Content uploaded by Ginelle Greene
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ginelle Greene on Oct 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership
Agreement (EPA) remains the only comprehensive
EPA signed with the African, Caribbean and Pacific
(ACP) states. The Agreement covers trade in goods
and services, investment, trade-related issues like
competition, innovation and intellectual property,
as well as links to development co-operation.
Signed in October 2008, the EPA text is detailed in
nature, containing 250 articles, three protocols,
declarations or statements (joint and individual) and
seven annexes. Provisionally coming into force two
months after its signature, it combines trade
provisions and development co-operation.
Most of the EPA signatory countries have ratified
or begun to ratify the agreement; this includes nine
of the 15 CARIFORUM member states (or 60% ) and
16 of the 28 European Union partner countries (or
57% ). More than half of the 15 CARIFORUM
countries have effected agreed tariff reductions on
EU imports. Since signature of the EPA, the EU has
offered the CARIFORUM countries 100 per cent
duty and quota free access for all goods and
liberalised more than 90 per cent of its services
sector to CARIFORUM. However, CARIFORUM
exporters have yet to experience significant
market penetration success into the EU. Goods
exported from the Caribbean continue to face non-
tariff barriers in the EU market, especially technical
and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers.
Furthermore, service providers confront similar
barriers related to mutual recognition standard
issues and difficulties in obtaining visas.
Institutions tasked with guiding implementation of
the EPA have been established at both the national
and regional levels. At the national level, each
CARIFORUM country has appointed an EPA co-
ordinator, many of which work within an existing
national ministry. A regional EPA Implementation
Unit (EIU) based in the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) Secretariat was also set up to co-
ordinate implementation by the CARIFORUM
parties. In addition, the EPA required the creation
of five new institutions that have been established,
namely, the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council; the
CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development
Committee; the Special Committee on Customs
Co-operation and Trade Facilitation; the
CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee; and
the CARIFORUM-EU Consultative Committee.
This issue of Commonwealth Trade Hot Topics
analyses the experience and challenges of
implementing the CARIFORUM-EU EPA, and draws
broad policy lessons for other trade agreements.
The CARIFORUM Economic
Partnership Agreement:
Lessons from Implementation
Ginelle Greene*
Issue 121 | 2015
Trade
Hot Topics
ISSUE 121
*Ginelle Greene works with the German International Cooperation’s (GIZ) EPA Implementation Support Project, as head of the private
sector component and monitoring and evaluation specialist. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Implementing the CARIFORUM EPA
Donor agencies have been active within the
Caribbean region in the provision of trade and
development co-operation projects and activities.
The EU’s 10th European Development Fund (EDF)
Caribbean Regional Indicative Programme
allocated up to €165 million to aid implementation
of the CARIFORUM EPA. This was spread over half
adozen areas ranging from fiscal reform and
technical barriers to trade, to institutional and
implementing capacity.
Significant support has also been provided under
the £10 million CARTFund Trust Fund, financed by
the UK’s Department for International
Development (DFID) and administered by the
Caribbean Development Bank (CDB). With the
overall aim of enhancing growth, reducing poverty
and promoting regional integration, up to 57 per
cent of the CARTFund was specifically attributed
towards supporting the EPA’s implementation. It is
noteworthy that the most funding requests by
CARIFORUM member states have been to
establish national EIU’s to manage and co-ordinate
the EPA implementation process.1
In 2012 the national EIU of the Dominican Republic
supported by the German International
Cooperation (GIZ) developed an EPA Country
Implementation Matrix (CIM) in Spanish, which was
later translated into English. This CIM has served as
abest practice template for other EIUs within the
region and been replicated and used by at least four
other CARIFORUM countries. The Dominican
Republic has already conducted three EPA reviews
and thus represents a leading EIU in terms of using
astandardised framework for guiding
implementation. However, it should be noted that
the Dominican Republic already has experience
with implementing a complex agreement, namely
the 2004 Dominican Republic-Central America
Free Trade Agreement.
CARIFORUM remains the only region to have
comprehensively addressed the full range of
negotiating issues within the EPAs. Overall, the
smaller CARIFORUM countries with fewer
resources have faced the greatest challenges
when implementing the EPA. As such, an important
aspect in CARIFORUM's implementation
experience has been building strategic
partnerships between implementation
stakeholders. Another significant feature has been
CARIFORUM’s access to much needed financial
and technical external resources, to help
implement commitments.
The implementing actors for the
CARIFORUM EPA
Anumber of actors and stakeholders at the
national, regional and international levels act in
various roles to implement the CARIFORUM EPA.
For implementation purposes, it is useful to
distinguish between ‘key’ and ‘primary’
stakeholders. Key actors possess significant
knowledge, decision-making power or other
influence over the implementation process. By
contrast, primary stakeholders are directly
affected, either positively or negatively, by the
EPA's implementation.
The EPA’s general co-ordination within
CARIFORUM has largely fallen under the scope of
national ministries of trade supported by their
EIUs. However other key stakeholders may be
identified below, mainly engaged by member state
requests under business development and trade
facilitation or Aid for Trade (AfT) projects.
Work of national actors
The national EIUs were established to manage and
co-ordinate the EPA's implementation. With donor
requested support, up to six ‘fully functional’ EIUs
have been created. Supported by government and
donor funding, their work has largely entailed:
•Enhancing public awareness on the EPA and its
opportunities (hosting stakeholder workshops/
public-private dialogue consultations, general
publications/sector-specific booklets and guides,
website development).
