  the  inter-

regional exchange of information and analysis 

This JC assesses three key aspects that potentially form the basis for a deepening and strengthening 
of inter-regional exchanges. It first looks at the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for consultation 
and collaboration in EU-Asia relations with regard to key policy areas. It then assesses the degree to 
which  joint  policy  positions  in  the  fields  of  environment,  education  and  socio-economic  development 
have  emerged  as  a  result  of  existing  dialogues  and  partnerships.  Finally,  the  JC  addresses  o  the 
question of whether, and to what extent, coherent and co-ordinated positions of the EU and MS in in-
ter-regional dialogues between Europe and Asia have emerged.  

The  strongest  evidence  of  effective,  results-oriented  mechanisms  for  inter-regional  consultations  in 
key  policy  areas  (Indicator  111)  is  found  in  the  case  of  EU-ASEAN  relations.  The  final  report  of  the 
“Thematic Global Evaluation of European Union’s Support to Trade-related Assistance in Third Coun-
tries”, vol. 1. (2013) describes ASEAN as “a model case”.  

Box 3 

Policy dialogues on Trade-Related Assistance 

“It  is  a  particular  strong  feature  of  the  [EU-ASEAN]  co-operation  that  TRA  projects  run  in  parallel,  and  are  co-
ordinated, with a high-profile political dialogue on economic co-operation. The EC participates in a series of con-
sultative meetings with ASEAN which includes the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting (AEMM), ASEAN-EU Econom-
ic Ministers Meeting, ASEAN-EU Senior Officials Meeting, the Post Ministerial Conferences (PMC) and the Joint 
Co-operation  Committee  (JCC)  Meeting.  These  meetings  offer  opportunities  for  the  EU  and  ASEAN  to  review 
their  relations  in  the  fields  of  economic  and  development  co-operation  affecting  the  two  sides.  The  ASEAN-
Brussels  Committee,  ASEAN-Berlin  Committee,  ASEAN-London  Committee  and  ASEAN-Paris  Committee  also 
assist in conducting and maintaining the dialogue with the EU. At the apex of the dialogue process is the AEMM, 
which  sets  the  direction  and  pace  of  the  dialogue  and  reviews,  inter  alia,  the  economic  and  functional  co-
operation between the two sides.” 

Source: Thematic Global Evaluation of European Commission’s Support to Trade-related Assistance in Third 
Countries, Field visit report ASEAN, July 2012, pp. 19, 21. 

The 2009 Evaluation of the EC’s co-operation with ASEAN, Vol 1, arrived at similar conclusions, stat-
ing that EU support for participation in ASEAN policy dialogues had increased the capacity of less de-
veloped member states to deal with regional economic integration. Furthermore, policy dialogue with 
ASEAN “has proven to be a nimble instrument for incorporating emerging issues” (Vol. 2, p. 87).  

Overall, the fact that ASEAN officials consider the EU as ASEAN’s most relevant and trusted partner is 
not only the result of the sizable development co-operation programme. It is also, to a large extent, a 
reflection of the long history of regular high-level political exchanges, and especially the way that the 
EU has been consistent in its strategic approach towards ASEAN. Development co-operation and pol-
icy dialogues have been treated as the two sides of the same coin to promote a multi-level and holistic 
agenda in inter-regional relations, which – in its breadth – is unique among ASEAN’s partners, includ-
ing  the  US,  Canada,  Australia,  Japan,  China  and  Russia.  As  a  result,  the  EU  has  also  successfully 
promoted European “best practices” in areas such as regional economic integration, climate change, 
environmental sustainability, and disaster preparedness. 

Mechanisms  for  dialogue  are  evident  across  the  entire  portfolio  of  EU-ASEAN  co-operation,  as  con-
firmed,  for  example  in  the  case  of  READI.  However,  in  these  and  other  cases  comprehensive  evi-
dence  is  mainly  available  for  the  existence  of  well-established  policy  dialogue  mechanisms,  but  not 
always for the actual outcomes and effectiveness of these dialogues. ASEM is a case in point.  

According to the logframe, the purpose of the ASEM Dialogue Facility IV is to “enhance result-oriented 
political dialogue and co-operation in the framework of ASEM process … priority areas” − including, for 
example,  economic  and  financial  matters,  as  well  as  environment,  energy  security,  and  sustainable 
development. However, the related “objectively verifiable indicator of achievement” is simply not suffi-
ciently specific (“Outcomes of the ASEM dialogue and their relevance”) to allow for any monitoring of 
effectiveness.  Information  is  mainly  available  on  outputs.  There  is  ample  evidence  (such  as  through 
interviews, evaluations and academic studies (see Vol 2 for details) for the existence of multi-level ex-
changes of ideas and analysis as a contribution to key agendas in dialogue relations between Europe 
and  Asia  −  especially  in  the  areas  of  employment  and  social  inclusion,  environment  and  climate 
change, and education and culture. The Dialogue Facility – and, in a similar vein, ASEF − provide fo-
rums for dialogue and networking mainly through the organisation  of conferences. While this can be 
considered  as  a  value  added  to  high-level  political  and  diplomatic  relations  (“track  one”)  in  EU-Asia 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

26 

relations, the specific impact of (mainly academic) conferences on diplomacy cannot be assessed in a 
hard empirical way.  

A  recent  project,  “Shaping  a  Common  Future  for  Europe  and  Asia  –  Sharing  Policy  Innovation  and 
Best Practices in Addressing Common Challenges” (January 2012-December 2014, co-funded by the 
EU under the budget line Pilot Actions and Preparatory Action), aims to fill the gaps in the existing in-
terventions  −  particularly  in  terms  of  bridging  inter-regional  research  collaboration  and  policy  dia-
logues. There is some initial indication that this new “EU-Asia Dialogue” is likely to contribute to policy 
formulation in EU-Asia relations, although this is difficult to quantify. 

The EU has had SAARC Observer Status since 2006, but a policy dialogue comparable to the one in 
EU-ASEAN  relations  does  not  exist.  The  2010  MTR  of  the  EU-Asia  RSP  2007-2013  simply  states: 
“The  policy  agendas  and  sectoral  dialogues  with  individual  countries,  ASEM,  ASEAN  and  SAARC 
cover  all  themes  and  strategic  EU  priorities”  (p.  7),  but  also  notes  that  EU  “direct  co-operation  with 
SAARC is seriously hampered” (p. 9). There is some mention of policy dialogues in bilateral relations 
with  SAARC  Member  States,  but  no  assessment  of  results  and  effectiveness  is  available.  (Indicator 
111) 

Documents  and  stakeholder  interviews  also  reveal  that  the  formation  of  joint  policy  positions  on  key 
development agendas (environment, education, socio-economic development) in EU-Asia relations is 
most visible in the case of EU-ASEAN relations and of ASEM, but is absent from EU-SAARC relations, 
which  lack  an  institutionalised  policy  dialogue  mechanism.  The  multi-level  nature  of  the  EU-ASEAN 
dialogue provides a suitable and tested framework for an effective discussion and, partly, harmonisa-
tion of policy positions in relations between EU and ASEAN stakeholders. Higher education (HE) is a 
good example: the policy-making and policy dialogue instruments are creating  spaces for HE policy-
makers  from  both  the  EU  and  ASEAN  to  deliberate  on  pressing  HE  issues  (Evaluation  of  EC  co-
operation with ASEAN, Vol 2, 2009, p. 62). However, the identification of common interest in relations 
between  the  EU  and  Asian  partners  does  not  necessarily  equate  to  an  implementable  joint  policy 
agenda. This is particularly evident for ASEM.  

As the only inter-governmental dialogue forum in relations between Europe and Asia, ASEM has pro-
vided a relevant and effective framework for the identification and discussion of important development 
agendas. Joint policy  positions are  regularly presented in the ASEM chair’s statement at the conclu-
sion of the summit meetings, but these documents are of a general and declaratory nature. While they 
outline a common agenda in relations between European and Asian governments, they do not neces-
sarily set a framework for actual policy responses to the identified challenges. The shaping of a more 
specific policy agenda takes place at sub-ordinated meetings, including meetings of line ministers.  

However, given ASEM’s heterogeneous membership structure and  the  inevitably  diverse interests of 
the member states, agreement on joint policy positions is usually not a straightforward process. Sev-
eral academic studies analysing ASEM have complemented the information available in official docu-
ments  and  evaluation  reports.  Academic  studies  also  tend  to  take  a  more  critical  perspective  as  to 
what ASEM can achieve with regard to the setting of a joint European-Asian Policy Agenda. For ex-
ample, a study  by  Evi  Fitriani (2011)  found  that a certain degree  of  “polarisation between Asian  and 
European  groups  in  the  ASEM  or  ASEF  meetings,  caused  by  political  issues  and  colonial  memory, 
contributed  to  the  difficulties  in  trust-building  between  Asian  and  European  participants”.  The  ASEF 
Evaluation  (2011)  is  even  more critical,  indicating  that  ASEF’s  contribution  to  the  formation  of  policy 
positions has been hindered by structural deficiencies within ASEF. According to that evaluation, there 
is no detailed analysis or strategy on how to address the key result areas with a multi-actor stakehold-
er  clientele  and  with  multi-faceted  processes.  Moreover,  expectations  as  to  what  ASEF  can  and 
should deliver are often not realistic. ASEF was established with a clear mandate to promote “intellec-
tual, cultural and people-to-people exchange”. It was not designed as – and never intended to be – a 
clearing house or secretariat for ASEM that acts as a co-ordinating body, in the sense that all civil so-
ciety  processes  emanating  from  the  ASEM  dialogue  would  be  steered  and  managed  through  ASEF 
following a strategic master plan. 

While the influence of Asian members – particularly China in ASEM (as the result of increasing budget 
contributions) – has grown, it seems that the ASEM Dialogue Facility, has not been sufficiently driven 
by  Asian  partners  −  even  though  it  is  supposed  to  contribute  to  achieving  strategic  objectives  of 
ASEM,  and  thereby  the  RSP.  The  MTE  of  the  ASEM  Dialogue  Facility  and  stakeholder  interviews 
point to a mismatch between the RSP strategy and its implementation. While the Dialogue Facility is 
based on the proposition that activities are selected at the request of Asian countries, the more com-
mon practice is that projects are  selected by the DG, in consultation with Asian ASEM partners. The 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

27 

MTE expressed concern that “the focus of ASEM Dialogue Facility financed activity is not sufficiently 
closely aligned to Asian needs” (p. 34). (Indicator 112) 

Evidence  of coherent and  co-ordinated positions of the  EU  and Member States in inter-regional dia-
logues between Europe and Asia is found across all dialogue mechanisms at the inter-governmental 
level  (ASEAN-EU,  ASEM,  EU-SAARC,  ARF).  The  views  and  positions  of  all  participating  European 
stakeholders, including the EU and Member States, are harmonised ex ante. The EU generally speaks 
with  one  voice  in  inter-regional  meetings.  Resulting  statements,  declarations  and  other  official  docu-
ments, which are  usually co-ordinated by  the  EU, always refer to EU positions rather than individual 
positions of the EU and/or Member States. Seen from this angle, there is a coordinated EU position in 
every official document. However, this does not mean that all EU MS follow the same policies and in-
terests in Asia-Europe relations. Despite all the progress achieved in integrating the EU members’ ex-
ternal  policies,  national  differences  still  clearly  come  to  the  fore  as  far  as  the  key  orientations  and 
points of emphasis in their foreign policies are concerned. These differences are reflected also in the 
role ASEM takes in the policies of various European partners. (Indicator 113) 

4.1.2  JC 12: Extent to which regional-level EU support to Asia has strengthened the problem-
solving  capacities  of  Asian  partners  in  economic,  socio-political  and  environmental 
fields 

This JC addresses  the extent  to  which  inter-regional  dialogues  and partnerships have contributed to 
improved problem-solving capacities of Asian governments and their agencies. The JC does not elab-
orate in detail the contributions made by sector-specific co-operation programmes (such as APRIS II, 
ARISE,  ECAP  III,  READI,  EU-South  Asia  Civil  Aviation  Co-operation,  FLEGT),  which  are  discussed 
under EQs 2-6 and only mentioned here in case of inter-linkages with dialogue mechanisms. Overall, 
availability of evidence is mixed. It is strongest in the case of increasing cross-border co-operation on 
research and education matters, as this has been the main focal point of TEIN, which has been suc-
cessful overall and has achieved most of its objectives, according to evaluations. 

New or improved  inter-regional and regional mechanisms have  evolved to address economic and fi-
nancial challenges, but the evidence is mainly based on information regarding outputs; not much anal-
ysis is available on the effectiveness of these mechanisms.  

The  “Plan  of  Action  to  Implement  the  Nuremberg  Declaration  on  the  EU  ASEAN  Enhanced  Partner-
ship”  (2007),  which  has  guided  EU-ASEAN  political  relations  during  the  period  evaluated,  re-
emphasised the centrality of existing and new programmes in support of capacity building − for exam-
ple,  APRIS,  READI,  TREATI,  EC-ASEAN  Standards,  Quality  and  Conformity  Assessment  Pro-
gramme.26  Senior  officials  interviewed  during  the  field  phase  almost  unanimously  identified  the  Nu-
remberg  Declaration  as  the  most  significant  milestone  of  recent  dialogue  relations,  providing  a  solid 
basis for EU-ASEAN co-operation. 

The  clearest  evidence  for  improved  mechanisms  in  response  to  economic  and  financial  challenges 
exists for individual  ASEAN members − for example, Thailand and  Laos.  In contrast, there is  no de-
tailed  assessment  available  for  the  potential  enhancement  of  regional  and  inter-regional  response 
mechanisms through ASEM policy dialogues or projects implemented under the ASEM dialogue facili-
ty. Existing reports mainly disseminate information about discussions held. (Indicator 121) 

With regard to the existence of effective inter-regional and regional consultation processes to respond 
to socio-economic challenges, a wide range of documents and stakeholder interviews confirm that so-
cio-economic issues have been discussed  extensively  in EU-ASEAN and ASEM meetings at various 
levels.  They  have  also  been  taken  up  by  ASEF  −  for  example,  on  economic  challenges  facing  Asia 
and  Europe.  However,  these  activities  do  not  amount  to  actual  solutions  in  response  to  challenges. 
There are only implicit hints that allow for some assessment of effectiveness. For example, findings of 
the ASEM Dialogue Facility MTE suggest that projects under the DF, which tend to have a strong fo-
cus on socio-economic agendas in many cases, have not achieved a high degree of effectiveness in 
advancing the inter-regional collaboration on these issues. (Indicator 122) 

With regard to the institutional deepening of regional co-operation in response to environmental chal-
lenges, evidence is weak and available only in isolated cases, including bilateral negotiations with In-

26 One of the proposed pillars, the ASEAN-EU FTA (“Negotiate and conclude the ASEAN-EU FTA aiming at mu-
tually beneficial FTA while taking into account the different levels of development and capacity of the individual 
ASEAN Member Countries to carry out comprehensive trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation”),. even-
tually did not materialise, but resulted in the intervention “Enhancing ASEAN Free Trade Agreement Negotiation 
Capacity”, which began its work in early 2012. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
28 

donesia, in the context of the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA). These negotiations provided a 
framework for policy dialogue on timber trade, illegal logging and sustainable forestry, and led to the 
establishment of a Joint Preparatory Committee, which will meet on a regular basis.  

The  evaluation  of  ASEF  praises  its  contribution  to  advancing  the  environmental  agenda.  Reportedly 
ASEF events through the Asia Europe Environment Forum (ENVforum) were able to set  “clear policy 
recommendations  and  high  practical  and  theoretical  approaches  to  be  used  as  reference  for  ASEM 
and international thinktanks”. The ENVforum also succeeded in organising internal strategic and oper-
ational planning, as  well as institutionalised  internal  quality control through a quality control group,  a 
technical advisory and supervisory committee (p. 18). (Indicator 123) 

Extensive evidence of growing cross-border co-operation on research and education matters is avail-
able  for  TEIN,  which  was  established  precisely  for  this  purpose.  According  the  programme’s  self-
assessment, TEIN “is highly regarded by ASEM partners as a major success story”. The Evaluation of 
TEIN 2 and 3 comes to similarly positive conclusions, indicating that “It is evident … that TEIN3 is an 
important part of the EU’s dialogue with Asia under the ASEM framework. …”. It also says that TEIN 
contributed to the creation and expansion of national R&E networks, played a role in the development 
of national telecommunications policies, and had a strong focus on cross-cutting issues (such as gen-
der, environment ), and climate change  

The  Evaluation  also  points  out  that  TEIN2  and  TEIN3  “have  had  high  visibility  at  ASEM  meetings”. 
Equally important, the Asian National Research and Education Network (NREN) – through which each 
partner country participates in TEIN – “have close links to their national governments and are therefore 
in a position to influence decision-making”. Research collaboration has also been promoted by READI, 
and seems to get more prominent attention in more recent projects. (Indicator 124) 

4.1.3  JC  13:  Degree  to  which  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  has  strengthened  links  be-
tween civil societies and Governments in Asia and civil society exchange between Asia 
and Europe and within Asia. 

This JC assesses the degree to  which  EU support  has contributed to  a stronger involvement of civil 
society stakeholders in the process of shaping policy  options on key development agendas. Specific 
emphasis is given to the contribution of civil societies to the increased quantity and quality of research 
collaboration, and to increasing awareness of Europe in Asia, and vice versa. At the centre of civil so-
ciety  exchanges stands the  ASEF programme,  which, together  with the  ASEM  Dialogue Facility and 
TEIN, forms one of the main actions under support to ASEM. ASEF was tasked to play a role “as an 
effective institution promoting intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges between Asia and 
Europe”  (RSP  2007-2013,  p.  10).  There  is  ample  evidence  from  numerous  sources  (such  as 
interviews, the ASEF evaluation and ASEF ROM report) that ASEF has fulfilled this mandate. 

However, until very recently, there was limited evidence for increased voice and participation of Asian 
civil society organisations on key development agendas in Europe-Asia dialogues, even if the private 
sector is subsumed under civil society. In the case of ASEAN, the TRA Evaluation notes that consulta-
tions  with  private  sector  actors  (mainly  business  organisations)  took  place  in  the  process  of  drafting 
and implementing new regional standards, but institutionalised effective mechanism for regional con-
sultations with non-state actors did not exist on a permanent basis and were not a default approach for 
EU projects. In a similar vein, the MTR of APRIS II suggests that civil society participation was limited. 
This also applies to other interventions. However, these recommendations have now been addressed 
and  there  is  a  stronger  focus  on  civil  society  participation  in  ARISE  than  there  was  in  APRIS  II.  Alt-
hough the first six-month report (April to September 2012) of READI does not mention civil society in-
volvement or participation in any activity, stakeholder interviews demonstrated that project activities in 
most  of  READI’s  nine  focal  areas  have  had  input  from  non-state  actors.  As  the  civil  society  arm  of 
ASEM, the strengthening of civil society participation in Europe-Asia relations is at the core of ASEF’s 
mandate. The ROM of the Third Phase of Community Support to ASEF, 2009, confirms that “ASEF is 
providing a neutral platform for civil society dialogue in the complex cultural framework of Asia-Europe 
relations”.  The  ASEF  Evaluation  of  2011  generally  indicates  that  civil  society  participation  has  been 
successful  in  cases  where  ASEM  and  ASEF  have  interacted,  but  also  concludes  that  ASEF  is  not 
covering its whole mandate, as civil society partnerships in the key thematic area of Economy and So-
ciety are largely non-existent. The field phase confirmed that this focal point has now been added to 
the ASEF agenda. (Indicator 131) 

On  the  matter  of  increased  quantity  and  quality  of  research  collaboration,  both  the  desk  and  field 
phases revealed  that research collaboration  essentially  takes place at the level  of civil society  within 
the framework of EU-funded activities in the higher education sector, as elaborated on in detail under 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

29 

EQ6. At the same time, interventions in other sectors can potentially play a contributing role. However, 
APRIS,  ARISE,  ECAP,  and  most  other  interventions  in  support  of  ASEAN  and  SAARC,  have  not 
strongly encouraged or fostered research collaboration between Europe and Asia. The exceptions  in 
this regard are the ASEM Dialogue Facility and ASEF and also – to some extent − READI, especially 
in its focal area “Science and Technology”. However, evidence is slender. (Indicator 133) 

Evidence of increased awareness of Europe in Asia, and vice versa, as the result of civil society inter-
actions  is  equally  rare.  Neither  the  ASEF  evaluation  nor  any  other  studies  and  documents  provides 
hard evidence for increased awareness. The  ASEF evaluation of 2011 includes some generally rele-
vant  observations  that  were  confirmed  in  stakeholder  interviews:  ASEF  is  characterised  by  “unique-
ness, continued relevance and strong potential added value as a facilitator of bi-directional civil society 
policy  dialogue  between  Asia  and  Europe”  and  good  alignment  of  its  activities  with  the  overall  inter-
governmental (track one) ASEM dialogue process. (Indicator 134) 

4.2  EQ2 on regional added value to economic integration 

EQ2: To what extent has EU support in Asia contributed to progress towards regional econom-
ic integration? 

EU  support  to  regional  integration  initiatives  is  multi-faceted.  Political  support  and  sharing  of  experi-
ence  with  regional  economic  communities  via  policy  dialogues  (such  as  the  EU-ASEAN  dialogue, 
which dates back to 1972) is one aspect. Financial support through development co-operation is an-
other. Direct EU support for regional economic integration in Asia has its roots in the EU-ASEAN Co-
operation  Agreement,  which  was  signed  at  the  Second  ASEAN-EEC  Ministerial  Meeting  (AEMM)  in 
Kuala Lumpur in 1980. Under the Agreement, objectives for commercial, economic and technical  co-
operation were established, and a Joint Co-operation Committee (JCC) was formed as a mechanism 
to monitor ASEAN-EU co-operation. Technical assistance was one of the three areas emphasised, the 
other two being commercial co-operation and economic co-operation. Since then, several new strate-
gies and communications have broadened the scope of the EU’s engagement with regional partners, 
aimed at a deepening of regional integration agendas, such as establishing the implementation of re-
gional free trade areas, the harmonisation of customs regimes, the promotion of regional Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) and Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) regimes, and the 
support  of  the  ASEAN  and  SAARC  secretariats  as  co-ordinating  bodies  in  the  respective  integration 
processes 

The  RSP  2007-2013  explicitly  states  that  the  encouragement  of  greater  regional  integration  and  co-
operation through the support of ASEAN and SAARC  is a main strategic objective. The EU is poten-
tially  in  a  good  position  to  support  processes  of  regional  integration  elsewhere.  The  2013  “Thematic 
Global  Evaluation  of  European  Union’s  Support  to  Trade-related  Assistance  in  Third  Countries”  out-
lines that,  as the most advanced case of regional  economic integration, the EU is seen as the main 
source of concrete experiences in other parts of the world. While the EU is not necessarily always re-
garded as a direct model for regional economic integration, it is perceived as an important reference 
point for regional communities in Asia, as well as in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.  

Under the RSP, the total financial support for regional integration (ASEAN, SAARC and ASEM), which 
also includes non-economic agendas, amounted to EUR 78 million during 2007-2010, with an indica-
tive EUR 63 million for 2011-13 (20% of the total allocation in both cases).  

This EQ seeks to address the various aspects of support to regional economic integration: the devel-
opment of the legal and regulatory framework of regional integration initiatives (such as new trade pro-
tocols or annexes to existing agreements) and their implementation at the regional and member state 
levels. Thereby, the EQ assesses the EU contribution both to capacity building and to increasing the 
regional flow of goods and services. It also asks to what extent the multi-level support to regional eco-
nomic integration has established the EU as an important and trusted source of expertise on regional 
integration matters. 

EQ2 – Overall assessment 

Between 2007 and 2013, the EU has made a significant and effective contribution to regional econom-
ic integration in Southeast Asia. This has been achieved through targeted technical support to the im-
plementation  of  the  ASEAN  Economic  Community  Blueprint  and  multi-level  capacity  building  at  re-
gional  and  national  levels.  Of  particular  importance  has  been  the  EU  support  to  the  emergence  and 
implementation  of  regional  standards,  preferential  trading  agreements,  customs  harmonisation,  re-
gional statistics, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). In most cases, a substantial EU contribution in 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

30 

EQ2 – Overall assessment 

the aforementioned areas is evident, both qualitatively (based on the assessments in previous evalua-
tions and in interviews) and qualitatively (based on data and surveys). Furthermore, the EU is seen as 
ASEAN’s most trusted and relevant partner, given the importance of the European integration process 
as a reference point (but not necessarily a model) for ASEAN’s own regional integration.  While past 
evaluation reports have  often  pointed to a certain disconnect between regional  and national-level  in-
terventions, and a lack of focus on the capacity gaps in some ASEAN Member States (AMS), the EU 
has pro-actively addressed these shortcomings during the latter phase of the strategy. Regional and 
bilateral programmes (for example, ARISE at the regional level, and bilateral TRA interventions in the 
ASEAN Member States) are now better linked and connected to increase synergies. At the same time, 
a  stronger  explicit  focus  on  the  CLMV  (Cambodia,  Lao  PDR,  Myanmar  and  Vietnam)  countries  has 
emerged to addresses their particular needs in the process of deepening regional economic integra-
tion. 

The vast majority of Interventions have focused on ASEAN. With regard to fostering regional econom-
ic integration, the Asia Strategy is essentially a follow-up to the previous ASEAN RSP 2005-2006, but 
adds little value for the EU’s regional co-operation with Asia in a broader sense. The EU had planned 
to  provide  some  modest  support  –  in  comparison  to  support  for  ASEAN  –  to  regional  integration  in 
SAARC, but was unable to secure agreement from the SAARC Member States, particularly India. The 
EU-South Asia Civil Aviation Programme, which initially proved more feasible and enjoyed the strong 
support  of  SAARC  member  states,  was  terminated  after  about  one  year  of  implementation.  The 
stronger emphasis on ASEAN is a logical consequence of the fact that ASEAN – unlike SAARC – has 
been one of the EU’s key partners in Asia, and indeed in the world, for four decades. Yet, in several 
key parts of the strategy paper, ASEAN and SAARC are de facto presented as equal partners of the 
EU, and the Strategy does not fully appreciate that it makes sense to provide support to regional eco-
nomic integration only where such integration is actually part of the region's and respective countries' 
own  core  strategy.  This  approach  was  partly  corrected  by  the  MTR,  which  acknowledged  that  direct 
support to SAARC had to be scaled down and re-focused to support mini-lateral cross-border activities 
of two or more SAARC members.  

According to the RSP, ASEM, the related ASEM Dialogue Facility (DF) and ASEF were supposed to 
play a prominent role in the EU’s efforts to strengthen regional economic integration across Asia,  but 
this was not initially the case. The reason is simple: such a focus was not in the interest of the majority 
of ASEM members, and neither  was economic integration an agreed focal  point of ASEF’s mandate 
and activities. Interests have changed, however, and a stronger input of ASEM-ASEF in this area has 
emerged since about 2011. 

4.2.1  JC 21: Degree to which regional EU-level support facilitated the development and con-
clusion  of  regional  legal  and  institutional  architecture,  addressing  key  issues  for  eco-
nomic integration 

In line with practically all major programme and strategy evaluations of the last few years, the evalua-
tion reveals that the EU has made a significant and effective contribution to the  strengthening of the 
legal and institutional settings that form the pillars of economic integration in ASEAN. The EU regional-
level  support  has  addressed  the  crucial  and  central  agendas  in  this  process  −  such  as  standards, 
SPS,  IPR,  statistics  −  and  thereby  has  helped  ASEAN  move  closer  to  achieving  the  vision  of  the 
ASEAN Economic Community 2015. However, EU efforts under the Asia Strategy have overwhelming-
ly focused on Southeast Asia, with other sub-regions not benefiting to the same extent.  

EU-supported  regional  trade  and  investment  policy  strategies  are  in  place  and  embedded  in  a  co-
ordinated agenda for implementation, particularly as a result of APRIS II and ECAP. APRIS II contrib-
uted  to  the  preparation  of  common  regulatory  regimes  −  such  as  in  cosmetics  and  in  electrical  and 
electronic equipment (EEE). It also contributed to the preparation and adoption of common trade doc-
uments, such as ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature (AHTN) and ASEAN Customs Declaration 
Document (ACDD).  

Several legal and regulatory  adjustments resulted from the EU’s interventions,  and these have been 
pivotal in developing an improved and modernised operational environment for trade at national or re-
gional level. ARISE, which started in 2012, builds on APRIS II, while also introducing new activities. It 
has  further  developed  the  EU  approach  to  the  strengthening  of  ASEAN  customs  systems,  and  pilot 
projects in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand will be implemented, taking into account lessons learned 
from APRIS II.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

31 

Overall, the EU has followed a comprehensive multi-level strategy to TRA for ASEAN. Previous evalu-
ations and stakeholder interviews confirm that TRA activities have successfully used multiple channels 
to promote regional integration and trade. However, the evaluation also notes that TRA interventions 
have given insufficient attention to the right balance and effective co-ordination between regional-level 
support  to  the  ASEAN  Secretariat  (ASEC)  and  bilateral  projects  in  ASEAN  member  states  (AMS), 
Several  other  evaluations  (e.g.  CLE  Philippines,  ASEAN  evaluation,  and,  perhaps  most  importantly, 
the MTR of the RSP 2007-2013) have come to similar conclusions. While stressing the effectiveness 
of EU TRA, they identified shortcomings  with regard to the embeddedness of regional- and national-
level strategies in a co-ordinated agenda for implementation. However, interviews conducted in Jakar-
ta in August 2013 indicated that this shortcoming was addressed towards the end of the strategy. This 
was  also  confirmed  by  the  Survey  of  the  EU  Delegations.  Regional  and  bilateral  programmes  −  for 
example,  ARISE  at  the  regional  level,  and  TRA  projects  in  individual  AMS  −  are  now  much  better 
linked and connected. Regular communication between the respective project team leaders and also 
managers  takes  place,  and  the  potential  for  the  creation  of  synergies  has  grown.  However,  the  two-
year gap between the completion of APRIS II and the beginning of ARISE – which was mainly due to 
delays in the decision-making and administrative processes in Brussels - resulted in a slowing down of 
customs reforms. Since ASEAN  was not in the position to raise its own funds for the continuation of 
APRIS-initiated activities, little progress was made during the two-year period. . 

In view of the fact that “Global economic issues and issues relating to Asian integration are central is-
sues in ASEM dialogue” (ASEM DF MTE, 2011), it is surprising that few projects funded by the ASEM 
DF have focused on regional integration. Only two conferences, both in 2008, explicitly addressed this 
topic. None  of the activities funded under the  ASEM  DF II, III and IV had any direct relation  with re-
gional economic integration or even macroeconomic issues in general. The main reason was a lack of 
demand. The ASEM DF was designed to support ASEM dialogues “in areas selected at the request of 
Asian countries”. Hence, it can be concluded that projects in the field of economic regional intergration 
had not been requested. This was not anticipated by the RSP, which places “economic and financial 
matters” at the top of the list of topics for dialogue (p. 10). 

SAARC Member States have not received EU support  to foster regional integration, as confirmed by 
stakeholder interviews and the Survey of EU Delegations. Although funds were committed in 2007 for 
EU-SAARC  Economic  Co-operation,  and  efforts  were  made  by  the  EU  to  safeguard  the  project, 
SAARC  Member  States  did  not  empower  the  SAARC  Secretariat  to  sign  the  Financing  Agreement. 
(Indicator 211).  

