ECO-Asia Environmental Governance Program 
Formative Evaluation 
23 February-6 March 2009 
Evaluation Team Members 
Laurie De Freese, Asia/SPO 
Sandra Scham, Asia/SPO 
 2
Table of Contents 
 Page 
Acknowledgement 3 
Executive Summary 4 
Glossary and Acronyms 5 
List of Tables and Figures 9 
I. Introduction 10 
II. Project Objectives 11 
III. Purpose of Evaluation 13 
 
IV. Research Design and Methodology 14 
 
V. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 16 
VI. Annexes 30 
A. Excerpts from Annual Performance Reports (2006-2008) 
B. ECO-Asia Statement of Work 
C. Evaluation Statement of Work 
D. Evaluation Itinerary 
E. Schedule for Completion of Evaluation activities 
F. Evaluation Activities—Purpose and Outcome 
 3
Acknowledgements 
The evaluation team would like to acknowledge first and foremost John Pasch, RDM/A 
Environment Officer, for providing contact information and support to enable the team to 
conduct the evaluation. In addition the team would like to thank Paul Violette and 
Richard Paton of AECOM for providing information and facilitating interviews with key 
informants. We are grateful to all of the informants listed in this report but, most 
particularly, to Chief Justice Winai who so graciously agreed to be interviewed on very 
short notice. 
 4
Executive Summary 
At the request of RDM/A, a two-person team from Asia/SPO, Washington, DC, 
conducted an evaluation of the ECO-Asia environmental Governance program, as 
implemented by AECOM International. An evaluation team briefing took place at 
RDM/A and AECOM offices between February 23 -24, 2009, to discuss the scope of 
work and further refine the focus of the evaluation. The subsequent evaluation took place 
in Bangkok, Thailand, Vientiane, Laos and Manila, Philippines from February 24 to 
March 5, 2009. A Mission debriefing took place on March 4, 2009. 
ECO-Asia’s environmental governance program has consistently met or exceeded most 
of its targets. In FY2006, its success rate for performance indicators was 95%. In FY2007 
it was 85% and in FY2008 it was 100% (Annex A). Since the program is now more than 
three years old, it is necessary to evaluate its progress in achieving USAID’s Strategic 
Objectives. Beyond monitoring progress in the specific areas referenced by the indicators, 
this evaluation examined longer term results by responding to seven questions: 
 Is the development hypothesis guiding ECO-Asia environmental governance 
activities a valid one and why or why not? 
 Are the results reported for the ECO-Asia environmental governance activities 
valid and what are the prospects for achieving the indicator targets? 
 Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities responsive to the needs of 
partners and stakeholders in the region? 
 Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities sustainable? 
 What lessons learned can be identified from the first three-years of 
implementation and can these lessons be translated into clear guidance for the 
remaining period of implementation, including the option period? 
 Can the MRC be strengthened to address some of the identified issues and 
problems in the Mekong River Basin? Should USAID be working with other 
organizations (national government agencies, NGOs, etc.) to affect the desired 
reform? 
 What priority actions for supporting biodiversity programming in the Mekong 
River Basin should be undertaken? 
The evaluation relied upon the program’s reporting documentation, interviews with 
USAID and AECOM personnel and site visits and interviews at the MRC Secretariat in 
Vientiane, the PCD and Supreme Court in Bangkok and the ADB and PHILJA in Manila 
for the collection of information regarding implementation, progress and results. 
AECEN’s achievements since its inception include: support for the adoption of seven 
policies, laws and regulations on improved environmental compliance; the 
implementation of training over 900 environmental inspectors, judges and other 
practitioners from over 100 agencies and organizations; establishing environmental 
courts in the Philippines; creating compliance assistance centers in Thailand, the 
Philippines and West Bengal; training over 300 environmental inspectors in Vietnam; 
initiation of the legislative process for a wastewater pollution measure in Sri Lanka; 
 5
developing regional guiding principles on compliance and enforcement; and facilitating a 
number of counterpart exchanges between member countries (twinning). 
The ECO-Asia Environmental Governance Program also supports the Mekong River 
Commission (MRC). Its achievements with respect to the MRC include: the development 
if specialized training initiatives to help build human and institutional capacity at the 
MRC and country levels; developing a guide to conflict resolution in all of the relevant 
languages to enable the MRC to address trans-boundary conflicts that cut across all MRC 
programs; facilitating twinning between riparian countries to promote sharing of best 
practices in conflict management; and assisting the MRC in identifying seven trans￾boundary hotspots with the potential to cause significant cross-border impact related to 
hydropower, fisheries, river bank erosion, oil spills and wetlands. Representatives from 
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam identified mechanisms to address problem areas. 
The evaluation team made the following findings with respect to the evaluation questions 
as detailed in this report: 
 ECO-Asia’s environmental governance development hypotheses are valid insofar as 
providing technical and institutional support to strengthen regional organizations and 
networks; providing forums for regional engagement; and providing a context for Asian 
countries to demonstrate more leadership and responsibility in solving environmental 
problems. 
 Its reported and actual results in addressing issues on the level of country specific 
support are also valid and its prospects for achieving its indicator targets are good. With 
respect to trans-boundary issues, engaging non-government stakeholders and 
strengthening sustainable financing mechanisms it has not been as successful as in other 
areas. 
 ECO-Asia, based upon the limited number of interviews and site visits the team was 
able to achieve within a ten-day timeframe, was assessed by 9 out of 14 informants as 
responsive to stakeholders. Only three individuals made specific negative comments, 
however, and two the rest did not express any clear opinions on the matter. One out of the 
three negative commentators was representative of a multi-lateral organization and the 
other a donor organization. 
