This paper sets out a number of lessons to be learned about the policy challenges associated with the resilience concept. In fact, these are more accurately described as lessons observed because they are not lessons learned until they are implemented. Consequently, this paper identifies a number of challenges for policy makers and it does so by setting those issues within the conceptual framework of a resilience continuum whereby individual nation states and civil-societies can be at different stages of resilience at any given time. Resilience is part of a complex integrated dynamic system influenced by a range of different actors and variables at any given time. The first challenge for policy makers is to understand the way policy issues are framed and, correspondingly, the way resilience is framed as part of any response mechanism to address a given policy problem. A critical lesson is the importance of determining whom or what needs to be made resilient against what threat or risk as part of a resilience continuum. This presents a number of significant and complex decisions regarding the allocation of finite resources. Associated with this issue is the recognition that some parts of the system of a nation state or its civil society may fail or, indeed, be allowed to fail. This holds a number of ethical challenges for policy-makers. A key lesson to be learned is that by ascribing resilience as a desirable goal, there need to be clear milestones to indicate stages of achievement. Currently this is a significant omission in policy papers and implementation strategies. This paper also highlights that by adopting the resilience concept, a greater number of actors will be involved and co-opted as part of a wider shared responsibility for its implementation. Particular attention is given to the roles of organisations, as part of the critical infrastructure sector, as potential enablers or inhibitors of resilience. This is an area that requires further research.

Over the course of several decades the relationship between Japan and the EU has transformed from one focused on economics and trade into one that is a more comprehensive and ‘strategic partnership‘. This has been built on the EU and Japan sharing common values, principles and interests. It has also grown as a result of globalisation and the new security challenges that both have had to face, although the return of geopolitics could shift relations back towards traditional security. This policy brief focuses on the political and security aspects of the EU-Japan relationship. Given Europe’s links to East Asia, the EU has a stake in East Asia‘s security in much the same way as East Asia has a stake in the security of Europe. This policy brief therefore asks whether Japan is a genuine partner for the EU in managing relations with the broader region of East Asia and whether Japan regards the EU to be a genuine strategic partner.

India’s international profile as a rising power has drawn considerable attention in recent years, and external powers such as the United States and European countries have begun to change their global non-proliferation and export control regimes, which have been sites of considerable tensions between India and world powers over many decades. It also examines how India’s approach has been perceived by external powers and points to opportunities for deepening engagement with India over the coming years. India will likely continue to pursue an assertive approach in the future, making its formal entry into these regimes difficult. However, India is not averse to strategic bargaining on these issues, and there are opportunities for external powers, including the European Union and its member states, to deepen engagement with India. However, much depends on the approach taken by each side. Constructive engagement will require that each side demonstrates flexibility and recognises the constraints facing the other side. The paper identifies steps that both India and the EU need to take in order to step up collaboration engagement, and identifies pathways for possible cooperation in the area of nuclear safety.

There is a growing tendency to compare regionalism in Europe and Asia. Such analysis often uses the EU as the basis for comparison in analyzing ASEAN’s promotion of Asian regional cooperation. However, given the significant differences between the two regions, the European experience is not directly transferable. Rather than imposing one region’s processes and experience onto the other, it is more important to cultivate inter-regional cooperation that will enable Europe and Asia to learn and benefit from each other. Despite mutual acknowledgment of the need for deeper and broader inter-regional cooperation, interaction between the EU and ASEAN has so far been limited. However, the long-term prospects for inter-regional cooperation are promising, with the EU and ASEAN facing both internal challenges in their integration processes and common economic and security threats in their respective regions.

With three-quarters of Asia-Pacific countries currently facing water scarcity and the vast majority of the region’s river basins categorised as transboundary, water managers in the region need to manage water resources in a cooperative manner that promotes sustainable development. Numerous macro trends in the region make this challenging: rapid urbanisation and economic growth, and increased demand for energy and food along with the impacts of climate change. In Europe, the Danube River Basin also faces challenges to water quality and quantity. As Europe has developed a strategy to increase the river basin’s water quality and quantity, best practices and lessons learned regarding integrated water resources management in the Danube River Basin can be transferred to the Asia-Pacific region.