The RSP established SAARC as a central partner for the EU – at the same level as ASEAN. It stated: 
“Regional Co-operation during 2007-2013 will focus on three priority areas: 1) Support to Regional In-
tegration,  the  key  dialogue  partners  for  the  EU  being  Asia-Europe  Meeting  (ASEM),  Association  of 
Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), ASEAN regional forum (ARF) and South Asian Association for Re-
gional  Co-operation  (SAARC)”  (p.  3).  Yet,  EU-SAARC  co-operation  in  support  of  regional  economic 
integration in South Asia turned out to be difficult due to its low priority on the political agenda of the 
sub-region’s  governments,  and  hence  the  main  achievements  on  the  regional  economic  integration 
agenda under the RSP are confined to ASEAN.  

Regional-level EU support contributed to agreement on, and partly implementation of, new protocols, 
framework  agreements  or harmonised  regulations  in  ASEAN,  but  not  elsewhere  in  Asia.  Neither  the 
ASEM  Dialogue  Facility  nor  EU-SAARC  co-operation  has  had  a  comparable  focus.  Both  the  TRA 
Evaluation (2013) and the Evaluation of EU-ASEAN co-operation (2009) stress the significant role of 
the  EU  in  facilitating  the  negotiation  and  implementation  of  a  wide  range  of  relevant  regional  agree-
ments in Southeast Asia. All interventions took place under the umbrella of APRIS II, which contribut-
ed to the preparation of common regulatory regimes, such as in cosmetics and electrical and EEE, as 
well as to the preparation and adoption of common trade documents (e.g. ASEAN Harmonised Tariff 
Nomenclature (AHTN) and ASEAN Customs Declaration Document (ACDD). A large number of legal 
and regulatory adjustments resulted from the EU’s interventions, and these have been pivotal in de-
veloping an improved and modernised operational environment for trade at national or regional  level 
However, not all agreements have been implemented according to schedule, as the evaluation’s field 
phase revealed. ARISE has further strengthened the focus on standards and conformity agreements 
in ASEAN, with a particular emphasis on foodstuffs and electronic and pharmaceutical products (Indi-
cator 212). 

EU regional-level support was instrumental in increasing the reliability and accuracy of statistical data 
in  ASEAN.  To  many  stakeholders  interviewed  as  part  of  this  evaluation,  statistics  is  the  biggest  and 
most  visible  success  story  of  EU-ASEAN  co-operation  in  recent  years.  The  system  is  based  on  two 
institutional  pillars:  the  ASEAN  Integration  Monitoring  Office  (AIMO),  and  its  subordinated  statistical 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

32 

unit (ASEANStats). Both  AIMO and  ASEANStats have  received substantial financial  assistance from 
international  donors,  including  the  EU,  AusAID,  the  German  agency  GIZ,  the  World  Bank,  and  the 
IMF. The EU alone committed nearly EUR 5 million for the development of ASEANStats, through the 
EU-ASEAN  Statistical  Capacity  Building  (EASCAB)  Programme  (2009-2013).  The  assessment  of 
EASCAB is generally positive, and the programme is seen as having made substantial contributions. 
Despite being  a  very small and understaffed unit, ASEANStats has  been  able to generate  important 
and  useful  regional  statistics,  including  core  trade  data,  such  as  eight-digit  merchandise  trade  data. 
Country  statistics  have  been  available  since  early  2012.  In  the  same  year,  ASEC  published  the 
ASEAN International Merchandise Trade Statistics (IMTS) Yearbook. It presents time series data and 
trends  on  ASEAN  international  merchandise  trade,  covering  the  period  from  1993  to  2011,  at  HS 
eight-digit level (Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System). The assistance of EASCAB 
is prominently acknowledged in the Yearbook. Data on trade in goods and services and regional FDI is 
now also aligned with the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) to facilitate easier monitoring of AEC 
implementation. (Indicator 213) 

Approaches to IPR have been strengthened and implemented to some extent at regional and national 
levels in ASEAN, but not elsewhere in Asia. As in the case of other issues dealt with under this JC, EU 
regional-level  support  has  been  restricted  to  ASEAN,  with  ECAP  being  at  the  core  of  regional  ap-
proaches to IPR. As the result of ECAP, appropriate legislation is in place in most AMS, although en-
forcement remains a challenge The ECAP III objectives address the weak points as identified by the 
ECAP II Evaluation, but project implementation was affected by major problems both on the EU and 
ASEAN sides in 2011-12. ECAP III, Phase II, was only re-started with a meeting of the ASEAN Work-
ing  Group  on  Intellectual  Property  Co-operation  (AWGIPC)  in  November  2012.  The  Inception  Phase 
began in January 2013. (Indicator 214) 

The  Role  of  the  EU  as  important  source  of  expertise  on  regional  economic  integration  is  acknowl-
edged  by  Asian  partners  mainly  in  ASEAN  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  in  SAARC.  There  is  strong  evi-
dence from a range of sources, including previous country strategy evaluations, thematic evaluations 
(such as evaluation of TRA) and interviews, that the EU is perceived as an important source of exper-
tise, knowledge, reference or even model for ASEAN. According to evaluation reports and confirmed 
by stakeholder interviews, all major interventions, including, but not limited to, APRIS II, ARISE, ECAP 
II, READI and EASCAB, have successfully established the EU as the most relevant and trusted source 
of  expertise  in  the  area  of  economic  integration.  ASEM  has  also  played  some  part  in  increasing  EU 
visibility  and  thereby  the  EU’s  credibility  as  a  point  of  reference  for  processes  of  regional  economic 
integration. Evidence beyond ASEAN is rare, though. Interviews with SAARC officials suggest that the 
EU experiences and achievements are seen as relevant but that other regional organisations, particu-
larly ASEAN, are more important as a reference point because they are facing similar challenges as 
SAARC. (Indicator 215) 

4.2.2  JC  22:  Extent  to  which  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  has  facilitated  the  regional 

flow of goods and services 

The  EU  has  made  an  important  contribution  to  the  facilitation  of  relevant  regional  agreements  in 
ASEAN (but not SAARC) through the strengthening of the institutional arrangements and mechanisms 
that cover the regional flow of goods and services.  

Trade liberalisation in ASEAN was based on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme 
from  1992  to  2010.  This  was  replaced  by  the  ASEAN  Trade  in  Goods  Agreement  (ATIGA)  in  2010. 
The  EU’s  main  contribution  to  the  implementation  of  CEPT  and  ATIGA  has  been  through  APRIS  II 
and,  since  2012,  ARISE.  A main  focal  point  had  been  the  improvement  of  the  ATIGA  rules  of  origin 
(RoO). There can be no doubt about the relevance of this intervention as RoO are considered  to be 
the most serious bottleneck affecting regional free trade in  Southeast Asia. The MTR of the regional 
strategy (2010) acknowledged the effectiveness of EU-support in the process of implementing regional 
trade agreements, but also pointed to prevailing hurdles: “ASEAN’s performance in strengthening re-
gional integration has been quite impressive, and has been successfully supported by technical assis-
tance and dialogue under the current MIP. Still, it has become evident that one of the weakest points 
of ASEAN is the lack of implementation of regional agreements at national level  – i.e. enforcement at 
ASEAN Member State level, as well as capacity constraints in the Secretariat.” (p. 9).  

If, as claimed by several evaluation reports (e.g. CLE Philippines, TRA  and ASEAN  Evaluation)  and 
other assessments (e.g. EAMRs), APRIS II had had a significant effect not only on the establishment 
of the necessary institutional pillars but also on the implementation and utilisation of CEPT-ATIGA, it 
does  not  show  in  quantitative  terms.  Intra-ASEAN  trade  (as  a  percentage  of  the  overall  trade  of  the 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

33 

AMS) has not increased markedly since 2003, and only by 4.4% since 1998. Furthermore, the utilisa-
tion of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) remains low.  

Figure 12 

Intra-ASEAN Trade in % of total ASEAN trade 1998-2011 

Source: Data compiled from ASEAN Secretariat 2012, ASEAN Community in Figures 2011, Jakarta, p. 15; 
ASEAN Statistics Leaflet, Selected Key Indicators 2012. 

Not  only  has  the  relative  volume  of  intra-ASEAN  stagnated,  but  a  comprehensive  survey27  of  more 
than  400  businesses  across  all  10  ASEAN  countries  found  that  the  utilisation  of  AFTA  remains  low. 
Only  29%  of  respondents  indicated  that  their  organisations  used  preferential  provisions  in  ASEAN 
and/or  ASEAN-plus  economic  agreements  (ASEAN  agreements  with  other  economies,  such  as  the 
ASEAN-China Free Trade Area − ACTFA). This was an improvement on the 22% in the 2010 Survey, 
but  still  a  low  figure  given  that  ASEAN  claims  there  has  been  virtually  full  implementation  of  AFTA 
(AFTA  Council  2010,  p.  3).  However,  particularly  striking  is  the  fact  that  46%  of  the  businesses  sur-
veyed stated that they were not planning to use preferential provisions in the future (p. 11).  

EU  interventions  have  not  fully  anticipated  and  addressed  the  political  hurdles  in  the  process  of  re-
gional economic integration. This evaluation found only limited appreciation of  the political framework 
conditions  that  determine  the  success  or failure  of  regional  integration  (TRA  Evaluation  2013,  p.  45; 
stakeholders interviews).  As already outlined under  EQ1, there  has been no direct EU regional-level 
support to regional trade integration in SAARC due to reasons beyond the EU’s control − that is. the 
SAARC Secretariat’s lack of a mandate to co-operate with the EU, and the related failure to secure a 
financing agreement. (Indicator 221) 

Progress towards harmonised customs clearance procedures has been achieved in ASEAN, which is 
the  sole  focus  on  customs  under  the  Asia  Strategy.  No  such  efforts  have  been  made  in  relation  to 
SAARC,  or  under  the  ASEM  umbrella.  Since  2005,  up  to  2,000  technical  assistance  and  capacity-
building projects in about 50 different sectors have been implemented to achieve the customs-related 
goals  set  out  in  the  ASEAN  Economic  Community  Blueprint  and  related  agreements.  Virtually  all  of 
these interventions have been funded through multi-million donor programmes, including very promi-
nently  APRIS  II  and,  more  recently,  ARISE.  Evaluation  reports  and  stakeholder  interviews  confirm  a 
significant contribution of APRIS II towards the implementation of central matters of customs harmoni-
sation and integration. These include the ASEAN Customs Declaration Document (ACDD) and Certifi-
cates of Origin as steps on the way to a fully computerised ASEAN Customs Transit System (ACTS) 
under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit.  However, no signifi-
cant further progress on ACDD or ACTS has been achieved since APRIS II ended in 2010, suggesting 
a low level of ASEAN ownership. Furthermore, both the APRIS II final evaluation and TRA Evaluation 
identify a lack of political commitment and, partly, technical capacity among the AMS as the main hur-
dle in the regional process of customs harmonisation. However, ARISE has provided new momentum, 
and  core  areas  of  the  customs  reform  have  been  continued  or  restarted.  Overall,  detailed  data  – 

27 The 2011-12 ASEAN Business Advisory Council (ASEAN-BAC) Survey on ASEAN Competitiveness – the sec-
ond of its kind; the first was published in 2010 – collated responses from businesses across all 10 ASEAN coun-
tries, comprising a mix of small, medium and large companies. They survey is based on 405 “usable responses”. 
A majority of the surveyed businesses had been in operation for more than  10 years, had trade/investment link-
ages within ASEAN, and had at least general knowledge of ASEAN policy initiatives. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

212225,124,525,525,4250510152025301998200020032008200920102011 
                                                      
34 

based  on the World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and the World Economic Forum’s Ena-
bling Trade Index – shows that gradual improvements in key customs sectors (e.g. efficiency of cus-
toms administration; efficiency of import-export procedures; transparency of border administration) are 
evident for most AMS. Given APRIS II’s centrality in support of ASEAN’s endeavours in this sector, it 
is reasonable to attribute these positive changes in part to the EU. (Indicator 222) 

Table 8 

Efficiency of import-export procedures, detailed indicators 

Efficiency 
of clear-
ance pro-
cess 
1-5 (best) 

9
0
0
2

2.2 
2.7 
3.4 
2.6 
3.9 
3.0 
2.9 

2
1
0
2

2.3 
2.5 
3.3 
2.6 
4.1 
3.0 
2.7 

Year 
___________ 
Country 
Cambodia 
Indonesia 
Malaysia 
Philippines 
Singapore 
Thailand 
Vietnam 

Legend:  

No. of 
days to 
import 

No. of 
docu-
ments to 
import 

Cost to 
import, 
US$ per 
container 

No. of 
days to 
export 

No. of 
docu-
ments to 
export 

Cost to 
export, 
US$ per 
container 

9
0
0
2

30 
27 
14 
16 
3 
13 
23 

2
1
0
2

26 
27 
14 
14 
4 
13 
21 

9
0
0
2

11 
6 
7 
8 
4 
3 
8 

2
1
0
2

10 
7 
7 
8 
4 
5 
8 

9
0
0
2

872 
660 
450 
819 
439 
795 
901 

2
1
0
2

872 
660 
435 
730 
439 
750 
670 

9
0
0
2

22 
21 
18 
16 
5 
14 
24 

2
1
0
2

22 
17 
17 
15 
5 
14 
22 

9
0
0
2

11 
5 
7 
8 
4 
4 
6 

2
1
0
2

9 
4 
6 
7 
4 
5 
6 

9
0
0
2

732 
704 
450 
816 
456 
625 
734 

2
1
0
2

732 
644 
450 
630 
456 
625 
580 

Significant improvements 
Slight improvements 
Slight worsening  
Worsening  

 *Data for Brunei, Laos and Myanmar not available. Source: Data compiled from World Economic Forum: The 
Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 and 2012 (colour codes added by the authors of this report). 

EU regional-level support has been instrumental in achieving progress towards agreements on shared 
standards and sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) in ASEAN, but not elsewhere in Asia. Ac-
cording to the TRA Evaluation (2013), “the EU has spearheaded the process of establishing and im-
plementing  regional  SPS  and  TBT  regimes,  particularly  in  ASEAN”  (Vol.  2,  p.  38).  For  example,  the 
implementation of the 2009 ATIGA,  which  was  developed  with strong  EU support (especially  APRIS 
II), included new obligations in both the TBT and SPS areas. The EU-support was also crucial in the 
cases  of  the  ASEAN  Cosmetics  Directive  (ACD),  ASEAN  Harmonised  Electrical  and  Electronics 
Equipment Regulatory Regime (EEERR), and ASEAN’s UN Globally Harmonised System of Classifi-
cation and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Effectiveness of EU support is also reported in the case of 
member states, according to several CLEs (e.g. The Philippines CLE). (Indicator 223) 

With regard to transport issues, the EU has recently started to support the regionalisation of civil avia-
tion, with a main focus on the establishment and implementation of regional safety standards, particu-
larly in SAARC. The EU-South Asia Civil Aviation Co-operation Project emerged as the main focus of 
EU support to SAARC under the Asia Strategy. The objective was to “contribute to regulatory harmo-
nisation,  policy  reform  and  capacity  building  at  the  regional  level  to  support  a  safe,  secure  and  sus-
tainable  regional  air  transport  environment  and  assist  South  Asia  in  gradually  harmonising  their  na-
tional  systems,  thus  promoting  air  transport  growth”  (Final  Formulation  Mission  Report,  2009pp.  17-
18). However, after a successful start and a strong buy-in on the part of the SAARC member states, the 
project had to be terminated in mid-2012 due to major problems during implementation. (Indicator 221) 
A  separate  bilateral  EU-India  civil  aviation  project  has  successfully  implemented  so  far.  The  ASEAN 
Economic Community (AEC) blueprint includes an ASEAN Open Skies agreement, which is to be fully 
implemented  in  2015.  In  support  of  Open  Skies,  the  EU  funds  the  ASEAN  Air  Transport  Integration 
Project (AATIP). Since the Financing  Agreement was only signed  in October 2012, it is too early for 
any assessment. (Indicator 224) 

Overall, the EU has strongly, visibly and – in most cases – effectively supported the facilitation of the 
regional  flow  of  goods  and  services.  However,  with  the  exception  of  the  aviation  sector,  the  EU  has 
focused its activities on ASEAN, and not SAARC. Furthermore, the contribution of the ASEM Dialogue 
Facility and ASEF has been very small. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
35 

4.3  EQ3 on added value to regional integration in non-economic fields 

EQ3:  To  what  extent  has  EU  support  to  human  security  challenges  strengthened  regional  
problem-solving capacities? 

The  main  rationale  of  this  EQ  derives  from  the  growing  importance  of  regional  integration  in  non-
economic  areas.  The  regional  organisations  themselves  and  the  EU  acknowledge  that  some  of  the 
most pressing challenges, which can benefit from cross-border co-operation, are related to social hu-
man security issues. The general trend over the last three decades of EU-Asia relations has been the 
steady broadening of areas of engagement. This has been particularly visible in relations with South-
east  Asia.  EC  COM  (2003)  399/4  “A  new  partnership  with  Southeast  Asia”  noted  that  a  more  active 
engagement was needed, and it identified a wide range of potential areas of co-operation. The range 
reflects  the  fact  that,  with  the  growing  importance  of  AMS  on  the  world  stage,  and  with  closer  EU-
ASEAN relations, the EU’s concerns expanded from purely economic issues, especially regional inte-
gration, to other, sometimes sensitive areas, such as the social sectors (mostly education and health), 
the environment, and human rights. This overall trend towards engagement on a broader range of is-
sues has also been visible in EU relations with SAARC.  

The  RSP  stated  that  support  to  regional  integration  in  SAARC  would  include  non-economic  co-
operation  fields,  including  energy  and  environment,  disaster  risk  reduction  (including  preparedness 
and prevention), communicable disease control (including HPEDs such as SARS and pandemic influ-
enza); and transport (including civil aviation). Environment would be addressed as a cross-cutting is-
sue (p. 8). 

In the case of ASEAN, the envisioned scope of support covered, inter alia, regional capacity building 
and support to region-to-region dialogues in the areas of environment, security and justice, and ener-
gy. This EQ covers the EU-support to the regional management of human security challenges in Asia 
in  the  areas  of  communicable  disease  control,  border  management  and  disaster  risk  reduction.  The 
EQ seeks to assess the extent to which the EU has strengthened co-ordinated regional approaches to 
the management of these human security issues. While the EQ considers national and regional levels 
of  intervention,  its  main  emphasis  is  on  the  EU  support  to  the  strengthening  of  cross-border  co-
operation in Asia, and particularly looks at ASEAN and SAARC. 

EQ3 – Overall assessment 

The evaluation team approached this EQ in two ways: regional approaches to cross-border aspects of 
HPEDs; and disaster risk reduction and border control management. 

The  responses  are  quite  different.  In  the  area  of  emergent  infectious  diseases,  the  EU  has  been  a 
catalyst  and  a  leader  through  its  participation  in  the  Avian  and  Human  Influenza  Facility  (a  World 
Bank-managed multi-donor trust fund), and its capacity strengthening at ASEAN and SAARC Secre-
tariats in the areas of animal and human health (mostly implemented by WHO and FAO), and in coun-
tries in the area of animal health  − mostly implemented by the World Organisation for Animal Health 
(OIE). Mid-term reviews and assessments identified significant progress at national level. In fact, one 
assessment spoke of the EU’s support as having financed an unprecedented level of co-operation be-
tween animal and human health agencies. Pandemic Preparedness Plans, involving co-operation be-
tween the Ministries of Health and Agriculture were produced. Unfortunately, assessment universally 
concludes that countries are unable to cope with even moderate-scaled outbreaks of emergent infec-
tious  diseases,  and  that  national  authorities  remain  resistant  to  cross-border  approaches.  Neverthe-
less,  national  capacities  to  respond  to  emergent  infectious  diseases  have  been  strengthened  in  all 
three  focal  areas  −  human  health,  animal  health,  and,  most  important,  integrated  human-animal 
health. Institutional co-ordination has been strengthened, while international standards and good prac-
tice  have  been  disseminated.  However,  where  all  the  MTRs  and  evaluations  scrutinised  during  the 
desk phase are in agreement is that the institutional capacity created has not been matched by ade-
quate resources to invest in the physical and human resources that would be required in the case of a 
meaningful disease outbreak. Moreover, the infectious disease surveillance and control system is only 
as strong as  its  weakest link, in two senses: first, in  the chain running from disease detection  at the 
local level through national and international responses; in the geographical component. For example, 
it emerged during the field mission that there has been no real success in integrating human and ani-
mal health in Myanmar, the country with the second largest land mass in the region. During the field 
phase,  experts  expressed  no  confidence  that  a  significant,  fast-moving  disease  outbreak  could  be 
contained  effectively.  The weakest  link  in  the  response mechanism  was  found  to  be  epidemiology  − 
that  is,  inadequate  surveillance  and  control  mechanisms.  Poverty,  remoteness,  poor  farm  practices, 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

36 

EQ3 – Overall assessment 

inadequate market sanitation, and local governance issues make this a challenging area to address. 

ASEAN and, to a much lesser extent, SAARC have taken a number of steps to promote regional ap-
proaches, including the formation of networks of laboratories, diagnostic centres, epidemiological sur-
veillance units. However, it appears that the capacity of ASEAN, as well as SAARC, to develop effec-
tive regional approaches to infectious disease remains weak. Nevertheless, the ASEAN and SAARC 
secretariats are now continuing to co-ordinate regional facilities after the conclusion of the HPED pro-
gramme, which bodes well for sustainability. Moreover, the accomplishments of EU support should be 
seen in light of the extremely poor initial conditions, and the fact that this is a relatively new area of EU 
support. 

EU support for research can be positively assessed. At the regional and country level, resources and 
information sharing have been  promoted, and national institutions have been  integrated into  interna-
tional scientific networks. The EU’s Framework Research Programmes − essentially, benefiting Euro-
pean research institutions − have been a major source of scientific advances. EU support has helped 
researchers  to  develop  improved  vaccination  approaches,  diagnostic  and  testing  methods,  human 
case management approaches, and approaches for behavioural change to address the root causes of 
infectious disease emergence and transmission in Asia. A concrete example of how improved science 
is  reducing  vulnerability  to  emergent  diseases  is  SARS,  which  was  identified  and  sequenced  within 
about six weeks, thanks to an intense co-ordinated international scientific effort. That would have been 
impossible 30 years ago. 

Evidence was gathered during field mission interviews that the EU, by financing research  and engag-
ing in health actions under AUP, has made a significant impact on the fight against drug-resistant tu-
berculosis and malaria. These are slow-moving crises, as opposed to fast-moving HPED outbreaks. It 
is  possible  that  EU  investment  −  in  such  areas  as  capacity  building,  networking  and  regional  ap-
proaches  −  on  these  drug  resistance  problems  will  be  as  important  in  the  long-run  as  its  better-
publicised support for measures against HPEDs. 

Tackling disaster risk reduction  and  border management at a regional level seems to be  an obvious 
priority. With regard to the first aspect, the Asian region remains one of the most vulnerable regions of 
the world, having experienced the largest share of global disaster occurrences over the last decade. 
EU-funded interventions focus on information transfer and knowledge management for ASEAN to im-
prove  delivery of disaster  management services.  In this field, good  progress has been achieved, not 
least due to the high level of ASEAN ownership and to the ASEAN Secretariat’s  pro-active approach 
of engaging the EU (and other donors) on matters of disaster preparedness. 

With respect to border management, it was found that regional-level EU support, via the regional win-
dow, increasingly focused on border-related issues in ASEAN, while it appears that SAARC was not 
targeted  at  all.  The  support  provided  contributed  to  the  harmonisation  of  customs  procedures  and 
modernising procedures at major hubs in the pursuit  of enhanced regional economic integration, the 
fight against transnational crime, and the fight against illegal migration and all forms of trafficking. 

To summarise, the EU has contributed to regional co-ordination in both health and disaster manage-
ment. In health, initial conditions were poor, but the EU’s support − mostly in the fields of Highly Path-
ogenic  Avian  Influenza  (HPAI)  and  HPEDs/Highly  Pathogenic  Emergent  Disease  −  contributed  to 
forming a regional network of laboratories and centres for epidemiological surveillance and monitoring. 
The task of protecting against emergent viruses in the region is daunting because some parts of the 
system  designed  to  respond  to  disease  outbreaks  are  inherently  weak.  However,  there  has  been 
some  progress,  and  the  ASEAN  and  SAARC  secretariats  are  committed  to  continuing  their  co-
ordinating role. Through health interventions via the AUP programme, the EU has supported the fight 
against drug resistance, while its support for medical and health system research globally has made a 
significant contribution to global public health. 

4.3.1  JC 31: Extent to which regional-level EU support to Asia has contributed to developing 
a  regional  response  mechanism  towards  highly  pathogenic  and  emerging  diseases 
(HPEDs) and other health-related challenges 

Infectious  disease  is  a  classic  global  and  regional  public  good.  This  means  that  individual  countries 
have an incentive to take a free ride on the back of the responses of other countries, leading to a sub-
optimal response. Multi-national or supra-national action is required to address the problem, and it is 
therefore not surprising that the EU, appropriately, has been at the forefront of the response to highly 
pathogenic emergent and re-emergent diseases. Asia, and particularly Southeast Asia, has long been 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

37 

recognised as the source of a disproportionate number of novel viruses, recently including SARS and 
HPAI. The prevalence of domestic poultry and pigs, the tradition of wet markets, porous international 
borders and a thriving cross-border trade in animals, weak surveillance and control mechanisms, and 
the governance failures that lead to disease outbreaks being suppressed rather than immediately re-
ported,  all  contribute  to  the  problem.  The  latter  centre  around  the  failure  to  adequately  compensate 
farmers  whose  flocks must  be  destroyed  to  control  disease  outbreaks,  leading  them  (and  officials  in 
their  districts) to suppress information. Much the same problem has been encountered  in  China,  alt-
hough the response to SARS addressed the problem.  

The EU was a major force in the response to  HPAI, broadening its response over the years to cover 
the range of HPEDs. The goals of the support were to increase the capacities of countries and regions 
to plan and develop sustainable approaches to surveillance. Its support has covered both national in-
terventions  (for  example,  under  the  World  Bank-administered  Avian  and  Human  Influenza  facility, 
which concentrated on helping countries to develop Pandemic Preparedness Plans) and regional-level 
interventions in the context of the 2007-13 Asia Regional Strategy.  

Participation in the Avian Influenza Trust Fund and  initiatives under the RSP have both, to some ex-
tent,  been  evaluated.  Indicator  311  asks  whether  the  EU  has  effectively  contributed  to  the  develop-
ment of regional structures to prevent and control HPED via improved cross-border co-operation and 
sharing of information. The MTR of the AHIF found signs of success at national level, while admitting 
that the health systems (both veterinary and human) in many of the Asian countries were far too weak 
to be able to cope even with a moderate disease outbreak, and no country was in a position to “ring-
fence” a truly serious, fast-moving outbreak. The review found that the projects under the facility had 
done little to promote cross-border co-operation, which remained largely in the hands of the relevant 
international  institutions,  and  had  attracted  little  national  co-operation  or  support.  The  field  mission 
suggested that animal and human health continue to be compartmentalised at national level. Medical 
experts expressed the view that work (some of it financed by the EU either through research funds or 
in the context of AUP health actions) to stem the rise of drug-resistant tuberculosis and malaria were 
likely  to have higher payoff. The latter might present  an especially  attractive opportunity,  because in 
the region of concern, the Thai-Myanmar border area, the prevalence of malaria is quite low, but the 
rate of artemesian resistance is quite high. This provides an opportunity to choke off the problem at its 
source.  If  not,  there  is  a  danger  that  the  problem  will  spread  across  Myanmar,  into  Bangladesh  and 
India. (Indicator 311) 

The 2007 HPED initiative Regional co-operation programme on highly pathogenic and emerging and 
re-emerging diseases in Asia implemented by WHO, FAO and OIE,  was an appropriate response to 
the  weakness  of  regional  and  sub-regional  co-operation.  Its  goals  were  to  support  the  ASEAN  and 
SAARC  Secretariats  to  establish  Regional  Support  Units  and  Regional  Epidemiology  /  Laboratory  / 
Diagnostic Centres with FAO and OIE support, and to enable OIE to carry out country-level activities. 
The  last  evaluative  document  available  is  a  December  2008  Expertise,  which  warned  of  the  danger 
that, without better co-ordination and communication between the implementing agencies, the project 
risked splitting into separate, agency-specific endeavours.  

A  more  recent  synthetic  study,  the  December  2010  Outcome  and  Impact  Assessment  of  the  Global 
Response  to  Avian  Influenza,  gives  a  balanced  view.  It  confirms  that  progress  at  national  level  has 
been greater than at regional level, blaming low capacity at ASEAN and SAARC and the lack of inter-
est  at  national  level  in  regional  and  cross-border  co-operation.  Current  information  is,  however,  that 
the  ASEAN  and  SAARC  secretariats  are  sustaining  the  co-ordination  of  regional  facilities  after  the 
conclusion of the HPED programme, which shows good commitment and bodes well for sustainability.  
Moreover, the results obtained as a result of EU support need to be viewed in light of the fact that ini-
tial conditions were not favourable and that the number of years that have so far elapsed is relatively 
short.  

In summary, there has been some success in building national resilience, but very limited success in 
strengthening regional co-operation and co-ordination. This appears to be borne out by the EUD sur-
vey, in which most EUDs felt that the EU had made at least a reasonable contribution to national and 
regional capacities, but rather fewer saw this as leading to a credible regional response mechanism. 
Nepal and Indonesia saw  a substantial  EC contribution to regional response, but this may simply be 
because the EUDs have more familiarity with regional programmes at the ASEAN and SAARC secre-
tariats. (Indicators 312 and 313) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Figure 13 

EUD survey results: Contribution of regional-level EU support to emerging diseases 

38 

Source: EUD survey 

At  the  national  level,  the  process  and  output  of  Pandemic  Preparedness  Plan  preparation,  even 
though such plans, may be judged inadequate, represented progress. The December 2012  Outcome 
and Impact Assessment of the Global Response to Avian Influenza found that the programme contrib-
uted to achieving “unprecedented collaboration between the animal health and the public health sec-
tors”. However, the cross-border and regional dimension needs more work. At the national level, epi-
demiological surveillance  and control, especially  at the grassroots  level,  was held to be the  weakest 
part  of  the  infectious  disease  surveillance  and  control  system.  There  was  a  particular  need  to 
strengthen epidemiological education. (Indicator 314) 

Finally, the EU has been a leader in sponsoring research on  Avian Influenza and other highly patho-
genic  emergent  infections.  Some  of  this  research  has  been  at  country  level  and  has  resulted  in  im-
proved diagnostic tests. Improved epidemiological modelling to strengthen surveillance, and new ap-
proaches to Information, Education, and Communication based on behavioural research, were devel-
oped as a result of EU support. Other research has been funded under Framework Programmes and 
has contributed to vaccine development, improved diagnosis and early warning systems, ecology and 
pathogenesis of HPAI infections, studies of migratory birds, HPAI (H5N1) virus survival, reinforcement 
of the laboratories network for avian and human influenza,  virus virulence, pathogenicity, replicability 
and  transmissibility,  drugs  resistance  and  new  drugs  against  Ribonucleic  Acid  (RNA)  viruses,  and 
transfer of technology and training. (Indicator 315) 

4.3.2  JC  32:  Degree  to  which  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  has  contributed  to  border 
management and disaster risk reduction through regional co-operation approaches and 
mechanisms 

This JC was addressed by focusing on three indicators: regional mechanisms for disaster risk reduc-
tion and prevention within ASEAN and SAARC; disaster responses; and the extent to which regional-
level EU support contributed to improved border control efficiency. In terms of natural and man-made 
disasters, Asia remains one of the most vulnerable parts of the world, experiencing the largest share 
of  the  global  disaster  occurrences  over  the  last  decade,  thus  demanding  an  institutionalisation  of 
mechanisms for disaster risk reduction at regional level. 