 ECO-Asia’s results were considered sustainable by half of the informants. One out 
of the four negative commentators was representative of a multi-lateral organization and 
two donor organizations. The positive responses cited specific instances where the 
initiative has affected on–the-ground environmental management concerns. The negative 
comments tended to be more general in nature. 
 Lessons learned are detailed more specifically in the findings sections below. In 
general, however, it can be said that targeted investments in country level legal and 
policy reform has been successful, the AECEN regional platform is well regarded and 
considered very useful, but conflict prevention issues need to be scaled down to an 
operable level considering the resources for the program. 
 ECO-Asia’s activities with respect to the Mekong River Basin have, thus far, had 
only limited results toward achieving its goals but these results, when examined on their 
own merits, are promising. Since the MRC is the only multi-lateral organization dealing 
with this region, consideration of partnering with other donors to achieve better 
 6
management and accountability in the organization is a crucial next step in pursuing 
trans-boundary cooperation. 
Key Recommendations for the ECO-Asia Environmental Governance Program 
include the following actions: 
 Clarifying the development hypothesis in more specific terms 
 Scaling back the development goals to achievements that can be reasonably expected 
from the resources invested in the program 
 Assuring that the development hypothesis with respect to addressing critical trans￾boundary and regional environmental governance concerns more closely reflects the 
limitations of working on such issues 
 Disseminating studies in a format that is usable by stakeholders 
 Presenting more realistic training and information on performance 
 Exploring possibilities for “tripling” and “quadrupling” on areas of common interest 
 Making greater efforts to engage non-government actors and other donors 
 Working with bi-lateral missions in an effort to engage lower level decision-makers 
 Opening up the Annual Forum and other meetings to a larger constituency (private 
sector, NGO’s, more local government officials) 
 Creating opportunities for more participatory strategizing and priority setting ECO￾Asia should explore opportunities to expand membership through a tiered approach to 
engage private sector and NGO representatives. 
 Vigorously pursuing other donors and forming closer partnerships with existing 
environmental governance multi-lateral organizations. 
 Empowering country and local level coordinators more and use the Annual Forum to 
develop strategy and priorities.
 Considering the establishment of a pool of technical experts and practice leaders for 
member countries to draw on in directly and the development of a knowledge 
clearinghouse should be undertaken 
 Expanding its strategies and priorities to address the major causes of pollution within 
the countries it serves 
 7
Glossary and Acronyms 
ADB—a regional development bank established in 1966 to promote economic and social 
development in Asian and Pacific countries through loans and technical assistance 
AECEN—Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network formed in 2005, 
with support from the USAID, the ADB, and environmental agency leaders from 13 
Asian countries to promote improved compliance with environmental legal requirements 
in Asia through regional exchange of innovative policies and practices 
AECEN Secretariat—based in Bangkok, the Secretariat works with members to support 
the design and implementation of country and regional activities and provide information 
support and coordination, including assisting in organizing the AECEN Annual Forum 
AECOM--an international development company working in economic growth, 
environment and regional development, industrial and commercial area development, 
democracy and governance, humanitarian response and stabilization, and infrastructure 
and facilities 
Annual Forum—organized by the AECEN Secretariat and member countries organize to 
report results on pilot activities and indicators development, conduct regional trainings, 
share and ensure effective transfer of knowledge and experience among members and 
plan new activities 
ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—a multi-lateral organization 
focused on economic growth, social progress, cultural development and regional peace 
and stability 
ARDCP—the Asia Regional Biodiversity Conservation Program—a part of ECO-Asia 
focusing on the Greater Mekong Subregion 
Asian Justices Forum—organized by the Philippine Supreme Court with USAID￾AECEN support to share recommendations with judges from Australia, India, Indonesia, 
Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the U.S. 
CAC—Compliance Assistance Centers set up by several AECEN countries to provide 
industry with information on policies, legal requirements, clean technologies and finance 
Conflict Resolution—a major objective of the MRC which is required to identify 
potential transboundary issues for negotiation, mediation and conflict prevention; and 
develop mediation and conflict management capacity
ECO-Asia--Environmental Cooperation-Asia--a regional program that promotes 
improved access to clean water and sanitation; sustainable management of natural 
resources and biodiversity conservation; improved tsunami response and reconstruction; 
and investment in clean energy technologies 
Hotspot—areas of potential serious conflict between development and environmental 
goals provides 
 8
LLDA—Lake Laguna Development Authority formed in 1966 as a quasi-government 
agency that leads, promotes, and accelerates sustainable development in the Laguna de 
Bay Region 
MRC—Established in 1995, the Mekong River Commission (MRC) consists of 
representatives from the four lower Mekong countries of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and 
Vietnam 
MRC Council—has overall governance of the Mekong River Commission, consists of 
one member from each country at the ministerial or cabinet level and meets once a year 
to make policy decisions and provide other necessary guidance concerning the promotion, 
support, co-operation and co-ordination of joint activities and programs 
MRC Joint Committee—consists of one member from each country at no less than 
Head of Department level and is responsible for the implementation of the policies and 
decisions of the Council and supervises the activities of the Mekong River Commission 
Secretariat 
MRC Secretariat—based in Vientiane, Laos, the Secretariat provides technical and 
administrative services to the MRC Council and Joint Committee 
