European Commission Sponsored ASEM TF Strategic Evaluation Report

An EC-sponsored evaluation of the ASEM Trust Fund Program took place in November 2005. The overarching objective of the review is to assess the progress achieved by each beneficiary ASEM country and the extent to which technical expertise financed has contributed/is contributing to the reforms in the financial, corporate and social sectors. In particular, the 3 focusses of the evaluation are:

• To examine the linkages between the reforms in the financial/corporate and social sectors since the financial crisis and how ASEM TF1 and ASEM TF2 grants may have contributed to the reforms.
• To review the efficiency of the ASEM TFs, particularly visibility and sustainability.
• To identify the emerging needs in the region in case there is any future support through a new partnership/trust fund.

The evaluation team visited all the ASEM TF2 beneficiary countries where they met the Government counterparts as well as the Bank's field-based task teams. They also visited Washington, DC to hold discussions on the initial draft report of the evaluation with the task teams based in HQ, as well as the members of the ASEM TF Steering Committee and Secretariat. The final draft Evaluation Report was discussed during a workshop held on March 8 2006 in Brussels. The final report conclusions and recommendations were also presented at the Brussels ASEM TF2 Review Meeting on June 28, 2006.

Overall the Evaluation was positive. The main conclusions of the Evaluation are that about 80% of the completed ASEM grants had significant or reasonable impact (about 50% of the total number of ASEM grants, including those that are under implementation). Almost all the grants were relevant to the objectives of the ASEM trust funds. The vast majority of the grants are aligned with national development plans, have local ownership and therefore should be reasonably sustainable when the activities are completed at the end of August 2006. The main areas of concern were: design of grants (complex and over optimistic), monitoring by the in-country steering committees (little participation after grant approvals), fragmented procurement and visibility.

Link to the evaluation report (2,273 kb doc)