The adoption of a regional approach to disaster management and the lack of a regional approach to 
problems  of  uprooting  stand  in  contrast.  For  ASEAN,  efforts  to  strengthen  regional  mechanism  date 
back  several  decades.  For  instance,  the  ASEAN  Expert  Group  on  Disaster  Management  (AEGDM) 
was  established  in  1972,  and  was  further  developed  into  the  ASEAN  Committee  on  Disaster  Man-
agement  (ACDM).  Several  agreements  (such  as  ASEAN  Agreement  on  Disaster  Management  and 
Emergency Responses − AADMER) in this area further highlight the substantial progress of ASEAN in 
this context. Despite the progress for co-ordination at the ASEAN regional level, evaluations of nation-
al  disaster  response  mechanisms  have  found  them  to  be  poor.  Numerous  EU-funded  interventions 
targeting  disaster  risk  reduction  (natural  and  man-made)  have  been  implemented  via  national  pro-
grammes,  thematic  instruments  or  via  ECHO.  However,  the  regional-level  EU  support  provided  to 
ASEAN  via  the  regional  strategy  appears  to  be  relatively  modest,  and  seems  to  have  been  mainly 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

0123456Developing a regional response mechanism towardshighly pathogenic and emerging diseases (HPED) andother health-related challenges?Strengthening capacities of regional & nationalinstitutions to cooperate and coordinate in the fields ofanimal health, food safety and human health crisisresponse?Substantial contributionReasonable contributionLimited contributionAttempted but no contributionNot an objective of the support provided 
39 

concentrated on knowledge-sharing via the Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI). While 
READI  has  contributed  to  increased  information  transfer  and  knowledge  management,  an  effective 
delivery of disaster management services is still in its early days. 

SAARC,  through  its  Disaster  Management  Centre  (SAARC  DMC)  in  Delhi,  was  reported  to  have  a 
more advanced approach to disasters, but no evidence of EU contribution at regional level was found. 
This reflects the assessment made in the MTR of the RSP, highlighting the low level of integration and 
calling for a scaling down of the support. (Indicator 321 and 322) 

Tackling  border  management  at  a  regional  level  seems  to  be  obvious  when  looking  at  the  nature  of 
international  borders. While  it  was  found  that  regional-level  EU  support  via  the  RSP  increasingly  fo-
cused on border-related issues (at least in ASEAN), the results appear to be relatively modest and are 
mainly confined to the capacity strengthening of authorities. As the most tangible outcome of the first 
EU-ASEAN Migration and Border Management Programme (2009-2011), a pilot Border Management 
System was implemented successfully by Interpol in Cambodia and Vietnam.  

For ASEAN, improving the efficiency of border controls already played a relatively important role under 
the previous strategy. In particular, within the context of APRIS II, the EU actively supported ASEAN in 
the area of customs procedures, paving the way for more efficient customs control systems at ASEAN 
borders.  Under  the  2007-2013  strategy,  another  project,  the  EU-ASEAN  Migration  and  Border  Man-
agement Programme (EAMPMB), dealing exclusively with border management and migration issues, 
has  been  launched,  emphasising  the  increasing  importance  of  the  subject.  The  project  is  aimed  at 
modernising and ensuring best international practice at major border crossings in order to promote the 
legal flow of goods and people and  to fight transnational crime, illegal migration, and trafficking in all 
forms. While the programme was found to be very relevant both for ASEAN and the EU, and is seen 
as “a flagship of EU-ASEAN Co-operation by the ASEAN Secretariat”, several constraints at the level 
of project design and implementation have been identified (e.g. lack of strategic focus, confusion be-
tween stakeholders regarding project implementation) and severely hampered its potential.  While EU 
support to border management features quite prominently in some countries, implemented via the na-
tional  window  (e.g.  Border  Management  for  Northern  Afghanistan  –  BOMNAF),  no  border  manage-
ment intervention was implemented at regional level for SAARC. (Indicator 323) 

4.4  EQ4 on environment, energy and climate change 

EQ4: To what extent has the regional EU support to Asian key stakeholders contributed to en-
hancing  the  adaptation  to  and  mitigation  of  climate  change  and  the  promotion  of  sustainable 
growth? 

The regional EU support to Asia in the field of environment, climate change and energy consists of two 
programmes:  (i)  SWITCH-Asia,  which  specifically  promotes  sustainable  consumption  and  production 
(SCP);  (ii)  Regional  support  programme  to  the  Forestry  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade 
(FLEGT) Action Plan (2003) − i.e. the FLEGT-Asia Facility (known in short as FLEGT-Asia).  

SWITCH-Asia  focuses  on  sustainable  production  and  consumption  (SCP),  increasing  the  eco-
efficiency, and reducing pollution (greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal). The largest component 
consists of grant projects, with: about EUR 130 million committed for 64 grant projects from five Calls 
for  Proposals  (from  2007  to2012);  the  last  batch  of  projects  will  begin  implementation  by  the  end  of 
2013. The second component is the Network Facility (NF), which is run by the Centre for Sustainable 
Consumption and Production (CSCP) in Wuppertal, Germany, with a first phase commencing in 2009 
(EUR 3.5 million), and a second phase from 1 September 2013.The NF seeks to disseminate results 
of grant projects and create synergy among grant projects to strengthen the policy dialogue on SCP. 
third  component  of  SWITCH-Asia 
The  Policy  Support  Component 
(EUR 15 million), started in 2011/12 and consists of a regional PSC programme implemented by  the 
United  Nations  Education  Programme  (UNEP),  and  national  PSC  programmes  implemented  in  four 
Asian countries (Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and The Philippines) and directly managed by the re-
spective EUDs. Under the Regional Strategy Paper, there are no specific support programmes for en-
ergy,  and  energy  efficiency  during  the  whole  product’s  life-cycle  is  a  key  and  priority  aspect  of  SCP 
practices.  

(PSC),  which 

the 

is 

FLEGT focuses on combating illegal logging by promoting legal trade in timber products, and thereby 
contributing  to  the  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources.  FLEGT-Asia  (EUR 11.5 million,  with  an  EU 
contribution of EUR 11 million) is implemented by the European Forestry Institute (EFI). The EU also 
supports the multi-donor funded Global FLEGT Facility, which is also run by EFI. FLEGT-Asia is now 
in its second Phase (Phase I ended 30  June 2013). In its first phase of implementation, the regional 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

40 

support programme aimed to create awareness, exchange information on the EU FLEGT Action Plan 
and EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) at the sub-regional level, and to build capacity of key stakeholders 
to facilitate the development and negotiation of Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with Asian 
countries.  VPAs are bilateral agreements of the EU with Asian governments, while the EUTR estab-
lishes the regulations between private sector operators.  

In the MIP 2011-2013, an additional intervention included in the Regional Strategy is the Asia Invest-
ment Facility for Climate Change (AIF, EUR 30 million). The AIF was launched in December 2011, and 
the first financing agreements were signed in early 2013. Therefore, this programme will be assessed 
from  the  relevance  point  of  view  and  for  its  complementarity  with  other  programmes  supporting  the 
environment. 

The EQ seeks to address different aspects of SCP: first, by looking at the level to which EU support 
has helped in improving the policy framework for the uptake of SCP practices and systems; and sec-
ond, by focusing on the degree to which the EU support contributed to the adoption of wide-scale ap-
plication of SCP practices. Moreover, the EQ looks at the degree to which EU support has facilitated a 
reduction  in  illegal  logging  and  an  increase  in  potential  trade  of  legal  timber  products.  It  also  asks  It 
also asks to what degree the support has been designed and used implementation modalities to facili-
tate the generation of the desired impact and synergy in the areas of climate change adaption and mit-
igation of green growth. 

EQ4 – Overall assessment 

The SWITCH-Asia, FLEGT-Asia and the AIF programmes each have a specific focus directly contrib-
uting to sustainable development: SWITCH-Asia focuses on Sustainable Consumption and Production 
(SCP); FLEGT-Asia on illegal logging and legal trade, and Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs); 
and the AIF provides co-funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation projects. Thus, they are 
fully  complementary  to  each  other.  SCP  is  a  strong  concept  in  relation  to  achieving  higher  resource 
efficiency and greening the economy. The persistence of illegal logging directly affects tropical forests’ 
role in mitigating climate change. Co-funding is an essential part of the regional package. At the time 
of the drafting of this report, it was too early to assess the results of the AIF. 

To go more into detail, the SWITCH-Asia grant project component has been the most successful part 
of the programme. It has high prospects of enhancing the uptake of SCP best practices: two-thirds of 
the  grant  projects  are  expected  to  achieve  their  target  in  terms  of  small  and  medium  enterprises 
(SMEs)  applying  SCP  practices.  The  programme  results  in  environmental  gains,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
quantify them due to the lack of baseline data and monitoring. Although initial expectations were that 
SWITCH-Asia would focus on the industrial and urban sector, a large proportion of projects are actual-
ly  based  on  natural  resources  (e.g.  agriculture,  forestry),  and  service  sectors  are  also  included  (e.g. 
tourism, transport, export facilitation). The very wide focus of the programme has led to many different 
interventions that  limit opportunities for creating synergies, as  well  as jointly  implementing actions  at 
the policy level. Very few grant projects deal with sustainable consumption. 

The contribution of SWITCH-Asia in relation to an improved national policy framework for SCP and the 
application  of  an  appropriate  mix  of  SCP-related  policies  has  been  relatively  modest.  Whereas  the 
grant  projects  have  demonstrated  how  to  effectively  implement  policy  instruments,  they  have  mostly 
impacted  at  the  local  level  (e.g.  district,  province,  state).  Grant  projects  themselves  were  unable  to 
feed  their  results  into  national  policy-making  processes.  Links  of  grant  projects  with  the  PSC  for  the 
scaling-up of their SCP practices and feeding their results into SCP policy-making processes is yet to 
be established and to be explored. The PSC, which started two years ago, has yet to show visible im-
pacts. It may be difficult to achieve the high expectations. 

The national PSC programmes are very small in terms of budget, human resources and duration, cov-
ering many themes and activities, including pilot projects. The co-ordination of many national govern-
ment departments and agencies involved in SCP remains a challenge.  In most Asian countries, pro-
active green development is driven by the respective sector ministries, and central  governments may 
not recognise the added value of establishing one single co-ordination body for SCP, as envisaged by 
the PSC programmes. 

The  regional  PSC  programme  implemented  by  UNEP  has  been  able  to  reinforce  its  SCP  networks 
through SWITCH-Asia funding and has organised a series of (sub-)regional workshops, seminars and 
training programmes on general SCP policies, strategies and instruments. However, there are no di-
rect  links  with  existing  regional  or  national  policy  dialogues.  UNEP’s  extensive  SCP  network  is  a 
strength of the regional PSC. At the same time, the regional PSC remained a somewhat independent 
component of SWITCH-Asia. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

41 

EQ4 – Overall assessment 
The  Network  Facility  (NF)  has  greatly  improved  the  visibility  of  SWITCH-Asia  and  has  promoted  the 
application  of  the  SWITCH-Asia  approach  in  Asia  and  elsewhere  in  the  world.  The  NF  could  have 
done more in terms of dissemination of project results and lessons learned. Co-ordination with the re-
gional PSC is needed to also contribute to the policy dialogue on SCP. 

With regard to FLEGT-Asia, the EU approach of providing technical and facilitating support to the EU 
FLEGT Action Plan, along with a tightening of the market, is effective. FLEGT is a key mechanism for 
combating illegal logging, by addressing key forestry governance issues. The focus of FLEGT-Asia on 
working both in producer countries that would apply for VPA) and consumer countries (such as China, 
India,  Vietnam)  is  a  well  thought-out  and  balanced  strategy.  The  merger  of  the  FLEGT-Asia  Facility 
with  the  global  EU  FLEGT  Facility,  both  implemented  by  the  European  Forestry  Institute  (EFI),  has 
increased  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  VPA  processes,  but  care  should  be  taken  that  the 
regional dimension is maintained.  

The Asian Investment Fund (AIF) encourages green investments, and is complementary to SWITCH-
Asia as it focuses on much larger projects, mainly relating to infrastructure. As it started only recently, 
it  is  too  early  to  assess  its  effectiveness  and  impact.  SMEs  may  indirectly  benefit  by  improved  and 
more affordable access to resources, such as energy, water, transport, communication and credit. 

To summarise, the EU support to environment, especially through the SWITCH-Asia and FLEGT-Asia 
programmes,  has  made  a  substantive  contribution  to  enhancing  the  adaptation  to  and  mitigation  of 
climate change and the promotion of sustainable or green growth. The programmes were highly com-
plementary  to  each  other,  as  well  as  to  the  thematic  environmental  programme  and  instruments. 
There  is  still  scope  for  improvements  in  the  SWTCH-Asia  programme,  such  as  more  co-ordination 
among  the  grant  projects  and  policy  support  programmes,  concentrating  on  priority  sectors  and  ac-
tions  to  generate  more  synergy  and  impact.  The  FLEGT-Asia  Facility  has  shown  that  working  both 
with timber producer and timber consumer countries is supportive for the overall implementation pro-
cess of VPAs. 

4.4.1  JC  41:  Level  to  which  EU  support  has  helped  improving  the  policy  framework  for  the 

uptake of SCP practices and systems 

The following box describes the composition of the SWITCH Policy Support Component (PSC)  

Box 4 

Composition of the Policy Support Component (PSC) 

The original design of SWITCH-Asia did not include a PSC. The strengthening of the policy dialogue on SCP and 
the reinforcement and implementation of legal environmental and safety instruments were due to be taken care of 
by the grant projects, and by the Network Facility (NF):  
 

The grant projects were required by the Guidelines for Applicants in the initial Call for Proposals to contribute 
to the development of an enabling policy environment.  
The NF was assigned the role of enhancing policy dialogue on SCP in Asia at national and regional levels; 
suggested activities were to prepare synergy papers on policy recommendations, co-organise national policy 
conferences, and support national and regional policy-makers and the EU staff in regional policy dialogue 
platforms (ASEAN, ASEM) and EU-Asia summits. 

 

The MTR of SWITCH-Asia (2009) recommended the establishment of a PSC to increase Asian governments’ 
awareness of SCP tools and their associated benefits to encourage SCP uptake in national policies. In the follow-
up to this recommendation, both a regional and a national PSC were included. The PSC aims at supporting Asian 
governments in creating enabling policy frameworks for SCP and the development of SCP-related policies and 
regulations. The regional PSC was launched in 2011 and is implemented by UNEP (EUR 5.7 million). Four na-
tional PSC programmes were developed, commencing in October 2011 in Thailand, February 2012 in Indonesia 
and in Malaysia, and in July 2012 in The Philippines. The national PSC programmes are directly managed by the 
EUDs in the four Asian countries.  
Source: The ToR of  the NF, Action Fiches of the PSC, MTR of SWITCH-Asia (2009) 

The  field  work  confirmed  that  the  regional  PSC  implemented  by  UNEP  has  reinforced  its  Asian  net-
works through the SWITCH-Asia financing. UNEP has organised numerous regional and sub-regional 
consultation  meetings,  workshops  and  conferences  to  create  awareness  on  SCP  and  enhance  the 
policy  dialogue.  UNEP  has  also  established  a  network  of  “focal  points”  or  liaison  persons  in  Asian 
countries.  A  weakness is that the focal points  are from the Ministry  of Environment,  which  is usually 
not a strong enough ministry to be in charge of overall co-ordination of SCP, as that requires the in-
volvement of many sector ministries. (Indicator 411) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

42 

UNEP’s regional workshops to build capacity on overall SCP policies, strategies and instruments are 
categorised as “SCP policy dialogue”. However, there are no links to existing regional or national poli-
cy  dialogues.  It  is  left  entirely  to  the  participants  (mainly  UNEP’s  national  focal  points)  how  they  will 
use the gained insights and information received during the workshops. UNEP is neither making a fol-
low-up, nor monitoring impact. UNEP acknowledges the limited number of achievements and low im-
pact generated by  pointing  out political changes at senior policy level (changing participants) and by 
the  time  needed  for  consultations  (needs  assessment).  It  stresses  the  fact  that  the  PSC  has  run  for 
only two of the four years of the operational period, and that more impact is expected in the later years 
(Final Evaluation SWITCH-Asia, June 2013). This Evaluation is of the opinion that for this to happen, 
the programme would have to work much more closely with other SWITCH-Asia components (Indica-
tor 412 and 413) 

The  national  PSCs  primarily  provide  direct  policy  support  to  a  selected  number  of  SCP  policy  areas 
identified  by  their  national  counterparts  (one  or  more  Departments  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment), 
such  as  green  procurement,  green  labelling,  SCP  monitoring,  SCP  awareness.  In  developing  these 
policy  areas, they regularly organise  workshops and  meetings  with stakeholders  on the  implementa-
tion  of  these  specific  projects.  Small  pilot  projects  to  test  policy  recommendations  are  planned.  The 
Malaysian PSC has set-up a multi-stakeholder consultation mechanism to formulate SCP-related poli-
cies for the 11th Five Year Plan, 2016-2020. The PSC is in the position to do this, as it is located within 
the Economic and Environment and Natural Resources Economics Section of the Economic Planning 
Unit (EPU) of the Prime Ministers’ Office, and responsible for the formulation of the Five Year National 
Plans. (Indicator 411) Most capacity building of the national PSC programmes is being realised by joint 
working  of  contracted  experts  (national  and  international  TA)  and  government  officials,  and  by  short 
seminars related to project activities, such as Green Public Procurement and development of SCP in-
dicators and monitoring. (Indicator 412) 

A basic assumption underlying the national PSC is that the recipient countries will create national SCP 
plans. The implementation of these national SCP plans requires one single co-ordinating body at su-
pra ministerial level; however, in most Asian countries, sector ministries and agencies themselves con-
tinue  to  take  responsibility  for  resource  efficiency  and  greening  of  the  economy.  The  national  PSC 
programmes are useful in terms of the EU having a presence at national policy-making level related to 
SCP. However, given the small budget (EUR 2-3 million), the short duration and leverage of the main 
implementing  partners,  their  contribution  to  creating  a  strengthened  policy  framework  and  to  an  im-
proved mix of SCP-related policies and policy instruments has been very modest. The current design 
is over-ambitious. In addition, the PSCs have a mandate only in their respective countries, limiting ex-
change of experiences and multi-country collaboration (Indicator 413) 

The Network Facility (NF) has been very active in numerous conferences and workshops to introduce 
the SWITCH-programme and has greatly increased its visibility. However, the NF did not play a direct 
role in enhancing  the  policy  dialogue on  SCP at the regional or national level. (Indicator 411) UNEP 
concluded, in its needs assessment for SCP that SCP policies are generally in place, but that support 
is needed for the formulation of tools that will reinforce the implementation of existing SCP-related pol-
icies, rather than promoting the formulation of new policies. This conclusion underpins the relevance of 
SWITCH-Asia grant projects, as they are actually developing and implementing SCP tools. (Indicator 
413) 

SWITCH-Asia Grant projects in the middle and higher income countries are already implementing ex-
isting SCP policies, demonstrating ways to implement them. Projects working on energy efficiency in 
various  sectors  and  products  and  in  relation  to  waste  management  are  broadly  supported  by  local 
governments, whereas communication to the central level is non-existent. Some SCP related policies 
may  still  be  lacking  only  in  the  smaller  and  lower  income  countries.  Therefore,  SWITCH-Asia  grant 
projects have a role to play in the development of enabling policy framework. Whereas most grant pro-
jects managed to engage local government, they were unable to reach out to the national level. Often, 
policy  makers  do  not  expect  grant  projects  to  provide  them  with  useful  results  on  which  to  build  im-
provements in the enabling policy and regulatory framework. Consequently, the policy impact of grant 
projects at the national policy level was very limited. 

A number of grant projects implemented at national level, with semi-government agencies as partners, 
had  a  large  outreach  and  adoption  nationwide,  related  to  topics  such  as  environmental  standards. 
When grant projects pay specific attention to policy-related work, they usually organise study tours for 
policy-makers  to  Europe  or  other  Asian  countries,  and  invite  policy-makers  to  key  project  events.  A 
few  projects  managed  to  conduct  dialogues  and  organise  workshops  and  seminars  with  policy-
makers.  Furthermore,  analysis  of  numerous  project  documents,  confirmed  by  field  visits,  shows  that 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

43 

most grant projects have remained vague on what they intended to do. Frequently, they were claiming 
to contribute to policy-making and legislation, while these policies are actually already in place. 

Grant projects have done little on capacity building related to policy making, except a few projects that 
had government agencies or departments as partners − particularly in China. Grant projects focused 
rather on technical and managerial capacity building related to SMEs and their organisations. 

Some projects, especially those implemented by large international and regional organisations, appear 
to be less interested in involving national policy-makers as they pursue their own policies and trade-
marks − for example, forestry certification scheme. There are also cases where national governments 
see the SWITCH-Asia project as competing with their own policies − for example, the ASEAN Energy 
Accreditation Scheme28. 
Usually, grant projects held quarterly co-ordination committee meetings, but the composition of these 
committees  reflects  the  composition  of  the  project  partnerships.  These  are  different  from  Steering 
Committees, where key stakeholders are involved. The lack of external accountability (to government 
and civil society) partly explains why projects may be failing to provide more strategic inputs, and also 
why  involvement  of  policy-makers  becomes  more  cumbersome  (except  for  partnerships  that  include 
semi-governmental or local government agencies). (Indicator 411) 

4.4.2  JC 42: Degree to which the EU support contributed to the adoption of wide-scale appli-

cation of SCP practices 

The SWITCH-Asia programme has made a significant effort in introducing the wide-scale application 
of SCP practices by companies, and results and outcomes are  emerging as more grant projects are, 
completed, or soon will be.  

The evaluation’s analysis of all available ROM reports shows that all grant projects score well on rele-
vance,  and  address  the  policies  and  needs  of  the  EU  and  the  recipient  countries.  However,  in  the 
Guidelines  for  Proposals  there  is  no  priority  setting  for  the  (sub-)sectors  and/or  topics/themes  to  be 
addressed. It is entirely open as to where and what the applicants choose to do within the overall ob-
jectives of the  programme. This has resulted  in  a  wide variation  of projects, with few possibilities for 
creating  synergy  or  jointly  undertaking  actions  −  for  example,  on  influencing  policy-makers.  Projects 
with  a  low score  in ROM  often have  design  weaknesses. With a larger budget (up to  EUR 2 million) 
and  a  longer  implementation  period  (48  months)  than  previous  regional  programmes  (e.g.  Asia  Pro 
Eco  and  Asia  Invest),  SWITCH-Asia  grant  projects  achieve  wider  and  more  sustained  results  (Final 
Evaluation  SWITCH-Asia,  and  confirmed  by  this  evaluation).  According  to  the  analysis  of  ROM  re-
ports, the prospects for wide-scale application of SCP practices are assessed to be good: two-thirds of 
the projects are expected to achieve their targets. This includes a number of intermediate results (such 
as capacity building, voluntary agreements signed, efficiency performance plans achieved), ultimately 
leading to the uptake of SCP practices by the targeted SMEs and consumers. These prospects have 
also  been  confirmed  by  this  evaluation,  as  well  as  by  the  Final  Evaluation  of  SWITCH-Asia  (June 
2013). 

This evaluation confirms that many projects do not monitor or measure the number of SMEs that apply 
improved SCP practices − or to what extent, as often they take only part of the overall recommended 
package). Consequently, it is difficult to show how many SMEs have actually implemented SCP prac-
tices. Therefore, most ROM reports  rely on anecdotal evidence when it comes to application of SCP 
practices. 

Box 5 

ROM analysis of SWITCH grant projects 

The outcomes of the Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM) exercise conducted between 2010 and 2012 form a 
good basis for answering JC 42. This evaluation analysed 34 ROM reports, covering 28 grant projects29. The 
overall assessment of the ROM reports was very positive: 
 
 

80% of the projects were performing well. 
14 grant projects (50%) had a positive score on all five DAC criteria, meaning there were no serious issues 
to follow-up. 
8 projects (30%) had issues to solve relating to areas covered by one DAC criterion. 
3 projects (10%) had to solve issues related to two DAC criteria30. 

 
 

28  Report  on  5th  Project  Partners  Meeting,  27  February,  2013;  interview  with  Executive  Director  of  the  Energy 
Centre of ASEAN, conducted during field work. 
29 A total of 32 ROM reports, covering 28 projects in the following countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, 
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, The Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
44 

The figure below presents the scoring of each of the DAC indicators. 

Figure 14 

Scoring made in ROM reports of 28 grant projects from 2010-2012 on each DAC cri-
teria31 

Source: Particip analysis 

Several ROM reports may  have over-rated the scoring on  effectiveness and  impact − that  is,  on the 
application of SCP practices. Most of the ROM missions took place in the early years of implementa-
tion and, therefore, mainly  assess  potential impact for ongoing projects. Usually, there is a huge po-
tential. However, field missions’ findings point to the fact that the realised impact is often (much) lower 
than targeted. (Indicator 421) 

Barriers that restrict realised results and impact are access to credits/loans and pricing of resources. In 
many countries, energy and water is subsidised, making clean alternatives less attractive. Ultimately, 
market conditions (demand, competitiveness) determine the companies’ choice of production technol-
ogy. There may be adverse effects at the global level (pricing of key resources, such as fossil oil, raw 
materials) that affect local markets, and therefore project performance. 

Another key issue is the regulatory framework. The reinforcement of stringent national standards and 
other regulations supports SCP. Without such reinforcement, SMEs that are active on the local market 
− with lower consumer awareness and less willingness to pay for eco-friendly or energy-efficient prod-
ucts − have fewer possibilities to remain competitive by employing a full range of SCP practices. Only 
companies that export to markets with high international customer standards will require their supply-
ing SMEs to produce sustainably, and require the necessary investments through strict supply chain 
management. (Indicator 423) 

The evaluation found that the more simple and straightforward projects were more effective and suc-
cessful compared to broadly-defined, complex projects. For example, working in a sub-sector and with 
one product (e.g. electrical transformers), or having one key target, increased energy efficiency com-
pared with multi-sectoral, CSR and multi-stakeholder projects. (Indicator 421) 

Although SWITCH-Asia seeks to fund both sustainable production and sustainable consumption pro-
jects, the large majority of grant projects focus on resources-efficient and cleaner production − a few of 
which include consumer aspects). Only four out of 64 grant projects32 funded by SWITCH specifically 
address consumers’ behaviour and public procurement. 

SWITCH-Asia  grants  projects  have  not  been  able  to  apply  an  effective  approach  in  reaching  out  to 
consumers. It becomes clear that grant projects may  not be the right vehicle  or  instrument to  imple-
ment sustainable consumption. This evaluation sees far more opportunities for the PSC. UNEP priori-

30  Three  projects  were  severely  under-performing,  but  the  second  ROM  reports  showed  substantive  improve-
ments, so no project remained in this category. 
31 Six grant projects had two Monitoring Reports; the last MRs were included in this table. It was found that  four 
projects showed a significant improvement in the second report, whereas two projects did not improve, or slightly 
had more issues to solve. 
32 The table does not include the projects of the last (5th CfP) that will be contracted in 2013. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

6424017171717245797400000051015202530Excellent; (Score A)Good; (Score B)Some issues; (Score C)Serious deficicencies;(Score D) 
                                                                                                                                                                      
45 

tised  sustainable  consumption,  as  much  less  progress  has  so  far  been  achieved  in  this  area,  com-
pared  with  sustainable  production.  All  four  national  PSC  programmes  have  a  component  on  green 
procurement/sustainable consumption.  Although  their budgets are very  limited, the support they pro-
vide may be able to mobilise large-scale government funding for setting out sustainable consumption 
strategies  and  awareness  campaigns.  However,  it  is  too  early  to  assess  if  this  actually  will  be 
achieved. (Indicator 422) 

Whereas  the  technical  impact  in  terms  of  less  pollution  and  more  efficient  use  of  resources  may  be 
estimated relatively easily by the projects, such measurement is lacking overall. Furthermore, no sys-
tems are in place to check to what extent the mind-sets and capacities of managers and technicians 
have been enhanced. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the extent to which grant projects have re-
sulted in concrete environmental gains − such as decreased emissions, reduction in the use of materi-
als, energy and solid and liquid waste. Only a limited number of projects implement baseline studies, 
which  are  essential  to  enable  assessment  of  the  conditions  and  needs  of  the  target  groups  and  the 
monitoring of results and impact. This is a clear omission in the requirements set out in the Guidelines 
for Applicants of SWITCH. (Indicator 423) 

Grant  projects  have  good  prospects  of  sustainability.  Nevertheless,  not  all  sustainability  issues  are 
being  resolved.  Project  implementing  agencies  play  an  important  role  in  ensuring  sustainability.  The 
political will of government authorities to further promote SCP, mainly at local level, provides another 
sound  basis  for  sustainability.  The  final  determining  factor  in  sustainability  is  the  financial  viability  of 
SCP practices, and subsequent market acceptance of sustainably-produced goods and services. SCP 
best  practices  will  continue,  and  SMEs  will  be  willing  to  pay  for  the  related  services  as  long  as  they 
remain profitable. The more marginal and rural SMEs  (e.g. cottage  industries)  have  less possibilities 
than urban SMEs to continue SCP practices (lack of finance, lack of consumer willingness to pay more 
for  environmental-friendly  products).  Another  key  factor  is  access  to  finance.  Access  to  “investment 
funds” at a preferential rate and with limited “red tape” is a recurrent demand from SMEs that are not 
meeting minimal requirements of the banking establishment. (Indicator 424) 

4.4.3  JC  43:  Degree  to  which  the  EU  regional  support  has  facilitated  a  reduction  in  illegal 

logging and an increase in potential trade of legal timber products 

The fieldwork confirmed that the  FLEGT-Asia programme  has contributed significantly to the  FLEGT 
process in Asia, and in particular has substantially promoted and facilitated the first stages of the pro-
cess leading to VPA − that is, dialogues and “pre-negotiating consensus building” in the various tar-
geted countries. The wide variety of awareness-raising activities − based on a well-defined communi-
cation  plan  −  has  resulted  in  a  good  level  of  understanding  of  FLEGT,  the  EU  Timber  Regulation 
(EUTR)  and  the  VPA  process.  Local  capacities  are  clearly  building  up,  through  a  large  range  of 
FLEGT-Asia supported meetings, events and courses. 

The global FLEGT Facility was directly involved in the negotiating stages of the VPA process, support-
ing  the  EUDs. With  the merging  of  the  two  facilities,  the  FLEGT-Asia  Facility  plays  the  same  role  in 
Indonesia and Malaysia as did the global EU FLEGT Facility previously (support to EU in VPA negotia-
tions).  This  has  been  a  priority  since  2003  because  of  the  urgent  need  to  successfully  conclude  the 
VPA  and  issue  FLEGT-licences.  Increasingly,  FLEGT-Asia  responds  to  an  EU-felt  need  for  flexible 
support in the management of the VPA dialogues and negotiation processes. 

The fieldwork also confirmed that the EUTR, which came into force on March 1, 2013 − implied a re-
newed  interest  of  both  timber  producing  and  timber  processing  countries  to  understand  and  adapt 
themselves  to  the  new  market  conditions.  The  EUTR  was  intended  to  be  an  additional  incentive  for 
countries, such as Indonesia, that decided to go for FLEGT licensing. So far, none of the Asian coun-
tries that signed or are in the process of signing the  VPA have completed the process and obtained 
the FLEGT licence. Indonesia is expected to finalise the process before the end of 2013. FLEGT-VPA 
is a powerful instrument to fight illegal logging. In VPA, the key mechanism to address issues of gov-
ernance  safeguards  and  independent  verifications  is  the  Timber  Legality  Assurance  System  (TLAS). 
Although the legality as such does not cover all forestry governance issues, it certainly  is one of the 
most important ones, with wide implications for the whole forestry production and processing sector. 