NMCs—National Mekong Committees formed to preserve the natural resources and 
environmental quality of the river basin while promoting the inter-dependent and 
economic growth of the Mekong region 
PCD—Thailand Pollution Control Department, a partner in ECO-Asia’s environmental 
governance program 
PHILJA—Philippine Judicial Academy, a partner in ECO-Asia’s environmental 
governance program 
RDM/A—Regional Development Mission for Asia established in 2003 to manage 
regional development assistance programs in Asian countries without USAID Missions, 
including Burma, China, Laos, and Thailand 
Twinning—peer-to-peer arrangements between Asian counterparts designed to promote 
the sharing of best practices and lessons learned 
UNDP—The United Nations Development Programme which is actively involved in 
working with the MRC on biodiversity issues 
 9
List of Figures and Tables 
Cover: The Mekong River 
Figure 1: AECEN countries 
Figure 2: The Mekong River Basin 
Figure 3: Distribution of respondents by country and sector 
Figure 4: Bangkok near RDM/A offices 
Figure 5: Thailand Supreme Court Building 
Figure 6: Respondents’ Views on the Program Results 
Figure 7: Respondents’ Views on Responsiveness 
Figure 8: Respondents’ Views on Sustainability 
Figure 9: Sources of Water Pollution 
Figure 10: LLDA Officials, Manila, Philippines 
Figure 11: LLDA Headquarters 
Figure 12: Respondents’ Views on ECO-Asia’s Work With the MRC 
Figure 13: MRC Headquarters, Vientiane, Laos 
Figure 14: Stung Treng Dolphin Pool 
Table 1: Dates of Primary Water Pollution Laws 
Table 2: Responses on the Validity of the Development Hypothesis 
 
 10
I. Introduction 
Effective governance in Asia is central to adequately addressing its rapidly growing 
environmental problems. The adoption of policies, laws, and regulations is the vital first 
step in this process but, more often than not, compliance and enforcement in the region 
has been hindered by lack of funding, little public participation or interest and the 
enormous scale of its most critical concerns. Rivers in Asia, serving over 870 million 
people, are among the most endangered in the world, as dams, water extraction, pollution 
and climate change all take their toll. 
The Ganges, Indus, Yangtze, Salween-Nu and Mekong-Lancang rivers make up half of 
the world’s most threatened river basins. Most rivers in Nepal's urban areas have been 
polluted and their waters are now unfit for human use. Drinking water in Kathmandu is 
contaminated with coliform bacteria, iron, ammonia and other contaminants and 
groundwater in districts of West Bengal, India, and in some villages in Bangladesh is 
contaminated with arsenic at levels as much as 70 times higher than the national drinking 
water standard. 
Many attempts to introduce strong environmental protections in Asia have run into 
serious obstacles. The first of these is the underlying dynamic of industrial development, 
technological change and economic globalization occurring simultaneously. The second 
is the scope and scale of environmental policy dilemmas and the transnational character 
of environmental problems. Water and many other natural resource concerns are not 
“local” matters in a world marked by massive flows of people, goods, money, ideas, 
images, and technology across increasingly porous borders. 
Designing and developing the appropriate institutional architecture to address 
environmental issues has been a major challenge. In the case of water quality, scarcity, 
and management issues, this means asking some fundamental questions about the core 
functions of water environmental governance. Who are the agents (public, civil society, 
private, public-private partnership, and so on) best suited to address or implement water 
environmental governance solutions? At what levels of geographic scale, ranging from 
the local to the global, are the functions of water environmental governance most 
effectively performed? 
In the case of water governance, the scope and involvement of the private sector is also 
particularly problematic in Asia due to the huge investments that have to be made in 
many countries in this region. In addition, the role of civil society in environmental 
governance is still underdeveloped and more importantly, underappreciated. Nevertheless, 
pressure on public institutions to open their decision-making processes and adopt 
ecosystem management approaches has been increasing and international norms calling 
for trans-boundary cooperation and full integration of environmental concerns into 
development decision-making have entered public discourse at the highest levels. 
The experience of Asian countries with legislation addressing water pollution (Table 1) 
has been uneven. Several countries have had laws on the books for over three decades 
(Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Malaysia) but the record of enforcement is 
 11
disappointing. In many cases, the legal frameworks exist but the resources allocated 
within those frameworks are so limited that effective enforcement is not possible. 
Country Legislation Addressing Water 
Pollution 
Cambodia 1996 
China 1985 
India 1981 
Indonesia 1982 
Laos 1991 
Malaysia 1977 
Philippines 1964 
Sri Lanka 1974 
Thailand 1977 
Vietnam 1993 
Table 1: Dates of primary water pollution laws in Asian Countries 
II. Project Objectives 
To address these environmental challenges, ECO-Asia’s environmental governance 
program is intended to support region wide adoption of improved and harmonized 
policies, practices and technologies. USAID’s response to Asia’s pressing environmental 
governance needs is in the form of a two programs under the aegis of the ECO-Asia 
initiative: 1) the Asia Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network; and 2) 
Conflict Management Support to the Mekong River Commission. 
The Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) was set up in 
2005 to promote the implementation of improved environmental policies, laws, 
regulations, and institutional arrangements; strengthen practitioner capacity; and facilitate 
regional sharing of best practices and information. In FY07 Japan and Nepal joined 
AECEN, raising the number of country members to ten. 
AECEN’s program priorities are: 1) Compliance monitoring and inspection; 2) 
enforcement response and role of the courts; 3) Compliance promotion; 4) Inter-agency 
coordination and decentralization;5) Economic instruments and incentive-based and 
voluntary programs; 6) Public participation; and 7) Performance indicators. 
 
AECEN’s major activities include: 1) Country Program Assessments; 2) Country Pilot 
Activities; 3) Regional Cooperation and Training; 4) Compliance and Enforcement 
Indicators; and 4) The Annual Forum. 