The new Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has revitalized the country’s economic and foreign policy prospects after years of drift under the previous Congress Party-led administration. India today is showing a new intensity of engagement with East Asian powers like China and Japan, and with its South Asian neighbors. The Modi administration is also incrementally but tangibly reforming the country’s statist economy in order to seed growth and produce the jobs necessary to employ what is becoming the world’s biggest workforce. To date, European focus on Asia has primarily been on China; it is time for Europe to seize the moment in relations with Asia’s other emerging giant to promote peace, pluralism, and prosperity.

India and the South Asia region are one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change flooding events. With flood risks being transboundary, there is the potential for floods in South Asia to cause widespread instability and state fragility leading to migration and displacement, weak governance and overall geo-political instability in the region. Europe has experience in managing transboundary flood risks, most recently with the implementation of the EU Flood Directive, which calls for transboundary actions to mitigate flood risks. Using existing platforms for cooperation, Europe can transfer knowledge on Integrated Flood Risk Management expertise to India and the wider South Asia region in order to help ensure regional economic and political stability.

In Asia-Pacific, urban centres will face water insecurity as a result of climate change and the impacts of urbanisation. To achieve urban water security in the Asia-Pacific region, water managers can use a variety of demand management tools to alter the attitudes and behaviours of individuals and society towards water resources. In Europe, urban water security is affected by droughts and scarcity. The European Commission has stated that demand management should come first and that alternative supply options are only considered once the potential for water efficiency has been exhausted. In order to achieve urban water security in the Asia- Pacific region, existing institutional frameworks between Europe and Asia-Pacific can be used to exchange best practices and lessons learnt from European urban centres implementing demand management strategies.

Next to traditional security challenges, defence ministers at the 2013 Shangri-La Dialogue emphasised the new prominence of “non-traditional” security threats facing the Asia-Pacific region. With a security environment predominantly shaped by a “realist” paradigm, rising tensions are calling into question the ability of the existing institutional architecture to manage regional security. Stability in the region and keeping maritime routes open are also key interests for the Europeans. Amid growing potential for conflict, there are still more declarations than deeds in EU-Asia security cooperation; Europe’s role is constrained by colonial baggage and a “tyranny of distance” – and a primacy of trade. This paper argues that Europe and Asia-Pacific, facing many of the same challenges, can learn from each other and find particularly in the field of non-traditional security challenges promising areas for cooperation, exchange and confidence building. Having been presented at the 27th Asia- Pacifc Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur in June 2013, this paper identifies areas in which the EU and its Member States could act as a source of inspiration, expertise and technology as well as partners for Asian-Pacific states and organisations in addressing both traditional and non-traditional security challenges.

The Asia-Pacific region is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to flooding. This vulnerability will only increase with rapid urbanization placing more people and infrastructure in harms way. At the same time, rapid urbanization is leading to environmental degradation reducing economic growth. The EU’s world-leading experiences in city planning, infrastructure services and management creates the potential for Europe to export green infrastructure solutions to ensure rapidly expanding Asian cities have sustainable infrastructure. This also has the potential to create economic growth and job creation in Europe.

The global economy is based on a take-make-consume model where natural resources are turned into products and the waste disposed of instead of being reused as a resource. In the Asia-Pacific region climate change along with rapid population and economic growth is resulting in resource scarcity potentially leading to economic and political instability. Europe has developed policy and technological innovations that can facilitate the transition towards a circular economy where waste becomes a resource. By using existing instruments Europe can transfer its circular economy knowledge and technology to the Asia-Pacific region. This can help ensure global security, influence climate change negotiations and create jobs in Europe.