The FLEGT-Asia Facility provided a regional dimension to the bilateral VPA processes by working not 
only  in  timber  producing  countries,  but  also  in  major  Asian  timber  consumer  and  timber  processing 
countries and with the ASEAN Secretariat. To increase effectiveness of TLAS and avoid timber leav-
ing the country unregistered and through illegal channels, it is important that major importing countries 
− such  as China, India and Korea  − change their policies. Currently, they  buy  any  amount of timber 
without  asking  any  questions  on  its  provenance.  In  India,  for  example,  the  FLEGT-Asia  Facility  ex-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

46 

plained the new EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) and jointly analysed with forestry stakeholders  possi-
ble implications for India’s exporting SMEs, as well as for India’s timber import policy. 

The presence in the region, with an office in Kuala Lumpur, was an important contributing factor to this 
approach. This regional dimension may be given less attention, now that the FLEGT-Asia Facility has 
been merged with the global EU FLEGT Facility. 

FLEGT-Asia has played a key role in increasing awareness and enhancing policy dialogue on illegal 
trading. Combating illegal trade was identified as a good entry point for discussing forest government 
issues.  By  supporting  the  FLEGT  process,  the  programme  has  contributed  to  forest  governance  is-
sues, as FLEGT involves far-reaching forestry reforms and instruments, such as TLAS. 

The original design of FLEGT-Asia included a specific objective to support regional customs collabora-
tion. However, such co-operation requires a different institutional set-up, and capacity building of cus-
toms  should  be  done  when  the  TLAS  has  been  defined.  A  study  was  done  on  regional  timber  trade 
flows. FLEGT-Asia collaborated with ASEAN and built up a network to put illegal logging and legality 
issues  on  the  agenda.  Three  regional  workshops  were  organised  and  encouraged  six  out  of  the  10 
ASEAN countries to develop their own TLAS. However, timber is not yet a priority in trade harmonisa-
tion − that is, single window import-export systems. The idea is that ASEAN builds on the bilateral pro-
cesses, but its capacity remains a challenge, particularly with regard to the frequent changes of staff. 
(Indicator 432) 

4.4.4  JC  44:  Degree  to  which  the  regional  EU  support  has  been  designed  and  used  imple-
mentation  modalities  to  facilitate  the  generation  of  the  desired  impact  and  synergy  in 
the areas of climate change adaptation and mitigation and green growth 

The  Network  Facility  (NF)  has  greatly  improved  the  visibility  of  SWITCH-Asia  and  has  promoted  the 
application of the SWITCH-Asia approach in Asia and elsewhere in the world. The generation of syn-
ergies between projects has been limited due to the diverse and wide coverage of sectors and topics. 
There are a few good examples of mutual learning, such as green tourism projects in The Philippines 
and Sri Lanka and projects in various sectors that apply supply chain analysis. 

The role of information-sharing among projects has so far mainly  taken place during  workshops and 
the annual  networking events. A more permanent exchange among grant  projects does not  yet take 
place. Interaction and links between grant projects and the policy support components (PSC) have not 
yet been established. 

The NF could have done more in dissemination of project results and lessons learned. By the end of 
2012/beginning  of  2013,  a  “critical  mass”  of  (nearly)  completed  grant  projects  (from  the  1st  Call  for 
Proposals) became available. However, during the 4th annual networking event,  no specific sessions 
were  organised  to  present  achieved  results  and  lessons  learned  that  would  form  a  good  reference 
source and/or could be applied by projects that are in the first stages of implementation. It is expected 
that the NF will focus on dissemination of project results and lessons learned in its second phase. 

While all stakeholders praise the achievements of the NF, its impact so far has been limited. Another 
set-up of the Annual Networking Event (smaller audiences − i.e. by sub-region − and focus on learning 
from mature and completed projects in similar sectors or addressing similar subject areas) would im-
prove the impact of the NF. (Indicator 441) 

There  is  considerable  overlap  between  the  objectives  of  the  PSC  and  the  NF  in  terms  of  enhancing 
the policy framework for SCP. Since the start of the PSC, grant projects and other stakeholders do not 
have a good understanding of what the NF and the national and regional PSC would do and how they 
would co-operate. 

Limited collaboration took place between the NF and UNEP. A main reason appears to lie in the con-
tractual basis for both components. Whereas the NF is being implemented under a Service Contract 
with  EU-Brussels  that  requires  detailed  work  plans  and  approval  of  budgets  by  EU  Brussels,  the 
UNEP-PSC  is  being  implemented  under  a  general  agreement  for  UN  organisations,  which  requires 
UNEP to conduct activities under the agreed objectives, while there are no obligations for planning or 
for forecasting of expenditure. 

Whereas UNEP’s extensive SCP network is certainly a strength of the regional PSC, and is supporting 
the  promotion  of  SCP  in  Asia,  the  regional  PSC  remained  a  rather  independent  component  of 
SWITCH-Asia.  For  the  regional  and  national  PSC  programmes  to  be  able  to  fulfil  a  complementary 
and facilitating role for the grant projects, it is important that they co-ordinate activities with each other, 
as well as with the NF. This requires links with the grant projects, but these have not yet been estab-
lished.  The  PSC  programmes  have  not  been  able  to  link  the  policy  level  with  the  private  sector,  de-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

47 

spite  the  fact  that  both  grant  projects  and  the  NF  could  have  provided  adequate  support  in  this  re-
spect. In absence of a connection between the PSC programmes and grant projects, little impact will 
be achieved at the national level. (Indicator 442) 

The FLEGT-Asia Facility has maintained a good balance in working in both VPA and non-VPA coun-
tries, and the entry point of trade also proved to be useful to address non-VPA issues. Some countries 
are in  an  advanced stage  of VPA  development,  while some have  only just started  negotiations. The 
VPA development process clearly structures the needs and activities of FLEGT support, whereas sup-
port needs are more diverse for non-VPA countries. The Facility provided tailor-made support in each 
of these stages. The focus of the programme to work both in producer countries (that would apply for 
VPA)  and  consumer  countries  (e.g.  China,  India  and  Vietnam)  is  well  thought-out  and  a  balanced 
strategy. (Indicator 443) 

The Asian Investment Facility (AIF) certainly fulfils a need, but is a small player and only one of many 
funding sources. The Strategic Board ensures that projects are in line with EU strategies and policies. 
As  such,  there  are  no  direct  links  with  the  other  regional  programmes,  such  as  SWITCH-Asia  or 
FLEGT-Asia. The AIF is complementary to SWITCH-Asia, focusing on other target groups. SMEs may 
benefit in an indirect way by improved and more affordable access to key resources, such as energy, 
water, transport, communication and credit. (Indicator 444) 

Overall, the regional support is complementary and coherent with other thematic programmes on envi-
ronment  and  climate  change.  A  large  number  of  agriculture  and  forestry-based  SWITCH-Asia  grant 
projects (26 grant projects, representing 40% of the total number of projects) are being implemented in 
all countries − that is, in the lower, middle and higher income Asian countries. Due to its specific focus 
on SCP, there is no duplication with other environmental programmes. 

4.5  EQ5 on higher education 

EQ5:  To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  higher  education  institutions  and  net-
works in Asia and between Asia and Europe contributed to enhancing academic and research 
standards and to the internationalisation of universities in Asia? 

Higher education (HE) has developed into a key driver of economic, political and social development 
for  Asia.  As  early  as  2001,  the  EU  acknowledged  the  pivotal  role  of  higher  education  in  the  “Asia 
Strategy  Paper”.  The  strategic  role  of  HE  was  then  underlined  in  the  Regional  Strategy  Paper 
/Regional  Indicative  Programme  of  2005-2006  as  one  of  three  fundamental  policy  priorities.  This  is 
why the EU’s RSP 2007-2013 foresaw spending about 15% of its entire budget on HE activities. 

In the past, EU support for the sector aimed to create ties between European and Asian universities at 
the level of teaching and research (directly), as well as HE governance (indirectly). In terms of teach-
ing, the EU had used its highly successful Erasmus Mundus (EM) programme to enable the mobility of 
students,  scholars  and  academics.  In  terms  of  research,  the  EU’s  interventions  primarily  focused  on 
including Asian partners in research networks funded by the EC’s Framework Programme.  

The underlying rationale for this evaluation question is twofold. First, the question addresses the ex-
tent and degree to which strategic interventions and programmes of the EU have exported, translated 
and  implemented  the  highly  successful  European  models  of  regional  integration  of  higher  education 
and  research.  Despite  ongoing  criticism  of  the  European  project  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  specific  as-
pects of Europeanisation, the internationalisation and integration of European HE has been a resound-
ing success. Mobility programmes for students and faculties – notably Erasmus – have made possible 
an  unprecedented  mobility  of  students,  teachers  and  researchers  across  the  continent.  The  Frame-
work Programmes have  generated robust and highly  competitive research networks across universi-
ties, public and private sector research organisations. Arguably, EU programmes aimed at student and 
faculty  mobility  have  −  in  addition  to  forging  research  networks  −  ignited  an  autonomous  process  of 
Europeanisation  at all levels in organisations of  HE and research, as  well  as HE governance across 
the continent.  

Against this background, the evaluative question focuses on the extent to which strategic interventions 
and  programmes  –  principally  the  Erasmus  Mundus  and  TEIN  programmes  –  have  successfully  ex-
ported this model to Asia, and on how this model has contributed to socio-economic and civic devel-
opment  in  the  region.  This  means  looking  at  two  types  of  inter-related  impacts.  First,  the  evaluative 
question  examines  the  ways  in  which  HE  interventions  and  programmes  have  created  new  and 
strengthened  existing  networks  of  HE  actors  at  all  levels  (student,  faculty,  governance).  It  also  ad-
dresses the impacts  – current impacts as well  as, more importantly, trajectories and pathways of ef-
fects – of these programmes and interventions on the quality of teaching, research and governance of 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

48 

HE in  Asia.  Second, the evaluation question  explores the extent to  which strategic interventions and 
programmes in HE have contributed – directly or indirectly – to wider developmental policy objectives. 
This EQ also investigates the extent to which the strategic interventions and programmes in the field of 
HE – usually thought of as having a rather indirect and long-term impact on issues such as poverty or 
basic health – have helped shape economic, social and civic development in Asia. 

EQ5 – Overall assessment 

The regional-level  EU support to Higher Education (HE) in  Asia has contributed to the  widening and 
strengthening of HE networks between Asia and Europe, as well as, to a lesser degree, within Asia. 
Despite  the  relatively  small  numbers  of  mobilities  at  higher  education  institutions  (HEI)  and  country-
level funded by Erasmus Mundus (EM), Asian HE actors value the programme for two reasons. First, it 
allows Asian HE actors to formalise long-standing collaborative arrangements with European universi-
ties. These established ties usually follow colonial pathways, which means that not only will the tradi-
tional HE ties be  with  European  universities of former colonial powers but also that Asian HE actors 
will  tend  to  look  for  new  ties  in  these  European  countries.  Second,  Asian  HE  actors  also  appreciate 
the European dimension of the programme. Unlike comparable mobility programmes, EM opens up a 
much wider field of teaching and research resources. Evidence gathered suggests that this European 
dimension is relevant at the level of teaching and research, at the level of networking, and also at the 
level of mutual intercultural learning. In terms of teaching, the European dimension of EM opens up a 
much wider spectrum of HE styles and approaches than traditional HE ties between Europe and Asia. 
In terms of sustainable HE networks, the European aspect of the EM programme provides Asian HEIs 
with  much  broader  access  to  potential  partners,  while  allowing  them  to  maintain  and  nurture  long-
standing ties. In terms of mutual learning, the  EM  programme has provided  Asian HEIs  with a  wider 
exposure to European universities. Significantly, the same is true for European HEIs. Data gathered in 
the desk and fieldwork phase shows that this has encouraged mutual learning at a regional level, as 
well as within specific EM projects. TEIN, in turn, has effectively expanded the potential for more and 
more intensive  interaction  between  Asian  and  European  universities  in  teaching and research.  How-
ever, the development and dissemination of suitable applications has yet to utilise this potential effec-
tively. 

Regional-level EU support for HE in Asia has created effective gateways and pathways for upgrading 
teaching, research and learning capacity in Asian HEIs. The EM programme has enabled Asian post-
graduates,  post-doctorates  and  faculties  to  upgrade  their  skills  formally  (i.e.  through  degree  pro-
grammes) and informally (i.e. by exposing Asian participants to European research and teaching prac-
tices). TEIN has made possible the launch of the pilot ASEAN Cyber University (ACU) project, aimed 
at  providing  e-learning  to  the  ASEAN  region.  The  research  conducted  indicates  that  these  teaching 
and research networks are effective and productive.  Furthermore, the  EM programme has upgraded 
skills and generated research links without diverting academic human capital away from Asian HE sys-
tems. The participation  in  EU regional-level  HE support − particularly the EM  project − has exposed 
Asian HE actors to European HE governance practices and approaches. While there is little evidence 
of  Asian  HEIs  adopting  European  HE  governance  approaches  (with  the  possible  exception  of  the 
ECTS system at ASEAN  level), European  ideas and approaches have shaped  and  influenced  Asian 
HE policy deliberations. However, in addition to the administrative, legal and institutional barriers with-
in national HE systems, the small number of actual interventions at national and HEI level have meant 
that the impact of regional-level EU interventions on teaching, research and governance capacity have 
remained  highly  localised.  What  is  more,  interviews  reveal  that  there  may  be  considerable  unused 
scope for leverage and multiplier effects. 

The regional-level EU support for HE has had little impact on wider human capital diversification, and 
on capacity growth for national development, for two distinct reasons. First, some measures and as-
pects  of  the  EU-level  support  worked  less  well  than  expected.  Despite  efforts  to  address  equity  and 
access issues in the EM programme, it would seem that they have made little impression on barriers 
to HE participation. While the documentation suggests that the projects managed a more or less even 
gender balance, it has proved difficult to lower barriers to HE participation for members of disadvan-
taged  social  groups  in  Asia.  In  part,  Asian  HEIs  experienced  difficulties  in  defining  and  identifying 
members of the so-called Target Group 3 − a category of applicants designed to include marginalised 
and disadvantaged groups. More significantly, however, Asian HE actors report that they received very 
few suitable applications from members of these groups. Typically, the minimum requirements for par-
ticipation in EM exchanges − most prominently, English language competence − prove to be prohibi-
tive for members of disadvantaged groups in Asia. Furthermore, the EM and TEIN programmes could 
not contribute to encouraging a more active engagement of the private sector in research and teach-
ing networks (the latter by  design, the former by default). However, TEIN (though not EM) has man-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

49 

EQ5 – Overall assessment 

aged  to  network  research-active  public  sector  organisations  (such  as  meteorological  offices)  and 
Asian HEIs. Second, other measures and aspects of the EU regional-level support for HE worked ef-
fectively,  but  were  too  small  at  HEI  and  country-level  to  achieve  measurable  impacts.  EM  and  TEIN 
both encouraged country-relevant research within their networks. The explicit inclusion of Asian coun-
try needs in Action 2 calls and in the European dimension of the programme have helped Asian scien-
tists to align country-relevant research needs with HE resources in Europe. Asian scientists operating 
in countries with RTD policies that identify and financially support key research areas have found the 
European dimension of the EM programme particularly useful. Furthermore, the EM experience at any 
level equips individual beneficiaries with a wide range of career-relevant skills and knowledge. Not on-
ly  do  these  skills  give  EM  graduates  an  advantage  on  Asian  labour  markets,  the  prestige  of  pos-
sessing a foreign HE experience improves what is already a good standing with potential employers in 
Asia. 

In summary, the EU’s regional level support for HE has established gateways  and highways  to  aca-
demically excellent HEIs in Europe. Unlike other mobility programmes, the European dimension of the 
EM programme provides access to a wide scope of HE teaching and research  cultures for Asia stu-
dents and faculty. The EM has also generated sustainable organisational ties between Asian and Eu-
ropean  HEIs.  This  access and  the  networks  offer  the  potential  for  upgrading  teaching,  research  and 
learning capacities in Asia. However, that potential has yet to be leveraged and multiplied beyond the 
level of individual HEIs. While European regional support has contributed to policy deliberation about 
HE governance practices in Asia, both the TEIN and EM programmes made little impact on wider hu-
man capital diversification. 

4.5.1  JC 51: Degree to which regional-level EU support to Asia strengthened interconnectivi-
ty between research and education networks between Asia and Europe and within Asia 

Overall,  during the period  under evaluation (2007-2013), regional-level  EU support to Asian HE sys-
tems has contributed to deepening and extending the ties between European and Asian HEIs, as well 
as between Asian HEIs. The European dimension of the EM programme in particular has significantly 
contributed to  widening the access to  European HE resources, the creation of  wider sustainable HE 
networks between Asia and Europe, and the mutual learning between Asian and European universi-
ties. EU regional-level support to Asian HE systems has contributed to increasing access to high quali-
ty research and teaching resources for Asian students and faculty. Evidence suggests that Asian stu-
dents and faculties profited disproportionately from Erasmus Mundus programmes33: more than half of 
Action 1 (category A) students originated from Asia. While the EM programme did not manage to mo-
bilise the most prestigious European universities in the UK or France  − notable exceptions being the 
University of Cambridge in the UK and Sciences Po in France −, participants and beneficiaries never-
theless  perceived  the  participating  European  universities  to  be  academically  excellent.  Furthermore, 
the  intensity  of  competition  for  grants  at  institutional  and  student  levels  suggests  that  students  and 
programme are both of a high quality. The table below compares applications to the EM Action 1 pro-
grammes to the actual number of grants dispersed. 

Table 9 

Overview of applications to the EM Action 1 programmes 

2010/ 2011 

2011/2012 

2012/2013 

Applications EMMC (EM Masters Course) 

EMMC Scholarships 

Success Rate 

Applications EMJD (EM Joint Doctoral) 

EMJD Scholarships 

24,666 

2,141 

8.7% 

1,971 

130 

34,700 

1,917 

5.5% 

3,335 

216 

30,167 

1,923 

6.4% 

4,226 

298 

Success Rate 
Source: EM Website (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/results_compendia/statistics_2012_en.php) 

6.6% 

6.5% 

7.1% 

33 The EM Programme consists of three Actions. Action 1 funds joint masters and doctoral programmes. Action 2 
funds partnerships with HEIs in non-EU countries and provides scholarships for mobility of students and faculties. 
Action 3 is devoted to projects promoting European HE. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
                                                      
50 

This  means  that  6.4%-8.7%  of  applicants  received  an  EMMC  (Erasmus  Mundus  Masters  Course) 
scholarship between 2010 and 2012. Similarly, only about 7% of the applications to the EMJD  (Eras-
mus Mundus Joint Doctoral) programme were successful. Additionally, survey data from the Mid-term 
Evaluation  of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  progamme  (MTE  2012)  indicates  that  co-students  and  faculties 
rated the quality of EM scholars highly. Evidence suggests that the competition among institutions for 
projects in the EM programme was also intense. In the years 2010-2012, Action 1 success rates var-
ied between 28% and 16%. For Action 2 in the same time period, the success rate for Strand 1 pro-
jects fluctuated around the 40% mark. These success rates suggest a high degree of competition for 
the EM scholarships and EM project grants. 

In general, the awards granted in all three Actions of EM were close to, or even exceeded, projections. 
The EM MTE reports that for Action 1, the number of EMJD courses chosen exceeded expectations 
(p.34). The increase in applications to the EMJD programme by about 20% from 2010-2012, illustrated 
in the table above, underlines this trend. 

While  survey  data  compiled  for  the  EM  MTE  points  to  barriers  to  pursuing  joint  degrees  (see  Table 
below),  fieldwork  suggests  that  these  problems  may  be  less  acute  for  Asian  students  and  faculties. 
Evaluators for the MTR identified three significant barriers to EM mobility. 

Figure 15 

Prevalence of Obstacles Relating to Joint Degrees 

Source: MTE 2012, p.41 

First, large differences in tuition fees − particularly between UK universities and their counterparts on 
the continent − erect barriers for the participation of these universities in the  EM programme. By the 
same token, Asian HE actors with traditional ties to the Anglophone world point out that  the EM pro-
grammes  provides  access  to  less  costly  HE  resources.  Second,  administrative  and  legal  barriers  − 
particularly  visa requirements and institutional practices at the level of universities − have hampered 
mobility.  Third,  language  barriers  −  particularly  the  inability  of  some  European  universities  to  offer 
courses  in  English  −  have  undermined  EM  mobility.  Interviews  with  institutional  and  individual  Asian 
beneficiaries suggest that  cost, administrative  and  organisational problems remain. These  interviews 
also reveal that many problems have been effectively and competently solved by management at the 
level of individual EM projects. 

The TEIN4 programme planned to offer innovative opportunities, including e-learning. While the pilot 
of the ASEAN Cyber University shows considerable promise, it would seem that the pace of develop-
ment  for  applications  for  the  TEIN  network  is  not  meeting  the  potential  demand  by  Asian  HEIs.  The 
desk and the field research provides no indication that HE actors, either in Europe or in Asia, have ex-
plored the potential synergies between the two programmes. (Indicator 511) 

Data suggest that the EU interventions have formalised and extended existing teaching and research 
networks across Europe and Asia, as well as within Asia. In the reporting period (2007-2012), all of the 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

15%52%16%23%15%20%17%22%35%15%31%28%35%13%36%27%0%20%40%60%80%100%NationalstructuresEUDelegationsFMIDsFMMCsHave you / participating institutions and individuals from your country faced of the following obstacles while participating in the Erasmus Mundus programme? -Joint degreesYesTo some extentNoDK/NK 
51 

EM Actions funded 161 partnerships featuring Asian HEIs. The following table shows the partnerships 
with HEIs from Asia funded under the Actions 1, 2 and 3 Erasmus Mundus programme. 

Table 10 

EM Partnerships Featuring Asia HEIs 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012  

Action 

Asia  % 

Asia 

% 

Asia 

% 

Asia  % 

Asia  % 

Asia 

% 

A1 (EMMC) 

A1 (EMJD) 

A2 (ECW) 

6 

66.7 

11 

55.0 

A2 (Strand 1) 

A2 (Strand 2) 

11 

4 

19 

21.6 

30.8 

44.2 

4 

0 

13.8 

0.0 

5 

1 

16.1 

9.1 

5 

1 

16.7 

11.1 

20 

55.6 

22 

61.1 

3 

3 

60.0 

27.3 

2 

2 

50.0 

22.2 

32 

1 

61.5 

100.0 

A3 

2 

18.2 

6 

30.0 

1 

50.0 

Total 
42.4 
Source: EM Website (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/results_compendia/selected_projects_en.php) 

32.6 

42.5 

40.0 

32.1 

35.2 

17 

35 

30 

32 

39 

8 

The share of Asian HEIs in Action 1 (EMMC and EMJD) from 2009-2012 averaged 17%, but 44% of 
the partners in Action 2 projects of the same period were HEIs from an Asian country. This share rises 
to 57% if we include the ECW partnerships (2007-2009). Particularly in Action 2, evidence points to a 
number  of  consortia  that  have  managed  to  operate  across  the  different  calls  of  the  EM  programme. 
While it  would appear that  these  partnerships  and networks have generated positive dispositions to-
wards  and  useful  practices  concerning  internationalisation,  commentators  note  that  the  programmes 
may not have generated patterns of international HE co-operation where none previously existed. Evi-
dence  from  fieldwork,  however,  suggests  that  Asian  HE  actors  greatly  value  the  way  EM  enables 
greater access to a wider spectrum of European universities than long-standing traditional ties – usual-
ly along colonial pathways.  

In  terms  of  sustainability  of  these  networks,  survey  data  shows  that  a  solid  majority  of  stakeholders 
(61%  for  Action  1  and  59%  for  Action  2)  believe  that  specific  courses  and  exchange  programmes 
would  not  have  taken  place,  and  are  less  likely  to  continue,  without  EU  funding.  Nonetheless,  inter-
views reveal that Asian HE actors understand the financial sustainability of EM consortia to be part of 
the  more  general  question  of  HE  network  sustainability.  Apart  from  financial  support,  they  point  out 
that  good  communication  structures,  student  and  faculty  buy-in,  as  well  as  the  development  of  con-
crete  HE  outputs,  have  contributed  to  the  sustainability  of  HE  networks  between  Asia  and  Europe. 
This would suggest that Asian HE actors understand the EM programme to be one of many (albeit ra-
ther distinctive and effective) means of pursuing their internationalisation strategies. (Indicator 512) 

Data  shows  that  EU  regional  interventions,  in  particular  the  EM  programme,  have  enabled  mutual 
learning at two distinct levels. First, the EM programme encouraged learning about Asian and Europe-
an HE systems. Here, 14 of the Action 3 projects have explicitly aimed at raising the profile of Europe-
an HE in Asia. One indicator of the growing visibility of European universities in Asia is the increase in 
competition for  EM scholarships: applications for  EM  doctoral scholarships  increased by  about  46%. 
Asian institutional beneficiaries of the EM programme also learned about different European universi-
ties through participation in Action 2 projects. The participation of European HE actors in EM projects, 
in turn, provided an opportunity for Europeans to challenges prejudices about Asian culture and Asian 
HE systems. Significantly, the participation in  EM projects provided an opportunity for European and 
Asian HE actors to learn about HE resources in their own regions. Second, the  EM programme also 
facilitated the exchange of teaching, research and governance practices within EM project consortia. 
Institutional beneficiaries point out that bi-directional exchanges would strengthen learning processes 
for  European  and  Asian  partners.  They  also  say  that  more  intensive  bi-directional  exchange  would 
significantly  contribute  to  institutionalising  and  disseminating  lessons  learned  in  teaching,  research 
and governance from the EM experience. (Indicator 513) 

4.5.2  JC  52:  Extent  to  which  regional-level  EU  support  to  Asia  has  enabled  an  increase  in 
quality in teaching, research and governance in Asian higher education systems 

Regional-level  EU  support  for  HE  has  extended  the  institutional  space  in  which  upgrading  teaching, 
research and learning capacity in Asian HEIs takes place. However, overall impacts have been limited 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 

by the volume of the HE interventions  on the one hand and, on the other, by barriers within national 
HE systems in Asia to multiplier and dissemination effects.  

The EM, as well as the TEIN programme, expands the potential for increasing capacity and quality of 
HE  teaching  in  Asia.  EM  does  this  in  two  ways.  First,  since  2004,  Action  1  and  Action  2  of  the  pro-
gramme have widened the access of Asian students to high quality HE courses (see Table 9).  

Table 11 

Development  of  Masters  and  Doctoral  Scholarships  for  Students  from  Asian  Coun-
tries 

EMMC 

EMJD 

2004 

2005 

2006 

55 

451 

914 

2007 

1003 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

894 

808 

726 

51 

580 

71 

579 

120 

EM Scholars 
Source: EM Website (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/results_compendia/statistics_en.php) 

136 

152 

84 

97 

48 

9 

Total 

6010 

242 

526 

While the EMMC courses have actually decreased during the reporting period (from 1003 in 2007 to 
579  in  2012),  the  participation  of  Asian  students  in  EM  doctoral  programmes  has  steadily  increased 
since  2010.  Similarly,  the  number  of  mobile  EM  scholars  from  Asia  has  grown  continuously  since 
2005,  almost  doubling  during  the  reporting  period  (from  84  to  152).  Action  2,  in  turn,  enables  Asian 
students to experience academic excellence at  European universities. It  would seem that it has also 
expanded the scope of countries from which these students originate, from 18 to 52 since 2004. Sec-
ond, the EMJD and the EMMC programmes have contributed to upgrading HE teaching capacities in 
Asia  by  increasing  the  proportion  of  university  instructors  that  hold  a  PhD.  In  terms  of  doctoral  stu-
dents, the Asian share of EMJD grants has steadily increased since 2010. Many Asian beneficiaries of 
EM grants are lecturers aiming to improve research and teaching skills. Selected case studies, as well 
as interviews with Asian beneficiaries,  suggest that these PhD students mostly return to teach in HE 
systems in Asia, often because of a lack of attractive alternatives.  

TEIN,  in  turn,  has  made  possible  the  ASEAN  Cyber  University  (ACU)  project  –  currently  in  a  pilot 
stage and available in four ASEAN countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam). Launched in 
2012, the ACU project shows considerable promise, but a firm judgement on the project will need to 
be reserved for a later date when the project has been running longer. 

However,  the  fieldwork  implies  that  the  effects  on  teaching  capacity  and  quality  have  been  modest. 
For EM, not only are the number of exchanges per country and per HEI small, the local administrative, 
legal  and  institutional  factors  often  militate  against  leveraging  and  multiplying  teaching  capacity  ac-
quired through EM. Fieldwork data provides reason to believe that administrative and legal issues, as 
well as a lack of policy commitment  from national HE policy–makers, may prove to be barriers for e-
learning initiatives. Moreover, the survey of EUDs in Asia implies that many delegations come to simi-
lar  conclusions:  only  two  of  the  surveyed  delegations  perceive  that  EU  HE  interventions  have  im-
proved the quality of teaching and research in their countries (EUD Survey, 2013). (Indicator 521). 

Similarly, both desk and field research indicate that many Asian HEIs see the creation of sustainable 
research  networks  as  being  the  central  potential  benefit  of  EM  and,  to  a  lesser  degree,  TEIN  (field 
mission interviews, August 2013). This is particularly true for universities in more developed HE sys-
tems, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, India and, increasingly, Vietnam. Many Asian HE actors perceive 
programmes such as EM to be “springboards” for the development of collaborative research projects. 
Interviews during the field mission in August 2013 show that Asian institutional beneficiaries explicitly 
expect (and hope) that their EM alumni will forge new research ties.  

Asian institutional beneficiaries, evaluators and monitors seem to agree that the EM programme, par-
ticularly the Action 1 EMJD programmes, has contributed to improving the volume, quality and visibility 
of  research  in  the  region.  However,  this  assessment  is  largely  based  on  fieldwork  interviews,  case 
study  evidence  and  the  reported  perceptions  of  beneficiaries.  Judging  from  this  data,  it  would  seem 
that the EM programme – specifically, the relatively new EMJD programmes -- provides opportunities 
for developing skills, research networks and publication opportunities. The EM research degrees offer 
Asian graduate students the opportunity to acquire and hone research skills and methodologies. Case 
study evidence and fieldwork data points to a high level of satisfaction on the part of the beneficiaries 
with  their  learning  experience.  These  cases  and  our  interviews  show  that  co-ordinators,  prospective 
faculty (currently PhD students) and visiting professors felt that they profited from the  EM programme 
in  terms  of  acquiring  “new  methodologies,  research  skills  and  networks”  (EM  MTE  2010,  p.53,  field 
mission interviews, August 2013) In addition, the joint doctoral degree programmes and scholar mobili-
ty both appear to have generated productive and sustainable research partnerships. The evaluators of 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
53 

the  EM  MTE  2010  refer  to  interview  data  from  the  Action  2  project  Eurasia  2,  in  which  respondents 
pointed  to  the  increased  research  output  that  resulted  from  the  partnership  (EM  MTE  2101,  p.40). 
Likewise, the data from fieldwork interviews provides some evidence that these partnerships resulted 
in  the  drafting  of  common  conference  papers,  proposals  and  publications.  This  is  the  case  despite 
administrative  barriers  that  prevent  EMJD  grant  holders  from  pursuing  their  fieldwork  while  on  ex-
change. Overall, however,  the desk and field research indicates that the impacts from  TEIN and EM 
remain largely local, with considerable scope for leverage and multiplier effects. (Indicator 522) 

EU regional level interventions in HE – particularly the  EM programme – seem to have struck a bal-
ance between enabling academic mobility without unduly diverting human resources from Asian coun-
tries.  For  EM,  fieldwork  data  shows  that  a  significant  majority  of  Asian  HE  actors  do  not  perceive 
“brain-drain”  (in  this  case,  the  departure  of  educated  or  professional  people  from  one  country  to  an-
other) to be a problem, and do not believe that the EM programme has contributed to diverting intellec-
tual capacity from Asian HE systems. Evaluations, monitoring reports and fieldwork interviews intimate 
that brain-drain is a complex macro-level phenomenon that emerges from individual career decisions, 
as well as from push and pull factors. These, in turn, are influenced by disciplinary idiosyncrasies, rela-
tive  employment  opportunities,  and  personal  circumstances.  So,  while  some mobility  and  human  re-
source diversion is to be expected (and welcomed), it would seem that the EM projects have managed 
to devise effective institutional measures to prevent brain-drain. The table below shows a breakdown 
of courses with these types of features. 