 12
 
Asian Environmental Compliance 
and Enforcement Network (AECEN) 
MISSION
Promote 
improved 
compliance 
with 
environmental 
legal 
requirements 
in Asia through 
regional 
exchange of 
innovative 
policies and 
practices. 
 Figure1: AECEN Countries 
The ECO-Asia Environmental Governance Program also supports the Mekong River 
Commission. The MRC fosters inter-governmental cooperation among the four lower 
Mekong countries of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. ECO-Asia’s goal with 
respect to the MRC is to promote the adoption of improved conflict management policies, 
plans and mechanisms at the regional and country levels. ECO-Asia collaborates with the 
MRC for the purpose of building the human and institutional capacity at the MRC and 
country levels, identifying existing and potential conflicts and addressing mitigation 
techniques related to basin development planning, water utilization, environment, 
fisheries, navigation, hydropower, watershed management, and flood management. 
 13
 
A challenge for Mekong River countries has been to adopt policies and practices that 
enable collaborative engagement and reduce conflict. To address this concern, ECO-Asia 
cooperates with the MRC in facilitating counterpart exchange and cooperation between 
riparian Mekong countries to promote sharing of best practices in conflict management 
and the development of specific tools and strategies for addressing actual conflicts. ECO￾Asia has facilitated a series of consultation meetings to develop institutional 
strengthening strategies with inputs from experts and counterpart exchanges. 
III. Purpose of Evaluation 
The purpose of this formative evaluation is to address the following questions: 
1) Is the development hypothesis guiding ECO-Asia environmental governance 
activities a valid one and why or why not? 
 
2) Are the results reported for the ECO-Asia environmental governance activities 
valid and what are the prospects for achieving the indicator targets? 
3) Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities responsive to the needs of 
partners and stakeholders in the region? 
 Figure 2: The Mekong River Basin
 14
4) Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities sustainable? 
5) What lessons learned can be identified from the first three-years of 
implementation and can these lessons be translated into clear guidance for the 
remaining period of implementation, including the option period? 
In addition to the performance assessment, the evaluation team was asked to examine 
and provide recommendations and guidance in two key areas related to broader 
RDM/A programming considerations: 
6) Can the MRC be strengthened to address some of the identified issues and 
problems in the Mekong River Basin? Should USAID be working with other 
organizations (national government agencies, NGOs, etc.) to affect the desired 
reform? 
7) What priority actions for supporting biodiversity programming in the Mekong 
River Basin should be undertaken? 
 
IV. Research Design and Methodology 
The evaluation primarily relies upon qualitative data. The research evaluated program 
goals and objectives in terms of outcomes as perceived by key informants. Specific 
questions were formulated to determine both short-term and long-term impacts taking 
into account that the participants and primary stakeholders in these programs are 
environmental decision-makers rather than the end-user beneficiaries of environmental 
programs in general. 
 
 Figure 3: Distribution of respondents by institution and country. 
The interviews were with selected partners/representatives at various levels of 
government in Thailand, the Philippines and Sri Lanka (Table 2). On-site visits were 
undertaken for two purposes: 1) to gain a more complete perspective as to the operations 
and management of environmental governance institutions; and 2) to gain a first hand 
geographical, social and cultural picture of those same institutions. 
Sri Lanka
7%
Thailand
35%
Laos
29%
Philippines
29%
Government
51%
NGO
14%
Multi-Lateral
21%
Judiciary
14%
 15
 
 Figure 4: Vicinity of RDM/A offices in Bangkok. 
The evaluation, which took place February 23, 2009 to March 6, 2009, utilized primarily 
a qualitative approach, combining data with research, interviews and observations. The 
initial data collected included demographic and geographic data. Evaluation data 
collected included information from on-site visits and interviews with other key 
informants. Extensive interviews with key informants were coded by key word in order to 
assess how many respondent comments, in reference to the evaluation questions, can be 
classified on a scale of 1 to 3 (effective performance, no opinion and ineffective 
performance). 
 
 Figure 5: The Thai Supreme Court building 
Before proceeding with the findings and recommendations, it is necessary to clarify that 
the evaluation team had limited period of time (less than two weeks) to conduct the 
evaluation. While every effort was made to obtain complete responses to the evaluation 
questions, the team was not able to contact informants in every country that participates 
in the ECO-Asia environmental governance program. Thus, while all possible efforts 
were made to obtain the necessary and relevant information, it is conceivable that some 
details about AECOM’s environmental governance activities may have been overlooked 
We need go move cases quickly and 
effectively. The environment is like a 
child—it can’t wait—Judge 
 16
or misinterpreted due to the limited time available. Any mistakes or omissions are the 
team’s responsibility alone. It is further necessary to clarify that recommendations are 
based on an ideal case scenario, recognizing that it may not be possible for AECOM to 
incorporate all suggestions due to resource limitations. These recommendations will need 
to be discussed and prioritized in providing future programming. Finally, many of the 
recommendations may be best pursued through partnerships with other programs. These 
are noted, where possible. 
IV. Evaluation Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 
Evaluation Question 1: Is the development hypothesis guiding ECO-Asia 
environmental governance activities a valid one and why or why not? 
Findings: 
AECEN 
Question 1 Development Hypothesis
Respondent Definitely Doubtful Unclear 
1 0 0 1 
2 0 0 1 
3 0 0 1 
4 1 0 0 
5 1 0 0 
6 1 0 0 
7 0 0 1 
8 0 0 1 
9 1 0 0 
10 0 0 1 
11 0 1 0 
12 1 0 0 
13 1 0 0 
14 1 0 0 
Total 7 1 6 
Table 2: Responses on the validity of the Development Hypothesis. 
Almost half of the respondents were not entirely clear as to what ECO-Asia’s 
environmental governance development hypothesis is—which is not necessarily 
unexpected considering that only half of them were knowledgeable about development 
concepts. On further questioning, however, 12 of the 14 respondents agreed that the 
concept of providing a network and a regional forum on environmental issues was a 
sound approach to encouraging effective governance. The emphasis on achieving 
compliance through dialogue, technical support and information was also praised by 
 17
respondents. The lawyers and justices interviewed were especially adamant that the 
opportunity for continuing contacts with their counterparts in other countries was useful 
and operated as a catalyst for them to pursue a variety of initiatives that were successful 
elsewhere but which would not ordinarily have come to their attention. 
Among the comments made by respondents about ECO-Asia’s approach were: “The 
rationale is valuable—learning from each other” (from an NGO representative) and “the 
MRC concept is good but political factors get in the way” (from a former MRC official). 
Conclusions: 
Although it was not articulated as such in the documents provided, the evaluators 
concluded that the development hypothesis can be generally characterized as: technical 
assistance, regional platforms and other support lead to the development of appropriate 
legal frameworks which, in turn, lead to a sustained legal and regulatory environment that 
is sufficient to meet the challenges of environmental deterioration in Asia. The 
development objectives, particularly with respect to trans-boundary cooperation and 
regional impact, as articulated in reports on the program are overly ambitious and do not 
account for the effects of external factors beyond the implementer’s control. 
Recommendations: 
 The development hypothesis should be clarified in more specific terms with the steps 
between these rather broad concepts carefully articulated in a manner that, hopefully, is 
comprehensible to partners and stakeholders in the program. 
 While necessarily focused on a regional perspective, the development goals should be 
scaled back to achievements that can be reasonably expected from the resources invested 
in the program. 
 The development hypothesis should not state intermediate goals that are beyond the 
control of the implementers to effect. While the program certainly makes a contribution 
to the ultimate strategic objective this objective should not be articulated as a goal at the 
program level. 
 The development hypothesis with respect to addressing critical trans-boundary and 
regional environmental governance concerns should more closely reflect the limitations 
of working on such issues within a multi-lateral context and include consideration of 
longer term results monitoring. 
Evaluation Question 2: Are the results reported for the ECO-Asia environmental 
governance activities valid and what are the prospects for achieving the indicator 
targets? 
Findings: 
As Figure 7 demonstrates that nearly all respondents were positive concerning the results 
of ECO-Asia’s programming. With the understanding on the part of most of those 
interviewed that the goal of the program was to establish a working network and regional 
platform—rather than directly affect the formulation of laws, policies and regulations, 
respondents believed that they have been successful to that end. 
 18
 
Question 2--Validity of Results
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Negative Positive No Opinion
 Figure 6: Respondents’ views on program results. 
Respondents cited the Asian Justices Workshop, the Annual Forum, AECEN facilitated 
Compliance Assistance Centers for swine farmers and the Twinning Program as most 
successful in their view. 
The reaction was more mixed with respect to assistance with the development of 
performance indicators which two respondents saw as impractical for their purposes since, 
as one of them noted, “Right now we measure input and output and that’s difficult 
enough.” The concept of performance indicators, similarly, has had little impact on the 
MRC where, in the words of one donor, the lack of monitoring is an “enormous scandal.” 
Overall the assessments of 12 out of 14 respondents are that ECO-Asia, has as one judge 
said, “done a very good job for this region. It helps us to keep in mind that environment 
should be a priority issue.” Others have added that “ECO-Asia has done what we need” 
and that the twinning program “has been particularly valuable.” 
Four of the respondents mentioned reference tools (studies, assessments, handbooks) as a 
significant and valuable part of ECO-Asia’s programming. Two of the four singled out 
the Conflict Resolution Handbook produced for MRC members, that was translated into 
several languages, while two others mentioned the “needs assessments” (presumably the 
Rapid Country Assessments) as significant. The stated objective of the assessments is “to 
help countries to define priorities to address challenges in environmental compliance and 
enforcement and lay the groundwork for potential pilot activities.” From the views 
expressed by the respondents, however, it appears that such studies, while useful, are less 
valued than person-to-person exchanges. As one judge put it “Hearing directly from other 
practitioners was very persuasive for Thai judges.” 
ECO-Asia’s environmental governance program has consistently met or exceeded most 
of its targets. In FY2006, its success rate for performance indicators was 95%. In FY2007 
it was 85% and in FY2008 it was 100% (Annex A). Its prospects for achieving its 
indicator targets are good. With respect to trans-boundary issues, engaging non￾government stakeholders, environmental initiatives undertaken by NGO’s, and 
strengthening sustainable financing mechanisms, it has not been as successful as in other 
areas. The last was not included in the targets for FY2008. 
 19
Conclusion: 
ECO-Asia’s activities with respect to providing a regional platform, technical assistance 
and information are good and beneficial to its stakeholders. Its work with the courts and 
justice system is particularly useful and it does provide, in the view of most respondents, 
necessary and valued inputs. Encouraging the development of good performance 
indicators has been less successful for ECO-Asia than facilitating the exchanges of 
information. 
Studies were not considered as particularly valuable by respondents, with the exception 
of the multi-lingual handbook produced for MRC countries. From our review of the 
materials, however, we conclude that the studies provide complete information on the 
status of laws, compliance and enforcement in member countries and are useful as 
reference tools. 
Recommendations: 
 ECO-Asia should work on disseminating more of its studies in a format that is usable 
by stakeholders. 
 Training and information on performance indicators should present both ideal and 
realistic approaches that can be tailored to the specific needs, resources and level of 
expertise of stakeholders. 
 Possibilities for “tripling” and “quadrupling” on areas of common interest should be 
explored. 