Table 12 

Double, Joint and Multiple Degrees 

Action 

EMJD 

EMJD Total 

EMMC 

EMMC Total 
Source: EM MTE, 2012, p.35 

Year 
2010 
2011 

2009 
2010 
2011 

Double 
6 
9 
15 
23 
16 
12 
51 

Joint 
9 
9 
18 
27 
19 
13 
59 

Multiple 
1 
5 
6 
9 
12 
12 
33 

Data  from  desk  research  and  fieldwork  interviews  revealed  that  Asian  HE  actors  do  not  believe  that 
EM  or  TEIN  contributed  to  the  pull  factor  for  Asian  research  and  teaching  capacity.  Data  from  inter-
views with  individual and institutional  beneficiaries in Asia, as  well as case studies, suggest that EM 
courses attracted Asian lecturers aiming to upgrade their skill profile and with the expressed intention 
to return to Asian HEIs. (Indicator 523) 

While the literature stresses that the EM programme was an effective vehicle for transporting Europe-
an practices of HE governance (EM MTE 2012, p. 35, 36, 40; AF4 Asia Regional), the evidence from 
fieldwork interviews with Asian institutional and individual beneficiaries suggests that this has not nec-
essarily resulted in the widespread implementation of European HE governance practices beyond the 
occasional ad hoc adoption of practices at HEI level. The data does, however, suggest that European 
HE practices have become a part of HE policy deliberation in many Asian countries. Interviews during 
the field mission showed that European HE practices  – which range from rather general approaches, 
values and attitudes towards internationalisation to specific instruments and tools, such as the credit 
transfer systems, have become a part of the menu of policy options open to HE policy. (Indicator 524) 

In  summary,  while  the  EM  programme  is  very  effective  in  upgrading  skills  and  generating  research 
networks,  the  data  from  desk  and  field  research  uncovered  considerable  unused  scope  for  leverage 
and multiplier effects. It is, however, questionable whether the type of local focus required to effective-
ly leverage qualification and research effects is within the scope of these regional HE programmes. 

4.5.3  JC 53: Degree to which regional-level EU support to Asia has helped Asian universities 
to increase and diversify the human capital for national development processes 

The survey of EUDs in Asia revealed that just under half of the delegations believe that regional-level 
EU support for HE has made a reasonable or substantial contribution to human capital diversity  and 
capacity for national development. The other delegations, more cautiously, feel that TEIN and EM may 
have had a limited impact (EUD Survey, 2013). The data from desk and field research tends to lend 
support to the more sober assessment: while regional-level EU support for HE has contributed to hu-
man capital diversity, this contribution has been modest. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

54 

In terms of granting disadvantaged groups an equitable access to HE, the evidence is mixed. The EM 
programme overall does rather well in terms of gender balance. Although there is considerable room 
for improvement in individual aspects and disciplines − most notably the 75%-25% gender imbalance 
in  favour  of  men  among  the  Action  1  scholars  −  the  programme  managed  to  generate  gender  bal-
anced flows of students and scholar.  The tables below show the relative gender balance of Action 1 
and Action 2 programmes overall. 

Figure 16 

Percentage  of  Women  among  Mobile  Students  and  Scholars  and  gender  balance 
among Action 2 beneficiaries 

Source: MTE 2012, p.58 

However, the imbalance among scholars (418 male to 108 female scholars between 2004 and 2010 
for Asia) and PhD students (39% females for Category A and 49% females for Category  B) points to 
structural barriers for the participation of women, particularly when balancing family and work with re-
search responsibilities. The EM project aimed to promote vulnerable social groups through the Target 
Group (TG) 3 category in Action 2. However, desk and fieldwork data suggests that Asian HEI experi-
enced great difficulties in defining and identifying these groups. This has meant that far fewer grants 
than planned were disbursed in this category. The case studies and monitoring reports reveal that the 
grants issued for TG3 students  were in single digit figures for individual  projects: for example,  Eura-
sia2  reports  of  a  single  application  from  a  refugee  student  from  Myanmar,  and  a  monitoring  report 
points to four TG3 grants (out of 25 applications) (MR-137761.09, 2011). Interviews  with institutional 
beneficiaries  revealed  that  Asian  HEIs  receive  few  suitable  applications  from  members  of  disadvan-
taged  groups.  First,  individuals  from  these  groups  may  not  have  access  to  communication  channels 
through which EM scholarships are advertised. Second, and more significantly, members of disadvan-
taged  groups  in  Asia  may  not  meet  the  minimal  academic  requirement  for  an  EM  exchange  −  most 
notably,  English-language  competence.  The  data  suggests  that  the  university  level  may  not  be  the 
most suitable level at which to address causes of HE exclusion for members of disadvantaged groups. 
(Indicator 531) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

44%51%39%49%28%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%CMMC Cat AScholarshipsCMMC Cat BScholarshipsCMJD Cat AScholarshipsCMJD Cat BscholarshipsScholarsPercentage of women among mobile students and scholars59%52%63%47%41%48%37%53%0%20%40%60%80%100%Target group 1studentsTarget group 2Target group 3StaffGender balance among Action 2 beneficiariesMenWomen 
 
55 

The EM and TEIN programmes have enabled Asian researchers to participate in research relevant to 
country  needs.  The  EM  programme  does  so  in  two  distinct  ways.  First,  the  process  of  determining 
thematic areas for EM calls for proposals is designed to ensure relevance to the needs of third country 
participants.  DG  DEVCO  –  in  consultation  with  EUDs  and  country  experts  –  determine  the  thematic 
areas that EACEA then implements in their EM calls. However, it is notoriously difficult to assess with 
any precision whether the type of basic research funded by the EM programme is relevant to any spe-
cific country need. Of the six EMJD programmes featuring HEIs from Asian countries, only one – Sus-
tainable  Management  and  Design  for  Textiles  –  is  arguably  directly  relevant  to  what  commentators 
may consider pressing country needs in Asia.  However, this is not to say that all programmes in the 
table are capable of significantly contributing to the development of human resources in Asian HE sys-
tems. Second, the European dimension of EM has enabled Asian researchers to find suitable HE re-
sources for their research projects. Significantly, this is more effective for researchers in countries in 
which RTD policies clearly define and fund research areas of national interest. The access to a wide 
scope  of  European  HE  resources  has  helped  these  Asian  researchers  more  easily  to  align  thematic 
funding requirements at home with available HE resources and interests in Europe. TEIN, in turn, has 
provided a data infrastructure for Asian HE actors to define relevant research projects: these include 
telemedicine, weather and climate modelling, as well as grid computing. However, administrative and 
legal uncertainties at national levels may be resulting in a slower growth of TEIN network applications 
and relevant research. (Indicator 532) 

Overall, neither EM nor TEIN have engaged and involved private and public sectors actors in research 
and teaching networks. In EM, public and private sector organisations participate as “associate mem-
bers”. However, the existing documentation reveals less than a handful of companies in Action 2 pro-
jects of the 2010 selection. Interviews revealed that Asian institutional beneficiaries perceive the rela-
tions  between  universities  and  business/industry  to  be  a  key  weakness  of  Asian  HE  systems.  This 
bears out the indication in the data that financial commitments would not enable EM Action 1 research 
to continue without EU funding. Moreover, the fieldwork suggests that the EM programme did not con-
tribute to establishing relations between businesses, industry and HEIs in Asia. Both the documenta-
tion and the fieldwork indicate that the non-university public sector organisations played no active part 
in EM research and teaching networks beyond traditional funding and regulatory roles. The  TEIN pro-
gramme, explicitly designed as a public alternative to commercial data networks, does not look to ex-
plicitly  involve  private  sector  actors  in  research  and  teaching  networks.  By  enabling  data  transfer  in 
areas such as telemedicine, as well as climate modelling and weather forecasting, TEIN has helped to 
engage  research-active  public  sector  organisations  (i.e.  hospitals  and  meteorological  offices)  with 
Asian HEIs. (Indicator 533 and 534) 

The results of desk and fieldwork  provide little cause to believe that Asian universities have adopted 
European HE practices for protecting minorities and vulnerable groups. While it would seem that indi-
vidual  EM  projects  have  devised  application  processes  and  selection  criteria  aimed  at  providing  an 
equitable access to HE for all social groups, this has not amounted to the adoption, or even adapta-
tion, of European  HE  practices. Interviews  with institutional  beneficiaries suggest that equity  and  ac-
cess issues are an integral part of HE policy debates in many Asian countries. Implicitly, Asian HE ac-
tors doubt the extent to which regional-level EU interventions have contributed to these debates. (Indi-
cator 535) 

EM experience, interviews and desk research imply that the EM programme equips students and aca-
demics/scholars with the skills, practical knowledge and networks to further careers in any field. Yet, 
institutional and individual beneficiaries interviewed also agree that the EM programme is too small to 
have a noticeable impact on the situation of graduates in Asia. In terms of the development of careers 
of EM graduates, commentators seem to agree that the EM experience is not only personally enrich-
ing, but also leaves graduates in a strong position on labour markets in Asia. Employers in Asia value 
an  EM  experience  at  least  as  highly  as  any  other  form  of  exchange  or  studies  abroad.  Employment 
figures,  however,  do  not  reflect  these  advantages  quite  as  clearly. While  successive  surveys  of  EM 
phases show that EM graduates do rather well in terms of employment, it also suggests that their extra 
skills  do  not  protect  them  any  more  effectively  from  economic  downturn  than  people  with  other  de-
grees. While no data is available for salary and income development, the MTE suggests that the em-
ployment rewards of the EM experience are predominantly non-monetary: survey data seems to sug-
gest  that  EM  graduates  find  employment  that  provides  a  higher  degree  of  job  satisfaction  (EM  MTE 
2012, p.50). Interview data from institutional and individual beneficiaries also suggests that EM gradu-
ates have to expect relative income losses. (Indicator 536) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

56 

4.6  EQ6 on support to uprooted people  

EQ6:  To  what  extent  has  regional-level  EU  support  to  uprooted  people  contributed  to  reinte-
grating  refugees,  returnees,  ex-combatants  and  internally  displaced  people  into  the  socio-
economic fabric? 

As part of its efforts to promote peace and security and to address human rights issues, democracy, 
good governance, and rule of law in the Asia region, the RSP 2007-13 identified Support to Uprooted 
People  as  one  of  its  three  priority  areas.  In  2001-2006,  EUR 270 million  was  spent  on  assisting  up-
rooted people in the Asia region. The relevance of such actions was confirmed during an evaluation of 
Regulation  EC  2130/2001  in  2004.  The  programme  was  praised  for  its  flexibility  in  adjusting  to  the 
changing phases of crises and to the diversity of needs encountered. 

Support  to  Uprooted  People  is  aimed  at  integration  of  refugees,  internally  displaced  people  (IDPs), 
returnees,  and  former  combatants.  Particularly  difficult  is  integration  into  the  labour  market  −  a  vital 
component of ensuring livelihoods. Refugees will not have the right to work. Returnees, IDPs, and ex-
combatants, while they have the right to work in their country of origin, may face administrative difficul-
ties in obtaining legal status (such as lost personal documents). Uprooted persons who are re-settled 
in a third country will be treated as legal migrants, but again will face integration difficulties. 

Countries  and  country-complexes  affected  include  Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran,  Myanmar-Thailand-
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal-India, The Philippines, and Sri Lanka. EU interventions covered: capac-
ity  building/livelihood  security  for  refugees,  IDPs  and  returnees;  sustainable  food  production;  basic 
health; psycho-social services; water and sanitation; basic urban services and housing; basic educa-
tion; access to higher education, and  vocational training; strengthening  the capacity of  target groups 
for repatriation, resettlement, or integration into host communities; access to credit and legal support; 
human rights of refugees, migrants and IDPs, including with regard to forced labour, prostitution, sex-
ual and gender-based violence, forced migration; and promoting peace-building and reconciliation. In 
answering this EQ, we have chosen to focus on three crises: the Afghan crisis (Afghanistan, Pakistan, 
Iran), the Myanmar crisis (Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladesh), and the Sri Lanka crisis. The first two in-
volve cross-border aspects and refugees, while the latter focuses on IDPs. The Aid to Uprooted Peo-
ple (AUP) response in Afghanistan has been thoroughly evaluated, while the Myanmar crisis provides 
a  good  opportunity  to  study  the  role  of  political  and  policy  dialogue  at  the  bilateral  and  regional 
(ASEAN) level. 

EQ6 – Overall assessment 

The  answer  to  this  EQ  is  based  on  a  document  review  of  AUP-financed  actions,  analysing  CSPs, 
ROMs, MTRs, and evaluations in Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran, Myanmar-Thailand-Bangladesh, and Sri 
Lanka. These actions have been  well monitored, reviewed,  and evaluated,  and  there  is no evidence 
that they have deviated significantly from international standards in the area of linking relief, rehabilita-
tion  and  development  (LRRD)  −  that  is,  contributing  towards  durable  solutions  promoting  the  re-
integration of refugees, returnees, IDPs, and ex-combatants into the social fabric. The quality of inter-
ventions was confirmed during field missions to Thailand and Myanmar. In the area of basic services, 
the  EU  placed  appropriate  emphasis  on  provision  of  basic  medical  care  (emphasising  the  needs  of 
women  and  other  vulnerable  groups),  education,  clean  water  and  sanitation,  psycho-social  services, 
and legal advice. Not all projects addressed all areas, but, in general, projects were integrative when 
they needed to be (e.g., health and water and sanitation together). In many settings, the EU was the 
main provider of needed basic services to large groups of uprooted people. 

Most actions investigated − unless tightly focused on, for example, legal advice or medical services − 
addressed  livelihood  issues,  such  as  job  skills,  sustainable  agricultural  production,  cash  income. 
Again, the EU played a major role in the region.  As in the case of basic services, due attention  was 
paid to involving host communities and residents of areas surrounding refugee camps in order to pro-
mote equity and integration, and special attention was paid to addressing women’s needs. 

In general, the monitoring, review and evaluation documents consulted all concluded that AUP actions 
have been implemented in adherence to good international practice in the pursuit of LRRD. However, 
CSPs,  EAMRs,  and  the  Asia  RSP  contain  little  information  on  the  political  dialogue  surrounding  up-
rooting. Descriptions of actions in policy forums such as ASEM do not refer to uprooted people. How-
ever, the field mission revealed that in both Myanmar and Thailand, there has been considerable polit-
ical dialogue on the entire range of issues related to uprooting. These include the issue of refugees in 
the camps, IDPs, and the  emerging crisis of the Rohingya  and related inter-communal violence. De-
spite the lack of a common vocabulary – for example, in official terms, there are no IDPs in Myanmar, 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

57 

EQ6 – Overall assessment 
and uprooted persons sheltered in camps in Thailand are not refugees – there have been discussions. 
No evidence was found, however, of similar political dialogue at the regional level.  Both EU and gov-
ernment  officials  interviewed  were  of  the  view  that  ASEAN,  a  consensus-based  organisation,  is  not 
able to deal effectively with refugee issues. This is, of course, a considerable disappointment because 
many  of  these  problems  are,  by  nature,  regional  (e.g.,  the  Rohingya  crisis)  and  call  for  regional  ap-
proaches. 

To summarise, AUP-financed interventions have delivered a significant amount of LRRD in the context 
of crises of uprooting. There have been solid achievements in provision of basic social services. Re-
lated  issues,  such  as  labour  migration  and  other  migration  and  asylum  issues,  have  not  been  very 
much  integrated,  opening  possible  opportunities  for  Development  Co-operation  Instrument  (DCI)  ac-
tion, if not AUP action. While cross-border aspects have not been entirely absent (e.g. Sri Lanka-India 
and Afghanistan-Pakistan), AUP continues to be largely a country-based programme. Examples were 
found of excellent co-ordination between national programmes − for example AUP Thailand and AUP 
Myanmar, including co-ordination between  EUDs and  ECHO field offices.  In general, though, the re-
gional nature  of some uprooting crises, such as the  Rohingya crisis, calls for at least a sub-regional 
mechanism, and sometimes even a regional mechanism.  

The following box provides a short introduction to and overview of the AUP programmes in Myanmar, 
Thailand, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. 

Box 6 

AUP Programme information 

Myanmar programme information 

With a population of over 50 million (official estimate), Myanmar has suffered from 50 years of civil war, military 
rule,  and  international  isolation,  from  which  it  is  just  now  apparently  emerging.  Specific  problem  areas  include 
Northern Ralchine State, from where a quarter of a million Muslim Rohingya sought refuge in Bangladesh in the 
1990s. Many have now returned, but face problems of discrimination. Also a focus of need is eastern Myanmar, 
where conflict drove an estimated 450,000 people from their homes, many fleeing into refugee camps in Thailand, 
where, in some cases, they have lived for 20 years. Displacement takes many forms, including  displacement in-
duced by armed conflict, by state-society conflict, and by livelihood-vulnerability.  

The  EU  is  the  largest  source  of  aid  to  uprooted  people  in  Myanmar,  not  only  through  AUP,  but  also  through 
ECHO  and  thematic  programmes.  This  raises  issues  of  co-ordination,  including  with  none-state  actors  (NSA), 
food security programmes (FSPs), Migration and Asylum programmes, and Investing in People programmes. EU 
Member States active in Myanmar include UK, Sweden, Norway. Others countries involved include the US, Swit-
zerland, Australia, and Japan. The EU’s first Strategy Paper and MIP for Myanmar (2007-2013) stressed health 
and  education.  Both  of  these,  but  especially  the  first, have been consistently  integrated into  AUP  interventions. 
Basic AUP objectives in Myanmar, according to Action Fiches 7, year 2009 (EU contribution EUR 9 million, total 
programme  cost  EUR 11.5 million)  and  8  (2011-13,  EU  contribution  EUR 15 million,  total  programme  cost 
EUR 15.8 million) are support to LRRD, improved livelihoods and living conditions (including re-integration, pro-
tection), and promoting reconciliation and conflict resolution.  

Thailand programme information 

EU actions are concentrated on the nine refugee camps along the 2,000km border with Myanmar, and, in order to 
reduce tensions and defuse resentment, surrounding countries in the region. Problems identified in the 2007 Ac-
tion Fiche were food and livelihood insecurity, limited access to basic health and nutrition services (especially for 
women  of  child-bearing  age,  children,  and  the  elderly),  limited  access  to  education,  and  insufficient  protection 
from serious human rights abuses (including gender-based violence) and from landmines. Resettlement of refu-
gees into third countries has been a mixed blessing, as it has tended to empty camps of the most talented and 
energetic  residents,  while  attracting  non-refugee  Burmese  residents  −  often  in  irregular  situations  −  into  the 
camps  in  Thailand  in  hopes  of  achieving  resettlement.  Many  economic  migrants  from  Myanmar  also  live  in  the 
region, few of them with the Thai national identity card that gives access to health and education services. Not 
discussed here is the entirely different problem of H’mong refugees from Lao PDR in the south of the country. 

The EU’s support to people in the camps has been provided through ECHO, focusing on short-term provision of 
basic services, and AUP, which has tried to move increasingly in the direction of LRRD. Following Action Fiches 
2007  (EU  contribution  EUR 8 million,  total  programme  cost  EUR 10 million)  and  2009  (EU  contribution 
EUR 9 million, total programme cost EUR 11.2 million), specific AUP objectives have been improving livelihoods 
and increasing access to health and education services, both within the overall context of seeking long-term, sus-
tainable solutions. Notably missing is promoting return because, as explicitly stated, conditions at the time were 
judged  to  be  too unsettled  for  return  to  be  a  viable option. Views  on that  are  probably  shifting in light of  recent 
changes in Myanmar, and it can be expected that a significant strategic reconsideration is now ongoing. Target 
populations are camp residents, displaced persons living in areas surrounding the camps, and local communities 
(often  populated  mostly  by  ethnic minorities) in  areas surrounding  the camps.  Livelihoods  have  been  promoted 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

58 

through skills training and sustainable food production. Water and sanitation, health (often with a focus on repro-
ductive health, maternal and child health, and HIV/AIDS), and education assistance have been provided.  

Throughout the process, the EU and donors have engaged the Thai government in an attempt to encourage ac-
ceptance  of  long-term  approaches.  There  have  been  limited  successes  (such  as  agreement  to  introduce  voca-
tional and skills training to promote a lifetime livelihood approach), but a number of points of disagreement remain 
on issues such as registration of new camp arrivals and the status of refugees outside the camps. 

Bangladesh programme information 

Beginning  in  the  1990s,  roughly  a  quarter  of  a  million  members  of  the  Muslim  minority  Rohingya  group  sought 
refuge in Bangladesh. In response, UNHCR set up 20 refugee camps. Subsequent voluntary repatriation led to 
the return of all but about 20,000 refugees to Myanmar. However, in addition to the official refugees, an estimated 
200,000  Rohingya  have  entered  Bangladesh  undocumented  and  merged  with  the  local  population,  mostly  in 
Cox’s Bazaar. Competition for scarce resources has led to significant erosion of the initial spirit of charity and wel-
come  that  greeted  the  Rohingya.  These  people  are  considered  by  the  Government  of  Bangladesh  to  be  illegal 
economic migrants. AUP Calls for Proposals in the mid-2000s failed, partly to intransigence by the Government of 
Bangladesh (GoB), which was reluctant to allow any interventions improving the situation of refugees and uproot-
ed  persons,  for  fear  of  attracting  even  more.  However,  dialogue  with  government  −  including  action  of  the  co-
ordinated Dhaka Steering Committee made up of 11 Embassy Heads of Mission and UN organisations −  and the 
election of a new government opened the door for more active intervention in 2009. As the Action Fiche 2009 put 
it, “The most significant development to complement […] progress has been the softening of GoB stance with re-
gard to the concept of self-reliance and freedom of movement showing that continuous and proactive lobbying by 
the donors.” 

The EU response (Action Fiche 2009) was been to finance UNHCR in an attempt to deal with the livelihood needs 
of  the  legal  refugees  in  camps  and  to  open  a  call  for  proposals  to  NGOs  to  work  with  Rohingya  outside  the 
camps, as well as local communities − mostly with regard to health, water and sanitation, employment, capacity 
building of local government, and gender-related issues. 

Afghanistan programme information 

About 2.8 million Afghan refugees live in Pakistan and 1 million in Iran − many of them having done so for over 20 
years, many having been born outside their homeland, many with no intention of returning, and many in irregular 
situations.  While  UNHCR  estimates  that  56 million  Afghan  refugees  have  returned  since  2002,  increasing  the 
population within the border by 20%, these face severe challenges of re-integration, and there has been a slow-
down in the pace of return. At the same tie, flows of people into and out of Afghanistan are increasingly for the 
purpose of economic migration. The multi-country aspect and the mixture of displacement and migration call for a 
regional, multi-dimensional approach. 

Specific EU areas of action included legal assistance to refugees in Pakistan and Iran, support to community de-
velopment  and  planning  in  Afghanistan,  and  support  to  government  institutions  responsible  for  return  and  re-
integration − most specifically for monitoring human rights and for running the faltering land distribution scheme. 

The EU’s CSP/MIP 2007-2010 concentrated on rural development,  health, and governance. Other programmes 
active include ECHO and NSA-LA, both mostly in the area of  water and sanitation. The basic AUP objective in 
Afghanistan and surrounding countries, according to Action Fiches for 2009 (EU contribution EUR 17 million, total 
programme  cost  EUR 24.2 million)  and  2011-13  (EU  contribution  EUR 27 million,  total  programme  cost 
EUR 88.7 million), is promoting voluntary return and re-integration by improving return conditions in Afghanistan 
and providing assistance for refugees in Iran and Pakistan, including promoting regional dialogue. 

Sri Lanka Programme information  

In  Sri  Lanka,  the  EU-funded  AUP  Action  Fiche  (“Support  to  conflict-affected  IDP  returnees  and  communities 
through housing in north and east Sri Lanka”) estimated the total number of conflict IDPs to be 435,000 and the 
number of returnees to be 515,000 − implying over a million people living in conditions of violence, rampant hu-
man rights violations, and severe deprivation. Following the peak of fighting in 2008-2009, a concerted policy of 
return was instituted, but the main needs were housing, followed by livelihoods. The basic AUP goal was to sup-
ply housing and the necessary secondary infrastructure for returning displaced persons, as well as for new dis-
placed persons. Challenges included: the breakdown of the land ownership registration system, either by the de-
struction of registers or by the loss of papers by IDPs during displacement; and the limited time that beneficiaries 
could contribute to construction because, as farmers, their work was required in the fields. 

4.6.1  JC  61:  Degree  to  which  foundations  for  sustainable  livelihoods  have  been  created  for 

refugees, IDPs, returnees, and ex-combatants in the civil sector 

Most  of  the  actions  investigated  here  contained  components  related  to  livelihoods.  Exceptions  were 
highly focused or specialised actions − for example, provision of medical services to Afghan refugees 
in Iran, or legal services in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whether in camps or host communities in My-
anmar and Thailand, regions receiving returnees in Afghanistan, or Northern Sri Lanka, support to up-
rooted people generally tried to involve beneficiaries in construction (sometimes in the context of cash 
for  work),  to  promote  agricultural  production,  and  to  build  capacity  for  sustainable  livelihoods.  In  the 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

59 

case  of  Thailand,  the  EU  funded  an  innovative  and  highly  successful  Vocational  and  Educational 
Training (VET) programme in the camps. As prospects for return have improved, this programme has 
proved to be extremely popular with camp residents, who see it as contributing to a possibly brighter 
post-return future. The emphasis on livelihoods was clear in the context of LRRD, and sometimes − as 
in Thailand  and, to lesser  extent, in Bangladesh  − this required  a discussion in  government to  over-
come initial fears that beneficiaries were being assisted in settling there permanently. In Thailand, dis-
cussions  were  necessary  in  order  to  launch  the  highly  successful  EU-backed  vocational  education 
programme. 

Close  to  half  of  7  EUDs  responding  to  the  survey  in  this  evaluation  felt  that  the  EU’s  assistance 
through  AUP  had  contributed  to  sustainable  livelihoods  (see  accompanying  Figure).  However,  long-
term sustainability must be seen in the context of the legal situation of uprooted people. For example, 
in Thailand, the programme to support refugees (a term not accepted by Thai authorities) is based on 
the premise that, if the peace process in Myanmar continues to go well, there will be a large-scale re-
turn to that country, where current refugees will re-install themselves. The EU has contributed greatly 
to improving the ability of the refugees to do so. However, if they wish to remain in Thailand, or if they 
return and subsequently wish to work in Thailand again, the skills they have learned will not be (legal-
ly) applicable. (Indicator 611) 

Figure 17 

EUD  survey  results:  AUP  contributed  to  creating  a  foundation  for  sustainable  liveli-
hoods  for  refugees,  IDPs,  returnees,  and  ex-combatants  in  the  civil  sector  in  your 
country 

Source: EUD survey 

In a related point, it has sometimes been necessary to overcome fears that, by improving conditions in 
camps, further inflows of refugees would be encouraged, and that the risk of their choosing to remain 
would  increase.  No  examples  were  found  of  actions  dealing  specifically  with  legal  issues  related  to 
employment; the actions were, rather, broader. In every such action reviewed, there was a special ef-
fort  to  promote  economic  self-sufficiency  of  women,  and  attempts  were  made  to  identify  and  target 
other vulnerable groups. ROMs, MTRs, and evaluations generally gave actions good marks for incor-
porating cross-cutting issues. 

Despite  its  emphasis  on  regional  economic  integration,  ASEAN  does  not  appear  capable  of  dealing 
effectively with labour migration, and has been absent from discussions on uprooting. These represent 
opportunities missed. (Indicator 612) 

Actions specifically focused on ex-combatants  were  not found  in any  of the country  programmes re-
viewed, although a handful were known to have existed. For example, AUP intervened in the repatria-
tion of Hmong fighters from Thailand to Lao PDR − a process that was poorly handled and has made 
the  Thai  government  very  cautious  about  how  it  proceeds  on  the  Myanmar  border. While  no  explicit 
information was received during the field phase, the situation may simply be that the security situation 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

3; 43%2; 29%1; 14%1; 14%0; 0%Substantial contributionReasonable contributionLimited contributionAttempted but nocontributionNot an objective of thesupport provided 
60 

in Myanmar is still so fraught that identifying population groups as “ex-combatants” would be prema-
ture. One fact that emerged was the extremely strong role played by the political wing of armed groups 
in the Thai refugee camps. 

Food  security  has  been  a  main  concern  of  all  interventions  where  it  was  relevant.  Food  distribution 
mechanisms in camps were strengthened in Bangladesh, with positive impacts on nutrition. In Myan-
mar and Thailand, uprooted persons were trained in sustainable farming techniques, contributing both 
to better nutrition and also promoting environmental sustainability. No information was found on forest-
ry. (Indicator 614) 

In  the  programmes  reviewed,  no  evidence  has  been  found  of  programmes  specifically  aimed  at  ex-
combatants.  While less information has been gained on IDPs than on cross-border uprooted persons, 
it is clear that security conditions have affected the ability of AUP to establish the foundations for sus-
tainable livelihoods. (Indicator 613) 

To  summarise,  AUP  interventions  have  helped  to  create  conditions  for  sustainable  livelihoods  in 
camps, and more broadly by education and training, but the context in which these livelihoods will be 
earned remains uncertain. Where skills have been taught, the question remains as to where they will 
be exercised. The number of people resettled is often very small, so the exercise of new skills in third 
countries appears rather small. The presumption is often that people will return to their country or re-
gion of origin, meaning that few people trained will be able to exercise their skills in the host country. 
However, many will not want to return, but the opportunities to exercise the skills gained may be insuf-
ficient. 

4.6.2  JC 62: Degree to which political dialogue on legal status and rights of uprooted people 

helped promoting durable solutions 

One of the principal questions remaining open at the end of the desk phase was  the extent to which 
issues of uprooting had been integrated into political dialogue. Based on field phase interviews, these 
issues figure prominently in bilateral political dialogue, but much less so in regional dialogue − at least, 
at the level of ASEAN. In the actions reviewed, inter-country discussions on repatriation would be rele-
vant only for Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran and Myanmar-Thailand-Bangladesh. There was documentary 
evidence of multi-country discussions and dialogue in the first case, but none in the second. However, 
interviews at EUDs and Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Thailand and Myanmar confirmed the pursuit of 
discussions.  

This covers not only the long-term refugee problem and related return issues, but also the more recent 
and still emerging Rohingya crisis.  