 Efforts to engage non-government actors and other donors and establish sustainable 
financing mechanisms should be given priority in setting performance standards. 
Evaluation Question 3: Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities 
responsive to the needs of partners and stakeholders in the region? 
Findings: 
Nine out of fourteen stakeholders interviewed considered ECO-Asia to be responsive 
with respect to providing information, training and technical assistance (especially 
through the twinning program). The three respondents who cited the initiative as 
unresponsive were principally concerned with how funds for activities were provided and 
how stakeholders at lower levels in environmental decision-making were engaged. One 
of these respondents declared that “I don’t really know who USAID is,” suggesting that 
the line between AECOM and USAID had not been made clear, and also expressed the 
opinion that ECO-Asia’s activities were more costly to the organization than beneficial. 
Positive responders, however, proposed that ECO-Asia was more flexible than other 
donors. In the words of one government official, “The world Bank has a tendency to 
micro-manage but not USAID.” Another respondent, representing a multi-lateral 
organization, praised ECO-Asia for dealing with “the most difficult issue” in 
environmental governance stating that, “without ECO-Asia there would be no donor 
working on conflict prevention.” 
 20
ECO-Asia training, while regarded as good by nine out of fourteen respondents was, in 
the view of three respondents sometimes “more theoretical than practical.” One 
respondent regarded the Annual Forum as useful but “too formal and structured” stating 
that it “should allow for more exchanges and dialogue.” The Asian Justices workshop and 
Annual Meeting were well regarded by twelve out of fourteen respondents. 
 
Three respondents expressed concern that ECO-Asia set its own priorities for 
programming rather than soliciting the views of stakeholders but four other respondents 
stated that the opposite was true. In the words of two judges interviewed, ECO-Asia 
“gave a push to our existing interest” and “supported us in the beginning—it helped us to 
stand up but didn’t push.” 
Question 3--Responsive to Stakeholders
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Negative
Positive
No Opinion
Figure 7: Respondents’ views on stakeholder responsiveness. 
Conclusions: 
Respondents praised ECO-Asia’s activities with respect providing a network for sharing 
information, regular meetings for practitioners, specific assistance with addressing some 
of their critical concerns and working with judges, lawyers and the courts to create 
environmentally sensitive legal systems. ECO-Asia, in the view of a minority of 
respondents is less responsive and flexible with respect to funding issues and the design 
of meetings and training programs. 
Recommendations: 
• Work with bi-lateral missions in an effort to engage lower level decision-makers in 
AECEN and the MRC in the network and dialogue aspects of the program. 
• Consider opening up the Annual Forum and other meetings to a larger constituency 
(private sector, NGO’s, more local government officials). 
• Create opportunities for more participatory strategizing and priority setting either at 
meetings or in discussions with individual country representatives. 
Evaluation Question 4: Are ECO-Asia environmental governance activities 
sustainable? 
 21
Findings: 
Half of the respondents had a positive view of ECO-Asia’s sustainability (Figure 8). 
Suggestions were made by those who were less optimistic that “AECEN needs to grow 
its membership” and that the organization should become a “knowledge clearinghouse” 
for its members. 
 
Question 4--Program Sustainability
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Negative Positive No Opinion
Figure 8: Respondents’ views on sustainability. 
A number of respondents suggested options for sustainability of ECO-Asia’s activities 
which include expanding participation through a “tiered” system of membership to assure 
that government officials will not be inhibited by the participation of private sector and 
NGO actors, devolving more responsibilities and authority on local government officials 
and holding more meetings and more participatory meetings. Suggestions regarding 
suitable funding mechanisms and the possibility of a permanent multi-lateral organization 
“home” for ECO-Asia’s activities were made by two respondents.
Four respondents were quick to point out that, while the results of the establishment of 
CAC’s for swine farmers and the encouragement of judicial reforms have been 
significant, the program has not yet addressed the most serious causes of water 
 Figure 9: Sources of water pollution. 
Sources of Water Pollution in Thailand
11%
41%
48%
Agriculture
Industry
Domestic
Sources of Water Pollution in the
Philippines
29%
27%
33%
11%
Agriculture
Industry
Domestic
Non-Point
 22
pollution as shown in Figure 9. While judicial reforms have been of value in addressing 
all forms of pollution, voluntary compliance programs have not been targeted toward 
reducing either domestic or industrial pollution. In Thailand, a significant obstacle is the 
fact that the Pollution Control Department has no jurisdiction over industries and must 
work through the Department of Industrial Works to address these issues. In the 
Philippines, domestic pollution is a major issue. While the evaluators were in Manila the 
Supreme Court of the Philippines came out with a major decision mandating the cleanup 
of Manila Bay but there are no mechanisms in place to force domestic polluters to 
comply with the law and, in the words of one respondent, this is very “politically 
sensitive.” 
Conclusions: 
The sustainability of ECO-Asia’s activities depend upon whether it can expand its 
membership to include more non-government and local government actors, expand its 
activities to take on industrial and domestic pollution sources, engage other donors and 
organizations in its activities and find a long term multi-lateral organizational structure 
for its activities. 
Recommendations: 
 ECO-Asia should explore opportunities to expand membership through a tiered 
approach to engage private sector and NGO representatives. 
 ECO-Asia should vigorously pursue engaging other donors and form closer 
partnerships with existing environmental governance multi-lateral organizations. 
 ECO-Asia should empower country and local level coordinators more and use the 
Annual Forum to develop strategy and priorities.
 ECO-Asia should consider the establishment of a pool of technical experts and 
practice leaders for member countries to draw on in directly and the development of a 
knowledge clearinghouse should be undertaken. 