In  the  Afghan  crisis,  the  EU  has  encouraged  dialogue  between  Afghanistan  and  Pakistan,  aimed  at 
better  treatment  of  Afghan  refugees  in  Pakistan.  The  recognition  that  most  cross-border  flows  now 
consist of migrants, rather  than refugees, has  also encouraged a regional policy dialogue.  Many  ex-
amples  have  been  found  of  effective  dialogue  at  the  lowest  level  –  for  example,  UN-HABITAT  and 
ASB interceding with the Sri Lankan government to resolve land ownership issues; NGOs negotiating 
with  regional  officials  in  Myanmar  to  facilitate  project  activities  in  “hot”  zones;  NGO  negotiation  with 
regional officials in Bangladesh to soften attitudes to refugees and uprooted Rohingya. Many of these 
interventions, often ad hoc, appear to have been highly effective, although some failed. They could be 
considered as advocacy activities. 

Moving to a higher level, EU-financed actions negotiated with the Thai central government on access 
to the national health service, and raised the issue of the conditions of detention for Rohingya illegally 
in the country. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, agencies responsible for AUP actions discussed refugee 
status issues with central government. In the first of these two cases, this resulted in a tangibly more 
accommodating attitude of government towards EU-financed improvements in camp conditions. How-
ever, references to such discussions remain at the project-related level. It is striking that there is virtu-
ally  no  reference  to  co-ordinated  bilateral  or  regional  policy  dialogue  related  to  uprooted  people  in 
CSPs  and  RSPs,  EAMRs,  and  documents  related  to  regional  policy.  The  exception  is  regional  dia-
logue  promoting  better  understanding  of  migration  issues  in  the  Afghanistan  context.  In  the  case  of 
ASEAN, the lack of reference to regional political dialogue on uprooting reflects the reluctance of that 
organisation to engage in the problem. (Indicator 621, 622 and 623)  

It  is  highly  unlikely  that  IDP  issues  have  not  been  integrated  into  EU  bilateral  political  dialogue,  yet 
documents reviewed never mention this. Problems of IDPs figure in political dialogue in Myanmar, but 
there are limitations, since the official government position is that there are no displaced people in the 
country, only voluntary internal migrants. (Indicator 624) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

61 

Regional  and  global  programmes  other  than  AUP  contributed  to  better  approaches  to  migration,  but 
there is no evidence  that  AUP  did so, or that other  more migration-oriented forms of action included 
uprooting as a theme. Migration, like uprooting, is an area in which ASEAN has been essentially inac-
tive, which is striking in view of its emphasis on regional economic integration and the high degree of 
migration now taking place, and very likely to increase in the future. One exception is that actions de-
signed  to  deal  with  uprooted  Afghans  in  Pakistan  and  Iran  have  increasingly  taken  into  account  the 
fact that most cross-border flows for a number of years have been migratory in nature. However, this 
is a change in outlook that has been bottom-up, essentially initiated at the level of actions and country 
programmes. The new  EU Communication  on  Migration (2013) 292 makes no note of the grey area 
between migration and uprooting.  No sign has been found in policy dialogue of discussions focusing 
on  the  contentious  issue  of  whether  uprooted  persons  are  irregular  migrants,  as  host  governments 
would usually prefer to regard them, or persons who have moved due to extreme distress beyond their 
control.  In  Thailand,  many  camp  residents,  having  acquired  education  and  skills  (including  Thai  lan-
guage skills), will have little interest in returning to or, even if returned, remaining in, agricultural zones 
that  many  of  them  will  never  have  seen.  Meaningful  discussion  of  this  looming  issue  appears  to  be 
mostly limited to international partners. (Indicator 625) 

To summarise, at the end of the Desk Phase it was pointed out that virtually no “paper trail” of political 
dialogue related to uprooting had been found. Interviews conducted in the field phase in Thailand and 
Myanmar  corroborated  that  such  political  dialogue  has,  in  fact,  been  a  consistent  feature  of  EU-
Government bilateral political discussions. However, the evident absence of regional-level political dia-
logue  on  uprooting  continues  to  be  striking,  apart  from  desk-phase  documentary  evidence  of  multi-
country dialogue concerning the Afghanistan crisis (which did not, however, involve SAARC). It is like-
ly that the reason for the lack of regional-level dialogue is the politically-loaded nature of the situations 
that give rise to uprooting. 

4.6.3  JC 63: Degree to which EU support helped improving access to basic services 

AUP has been a major provider of basic services to uprooted populations in need. EU actions financed 
under  AUP  placed  appropriate  emphasis  on  improving  the  access  of  uprooted  people  to  health  and 
education, clean water and basic sanitation, and, where appropriate, services of special importance to 
women (e.g. SGBV, child nutrition) and other vulnerable groups (e.g. those at risk of, or suffering from, 
HIV/AIDS).  

Not surprisingly, in view of the major role of the EU in providing social services − especially in the are-
as  of  health  and  education  −  to  uprooted  people,  almost  three-quarters  of  EUDs  responding  to  the 
survey judged that the EU had made a substantial contribution.  

Figure 18 

EUD survey results: AUP contributed to improving access to basic services for refu-
gees, IDPs, returnees, and ex-combatants 

Source: EUD survey 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

5; 72%1; 14%1; 14%0; 0%0; 0%Substantial contributionReasonable contributionLimited contributionAttempted but no contributionNot an objective of thesupport provided 
62 

ROMs,  MTRs,  and  evaluations  have  given  varying  reports  –  for  example,  sustainability  is  often  in 
doubt, delays  were not uncommon  – but the overall judgement is that the  EU has, by helping  to  im-
prove access to basic social services, made a significant contribution to improving the lives of uproot-
ed people, promoting conflict mitigation, and encouraging voluntary return. All of this has been in the 
spirit  of  LRRD  and  promoting  re-integration  into  the  social  fabric.  The  complementarity  between 
ECHO, delivering emergency humanitarian assistance, and AUP, delivering LRRD after the initial cri-
sis has passed, has generally been taken advantage of in the early stages of crises, although ECHO 
(not the subject of this evaluation) has often remained on the spot long after the initial crisis has past. 

An advantage of the EU is that it is able − because of significant amounts of money at its disposal, a 
long-term perspective, and high quality implementing partners − to offer comprehensive services, as in 
the case  of Bhutanese refugees  and  asylum-seekers in Nepal.  At several points, as stated  above, it 
has  been  necessary  to  overcome  government  resistance  to  improvements  in  living  conditions  that 
might  attract  more  uprooted  persons  or  encourage  those  already  in  place  to  gain  a  permanent  foot-
hold.  It  is  widely  believed,  for  example,  that  the  educational  opportunities  available  in  Thai  refugee 
camps  have  been  a  pull  factor  attracting  persons  into  the  camps,  where  they  often  remain  unregis-
tered. In Bangladesh, where authorities were extremely concerned about the pull factor, the EC used 
political dialogue to urge the government to allow NGOs access to camps containing Rohingya  refu-
gees (Indicator 631 and 633) 

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the EU financed major efforts to provide needed legal services to re-
turnees,  in  the  first  case,  and  potential  returnees,  in  the  second.  In  Sri  Lanka,  tackling  problems  of 
land registration basically amounts to providing legal advice. In Thailand, the EU financed legal coun-
selling services, although these services, significantly, did not  include advising on rights after return. 
(Indicator 632) 

The evaluation found ample evidence (for instance, in the mid-term evaluations or ROM reports) that 
actions promoting access to basic services targeted especially vulnerable populations and addressed 
women’s needs in areas such as health  and SGBV. As examples, EC-financed activities in Thailand 
improved access to justice for women suffering from violence, and provided integrated health and psy-
cho-social services (including, in the latter case, for male perpetrators of violence). 

EU-financed  health  interventions  have  contributed  significantly  to  cross-border  and  global  efforts  to 
address  issues  such  as  drug-resistant  TB  and  drug-resistant  malaria.  In  providing  health  services  to 
uprooted persons suffering from tuberculosis and malaria, the EU has contributed not only to address-
ing the needs of individuals, but also addressing regional and global health issues. (Indicator 634) 

4.7  EQ7 on regional strategy 

EQ7:  To what  degree  has  the  regional-level  EU  support  been  responsive  to  the  priorities  and 
needs  of  the  key  partners  in  Asia  and  in  line  with  the  overall  EU  development  and  policy 
framework? 

The policy framework for the EU’s actions in Asia is based on the Communication “Europe and Asia: A 
Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships” of 2001, which defined the overall strategic approach 
for the EU’s relations with Asia. The Communication emphasises that “Asia is a crucial economic and 
political partner for Europe. More than ever before, the EU and its Asian partners should work together 
in addressing the global challenges which we both face, and the global opportunities which we should 
all be able to share. [The EU’s] Asian partners are invited to reflect on their side on how we might ad-
dress these issues together.”  

Within  this  framework,  development  co-operation  ranks  high.  The  EU  allocated  more  than 
EUR 5 billion to Asia for the period 2007-2013. In line with the European Consensus on Development, 
the Asia strategy – as with all regional strategies and programmes – aims at contributing to the over-
arching  objective  of  poverty  reduction,  while  fostering  development  based  on  Europe's  democratic 
values: respect for human rights, democracy, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, good govern-
ance, gender equality, solidarity, social justice, environmental sustainability, and effective multi-lateral 
action.  

Hence, the rationale to assess the relevance of the RSP is threefold. The EQ looks at the relevance of 
the strategy: a) as measured against the development priorities of the EU’s Asian partners; b) in rela-
tion to the overall EU development framework, which is based on five thematic programmes under DCI 
and other instruments complementing DCI; c) as measured against the EU’s overall policy framework 
for its relations with Asia. This EQ draws on synthesised findings from EQs 1 to 6, extensive document 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

63 

research,  the  survey  of  the  EUDs,  and  stakeholder  interviews  in  Brussels  and  all  nine  countries  se-
lected for the field phase.  

This evaluation question addresses the overall strategic direction of EU-Asia relations. It asks whether 
and to what extent priorities in general, and the process of planning and designing the strategy in par-
ticular, have responded to the development objectives of the EU’s key partners in Asia − with a partic-
ular emphasis on the sub-regional organisations ASEAN and SAARC and the trans-regional dialogue 
forum  ASEM.  The  EQ  also  focuses  on  the  strategy’s  alignment  with,  and  embeddedness  in:  (i)  the 
broader context of EU development co-operation, as defined by DCI and its thematic programmes, as 
well as EIDHR and IfS; (ii) other financing instruments. 

EQ7 – Overall assessment 

Answering the question  of whether regional-level EU  support has been responsive to the needs and 
priorities of Asian partners requires two different angles. First, the Asia strategy is well aligned with the 
partners’ development agenda. In the RSP itself, and more specifically in the programme and project 
documentation, the evaluation team found extensive  needs analyses and generally detailed elabora-
tion on the overall context in which interventions operate and the challenges they face. This, together 
with the consideration of lessons-learned from previous strategies and programmes – especially with 
regard to a previous lack of co-ordination and synergies between regional-level and bilateral interven-
tions  –  leaves  no  doubt  that  EU  stakeholders  are  very  serious  about  achieving  a  high  level  of  rele-
vance for their strategies relating to Asia. Second, however, the EU's responsiveness to partner needs 
does  not  necessarily  extend  to  the  active  involvement  of  these  partners  in  the  development  of  co-
operation strategies. There was no direct interaction with Asian stakeholders in the process of design-
ing  the  RSP  itself,  although  several  evaluation  reports  elaborate  on  the  participation  of  Asian  stake-
holders  in  the  design  of  individual  programmes  under  the  strategy.  Well-functioning  dialogues  with 
Asian partners on the strategy, mainly related to matters of implementation, were reported for only four 
out  of  13  countries.  At  the  same  time,  the  degree  of  communication  on  strategy  in  individual  pro-
gramme and thematic areas depends very much on the capacity, capabilities and, not least, the will of 
the  respective  partners  to  engage  in  such  a  dialogue.  ASEAN  is  the  clearest  case  of  a  partner  that 
takes  a  pro-active  approach  to  addressing  its  needs  in  strategy  discussions  with  the  EU.  The  EU 
ASEAN Joint Project Design Teams, which have been in existence since the mid-term review, provide 
suitable forums to this end, in addition to the existing network of communication channels. However, 
the same does not apply to SAARC, which, like several other partners, lacks comprehensive and con-
cise  strategies  of  its  own,  making  it  difficult  for  the  EU  to  know  exactly  what  the  priorities  and  key 
agendas are. Even ASEAN has found it impossible to enunciate a regional strategy in politically more 
sensitive areas, such as with regard to uprooted people particularly. 

Overall,  and  regardless  of  the  specific  direct  involvement  of  Asian  partners  in  strategy  development 
and design, the evaluation has not come across any glaring mismatches between the regional strate-
gy and  what can reasonably  be assumed to be the needs and priorities of key  partners. In a similar 
vein, there are no incidences that would point to major inconsistencies between the regional strategy 
and the overall EU development and policy framework. In fact, in all core areas – trade, environment, 
higher education, health, and human security – evaluation reports, other documents and stakeholder 
interviews confirm the coherence of the programmes under the RSP with the respective policy fields.  

The  assessment  is  less  straightforward  on  the  strategy’s  coherence  with  DCI-financed  thematic  pro-
grammes and other financing instruments. In neither case are inconsistencies or incoherence evident, 
but EU documents and independent evaluation reports rarely mention coherence − let alone elaborate 
on it. One EUD aptly summarised this point as “no coherence, but no conflict either”. There is poten-
tially a missed opportunity because a comprehensive analysis of coherence between and among dif-
ferent programmes and instruments is an essential precondition for achieving or strengthening syner-
gies in development co-operation. 

4.7.1  JC 71: Extent to which the intervention strategy responds to, and is  co-ordinated with, 

the agenda of key Asian partners, particularly ASEAN, SAARC and ASEM 

The  correspondence  of  the  strategy  to  the  partners’  development  agendas  is  assessed  through:  the 
existence of needs analyses in programming documents; the level of involvement of Asian stakehold-
ers in the design of the strategy; the extent to which lessons have been learned from preceding strat-
egies;  how  much  the  recommendations  of  previous  Asia-related  evaluations  have  been  considered; 
how  the  objectives  of  regional-level  EU  support  correspond  to  the  strategic  objectives  of  Asian  part-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

64 

ners; and any evidence of functioning dialogue mechanisms on strategy between the EU, sub-regional 
partners and partner governments.  

There  is  strong  evidence,  in  detailed  context  analyses,  for  the  embeddedness  of  the  main  pro-
grammes under the RSP, and this confirms the strategy’s clear focus on the development needs of the 
sub-regions and individual countries. All programming documents include some kind of a needs analy-
sis, but these vary in terms of depth and detail. Among the most comprehensive ones are the respec-
tive analyses in ECAP III, SWITCH, FLEGT and Erasmus Mundus. All four could be considered best 
practice as they are very detailed in their elaboration of the sector-specific framework conditions, prob-
lems and challenges.  AUP Action Fiches were also found  to be of very high  quality,  with needs and 
challenges  well  analysed.  The  typical  section  covers  historical  and  political  context,  complementary 
actions,  and  donor  co-ordination  issues.  The  NGOs  and  international  agencies  (including  UNHCR) 
responsible  for  implementing  AUP  programmes  all  have  high  levels  of  expertise  and  long-standing 
experience in the area. (Indicator 711) 

The  RSP,  MTR,  programme  documents  and  interviews  provide  evidence  that  lessons-learnt  have 
been  taken  into  account  by  the  RSP  in  general  and  individual  programmes  and  projects.  Lessons 
learned from preceding strategies, and particularly the recommendations of past evaluations, are cus-
tomarily  referred  to  in  the  action  fiches  of  individual  interventions  −  including,  but  not  limited  to, 
SAARC Civil Aviation, Phase 2; ECAP III, READI, ASEM IV and AUP. (Indicator 713) 

Overall, there is no lack of effort on the part of the EU to make sure that the strategy responds well to 
the  Asian  partners’  needs,  agendas  and  priorities.  However,  this  alone  does  not  imply  the  partners’ 
prominent  participation  in  the  process  of  strategy  development,  or  that  mechanisms  exist  that  would 
allow  for  the  co-ordination  of  EU  and  partner  strategies.  In  fact,  no  evidence  emerged  for  the  direct 
involvement  of  Asian  partners  in  the  design  of  the  RSP.  As  illustrated  in  the  figure  below,  of  the  13 
EUDs surveyed for this evaluation, only four stated that there were functioning  dialogue mechanisms 
in place between the EU and the respective national government with regard to the design and imple-
mentation of the regional strategy − for example, due to too formalised and bureaucratic dialogue pro-
cesses, the dependence  of dialogues on  project partners, or the non-existence of such mechanisms 
altogether. 

Figure 19 

EUD  survey  results:  Dialogue  mechanisms  between  EU  and  the  government  of  the 
EUD country 

Source: EUD survey 

However, some evaluation reports elaborate on the participation of Asian stakeholders in the design of 
individual  programmes  under  the  RSP.  For  example,  the  ASEM  Dialogue  Facility  promotes  and  en-
courages initiatives put forward by Asian members of ASEM, “thereby giving greater ownership of the 
Facility to the Asian partners to address their needs”.  Human Rights, Justice and Peace-Building are 
particularly  mentioned  in  this  context  (ASEM  DF  MTE,  p.  38).  The  TRA  Evaluation,  2013,  describes 
TRA  to  ASEAN  as  being  strongly  aligned  to  the  organisation’s  policies  and  priorities,  and  driven  by 
ASEAN itself. Similar findings apply to TEIN, which is also characterised by a strong focus on the in-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

0; 0%4; 29%3; 21%2; 14%5; 36%Very wellWellTo some extentNot at allNo such mechanism exists 
65 

terests and inputs of the participating Asian stakeholders in the process of developing the programme 
over time. On the problem of uprooted people, projects and programmes have been participatory, but 
field mission findings strongly suggest that ASEAN does not have, nor can be expected to have, a co-
herent policy towards uprooting. The field mission reveals frequent bilateral political dialogue between 
the EU and governments on issues of uprooted people, but, in general, this dialogue is not easy be-
cause the two sides use different vocabularies and have differing views. While the documentation for 
the Erasmus Mundus programme provides no indication that Asian partners have been involved in the 
design of the programme, EM features a high degree of participation of Asian HEIs in the design and 
implementation of teaching and exchange programmes funded by the programme. (Indicator 712 and 
715) 

Finally, the RSP’s alignment with the strategic objectives of Asian partners – and, ultimately, the ques-
tion  of  to  what  extent  interventions  have  been  demand-driven  –  is  also  dependent  on  the  extent  to 
which such partner strategies actually exist. Among the EU-supported regional organisations, ASEAN 
has  the  clearest  and  most  comprehensive  development  strategy,  which  finds  its  expression  in  three 
blueprints constituting the basis for the implementation of the ASEAN Community 2015. By compari-
son,  SAARC’s  strategic  objectives  are  vague  and  significantly  less  comprehensive.  In  view  of 
ASEAN’s  well-articulated  strategic  goals,  the  EU  has  found  it  relatively  easy  and  straightforward  to 
align regional-level support with the objectives of the  ASEAN Community 2015  and to related sector 
action  plans.  All  relevant  evaluations  −  including,  for  example,  ECAP  III,  APRIS  II,  TRA  and  EU 
ASEAN strategy − confirm that interventions were largely demand-driven.  

No  such  finding  is  evident  in  the  case  of  SAARC.  SAARC’s  lack  of  clearly  formulated  strategies, 
and/or the member states’ lukewarm commitment to achieving the agreed objectives, is a definite hur-
dle in the process of framing EU interventions. The lack of strategy at the level of regional organisa-
tions (and also at country level) is clear in the case of uprooted people.  However, in other cases the 
evaluation  disagrees  with  earlier  assessments. While  both  the  MTE  of  the  ASEM  DF  and  the  ASEF 
Evaluation  were  critical  of  the  correspondence  of  EU  support  with  the  strategic  objectives  of  Asian 
stakeholders, and the general level of Asian ownership, interviews − especially with regard to ASEF − 
demonstrate a growing Asian input into ASEF agenda setting and into the design and implementation 
of individual projects. This has also translated into increased funding for ASEF from Asian members, 
particularly China. (Indicator 714) 

4.7.2  JC 72: Degree to which regional level strategies are coherent with the overall EU policy 

and implementation framework 

We assess coherence of the RSP and individual programmes with EU policies with regard to thematic 
programmes under DCI, other financing instruments (especially EIDHR and IfS) and generally EU pol-
icies in the areas of trade, environment, higher education, migration and health.. 

Neither documents nor stakeholder interviews revealed  any  incoherence between the RSP and  indi-
vidual programme strategies on the one hand and EU policies, DCI and financing instruments on the 
other. This evaluation found the most explicit reference to coherence in the case of EU policies. Eval-
uation reports leave no doubt that regional-level EU support is generally characterised by a high level 
of consistency with EU policies. For example: 

  The design of the EU Trade Related Assistance (TRA) for ASEAN is coherent and consistent 

with the Commission’s TRA objectives and key development and trade-related policies. 

  SWITCH-Asia promotes the uptake of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) prac-
tices  and  policies,  and  is  strongly  supported  by  EU  and  MS  policies.  Most  MS  have  SCP  or 
resource-efficiency programmes that fit into EU strategies and policies. Resource efficiency is 
now a key priority for policymakers across Europe. The EU-designated resource efficiency  is 
one of seven flagship  initiatives in  its Europe  2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and  inclu-
sive growth. 

  There  is  a  high  degree  of  congruence  between  Erasmus  Mundus  and  other  EU  policy  inter-

ventions in Higher Education. 

  EU  global  health  policy  contains  two  overlapping  dimensions.  The  first  is  the  MDG-related 
fight  against  diseases  of  poverty,  with  specific  focus  on  improving  maternal,  new-born  and 
child  health,  fighting  infant  and  child  mortality,  reducing  the  toll  of  diarrhoeal  disease  by  the 
provision  of  clean  water  and  basic  sanitation,  and  the  fight  against  the  three  focus  diseases 
HIV/AIDS,  malaria,  and  tuberculosis.  All  Asia  regional  health  programmes  have  been  con-
sistent with these goals, as have bilateral health programmes and the contributions of themat-
ic programmes. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

66 

  AUP support was entirely consistent with the EU’s overall poverty and vulnerability focus, and 
with  sector  policies  in  areas  such  as  health,  environment  and  gender.  However,  a  difficulty 
noted  was  that  while  AUP  is  housed  under  the  regional  programme,  there  is,  at  least  in  the 
case of ASEAN, no effective regional dialogue. Even when problems have a distinctly regional 
dimension (e.g. the Rohingya crisis) it is difficult to bring the affected countries together in dis-
cussion. As a result, AUP remains largely a traditional LRRD programme, not one advancing 
bold regional solutions. (Indicator 723) 

Likewise, the EUD survey confirms a high level of coherence between regional programmes under the 
RSP and EU policies in the fields of environment, trade and health.  

Figure 20 

EUD  survey  results:  Level  of  coherence  between  regional-level  EU  support  in  the 
respective Asian country and other EU policies 

Source: EUD survey 

Such explicit evidence is harder to come by for the RSP’s coherence with thematic programmes under 
DCI.  Comparing  the  RSP’s  objectives  and  programmatic  focal  points  with  the  strategic  goals  of  the-
matic programmes shows clear overlaps. However, coherence between regional and thematic strate-
gies is rarely addressed by the EU stakeholders themselves or in independent evaluations. The vast 
majority of programme and project documentations and evaluation reports refer only to coherence be-
tween and among different regional programmes and/or regional and  national-level programmes (for 
example, the evaluations of ECAP III and APRIS II), but say nothing about the coherence of the inter-
ventions with thematic programmes.  

The box below provides an overview of the thematic programmes and instruments, and their links with 
the RSP. 

Box 7 

Links between Thematic Programmes and Instruments and the RSP 

The thematic programmes under DCI, which are implemented using a horizontal approach, focus on: 
protecting human rights; promoting democracy; eradicating poverty; self-sufficiency in food production; 
education;  and  environmental  and  health-related  projects.  Thematic  programmes  are  supported  by 
national  and  regional  co-operation  programmes  drawn  up  by  the  EU.  Each  thematic  programme  is 
regulated  on  the  basis  of  a  decision  made  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  EU, 
which specify the priorities and funding for a period of two or three years.  

More specifically, the thematic programmes under DCI comprise of: 

  The  thematic  programme  for  “Environment  and  Sustainable  Management  of  Natural  Re-
sources including Energy” (ENRTP), which helps partners to address environmental and natu-
ral  resource  management  issues.  It  also  helps  them  to  meet  their  obligations  under  mul-
ti−lateral environmental agreements, and to take international policy leadership in such areas 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

024681012EnvironmentTradeHealthOther policiesNumber of respondentsVery highHighLowVery low 
67 

as  fighting  climate  change,  tackling  land  degradation  and  desertification,  biodiversity  protec-
tion,  and  proper  management  of  chemicals  and  wastes.  The  ENRTP  also  funds  the  global 
FLEGT Facility. 

  The programme on “Non-state actors and local authorities in development” aims to encourage 

non-state actors and local authorities to get more involved in development issues.  

  The Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP) aims to improve food security in favour of the 
poorest  and  the  most  vulnerable,  under  a  medium-term  and  longer-term  perspective,  and  to 
lead to sustainable solutions.  

  The “Migration and asylum thematic programme” supports third countries in their efforts to en-
sure better management of migratory flows in all their dimensions. The programme is the suc-
cessor to the 2004-2006 AENEAS programme.  

 

“Investing in People” aims to support actions in the area of human and social development, in 
particular:  education,  health,  gender  equality,  social  cohesion,  employment,  childhood  and 
youth, as well as culture. The programme covers nearly all the MDGs.  

In addition to DCI, the following two instruments interact most prominently with the RSP: 

  European Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights (EIDHR): Launched in 2006, EIDHR re-
placed and builds upon the European Initiative (2000-2006). Its aim is to provide support for 
the promotion of democracy and human rights in non-EU countries. 

  The  Instrument  for  Stability  (IfS),  which  is  the  EU’s  main  thematic  tool  relating  to  security  in 
partner  countries  that  are  undergoing  crisis  or  where  crisis  is  imminent.  IfS  has  two  compo-
nents: one short-term for crisis situations, and the other long-term for stable situations, which 
means that external co-operation policies may be implemented.  

The  coherence  criterion  also  concerns  the  linkages  between  EU  development  co-operation  and  the 
overall policy framework. The Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the European Union calls for con-
sistency between the different areas of the EU external action, and between these and its other poli-
cies  (Art.  21).  In  line  with  the  general  OECD  definition,  policy  coherence  in  EU  development  co-
operation is understood as a process that ensures that the objectives and results of the EU's devel-
opment  policies  are  not  undermined  by  other  EU  policies  that  impact  on  partner  countries,  and  that 
these other policies support development objectives, where feasible. Hence, this question focuses on 
two levels of analysis. 

Source: EU, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci_en.htm; 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/eidhr_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/ifs_en.htm 

In some instances – as also confirmed in interviews - links between DCI-financed programmes and the 
RSP were stronger than appears explicit on a reading of the RSP itself. In this context, the EUD sur-
vey suggests that RSP coherence is strongest with ENRTP, followed by FSTP. 

Figure 21 

EUD survey results: Level of coherence between the programmes implemented un-
der the current RSP and the different thematic programmes 

Source: EUD survey 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

02468101214DCI-EnvironmentDCI-Food SecurityDCI-Migration and AsylumDCI-Non State ActorsNumber of respondentsVery highHighLowVery low 
68 

Coherence could also be found with regard to AUP. Under the Asia Regional Strategy 2007-13, AUP 
serves an important function as the main vehicle to support LRRD in situations where proper dialogue 
may be difficult. AUP was clearly vital to the 27 October 2009 Council Conclusions and Action Plan on 
Strengthening EU Action in Afghanistan and Pakistan – although the document did not make any ref-
erence to uprooting or refugees. Links between AUP and the MDGs are clear in fighting extreme pov-
erty − especially in the provision of basic services in health and education (AUP is the main provider in 
many focused settings) and, through its income generation, livelihoods and nutrition components. 

Since the objectives of DCI thematic programmes are very widely cast − embracing health, education, 
gender  equality,  employment  and  social  cohesion,  culture,  and  youth  and  children  −  coherence  be-
tween  the  RSP  and  thematic  problems  is  easily  achievable.  The  factors  influencing  poverty  are  per-
ceived  as  being  so  varied  −  extending  from  local  factors  to  regional  and  international  factors  −  that 
they  allow  for  practically  any  broadening  of  the  scope  of  issues  that  can  be  addressed  within  DCI. 
Against  this  backdrop,  the  MTE  of  the  ASEM  DF,  for  instance,  concludes:  “There  is  little  difficulty  in 
arguing that the initiatives of the ASEM Dialogue Facility can be located fairly within the scope of the 
regulation”  (p.  7).  The  same  applies  to  other  regional-level  interventions  under  the  RSP.  (Indicator 
721) 

Essentially, the same findings apply to the coherence between the regional strategy and financing in-
struments other than DCI. Five out of 11 Delegations that answered the related survey question stated 
that  there  is  a  high  level  of  coherence  between  EIDHR  and  IfS  with  the  RSP.  The  remaining  EUDs 
thought that coherence  was low or very  low, or that these instruments were not relevant for their re-
spective countries. While there  is no reason to believe that the RSP has been incoherent with these 
financing instruments, coherence issues were found usually to be neglected in monitoring and evalua-
tion reports, and, in most cases, programme and project documents fail to elaborate on coherence.  

For  example,  despite  the  striking  similarities  in  the  thematic  focal  points  of  EIDHR,  READI  and  the 
AESEM DF, project documentation or progress/evaluation reports of neither READI nor the ASEM DF 
mention potential coherence with EIDHR. Likewise, the EIDHR Strategy Paper documents do not in-
clude  any  references  to  regional  programmes  or  ASEAN,  SAARC,  ASEM  and  ASEF  as  regional 
stakeholders. 

Table 13 

Comparison between thematic priorities of EIDHR, READI and ASEM Dialogue Facil-
ity 

READI 
Cross-cutting issues that will be 
elements featuring in READI 
technical dialogue and subse-
quent activities and be incorpo-
rated in the activities of the pro-
ject. For example: 
  Good economic 
governance.  
  Gender impact. 
  Sustainable development. 
  Good governance.  
  Human rights.  
  Rule of law. 

ASEM Dialogue Facility  

Subjects covered have  
extended from the initial 
emphasis on economic co-
operation to include : 
  Human rights. 
  Rule of law. 
  Global health threats. 
  Sustainable 

 

development. 
Intercultural and 
interfaith dialogues. 

EIDHR 
  Enhancing respect for human rights and 
fundamental freedoms in countries and 
regions where they are most at risk. 
  Strengthening the role of civil society in 

promoting human rights and democratic 
reform, in supporting the peaceful 
conciliation of group interests, and in 
consolidating political participation 
and representation. 

  Supporting actions in areas covered by 

EU Guidelines: dialogue on Human rights, 
human rights defenders, the death 
penalty, torture, children and armed 
conflicts, and violence against women. 

  Supporting and strengthening the 

international and regional framework for 
the protection of human rights, justice, the 
rule of law and the promotion of 
democracy. 

  Building confidence in, and enhancing the 

reliability and transparency of, 
democratic electoral processes, in 
particular through monitoring electoral 
processes. 