 ECO-Asia should expand its strategies and priorities to address the major causes of 
pollution within the countries it serves. 
 Figure 10: LLDA officials, Manila. 
 23
Evaluation Question 5: What lessons learned can be identified from the first three 
years of implementation and can these lessons be translated into clear guidance for 
the remaining period of implementation, including the option period? 
 Figure 11: LLDA headquarters in Manila.
Findings: 
 All respondents expressed their belief that providing compliance assistance is 
effective in supplementing enforcement. 
 Traditional M&E systems do not capture the complexity of developing conflict 
prevention frameworks which require a more long term investment at a higher level of 
programming. 
 The fact that “Our king is the father of environmental issues,” (in the words of one 
judge) has been most instrumental in establishing an environmentally active bench. As 
another respondent said “Sometimes you never know if the subject captures the interest 
of top management” indicating that, where this happens, the way is paved to more 
effective governance. 
 Respondents addressing assistance to swine farmers emphasized that making 
information pertaining to best practices readily available on the internet is a good 
auxiliary, but not stand alone, practice for dissemination. Unfortunately, although it is 
slowly changing as the technology gets cheaper and more available, people in developing 
countries are still at a disadvantage in this respect. 
 Local level investment in environmental issues not only provides a model for other 
localities but also a standard for national governments to consider adopting. 
Conclusions: 
 “Enforcement and assistance can occur at the same time as long as it’s clear that 
receiving assistance doesn’t mean that you won’t be held accountable,” (Government 
Official). 
 Local governments are important partners but, apart from negotiating the rules of 
international engagement, central governments pass legislation that ultimately determines 
 24
who controls local assets and they are watchdogs that ensure that environmental 
standards are met and ecosystems are protected. 
 Effective governance is becoming increasingly dependent upon the participation of 
civil society in the decision-making and implementation process. This is essential to the 
sustainability of effective public policy. 
 Measuring governance requires the monitoring of the impact of environmental 
governance-related initiatives, the comparison of different situations in term of 
environmental governance and the development of a decision-making model against 
which to compare those activities. 
 The primary challenges of environmental governance—multiple stakeholders; 
interdependence of resources and actions; blurred boundaries between public and private 
spheres; coordination of goals; negotiation and interactive decision-making processes; 
and building of consensus and trust are best met through creating opportunities for 
personal exchanges between practitioners. 
 Despite the universal move to decentralize national government leadership remains 
central to establishing environmental governance. 
 Formal government processes must interact with informal networks, and the central 
government must devolve power to local governments while ensuring their responsibility, 
viability and accountability. 
 Targeted investments in country level legal and policy reform are successful because 
they address specific national needs and priorities. 
 Regional meetings are successful because they provide a platform for countries to 
determine where their common concerns lie and to form regional information sharing 
partnerships to address those concerns. 
 Interest as the highest levels is at the core of effective governance. 
Recommendations: 
 Conflict prevention issues need to be scaled down to an operable level considering 
the resources for the program. 
 Dissemination of information via the internet and in publications should be 
subordinated to facilitating more personal exchanges. 
 Civil society actors must become fully engaged in future programming for 
environmental governance. 
 Measurement of environmental governance assistance must be more specifically 
tailored to capture data on long-term and intangible impacts. 
Evaluation Question 6: Can the MRC be strengthened to address some of the 
identified issues and problems in the Mekong River Basin? Should USAID be 
working with other organizations (national government agencies, NGOs, etc.) to 
affect the desired reform? 
Findings: 
The development theory behind ECO-Asia support to help the Mekong River 
Commission (MRC) to move towards serving a greater conflict management role in the 
Mekong River basin (MRB) is sound. The MRC is a weak, donor-driven institution, and 
 25
building its capacity to manage conflicts has been extremely challenging. Trans-boundary 
cooperation has been identified as the MRC’s “most difficult issue”, and USAID is 
recognized as the only donor working on it. One of the most Notable ECO-Asia 
successes was its important role in enabling MRC member countries, over time, to 
recognize the existence of conflict in the MRB. Acceptance of conflict and conflict 
potential was the first stem leading to a number of important technical assistance inputs 
particularly the glossaries of conflict management terminology produced in the language 
of each MRC member. 
The MRC is the only institution positioned to address regional issues in the Mekong 
River Basin. Historically, most conflicts in MRB have been resolved bi-laterally without 
MRC intervention. Goal 2 of the MRC Work Programme 2008 is To enhance effective 
regional cooperation. Objective 2.3 under this goal is To identify potential transboundary 
issue for negotiation, mediation and conflict prevention; and develop mediation and 
conflict management capacity. 
Planned ECO-Asia support for development of a conflict resolution model focused on a 
“hot spot” on the Cambodia—Laos border, is a logical, sound next step toward 
developing the MRC’s capacity for conflict management. The planned pilot is necessary 
though not sufficient for achieving sustainable impact on the MRC’s capacity for 
managing conflict. (ECO-Asia is well aware of this.) The institutional capacity of the 
MRC – particularly its structure, staffing policies and operations – represents a 
significant part of the challenge to achieving solid, sustainable success in trans-boundary 
cooperation and conflict management. USAID’s approach to working with the MRC, by 
providing experts and technical assistance rather than channeling funds through the MRC 
for specified programs, is unique among the donors that support the MRC. While it is 
understandable and consistent with USAID approach to providing development 
assistance in general, it has generated less than good will among the MRC staff. 
 26
 Figure 12—Respondents views of ECO-Asia’s MRC work. 