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/eidhr_en.htm; READI Action Fiche, p. 6; ASEM DF MTE, p. 7) 

If coherence is addressed, it is usually done in the context of synergies. For example, the Action Fiche 
of the EU-ASEAN Migration and Border Management Programme mentions that “other projects sup-
ported by thematic budget lines (EIDHR, AENEAS etc…) should be asked to regularly inform the pro-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
69 

posed programme management team to ensure synergy.” However, neither monitoring/evaluation re-
ports  nor  other  documents  elaborate  on  coherence.  The  most  detailed  discussion  of  coherence  is 
found with regard to national-level programmes, often in the context of synergies. (Indicator 722) One 
element  of  taking  greater  stock  of  labour  migration  in  the  RSP  could  be  improved  co-ordination  with 
the DCI-financed migration and asylum budget line, which not only seeks to improve migration man-
agement but also to ensure good international practice in dealing with asylum seekers and people in 
irregular  situations.  The  latter  would  suggest  some  need  for  co-ordination  with  AUP,  as  well  else-
where. 

4.8  EQ8 on added value of the regional approach 

EQ8: To what extent did the EU regional-level support add value to - and complement – its own 
bilateral co-operation and support of EU Member States? 

The  EU  defines  added  value  as  “the  extent  to  which  the  development  intervention  adds  benefits  to 
what would have resulted from Member States’ interventions only. This aspect is “closely related to the 
principle of subsidiarity and relates to the extra-benefit the activity/operation generates due to the fact 
that it was financed/implemented through the EC.”34 

The EQ addresses the comparative advantage and value of operating within a regional framework, as 
opposed  to  bilateral  aid.  Related  questions  are:  Did  the  EU  operate  at  the  right  level? What  are  the 
links  between  regional  and  national  areas  of  intervention?  Did  the  EU  mobilise  the  necessary  re-
sources?  To  what  extent  has  the  EU-regional  level  support  complemented  the  interventions  of  EU 
Member States, and thereby added value to the overall EU approach towards Asia?  

However, the EQ goes beyond an assessment of  EU-Member States relations in the design and im-
plementation  of  interventions;  it  also  looks  at  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  regional  versus 
bilateral approach within the portfolio of Commission-funded programmes. As confirmed by the 2010 
MTR/MIP, the EU and its Member States are committed to making European aid to Asia more effec-
tive, particularly through better  co-ordination in situ, and ensuring it complements other development 
support and work in the beneficiary countries and regions.  

Thus,  the  EQ  addresses  the  external  coherence  and  complementarity  of  EU  interventions,  and  as-
sesses  to  what  extent  regional-level  EU  support  has  been  co-ordinated  and  has  achieved  synergies 
with the interventions of EU MS and other donors.  

As dialogue and co-ordination should not be confined to programme preparation, the EQ also provides 
information regarding ongoing dialogue and the co-ordination efforts that are necessary for monitoring 
implementation progress and for taking corrective action.  

Overall, the question provides information on the EU’s added value due to regional-level EU support in 
relation to the benefits that would have resulted from EU MS interventions, or to national-level support 
only.  The  assessment  is  based  on  relevant  findings  under  the  other  EQs,  the  analysis  of  previous 
evaluation reports and other documents, as well as interviews with EU officials and representatives of 
EU MS, other donors and partner governments in all nine countries selected for the field phase. 

EQ8 – Overall assessment 

EU  regional-level  support  and  interventions  within  bilateral  co-operation  contexts  cross-fertilise  each 
other. In a similar vein, there is no doubt about the existence of well-functioning communication chan-
nels and co-ordination mechanisms between the EU, EU MS and other donors to maximise the value 
added  stemming  from  programmes  under  the  Regional  Strategy  for  Asia.  Evaluation  reports  and 
stakeholder interviews confirm the existence of complementarity and synergies between different lev-
els and approaches within the overall framework of EU development co-operation with Asia.  

It is evident, though, that the EU has put little effort into outlining and discussing linkages between re-
gional  and  national  programmes  in  strategic  and  programming  documents.  Regional  programmes 
usually do not provide much information on potential links with national interventions, while CSPs give 
little reference, if any, to the RSP or regional-level programmes.  

Evidence for the value added of the regional approach has mainly emerged  in interviews. For exam-
ple,  although  the  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  is  a  global  programme,  managed  centrally  from  Eu-
rope,  it  contains  a  strong  regional  dimension  that  is  highly  valued  by  Asian  higher  education  stake-
holders. On the other hand, AUP, which is based on calls for proposals, has not succeeded in becom-

34 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/methods/mth_ccr_en.htm. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

                                                      
70 

EQ8 – Overall assessment 

ing a programme that is truly regional in spirit, and the rationale for placing it under the Asia regional 
programme  may  simply  be  that  it  is  expected  to  be  active  in  many  countries,  implementing  projects 
with a broadly similar LRRD orientation.  

The designs of regional projects tend to be optimistic with regard to the synergies – and related value 
added – they can create in collaboration with other regional interventions and bilateral projects. How-
ever, such objectives are rarely fully achieved during  implementation and, in some cases, interviews 
revealed  that  EU-funded  projects  operating  in  similar  areas  did  not  know  of  each  other’s  existence. 
This,  for  example,  is  the  case  for  READI  and  the  Singapore-based  EU-Asia  Dialogue  project,  which 
both have had a strong focus on food security. While it is neither necessary nor practical for all related 
EU-funded  interventions  to  constantly  interact  with  each  other,  some  level  of  mutual  awareness  to 
avoid duplication of activities should be taken for granted.  

Overall,  the  programmes  under  the  Asia  Strategy  have  added  value  to  -  and  complemented  –  the 
support  of  EU  MS  to  some  extent.  However,  except  in  the  case  of  ASEAN,  where  co-ordination  be-
tween EU-funded and German-funded interventions already took place in the design phase,  this was 
not achieved as the result of a strategic approach but more due to co-ordination at the implementation 
stage, which takes place in all countries. 

4.8.1  JC 81: Regional-level interventions in the various sectors are designed and implement-

ed so as to maximise the value added stemming from a regional approach 

Design and implementation of EU interventions do not follow an approach  that tries to systematically 
maximise the advantages and benefits that regional level programmes potentially offer, as opposed to 
a strategy that would solely focus on the national level.  

Regional-level programmes (e.g., APRIS, ECAP or TEIN) take the regional approach for granted and 
do not usually elaborate on the specific value added of regional programmes. Some programme and 
project documents implicitly suggest that the regional approach is the most efficient and effective one 
− particularly in cases when a regional organisation, such as ASEAN, is the partner − but no explicit 
references to the specific value added of the regional approach  are made. Based on findings during 
the desk and field phase, there is evidence that the HE interventions at regional level added consider-
able value. Although the Erasmus Mundus programme is a global programme managed centrally from 
Europe, it contains a strong regional dimension that is highly valued by Asian HE actors. 

The  lack  of  elaboration  on  the  value  added  of  regional  approaches  in  most  programme  documents 
does not necessarily imply the actual absence of such value added. For example, SWITCH-Asia has a 
large  added  value  to  other  EU  programmes,  and  was  found  to  be  complementary  to  thematic  pro-
grammes (such as ENRTP). However, environment is rarely presented as a key sector in the CSPs, 
and the focus on working with the private sector (e.g. SMEs) is not an option in bilateral programmes. 
This  feature  is  also  not  present  in  thematic  programmes.  In  general,  regional  added  value  is  mostly 
found in the Policy Support Component implemented by UNEP, and in grant projects that are imple-
mented in several countries and/or by agencies under ASEAN (e.g., the Energy Manager Scheme).  

The  country  strategies,  of  which  18  were  analysed  for  this  report,  do  not  provide  much  information. 
There is no explicit discussion of the added value of a regional  approach in any  of the  CSPs, either 
with regard to the overall level or to the level of a specific sector. When the CSPs mention issues that 
are going to be addressed by regional (or thematic, for that matter) programmes, the funding source is 
stated  matter  of  fact  (e.g.  Erasmus  Mundus  for  higher  education).  In  other  words,  regional  pro-
grammes are presented simply as an additional funding source, and not as a qualitatively different ap-
proach. Only the CSP for Afghanistan, which explicitly states the need for a regional approach to the 
co-operation,  is  an  exception  in  this  regard. While  MTRs  are more  likely  to  refer  to  specific  regional 
and thematic programmes, the RSP is mentioned only in four out of the 13 MTRs, and only the MTR of 
Bangladesh provides a relatively detailed reference to the RSP and its rationale. (Indicator 811) 

The picture does not change significantly when the question is asked if the regional level was the most 
appropriate level. Obviously, the appropriateness of intervening at the regional level is self-evident in 
several cases. By definition and default, programmes in support of regional economic integration, for 
example, have to operate  at the regional  level. The assessment of appropriateness is more relevant 
for programmes that could potentially operate either as regional or national interventions, but where a 
decision has been made to implement them with a regional focus in mind. There is evidence that key 
interventions  in  this  regard  −  such  as  FLEGT-Asia,  and  EU  support  for  cross-border  animal  and  hu-
man health − have been especially successful as a result of their regional focus. Indeed, given the re-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

71 

gional  dimension  of  the  respective  problems  and  challenges  they  address,  a  pure  national-level  ap-
proach would not have done justice to the complexity of the issues at stake. The survey of the EUDs 
shows that regional-level co-operation is most commonly managed in the area of environment, energy 
and  climate  change.  Ten  out  of  13  Delegations  were  involved  in  the  management  or  supervision  of 
regional programmes in this field.  

On  the  other  hand,  AUP,  while  implemented  at  the  regional  level,  has  never  managed  to  assume  a 
strong regional dimension, apart from its strategic orientation towards crisis nexuses, such as Afghani-
stan-Pakistan and Thailand-Myanmar-Bangladesh. Thus, although strategic assessments of problems 
such as the Rohingya crisis are available, there is no scope for regional political dialogue at ASEAN. 
The regional dimension was better taken into account in political dialogue and donor consultations in 
Afghanistan-Pakistan. (Indicator 812 and 813) 

4.8.2  JC 82: Regional-level  EU interventions  complement and add value to the  EU interven-

tions carried out at the bilateral level 

While there is substantial evidence that regional-level interventions have complemented support pro-
vided as part of bilateral co-operation, the EU has not made much effort to outline and present such 
complementarities and synergies between different levels of intervention.  

References to synergies and cross-references between regional and bilateral programming levels are 
usually made only in passing, if at all. ECAP III is one of the few major programmes that elaborates in 
detail on potential linkages between various regional and bilateral programmes, funded by the EU it-
self or other donors. There is no reference to the RSP – and hence to opportunities for synergies be-
tween regional and national-level interventions – in any country strategy. However, this is likely to be 
due to the parallel drafting period of RSP and CSP. The CSP for Mongolia, for example, was finalised 
at  the  end  of  February  2007,  while  most  of  the  others  were  finalised  between  April  and  June  2007. 
The RSP was finalised (1st Revision) by 31 May 2007 − after the completion of the CSP. Even in the 
sections  dedicated  to  “objectives  of  the  EU  as  laid  down  in  other  applicable  documents”  (generally 
available in the Annex), the RSP  is not mentioned at all. The latest documents on EU-Asia relations 
mentioned  in these sections  are the  EU-Asia communication  of 2001  and the “New Partnership with 
South-East Asia” communication of 2003. Furthermore, in the CSPs main section on the EU response 
strategy,  there  is  generally  little  or  no  reference  to  regional  programmes  beyond  limited  standard 
phrases − for example, on Erasmus Mundus. Most CSPs contain a section on “Thematic and Regional 
Programmes”, but that focuses mostly on thematic programmes and instruments, such as EIDHR, and 
NSA in Development. This all points to a lack of effort to think about strong and beneficial linkages be-
tween regional and bilateral  programmes in a strategic manner. While complementarities and syner-
gies are not well elaborated on in strategy documents, they are normally the focus of country strategy 
evaluations.  Evidence  is  mixed,  ranging  from  “The  EC  did  not  succeed  in  achieving  a  strategic  re-
sponse through Regional programmes” (Malaysia) to a positive assessment of the synergies between 
thematic, regional and bilateral approaches achieved in Thailand. (Indicator 821) 

However,  as  the  graph  below  illustrates,  almost  two-thirds  of  the  13  respondents  see  a  high  (in  the 
case of seven EUDs) or even very high (two EUDs) comparative advantage of operating within a re-
gional framework, as opposed to bilateral aid. While 30% (four EUDs) describe it as low or very low, 
none of the respondents perceive it as having no added value at all.  

Respondents  who  perceive  only  a  low  or  very  low  added  value  state  that  very  often,  regional  pro-
grammes target issues that are  not  tailored enough to a specific country’s needs or are not relevant 
altogether. In contrast, EUDs rating the regional added value as high or very high state that they per-
ceive a clear comparative advantage. For most, the added value depends on the actual policies and 
programmes that are implemented, and an advantage of the regional approach is especially seen with 
regard to trans-border issues. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

Figure 22 

EUD survey results: Added value of regional framework vs. bilateral aid 

72 

Source: EUD Survey 

Documents and stakeholder interviews provide evidence that efforts for the creation of complementari-
ties and synergies between regional and national interventions − based on formal or informal mecha-
nisms  and  communication  channels  −  have  increased,  mainly  as  the  result  of  lessons  learned  from 
previous programmes and projects. Some EAMRs elaborate on such  co-ordination mechanisms and 
tend  to  provide  a  balanced  assessment.  For  example,  in  the  case  of  Vietnam,  the  design  of  the  EU 
Multilateral  Trade  Project  (MUTRAP)  and  the  Environmentally  and  Socially  Responsible  Tourism 
(ESRT)  capacity  development  programme  reinforces  “the  efforts  to  support  regional  integration 
through the ASEAN projects”, but “efforts to ensure complementarity represent a challenge where re-
gional and thematic programmes cover areas or sectors outside the scope of national projects” (EAMR 
12/2012).  Past  evaluations  have  regularly  found  deficiencies  with  regard  to  co-ordination.  However, 
not all findings still hold true. While the TRA Evaluation 2013 identified a lack of co-ordination of EU 
interventions  that  are  targeted  at  regional  and  national  levels,  interviews  showed  that  this  finding  no 
longer  applies  to  new  interventions,  such  as  ARISE  and  (on  non-trade  matters)  READI,  which  have 
actively sought and managed to interact with bilateral interventions in key sectors. 

At the same time, project action fiches are regularly over-optimistic when outlining the potential for the 
creation of synergies, For example, according to the  SAARC Civil Aviation Action Fiche, it was envi-
sioned  that  the  project  would  achieve  synergies  with  other  donor-funded  and  EU-funded  projects  in 
Asia − notably the EU-India project, but also the EU-China and EU-South East Asia projects, and half 
a  dozen  other  interventions.  However,  these  objectives  could  not  be  achieved  due  to  the  project’s 
premature termination. It would have been the first project actually to establish collaboration between 
regional-level interventions in SAARC and ASEAN. In a similar vein, the READI Action Fiche stresses: 
“Whenever  possible,  synergies  and  complementarities  will  be  sought  within  the  context  of  the  EU’s 
regional  programmes  in  Asia,  those  under  the  Asia  Europe  Meeting  (ASEM)  and  the  EU’s  bilateral 
programmes  in  Asia,  notably  those  taking  place  under  individual  Country  Strategy  Paper  (CSP)  and 
National  Indicative  Programmes  (NIP).” While  interviews  confirmed  that  collaboration  with  other  pro-
jects was actively and successfully promoted in co-operation areas such as disaster preparedness and 
management,  no  exchange  has  taken  place  under  the  ASEM  umbrella,  and  especially  with  ASEF, 
which focuses on similar co-operation agendas or other programmes designed to strengthen EU-Asia 
relations.  For  instance,  there  has  been  no  interaction  between  READI  and  the  EU-Asia  Dialogue, 
based in Singapore, although both have addressed food security  as a key focal  point.  In fact, inter-
views revealed that READI and the EU-Asia Dialogue did not know of each other’s existence. (Indica-
tor 822 and 823) 

4.8.3  JC 83: Degree to which regional-level EU support has been designed and implemented 

so as to complement and add value to relevant EU MS and other donors 

The  EU’s  regional  programming  documents  do  not  customary  make  specific  references  to  other  do-
nors’ interventions, let alone discuss areas of overlap or potentials for collaboration. Yet, as some pro-
grammes, such as AUP, operate on a call for proposals basis, it would be unrealistic to expect project-
by-project consultation with other partners. However, to judge by Thailand and Myanmar for example, 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

2; 16%7; 54%2; 15%2; 15%0; 0%Very highHighLowVery lowNo added value 
73 

the pool of implementing partners and active agencies is fairly small and informal communications are 
good.  Regional  animal  and  human  health  interventions  is  almost  by  definition  complementary  to  MS 
interventions  because  they  are  explicitly  grounded  in  and  designed  with  regard  to  the  public  good 
problem. As found  in the recent thematic evaluation  on health, EU Delegations have generally  been 
very active in MS co-ordination, but this appears to be mostly in the context of bilateral co-ordination, 
rather than co-ordination of regional interventions. . Overall, neither documents nor interviews provide 
proof  that  regional-level  support  has  been  designed  and  implemented  with  the  specific  objective  of 
complementing and adding value to the interventions of EU MS and other donors. There is, however, 
evidence for functioning coordination mechanism in relations between the  EU and EU MS and  other 
donors respectively. The EAMR for basically all countries covered by this evaluation, confirmed by in-
terviews,  stress  the  existence  of  such  modalities  at  implementation  stage.  At  the  same  time,  ap-
proaches to coordination differ significantly across the region and depend on the structural framework 
conditions in the respective partner countries. (Indicator 831 and 832) 

The EUD survey shows that formal and/or informal exchange mechanisms exist in the majority of cas-
es and are considered useful.  

Figure 23 

EUD survey results: Exchange mechanisms between EU, other donors (incl. EU MS) 
and the government of the EUD country 

Source: EUD Survey 

The most comprehensive example for EU-MS co-ordination and an explicit approach to the strength-
ening of complementarities and synergies is the support to the ASEAN Secretariat. The TRA Evalua-
tion and stakeholder interviews found clear evidence for synergies (and complementarity) between the 
EU  projects  (mainly  APRIS  and  the  EU-ASEAN  Statistical  Capacity  Building  Programme/EASCBP) 
and two GIZ-implemented interventions at the ASEC, funded by Germany. Generally GIZ concentrates 
on issues that are not (fully) covered by the EU projects, e.g. competition policy. Synergies particularly 
exist with regard to ASEAN’s Research Information & Statistical Division (ASEANStats), funded mainly 
by the EU (EASCBP), and the related ASEAN Integration Monitoring Office (AIMO), which is support-
ed  to  large  extents  through  the  GIZ  capacity  building  project.  ASEANStats,  the  statistical  service  of 
ASEAN modelled on EUROSTAT (as a much smaller version though), focuses on the development of 
regional indicators, data frameworks and systems for monitoring ASEAN Community goals and initia-
tives and more specifically the compilation, consolidation, dissemination and communication of statis-
tical information about ASEAN and its Member States (Vol 2, p. 61). (Indicator 832) 

Formal mechanisms for joint financing are not yet in place with the exception of ASEF which is based 
on complementary actions. Support to ASEF has typically been planned at around EUR 1 million per 
year  which  is  sufficient  to  finance  around  20-25%  of  the  budgeted  expenditure  of  ASEF,  with  other 
events being financed  by  other ASEM partners. Other large contributors to ASEF  by EU  MS  include 
Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, and Luxembourg (ASEM IV Action Fiche, p. 5). (Indicator 833) 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

0246810121416Sector coordination groups (incl. partnergovernment)Sector coordination groups (only donors)Working groups at operational levelInformal coordination mechanismsOthersVery usefulUsefulQuite usefulNot usefulNo such mechanism is in place 
74 

5  Conclusions 
For analytical clarity, we have grouped the conclusions into two clusters: 

  Relevance, strategic focus and co-ordination: conclusions 1, 2, 3 & 4 

  Outcomes: conclusions 5, 6 & 7  

5.1  Relevance, strategic focus and co-ordination 

5.1.1  Conclusion 1: Overall relevance of the EU-Asia Strategy  

While the vast majority of individual programmes and projects under the RSP  have been highly rele-
vant to the needs of Asian partners, the strategy as a whole failed to develop a coherent regional ap-
proach.  

This conclusion is based on EQs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

The  vast  majority  of  individual  programmes  and  projects,  which  have  been  implemented  under  the 
RSP, are highly relevant as they have addressed key development challenges and clearly responded 
to the needs of Asian partners. There is also little doubt that regional-level programmes have comple-
mented and strengthened national programmes, and thereby increased the relevance of the EU-Asia 
development co-operation portfolio as a whole. This applies across all thematic sectors of the strategy. 
The  evaluation  looked  in  detail  at  hundreds  of  individual  interventions,  and  relevance  emerged  as  a 
problematic issue in only a very small number of cases. At the same time, it is reasonable to conclude 
that most regional interventions would have had the same degree of relevance without being integrat-
ed into a regional strategy. A clear example is AUP, which, despite high relevance and addressing real 
needs, never had a truly regional dimension. The RSP subsumes all programmes that focus on, and 
operate  in,  Asia.  First  and  foremost,  uniting  these  interventions  under  one  regional  strategy  was  a 
pragmatic decision that undoubtedly created an opportunity to upgrade EU-Asia relations from previ-
ously loosely connected individual strategies into a more coherent approach. Simply put, the relevance 
of the EU’s relations with Asia became more visible and comprehensible and – equally importantly – 
increased the flexibility of re-aligning EU-Asia development co-operation with emerging needs of a re-
gional dimension. The stronger explicit focus on the specific needs of the  CLMV countries, which be-
came more and more obvious during the later phases of the strategy, is a case in point.  

However, there was little attempt to develop individual bilateral or sub-regional programmes into truly 
Asia-wide approaches in sectors where this could have strengthened the relevance of the strategy as 
a whole. For example, although ASEAN and SAARC were clustered together under the pillar  support 
to  regional  economic  integration,  EU  co-operation  with  the  respective  organisations  continued  in  a 
separated and parallel manner, without trying to link interventions for the benefit of the partner organi-
sations, which face similar challenges. Likewise, the AUP programme, despite the fact that many prob-
lems  of  uprooted  people  are  inherently  regional,  has  never  emerged  as  a  regionally-based  or  active 
programme. Some sub-regional aspects have been incorporated (e.g. Thailand-Myanmar and Afghan-
istan-Pakistan-Iran), and there is some evidence that the cross-border impacts of the Sri Lanka AUP 
programme  on  India  are  also  recognised.  However,  problems  of  people  being  uprooted  can  quickly 
spread across the region, requiring a regional forum for discussion and response, and regional scope 
for action. While it might be easier to regard  Asia  as consisting of its two sub-regions in this regard, 
some  crises  of  uprooting,  such  as  the  Rohingya  crisis,  link  both  ASEAN  and  SAARC.  Where  sub-
regional or regional approaches are too difficult to implement (for example, between Bangladesh and 
Myanmar)  this  should  not  be  taken  as  an  indication  that  the  more  traditional  nationally-based  ap-
proaches  should  not  be  employed.  Regional  health  programmes  have  encouraged  the  formation  of 
regional networks and the sharing of information, but such initiatives are still in their infancy. The ca-
pacity of regional organisations remains low, but one must take into account the poor initial conditions, 
and the fact that this is a relatively new area of concern. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
5.1.2  Conclusion 2: Level of ownership 

75 

Most  interventions  under  the  RSP  are  characterised  by  a  high  level  of  national  and  regional  owner-
ship, and this has contributed to the effectiveness of implementation. However, donor dependence in 
key co-operation areas is a matter of concern. 

This conclusion is based on EQs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

As  expected,  the  degree  of  ownership  in  the  implementation  of  strategies  varies  across sectors  and 
individual programmes, and is strongest in fields where Asian partners have developed a sense of ur-
gency and have also built suitable capacities in addressing existing challenges. This is at least partially 
the  case  for  disaster  prevention  and  management,  an  area  in  which  key  stakeholders  (particularly 
ASEAN) have taken a proactive approach. Similar conclusions can be drawn for individual AUP pro-
jects  and  interventions  related  to  human  and  animal  health.  However,  as  the  comparison  between 
AUP and disaster management shows, the presence or absence of a shared regional view is a crucial 
variable. There has been productive regional co-ordination in the latter area, but little in the former. As 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  regional-level  support  to  SAARC,  programmes  struggle  when  regional  and 
national ownership is lacking or is very low. Another example – but with less severe consequences − 
are  SWITCH-Asia  grant  projects.  The  large  variation  in  (sub-)sectors  and  themes  addressed  by  the 
grant  projects has decreased the possibility  of creating synergy  and a joint approach to  improve the 
enabling policy environment. In addition, the projects are not necessarily perceived as having a high 
priority in the respective countries. While the correlation between the level of ownership and the effec-
tiveness of an intervention  is unsurprising, the more important finding  is that  such ownership deficits 
were not anticipated in the process of drafting the RSP. 

Where a good degree of ownership exists, it is mainly in relation to the design and conceptual dimen-
sion of an intervention, but not its funding. The commitment of Asian partners to contribute financially 
to the implementation of programmes and projects under the RSP has been low. The field of regional 
economic integration is a case in point. Given the growing number of Asian countries graduating from 
DCI assistance, the existing donor dependence of bilateral and regional partners across all sectors of 
the strategy should be a concern. It is to be questioned why regional co-operation agendas − including 
trade-related matters, disaster management, and health, which rank high on the list of strategic priori-
ties of many increasingly better-off Asian states − should be fully funded by external donors.  

5.1.3  Conclusion 3: Stakeholder participation 

The participation of non-government stakeholders in the design and especially the implementation of 
programmes and projects has clearly grown during the duration of the RSP, but this does not yet ex-
tend to a systematic and institutionalised involvement of civil society across all major fields of the co-
operation programme. 

This conclusion is based on EQs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 

While  some  consultation  with  state  and  non-state  stakeholder  groups  took  place  in  the  process  of 
drafting the RSP, Asian partners did not directly participate in the design of the RSP as such. Howev-
er,  programmes  and  projects  implemented  under  the  strategy  have  involved  a  broad  spectrum  of 
stakeholders  and,  even  more  importantly,  have  often  brought  different  stakeholder  groups  together. 
For example, a key feature of SWITCH-Asia is its focus on working with the private sector. The pro-
gramme has thereby opened up a new target group and network for EU co-operation. 

In a similar vein, in the education sector, both Erasmus Mundus and TEIN have created new and im-
portant opportunities for higher education stakeholders to contribute to mutual learning between Asia 
and Europe. EM remains a highly-valued tool for increasingly sophisticated strategies for international-
isation  pursued  by  Asian  HEIs  towards  Europe.  The  approach  towards  HE  has  been  strengthened 
through  the  creation  of  communication  channels  between  governments  and  civil  society  actors  −  for 
example, within the context of ASEM and ASEF.  

In some areas, such as cross-border human and animal health, disaster management and prevention, 
and AUP, the strong involvement of non-state actors is mandatory to ensure the effectiveness of the 
approach.  In  these  areas,  and  also  in  fields  that  have  traditionally  been  the  domain  of  government 
elites − above all, regional economic integration − the participation of civil society has increased in re-
cent years. In large parts, this has been a response to monitoring and evaluation and, more specifical-
ly, to the often-highlighted need to address the lack of civil society participation in the design and im-
plementation of projects. However, much still needs to be done  in all priority areas of the strategy to 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

76 

promote  and  ensure  the  systematic  and  institutionalised  participation  of  non-state  stakeholders,  par-
ticularly in instances where these groups are also direct beneficiaries. For example, measures aimed 
at breaking down barriers to participation in HE for members of disadvantaged groups had less of an 
impact than desired. The evaluation also showed that the EU’s regional-level interventions in HE are 
poorly equipped to address the wide range of equity issues across the region. 

5.1.4  Conclusion 4: Co-ordination, coherence & complementarity 

The conclusion is threefold. First, co-ordination between regional-level and bilateral interventions has 
substantially  increased.  Second,  the  RSP  is  coherent  with  the  EU’s  external  policies,  DCI-thematic 
programmes  and  other  financing  instruments,  but  the  EU  has  failed  to  place  the  strategy  explicitly 
within  the  broader  context  of  these  instruments.  Third,  EU  and  Member  States  support  is  generally 
complementary,  but  possible  synergies  are  underused  as  complementarity  efforts  do  not  extend  to 
joint design or joint financing of interventions. 

This conclusion is based on EQs 7 and 8. 

First, co-ordination – but not complementarity - between regional-level and bilateral interventions was 
a problem and challenge, particularly during the early years of the RSP, but co-ordination has marked-
ly improved during the later phase. This has already led to the creation of additional synergies in sev-
eral cases.  

Second,  the  programmes  in  all  sectors  of  the  strategy  are  generally  coherent  with  the  EU’s  external 
policies  in  the  fields  of  education,  environment,  health,  trade,  and  non-traditional  security.  There  are 
no glaring mismatches. While the same general conclusion applies to the RSP’s coherence with DCI-
financed thematic programmes and other financing instruments, the evidence is less straightforward. 
Here, the main conclusion is best summarised by the finding that there are no inconsistencies or inco-
herencies between the RSP on the one hand and DCI thematic programmes and other instruments on 
the other. However, the EU could have done more to create explicit links between the strategy and the 
respective  thematic  programmes  and  instruments.  Embedding  the  strategy  more  directly  within  the 
overall framework of thematic programmes and instruments would also have increased the RSP’s rel-
evance.  

Third, EU interventions are generally complementary to the support from Member States. No cases of 
conflicting  or  contradictory  approaches  were  found.  However,  while  formalised  co-ordination  mecha-
nisms  in  EU-Member  States  relations  exist  almost  everywhere  in  Asia  (and  such  institutionalised  fo-
rums have grown in number and significance during the RSP), joint needs analyses, let alone joint fi-
nancing, are still rare exceptions.  

5.2  Outcomes 

5.2.1  Conclusion 5: Alignment of development co-operation and policy dialogues 

Development co-operation  and  inter-regional policy dialogues,  as the  two main  strategic approaches 
towards Asia, have mutually reinforced each other and increased the EU’s leverage on key agendas..   

This conclusion is based on EQs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

It is a particular strength of the RSP that it is based on development co-operation and policy dialogues 
as  mutually  reinforcing  pillars.  The  cross-linkages  between  the  co-operation  programme  and  institu-
tionalised high-level political relations − for example, within the contexts of ASEM and the EU-ASEAN 
dialogue  mechanisms,  but  also  at  the  bilateral  level  with  individual  Asian  governments  −  have  in-
creased the ability of the EU and Asian partners to respond more effectively to emerging challenges in 
political, economic, social and environmental fields. For example, it has been mainly due to accompa-
nying bilateral policy dialogues that the AUP programme has succeeded in defining itself as an LRRD 
programme.  The  EU  has  successfully  used  political  dialogue  to  encourage  governments  to  accept 
LRRD measures, even when they were reluctant to do so. In a similar vein, the environmental and the 
education  sectors,  SWITCH-Asia  and  Erasmus  Mundus  have  been  closely  intertwined  with  inter-
regional dialogues, and have thereby increased the EU’s leverage on key agendas. With regard to re-
gional economic integration as the most visible case of this dual approach, the development partner-
ship  with  ASEAN  on  the  one  hand  and  the  EU-ASEAN  dialogue  relations  on  the  other  are  the  two 
sides  of  the  same  coin,  and  neither  dimension  could  function  well  without  the  other.  However,  the 
same  does  not  apply  to  SAARC,  where  failure  to  engage  the  organisation  in  a  meaningful  develop-
ment programme is at least partly to be blamed on the absence of a well-established policy dialogue 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

77 

setting at the inter-regional level. However, the overall conclusion on the alignment of development co-
operation and policy dialogues remains positive, even though synergies have not been created to the 
fullest possible extent, and missed opportunities are evident in some sectors. For instance, while poli-
cy dialogues are ideally suited to supporting work in the area of international good practice and stand-
ards  with  regard  to  migrant  labour,  this  issue  has  not  been  addressed  in  the  context  of  AUP.  Policy 
dialogue  related  to  uprooted  people  has  also  remained  mostly  at  the  bilateral  level  −  an  opportunity 
missed in view of the increasingly regional level of the problems being addressed. 

On a general note, the evaluation has also come across several instances of policy dialogues in which 
high-level Asian representation was not matched by the same degree of seniority on the EU side. This 
has had repercussions for EU-Asia relations.  

5.2.2  Conclusion 6: EU contribution to policies and development practices 

Programmes and projects implemented under the RSP have had some success in contributing to new 
or  revised  national  policy  frameworks  and  innovative  practices  among  key  stakeholders  in  core  the-
matic areas, but challenges remain to deliver more tangible outcomes. 

This conclusion is based on EQs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

Clear evidence for EU contribution to changed policy frameworks and practices is available in the field 
of  regional  integration  −  in  both  economic  and  non-economic  areas  −  where  national  partners  have 
implemented a wide range of EU-supported new legal frameworks and policies. This includes, but is 
not limited to, customs-related matters, intellectual property rights, the reduction of tariff and non-tariff 
barriers, and approaches to the management of infectious diseases. 

In a similar vein, FLEGT Asia has made a strong contribution towards creating awareness for, and re-
lated policy responses towards, illegal logging and related trade. In Asia, as in most other parts of the 
world, the concern about tropical forests, and particularly their role in mitigating climate change, is in-
creasing. The programme clearly responds to Asian and EU needs for legal timber.  

SWITCH-Asia  has  contributed  to  introducing  the  wide-scale  application  of  SCP  practices  by  compa-
nies, mainly SMEs. However, SCP is not yet mainstreamed in the respective (sub-)sectors, and many 
more opportunities are yet to be explored. In addition, more synergy can be generated by establishing 
more linkages among the components.  

While both TEIN and EM have had some impact on governance practices in general, and more specif-
ically on teaching quality and research output, these effects have been highly localised. Particularly in 
terms  of  governance  practices,  EU  interventions  have  helped  to  shape  policy  deliberation  about  HE 
governance more than they have “exported” practices. There is, then, considerable scope for leverag-
ing  impacts on teaching quality and research capacity  at national and HEI  level. Specifically for EM, 
administrative, legal and institutional barriers at national and local levels dampen multiplier effects on 
teaching,  research  and  HE  governance.  For  TEIN,  similar  issues  at  the  level  of  national  HE  policy-
making may become barriers to the effective diffusion of regional HE innovations, such as e-learning 
initiatives. Furthermore, the degree of local engagement that these translation processes require sits 
awkwardly in regional-level programmes such as EM and TEIN. 

AUP has been effective to the extent that cross-border aspects of uprooting have been dealt with by,– 
in  some  cases  –  previously  reluctant  national  partners.  However,  there  is  a  need  for  closer  cross-
border  consultation  and  programme  co-ordination,  including  rational  partitioning  of  resources,  to  en-
sure that progress in the refugee host country is maintained while preparations for return are pursued. 
This  is  a  delicate  matter  requiring  close  monitoring  of  government  services,  security,  and  the  rule  of 
law in the area of origin. In areas that have harboured uprooted people, it requires a realistic approach 
to ensure that, while disruptive changes are avoided, it is made clear that the status quo is unlikely to 
continue indefinitely. It also requires dialogue with host countries in relation to the future status of up-
rooted people who will not wish to return or who, having done so, will be discouraged by life in their 
region of origin and seek to re-install themselves legally in the country that previously harboured them.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

 
 
78 

5.2.3  Conclusion  7:  Effectiveness  of  regional  approaches  in  addressing  core  development 

needs  

Regional  approaches  have  not  achieved  the  same  level  of  effectively  addressing  core  development 
needs − particularly with regard to socio-economic agendas − in all areas of intervention. The exam-
ples at the opposite ends of the spectrum are environment (positive) and higher education (negative).  
Somewhere in between is health. 

This conclusion is based on EQs 3, 4 and 5. 

All  three  regional  programmes  addressing  the  environment,  energy  and  climate  change  have  had  a 
specific focus on some of the most pressing development needs related to core socio-economic chal-
lenges  and  needs  at  national  and  local  levels.  Between  them,  and  in  a  complementary  fashion, 
SWITCH-Asia (sustainable consumption  and production/SCP),  FLEGT-Asia (illegal logging and  legal 
trade,  Voluntary  Partnership  Agreement/VPA)  and  the  AIF  (blending  fund  for  climate  change)  have 
made a direct contribution to sustainable development, the reconciliation of trade and other economic 
activities, and environmental protection. SCP in particular is a strong concept in greening the econo-
my.  The  persistence  of  illegal  logging  directly  affects the  role  of  tropical  forests  in  mitigating  climate 
change, and therefore directly impacts on socio-economic issues.  

On  the  other  hand,  regional-level  HE  programmes  on  their  own  are  poorly  equipped  to  address,  let 
alone  redress,  local  development  needs  and  specific  patterns  of  socio-economic  disadvantage.  In 
countries where national development needs are clearly defined and institutionalised in policy, the EM 
and TEIN programmes have contributed to country development needs. In contrast, in countries where 
development needs and patterns of disadvantage were not clearly defined and operationalised in poli-
cy,  regional-level  programmes  had  far  less  traction  on  development  issues  and  patterns  of  disad-
vantage. It would seem that regional-level HE programmes are not well placed to address, and even 
raise awareness of, socio-economic disadvantage in other parts of society. 

In  health,  regional  co-operation  has  helped  to  strengthen  networks  and  has  contributed  to  capacity 
building, but there is agreement that capacity at ASEAN and SAARC Secretariats remains weak (es-
pecially in the latter case), and that the level of cross-border co-operation between human and animal 
health experts needs to be strengthened further. 

6  Recommendations 
The  following  key  recommendations  emerge  from  the  conclusions.  The  recommendations  are  pre-
sented in two clusters, namely: 

  Enhancing the value added of the strategy: recommendations 1-4. 

 

Increasing outcomes of sectoral efforts: recommendations 5-9. 

The linkages between EQs (findings), conclusions and recommendations are illustrated below. 

Figure 24 

Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

EQ1 on strengtheninginter-regional dialogue& partnershipEQ2 on addedvaluetoregional economicintegrationEQ3 on addedvaluetoregional integrationin non-economicfieldsEQ4 on environment, energyandclimatechangeEQ5 on higher educationEQ6 on supporttouprootedpeopleEQ7 on regional strategyEQ8 on addedvalueoftheregional approachC3C2C4C5C6R1R2R3R6R8R7C1Evaluation QuestionsConclusionsRecommendationsAdded value of regional strategyOutcomesC7Relevance, strategic focus and coordinationR4R5Outcomes of sectoraleffortsR92ndVersion of Draft Final 
79 

The table below provides an overview of the level of priority in terms of importance of the recommen-
dations and the urgency (agenda) of their realisation. This information is also provided schematically. 

Table 14 

Prioritisation of recommendation 

No. 

1.   

2.   

3.   

4.   

5.   

6.   

7.   

8.   

9.   

Issue 

Importance*  Urgency* 

Strengthen the integration of all interventions, which are either exclusively di-
rected towards Asia or have an Asia component, into the regional strategy. 
Consider expanding the direct participation of regional stakeholders in the de-
sign of the strategy and programmes under the RSP. 
Asian partners, particularly the governments of non-DCI countries, should be 
encouraged to accept financial burden-sharing for regional-level interventions 
that are in their own strategic or economic interest. There is a clear necessity to 
reduce donor dependence in this field. 
Consider the strengthening of synergies between the regional strategy on the 
one hand and thematic programmes under DCI and other financing instruments 
on the other. 
Objectives for the support of regional integration – in both economic and non-
economic areas – should be based on realistic assessments of the partners’ 
needs, interests and capacities. Regional approaches should not be followed as 
a matter of course where bilateral strategies offer a chance for success. 
Refocus the various components of SWITCH-Asia and concentrate on fewer 
sectors to generate more synergy and impact. 
Keep gateways to European HE systems open for Asian HEIs and explore ways 
of improving the impacts on teaching and research in Asian HEIs and of provid-
ing HE for disadvantaged groups in Asia. 
Raise issues of population uprooting and migration to the regional level, where 
solutions need to be devised. 
Improve co-ordination between regional health support, bilateral health systems 
strengthening, and the new Global Health budget line. 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3 

4 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

* 1 = low, 4 = high 

The following figure depicts this assessment graphically. 

Figure 25 

Prioritisation of recommendations 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

UrgencyImportanceHigherLowerShorter termLonger term4                      3                       2                      14                       3                     2                     178461237835421Cluster 1: Added value of regional strategyCluster 2: Outcomes of sectoral efforts5699 
80 

6.1  Enhancing the added value of the regional strategy  

6.1.1  Recommendation 1: Strengthening region-wide approaches  

Strengthen  the  integration  of  all  interventions,  which  are  either  exclusively  directed  towards  Asia  or 
have an Asia component, into the regional strategy. In this process, more thought should be given to 
the value added of the regional approach. 

Based on conclusions 1, 5, 6 and 7.  

If it is the RSP’s purpose to go beyond the provision of an umbrella for individual programmes (as ap-
pears, for example, to be the case with AUP), regional challenges need to be addressed in a way that 
takes advantage of the entire portfolio of EU-Asia relations and addresses specifically regional aspects 
of challenges.  

With the notable exceptions of SWITCH and FLEGT, the RSP does not, in its current design and prac-
tice, explicitly encourage the creation of cross-linkages and synergies among individual interventions 
for the purpose of addressing matters of a regional dimension from Asia-wide perspectives. While not 
all thematic areas call for approaches focusing on the entire region, it is necessary to look beyond the 
boundaries of individual programmes and projects to achieve higher-level strategic objectives in Asia.  

For  example,  since  it  is  not  always  possible  to  compartmentalise  regional  problems  into  neat  boxes 
corresponding to ASEAN and SAARC, triangular communication among the EU, ASEAN and SAARC 
should be encouraged for issues of common concern that call for approaches covering more than just 
one sub-region. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and the control of infectious diseases are examples, 
as are matters of regional integration in economic and non-economic fields in general − in addition to 
which,  they  involve  both  Southeast  Asian  and  South  Asian  countries.  Both  ASEAN  and  SAARC  are 
open for, and interested in, triangular collaboration to create more synergies and to encourage mutual 
learning. These opportunities should be developed. The EU should consider building a working group 
comprising  EU,  ASEAN  and  SAARC  representatives  to  discuss  options  for  triangular  co-operation. 
Such approaches already exist in other regional contexts − for example, with regard to EU-Africa rela-
tions where co-operation in selected thematic areas include more than one regional organisation. 

In a similar vein, if existing channels of communication and co-operation are pooled, they can be used 
in a more effective way to propagate international good practice and standards with regard to migrant 
labour across Asia. The EU’s Asia regional programme, with its emphasis on regional economic inte-
gration, is ideally suited to support work in this area. Issues such as forced labour and the conditions 
of work for domestic workers in several parts of the region need to be addressed. The EU should also, 
through  development  co-operation  and  policy  dialogue,  encourage  governments  to  adopt  labour  mi-
gration policies in line with European values and good practice. It is, therefore, recommended that the 
strategy’s focus on labour migration should be strengthened, and that the topic should be more promi-
nently included in policy dialogues with ASEAN, SAARC and national governments, as well as within 
ASEM. 

Main  implementation  responsibility:  EU  HQ,  EUDs  and  partners  (especially  ASEAN  and  SAARC 
Secretariats) 

6.1.2  Recommendation 2: Increasing ownership 

Consider expanding the direct participation of regional stakeholders in the design of the strategy and 
programmes under the RSP. 

Based on conclusions 2 and 3.  

There is currently no formal mechanism in place for consultations with Asian partners on the design of 
the  RSP.  Although  the  Strategy  involves  a  large  number  and  broad  range  of  partners  –  both  at  the 
governmental and civil society levels – it is recommended that a framework should be established for 
deliberations  on  the  design  and  objectives  of  future  strategies.  The  same  framework  could  also  be 
used to gather feedback during the mid-term review process. This would encourage a more participa-
tory approach, strengthen Asian ownership of core strategic goals, foster the regional dimension of the 
RSP, and reduce the risk of misperceptions of partners’ needs − as in the case of SAARC under the 
current Strategy. There are at least two feasible approaches to the strengthening of participatory ele-
ments in the design of future strategies.  

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

81 

First, EUDs could be asked to organise country seminars, comprising key state and civil society part-
ners. Results from these meetings and discussions would then be synthesised in Brussels and be fed 
into the process of drafting the chapter.  

Second, and alternatively, the Commission could use its recent approach to EU-Africa relations as a 
model and organise a series of seminars on the future relationship between the EU and Asia. The first 
of the EU-Africa seminars took place in December 2013 and was attended by 50 representatives from 
50  states.  The  strengthening  of  participatory  elements  in  the  conception  of  thematic  programmes 
should also be considered. FLEGT-Asia would be a suitable pilot. The Steering Committee should be 
comprised of representatives of EU-DGs. The participation of EUDs, and particularly regional experts 
and advisers, in priority setting of the support should be enhanced. It is recommended that a regional 
or  an  inter-regional  advisory  group  should  be  re-established,  comprising  of  regional  FLEGT  experts. 
This would feed realities on the ground into the policy dialogue and implementation of FLEGT-VPAs. 
Similar  approaches  should  be  considered  for  other  regional  programmes  in  areas  such  as  disaster 
management, regional economic integration, and uprooted people.  

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ and EUDs. 

6.1.3  Recommendation 3: Encouraging burden-sharing 

Asian  partners,  particularly  the  governments  of  non-DCI  countries,  should  be  encouraged  to  accept 
financial burden-sharing for regional-level interventions that are in their own strategic or economic in-
terest. There is a clear necessity to reduce donor dependence in this field. 

Based on conclusions 2 and 3.  

The  RSP  identifies  19  countries  as  “eligible  countries  in  Asia”.  At  the  same  time,  several  areas  of 
intervention  −  for  example,  in  the  priority  area  “Support  to  Regional  Integration”  −  also  focus  on 
organisations and  individual countries that  are ineligible for support under DCI.  While the practice  of 
including  industrialised  countries  in  interventions  implemented  under  the  Strategy  is  allowed  under 
DCI,  it  has  created  a  situation  in  which  non-DCI  partners  take  for  granted  EU  funding  for  regional 
programmes. The most striking example is ASEAN. Given the very prominent involvement of the EU 
and  other  donors  in  helping  ASEAN  to  implement  the  proposed  Economic  Community  2015, 
incentives  for  ASEAN  member  states  to  take  more  financial  responsibility  for  achieving  their  own 
regional strategic vision are low. There is basically no aspect of ASEAN Economic Community that is 
not supported by donor-funding.  

In addition to Singapore and Brunei, as industrialised countries, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are 
about to graduate from DCI − meaning that half of the ASEAN member states are no longer eligible 
under DCI. These countries clearly have the economic and financial potential to provide sizable funds 
of their own to help implement the ASEAN Community.  

The same applies to other initiatives of a regional dimension − such as border management, HPED, 
refugees  and  migration,  disaster  management,  and  environmental  challenges  −  that  form  policy 
priorities  of  practially  all  middle-  and  high-income  countries  in  Asia.  The  EU  should  resist  the 
temptation  simply  to  use  other  financing  instruments  to  substitute  for  DCI,  as  this  would  not  reduce 
donor dependence. Achieving the latter, however, requires a concerted approach with other donors − 
especially  USAID,  AUSAID,  JICA  and  GIZ  −  to  avoid  a  situation  in  which  other  donors  come  in  and 
make up for reduced EU funding. The EU should consider taking the lead in creating a working group, 
comprising key ASEAN stakeholders, relevant EU Members States and other donors, to address the 
commitment of ASEAN member states to fund the regional integration process. ASEAN could serve as 
the test case and a model to reduce donor dependence in other areas of the RSP at a later stage. The 
EU should therefore initiate such talks, which should, in the first instance, involve the EUD in Jakarta 
and the ASEAN Secretariat. 

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ, EUD Jakarta. 

6.1.4  Recommendation 4: Creating synergies  

Consider  strengthening  the  synergies  between  the  regional  strategy  on  the  one  hand  and  thematic 
programmes under DCI and other financing instruments on the other. 

Based on conclusions 1 and 4. 

To  strengthen  the  relevance  of  the  regional  strategy,  and  to  highlight  its  specific  value  added  to  the 
EU’s development co-operation programme and external relations in general, it needs to be more ex-

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

82 

plicitly  and  firmly  embedded  within  the  overall  framework  of  thematic  programmes  and  financing  in-
struments.  Conversely,  thematic  programmes  and  financing  instruments  other  than  DCI  need  to 
demonstrate more clearly how and where they interact with the regional strategy.  

A good test case is the new Global Health thematic budget line, which appears to be an explicit effort 
to gear EU health support more towards regional and global public good. The EU should examine how 
this  can  be  co-ordinated  with  regional  health  interventions.  Another  area  where  regional  health  ap-
proaches can be more effective is human resources for health − that is, the migration of health profes-
sionals. Some of this is intra-regional, and, where it is trans-continental, sharing of policy experience 
may be useful. In view of its key role in global infectious disease dynamics, as well as the expertise it 
has developed in epidemiological surveillance and control, including attempts to deal with associated 
governance  issues,  China  needs  to  be  engaged  in  this  discussion.  This  also  illustrates  that  there  is 
more  scope  in  achieving  synergies  between  the  co-operation  programme  and  policy  dialogues.  It  is 
important that policy dialogues are regularly supported by European high-level diplomacy, not only to 
increase EU visibility in Asia, but also to strengthen the effectiveness of the EU’s dual approach (de-
velopment programme and policy dialogues). 

A  further  aspect  of  synergies  is  the  way  in  which  regional-level  projects  interact  with  each  other.  As 
elaborated in the conclusions, an increase in co-ordination and co-operation between and among re-
gional-level and bilateral interventions has been achieved. However, possibilities and opportunities for 
synergies among regional projects are not yet being fully exploited. This is particularly the case for in-
terventions in non-economic areas and/or a civil society focus, especially ASEF, TEIN, Erasmus Mun-
dus, READI and Asia-Europe Dialogue. As all these projects have overlapping thematic focal points, 
stronger co-ordination and co-operation should be encouraged. It is recommended that regular com-
munication mechanisms should be established among the team leaders of projects that work in over-
lapping or related thematic areas. 

Better co-ordination between the EU and Member States to increase European visibility −and, thereby, 
leverage  −  in  Asia  is  an  additional  important  aspect  related  to  synergies.  The  EEAS  and  member 
states should put more effort into co-ordinating the European representation in policy dialogues, with 
the objective of avoiding diplomatic setbacks in the future and making sure that the seniority of Asian 
participants is matched by their European counterparts.  

Main implementation responsibility: EUDs, EEAS, EUD, implementing partners, EU MS. 

6.2 

Increasing outcomes of sectoral efforts 

6.2.1  Recommendation 5: Regional integration 

Objectives for the support of regional integration – in economic and non-economic areas – should be 
based on realistic assessments of the partners’ needs, interests and capacities. Regional  approaches 
should not be followed as a matter of course where bilateral strategies offer a chance for success. 

Based on conclusions 1 and 5. 

The EU’s approach to SAARC is in need of comprehensive and critical reflection. In view of the failure 
of regional-level support to SAARC, revising the current strategy should be considered. There are four 
options that could be followed as alternatives or in parallel.  

First, if EU co-operation  with SAARC as an  organisation is the preferred option,  support  will have  to 
focus  on  thematic  areas  that  are  not  seen  as  sensitive  or  as  matters  of  high  politics  by  the  SAARC 
member states, and consequently are of interest to the entire group. Cross-border transportation might 
be a suitable starting point that could also benefit from ASEAN experiences and provide a framework 
for triangular EU-ASEAN-SAARC co-operation, as pointed out under the  first recommendation. How-
ever, if EU-SAARC co-operation is to continue as the main focal point of EU regional support to South 
Asia, consideration should be given to putting the EUD in Kathmandu in charge of managing the co-
operation, given that the SAARC Secretariat is also located in Kathmandu.  

Second,  an  alternative  regional-level  approach  could  involve  other  regional  organisations  in  South 
Asia as main partner, instead of SAARC. ICIMOD has been frequently mentioned in this context.  

Third, following on from findings of the MTR 2010, EU-SAARC co-operation could be re-designed as a 
network of bilateral interventions − that is, similar projects in support of national capacities and com-
mitments in the process of regional integration in all or selected member states. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

83 

Fourth,  the  current  approach  of  subsuming  co-operation  with  SAARC  under  the  pillar  of  “support  to 
regional integration” could  be  abandoned altogether to allow for more flexibility in selecting  the most 
suitable areas of co-operation.  

Selecting  and  pursuing  the  most  promising  and  feasible  option  initially  requires  a  detailed  EU-
commissioned  assessment  of  the  relative  potential  of  the  alternative  SAARC  strategies,  followed  by 
the  establishment  of  a  working  group,  comprising  EU  and  SAARC  representatives,  to  discuss  and 
agree on the future co-operation agenda.  

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ, EUDs in South Asia, particularly  Nepal and India, im-
plementing partners. 

6.2.2  Recommendation 6: Environment, energy and climate change 

Restructure the SWITCH-Asia programme by refocusing its various components and by concentrating 
on fewer sectors to generate more synergy and impact. 

Based on conclusions 2, 6 and 7. 

There is a need for more integration of the three main components: the grant projects, the Policy Sup-
port programmes, and the Networking Facility (NF).  

Grant projects should concentrate on one or only a few national or regional priority sectors and/or spe-
cific SCP themes. Moreover, it is recommended that grant projects should conduct a baseline study at 
the start, and develop and run a monitoring system that measures not only outputs, but also results.  

The regional Policy Support Component (PSC) should establish links with grant projects and, in gen-
eral, with the private sector. In addition, it is recommended that the national PSC programmes should 
be  redesigned  to  generate  more  impact,  concentrating  more  on  co-ordination  instead  of  conducting 
many smaller activities, particularly pilot projects. In this context, one option could be that the PSC fo-
cuses  on  furthering  sustainable  consumption,  rather  than  sustainable  production,  as  they  are  in  a 
much better position than grant projects to ensure political support and mobilise the high levels of gov-
ernment funding required to roll out sustainable consumption strategies and awareness campaigns.  

Finally,  the  NF  should  focus  much  more  on  results  achieved  and  lessons  learned  from  mature  and 
completed projects − for example, by preparing case studies and disseminating them at sub-regional 
and sector-based or theme-based networking events. Project implementing partners, as well as policy 
makers, should be invited to these events. 

Main implementation responsibility: EU-HQ and EUDs. 

6.2.3  Recommendation 7: Higher education 

Keep gateways to European HE systems open for Asian HEIs and explore ways of improving the im-
pacts on teaching and research in Asian HEIs and of providing HE for disadvantaged groups in Asia. 

Based on conclusions 3 and 6. 

In future, EU interventions could explore three distinct avenues of translating the unused  potential of 
the regional-level HE interventions into real impacts on teaching and research quality and capacity:  

First,  regional  support  should  find  ways  to  leverage  the  potential  of  teaching  capacity  and  research 
networks of EM graduates. Future EU support to HE systems in Asia should explore how to encourage 
and promote ways of translating, adopting and implementing European teaching and research practic-
es. In order to do this, future EU support to Asian HE may need to mobilise and leverage existing pro-
jects in Asia and Europe that introduce new teaching methods to Asian HEIs. Furthermore, EU support 
could help to build a bridge between existing teaching resources centres at HEI level and innovative 
projects outside universities.  

The EU should look into possibilities of funding the development of programmes (e.g. train-the-trainer 
programmes) that leverage the unused  potential of EM alumni. Since success of these programmes 
depends on the sensitivity to conditions in local universities, this is best co-ordinated through the rele-
vant EUDs, which are ideally situated to link EU HE resources with local HE needs. A model could be 
the MY-EU-Link programme, designed and operated through the Malaysian EUD. These interventions 
could  be  launched  from  existing  “centres  of  teaching  and  research  excellence”  at  Asian  universities. 
Where these centres do not exist, the country-level interventions could aim to establish centres of this 
kind, possibly within existing EU Centres at Asian universities. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

84 

Second,  EU  efforts  could  extend  the  reach  of  existing  gateways  to  European  HE  and  generate  new 
gateways by exploring remote and online forms of teaching and research collaboration. A successful 
expansion of e-learning capacity could greatly increase the reach of, and access to, European HE re-
sources. As observed in this evaluation, the TEIN programme has provided the technical preconditions 
for expanding remote HE learning and research capacity. This will involve generating suitable content, 
as well as finding ways to overcome administrative, legal and policy-making barriers to developing e-
learning and collaborative research applications for TEIN at local and national level.  

Hence,  it  is  recommended  that  the  EU,  EUDs  and  national  partners  at  HEI  and  policy-making  level 
should  look  to  expand  the  ASEAN  Cyber  University  Project  into  a  working,  testable  and  extendable 
programme for  providing  degree  and  diploma  courses. This  process  of  developing  a  “minimal  viable 
product”  needs  to  be  sensitive  to  the  possibility  of  legal  and  administrative  barriers  at  national  level. 
These barriers can then be addressed at regional level through existing policy dialogue mechanisms, 
with a view to resolving these issues at regional level  (i.e. at ASEAN or SARC level). The EU should 
also examine opportunities within existing funding instruments − most prominently, Erasmus Mundus 
and TEIN − for promoting the development of e-learning content for the Asian regional context.  

Third, extending HE to members of disadvantaged groups would require additional measures aimed at 
raising individual capabilities to meet the minimum standards for HE participation in general and EM 
participation in particular. A possible option may comprise the provision of foundation courses to raise 
individual  academic  capabilities.  An  alternative  path  may  be  to  provide  HE  courses  specifically  de-
signed for individuals who do not meet minimum academic requirements.  

The EU may consider addressing equity issues separately from providing access to (academically ex-
cellent) European HEIs. EUDs are best placed to develop foundation courses or tailored offerings for 
disadvantaged groups. In particular, these courses and offerings could be integrated in the “centres for 
teaching  and research excellence” as  well as the  e-learning initiatives. It  will  be  important for EUDs, 
national partners and European HE partners to move swiftly to create, test and iterate these courses 
and offerings. 

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ, relevant EUDs and partners. 

6.2.4  Recommendation 8: Aid to uprooted people 

Raise  issues of population uprooting and migration to the regional  level,  where solutions  need to be 
devised. 

Based on conclusions 1, 5, and 6. 

The  EU  has  been  successful  in  implementing  LRRD  approaches.  It  has,  however,  failed  to  raise  is-
sues  of  uprooting  higher  than  the  bilateral  level  or,  in  some  cases,  the  cross-border  level  of  discus-
sions. A number of issues are, however, inherently regional and call for regional approaches. A specif-
ic  and  worsening  problem  is  the  Rohingya  crisis,  directly  involving  Myanmar,  Thailand,  and  Bangla-
desh,  and  less  directly  involving  Malaysia,  Indonesia,  and  India.  The  EU  should  set  up  a  task  force 
between  four  countries:  Thailand,  Myanmar,  Bangladesh,  and  Indonesia  (as  a  concerned  Muslim 
country, and as home to the Jakarta Delegation serving ASEAN).  

The EU should attempt to raise the profile of uprooting in its regional political dialogue. This will be es-
pecially challenging because countries from both ASEAN and SAARC are involved. At the same time 
(and related to recommendation 5), the EU should build on its experience in dealing with labour migra-
tion and immigration issues to raise the profile of this problem-area at the regional level. In many cas-
es,  technical  assistance  on  international  good  practice  will  need  to  be  provided.  This  is  an  area  in 
which the European “brand” and long and diverse experience among the Member States, both as im-
porters and exporters of labour, can be brought to bear. 

The EU can certainly raise regional labour migration to a higher profile in its bilateral political dialogue 
in many countries. This should be co-ordinated with relevant ILO offices − for example, in Yangon (es-
pecially devoted to forced labour), Bangkok, Manila, and Delhi. The EU should integrate labour migra-
tion into its regional economic integration TA on a systematic basis. 

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ, EEAS, EUDs. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

6.2.5  Recommendation 9: Regional health 

85 

Improve  co-ordination  between  regional  health  support,  bilateral  health  systems  strengthening,  and 
the new Global Health budget line. 

Based on conclusions 1, 5, 6, and 7. 

As  highlighted  by  the  new  emphasis  on  global  public  good  aspects  of  health  in  the  Global  Health 
budget line, cross-border aspects of health and the need to address free-riding and other market fail-
ures  have  moved  to  the  centre  of  the  EU’s  development  co-operation  in  health.  While  bilateral  pro-
grammes continue  to strengthen health systems  across the board, from interventions to improve ac-
cess for the poor to health care finance reform, country-level strengthening is increasingly seen as a 
necessary step not only to reduce poverty within borders, but also to address global health security. 

Due to Asia’s key role in global infectious disease dynamics, this presents opportunities for the region-
al-level co-operation programme. These should be understood to include not only the dramatic emer-
gence of novel viruses, but also creeping problems of drug resistance. 

The EU has been a major supporter of improved regional animal and human health co-ordination and 
co-operation.  However,  ASEAN  and  SAARC  both  require  further  strengthening  −  meaning  not  only 
that  the  EU  and  other  donors  should  continue  to  provide  technical  assistance  and  capacity  building, 
but also that a meaningful institutional commitment is required on the part of ASEAN and SAARC.  

Better  co-ordination  is  needed  between  regional  initiatives  to  support  networking,  national  pro-
grammes  of  health  systems  strengthening  and  sector  reform,  and  the  new  Global  Health  thematic 
budget line. Epidemiology, in particular, needs to  be  strengthened −  a task that can be co-ordinated 
with support in the field of HE and research, where national and international training programmes can 
be financed, as well as national research laboratories − the first line of defence against emergent dis-
eases.  

Links  between  the  countries  of  Southeast  Asia,  South  Asia  and  China  need  to  be  addressed  in  the 
context  of  a  truly  Asian  approach  to  infectious  disease  surveillance  and  control.  A  first  step  towards 
this  might  be  the  convening  of  an  EU-sponsored  pan-Asian  conference,  bringing  together  human 
health and animal health experts from Southeast Asia, China and South Asia. It is especially valuable 
to stimulate cross-disciplinary contacts − for example, between medical and social scientists, between 
medical doctors and health systems experts, and between public sector experts and the pharmaceuti-
cal industry. 

Many factors make this an attractive area for the EU’s Asia regional programme to work in. These in-
clude: the recurrent nature of emergent disease; the role of Asia; the need for public action extending 
beyond the “boom phase” of the epidemiological cycle (the flurry of activity that follows each significant 
outbreak); and the need for a broad approach cutting across many sectors. 

Main implementation responsibility: EU HQ, EUDs in Asia. 

Evaluation of EU’s regional co-operation with Asia 
Final Report; Particip; March 2014 

The  European  Commission  Directorate 
General  for  International  Partnerships  - 
INTPA 

INTPA Mission 
Our  mission 
to  sustainable 
to  contribute 
is 
development, the eradication of poverty, peace and 
the 
through 
international  partnerships  that  uphold  and  promote 
European values and interests. 

protection 

human 

rights, 

of 

Follow us: 

: @EU_Partnerships 

: EUPartnerships 

: eu_partnerships 

: EUintheWorld