Respondents’ remarks were generally positive (four out of five) about the continuance of 
ECO-Asia’s work to strengthen the MRC and, further about the suggestion that ECO￾Asia work with other donors. Additionally, ECO-Asia training programs and seminars 
have been generally effective and well received. Technical assistance is considered 
timely and appropriate. MRC staff spoke well of the technical experts ECO-Asia has 
been able to provide. AUSAID is now positioned to become the MRC’s largest donor, 
primarily in the area of climate change. AUSAID is evolving in its mode of engaging the 
MRC, preparing to shift from a payment-for-deliverable approach to channeling funds 
through the MRC as do most other donors. In the process, AUSAID is also investing in 
the MRC’s capacity for effective monitoring, transparent procurement and sound 
financial management. 
Figure 13: Headquarters of the MRC Secretariat in Vientiane 
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Strengthen MRC Work With Others
Negative
Positive
No Opinion
 27
Conclusions: 
Positioning the MRC as a strong partner will require investment in institutional capacity 
and reforms, particularly related to stewardship of resources, as well as implementation 
of some of the most difficult reforms recommended by a 2007 Financial and Institutional 
Review. It is unclear whether the MRC Secretariat, ECO-Asia’s point of contact, actually 
has a mandate to play a conflict management role. 
Recommendations: 
 ECO-Asia should insure that the pilot conflict management activity is taken a step 
beyond resolution of the specific issue of the hotspot and developed into a model for 
MRC dispute resolution which can be adapted and applied across MRC programs. 
 ECO-Asia should seriously explore opportunities to ensure that future events are 
country/culture/language-specific, perhaps holding duplicate events, one in each country 
involved, in local language and where broad participation is not defeated by limited travel 
funds of member participants. 
 ECO-Asia should carefully review US foreign policy interests in the Mekong region – 
Diplomacy, Development or both – and continued engagement with the MRC. 
 Should this review place value on continued engagement with the MRC: ECO-Asia 
should calibrate USG modes of collaboration with expected results, ensuring that 
expectations are realistic and appropriate to the driving US foreign policy interest. 
 To the extent that Development interests drive continued assistance to the MRC: 
ECO-Asia should develop and document the development hypothesis and realistic results 
framework on which programming will be based. 
 ECO-Asia should explore opportunities consistent with the new Presidential Initiative 
on climate change, which places greater emphasis on adaptation. 
 ECO-Asia should explore close coordination with AUSAID, on climate change as 
well as institutional capacity building. 
 In the event that Diplomacy interests drive continued assistance to the MRC: ECO￾Asia should explore engagement of US Embassies (and other USAID Missions) in the 
MRB to engage MRC members bilaterally and bring greater USG resources to bear on 
the challenges. 
Evaluation Question 7: What priority actions for supporting biodiversity 
programming in the Mekong River Basin have been successful? 
ECO-Asia’s biodiversity programming in the Mekong River Basin is separate from its 
environmental governance initiative and its implementers are Winrock International, 
ASEAN Center for Biodiversity, UNESCAP, and the Asian Development Bank’s 
Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative. Nevertheless, RDM/A requested that the 
evaluation team reflect upon the possibilities for future programming in this area and, 
further, make some recommendations. 
ECO-Asia’s biodiversity programming in the Mekong implements activities through the 
ARBCP to support four key objectives: 1) Restore and maintain ecosystem connectivity 
in biodiversity corridors and across landscapes; 2) Promote sustainable financing for 
biodiversity and natural resource conservation; 3) Strengthen environmental governance 
 28
and institution building (principally through the MRC); and 4) Improve the livelihoods of 
the rural poor. 
The UNDP is currently concluding its five-year Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity and 
Sustainable Use Programme. Their biodiversity programming in the Mekong River Basin 
includes the World Conservation Union and the Mekong River Commission as well as 
agencies in the participating countries including the Ministry of Environment in 
Cambodia, the Living Aquatic Resources Research Centre, (LARReC) in Lao PDR, the 
Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP) in Thailand; 
and the Vietnam Environment Protection Agency, (VEPA). In addition the World 
Wildlife Fund has several major projects in the Mekong River Basis focused on 
biodiversity. 
Findings: 
Using the Biodiversity Earmark for this programming would represent a new direction 
and commitment. For the earmark requirements to be met, such programming must have 
an explicit, primary purpose of biodiversity conservation, threats assessment, and the 
development of appropriate indicators. Food security, specifically related to the very 
significant fisheries aspect of the Mekong ecosystem is also an option for such 
programming. 
UNDP programming has had the following results: 1) the development of the Water 
Utilization Project, a hydrological modeling system that predicts the hydrological 
consequences of proposed developments; 2) a system of biodiversity overlays to provide 
a comprehensive planning and development tool; 3) a Species Conservation Plan; 4) a 
partnership with the Cambodian Department of Fisheries to create the world’s first 
freshwater conservation concession; 5) training programs and workshops held in Mekong 
countries; and 6) eco-tourism guide training programs. 
 29
 Figure 14: Stung Treng Dolphin Pool 
Recommendations: 
 ECO-Asia should consider building upon UNDP and WWF programming to develop, 
under the aegis of the MRC, a multi-country charter for the preservation of the Mekong 
River Basin’s biodiversity. 
 ECO-Asia should consider forming a biodiversity information and partnering network 
with members from NGO’s, the private sector and representatives from development 
organizations. 
 The Stung Treng Dolphin pool pilot project on environmental governance (related to 
MRC support) could be expanded to include the development of an eco-tourism hands-on 
information program to engage both visitors and residents in activities to support 
conservation of the pool. 
 The Stung Treng Dolphin Pool pilot project could also be expanded to provide 
programming to engage local people as a constituency to support conservation of the pool. 
 30