•Legislative and policy reform partnered with
relevant public institutions (national staff
training, consultancy projects executed by
regional and international technical experts).
•Network building and creation of the
CARIFORUM-EU EPA Implementation Network
(CAFEIN – online platform for sharing of best
practices and experiences between EIUs).
• Management, co-ordination and development
of the CIM and communications strategy
templates.
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 2
1Gill, H. Caribbean Aid for Trade and Regional Integration Trust Fund (CARTFund). Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development, 2010.
In executing their duties, more than half of the
national EIUs have experienced sustainability issues
(i.e. human and financial capacity constraints).
While the above instruments have been supported
or developed, use of these tools is generally limited
due to long-term constraints beyond external
financing and ineffective communication with other
relevant stakeholders. A GIZ 2014 report also found
other setbacks included lack of monitoring for
benchmarking results and the need for a more
strategic approach in tackling the agreement’s
comprehensive obligations.
Local trade promotion organisations and business
support organisations (BSOs) have also been key
partners, providing business development and
export promotion services to the private sector to
understand and take advantage of the EPA. BSOs
play a critical role as they are more focused on
services that facilitate enterprise development.
To date, the main implementation issues BSOs
face include:
• Absence of clear benchmarks and targets for
monitoring achievements.
• Absence of a strategic framework to link AfT
initiatives to wider national and regional
development agendas.
•Weak donor co-ordination leading to duplicated
efforts.
•Absence of success stories for sharing and
replication from the private sector.2
National BSOs can also play an important role in
ensuring private sector benefits from the EPA,
through strategic partnerships with actors within the
AfT allocation and distribution system. These
entities often provide a direct linkage to these
intended main beneficiaries of market access
commitments under the agreement. However, given
the challenge of scale of the agreement and thus
implementation projects to be undertaken, it is
important for capacity to be built at the regional level
through clusters and other sector-wide initiatives.
This may prove critical in order for the effective and
sustainable execution of projects. While not
specifically linked to EPA projects, examples of such
may be observed in the World Bank-funded
‘Accelerate Caribbean’ training programme, focused
on creating incubation hubs that promote innovation
and entrepreneurship with BSO trained trainers.
Work of regional actors
The CARICOM Secretariat and its regional EIU
represent a key EPA implementation actor
responsible for its management and co-ordination.
Also significant has been the work of the Caribbean
Export Development Agency, largely responsible
for implementing private sector work supported by
the EU’s 9th and 10th EDFs. The Agency has
engaged in support projects concerning public-
private dialogue, training, awareness building,
trade missions, business to business matchmaking
and access to SME finance. The CDB’s work in
private sector development may also be
noteworthy as a primary stakeholder in the
implementation process.
Also noteworthy have been the activities of
regional networks, such as the CAFEIN. Within this
network of EIUs, EPA specific work groups were
established concerning relevant key
implementation areas (SPS and TBT,
implementation planning, development co-
operation, legislative frameworks, communication,
market intelligence and monitoring). With the
intention of eventually including other regional
actors, this represented an effort to establish a
platform through which key stakeholders could
actively co-ordinate and engage in the EPA
implementation process. Another such network
focused on the private sector is the Caribbean
Network of Service Coalitions (CNSC), composed
of ten CARIFORUM national coalitions of service
industries aimed at driving development of the
region’s services sector.
Such networks are important in overcoming
capacity constraints of individual state entities,
allowing for sharing and replication of best
practices, while working towards the creation of
enabling policies and advocating for any necessary
legal reforms.
Work of international actors
Within the past decade, donor agencies such as the
EU institutions, DFID, GIZ, Inter-American
Development Bank and the United Nations have
engaged in activities related to facilitating the
implementation of the EPA. Relevant activities were
largely AfT programmes aimed at addressing
CARICOM’s supply-side issues, but have also
included technical support for needed legislative
reform. Other technical support areas have included
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 3
2Nurse, K. and Greene, G. ‘Aid for Trade and export diversification: the case of Barbados’. In Jansen, M., Jallab, M. S. and M. Smeets (eds)
Connecting to global markets: Challenges and opportunities. Geneva: WTO, 2014.
training, proposal writing, project management
support, market intelligence, stakeholder
matchmaking, awareness building and public-private
dialogue facilitation. Additionally, development co-
operation instruments such as the EDF have been
utilised to provide much needed financial resources.
Administered by the CDB, the CARTFund
programme funded 18 projects in its first two years
of operation. The projects were mainly focused on
the establishment of national EIUs. However other
projects included support to the services sector,
BSO strengthening for the CNSC network and
export strategies developed for the tourism
sector.3Lessons learned revealed the need to
undertake capacity-building in project planning at
various levels throughout the region, as well as
other concerns, namely:
•limited monitoring and evaluation practices;
• weak institutional capacity among government
agencies, BSOs and regional organisations;
• limited sustainability of programmes beyond
donor funding; and
•an absence of alignment with broader country
and governmental development strategies.4
The role of AfT in filling implementation resource
gaps has proven critical in providing crucial services
needed for leveraging benefits of the agreement.
However, often times a lack of alignment of AfT
with government development strategy may lead
to minimal political will in implementation projects.
Such lack of serious government commitment may
stem from not being able to see the EPA's direct
welfare advantages, an issue which more effective
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms could
help resolve.
Consequently, in the planning process it may be
integral to consider national priorities in the
execution of AfT initiatives, which may in turn
boost implementation effectiveness and further
spur political will for action.
Impact of the CARIFORUM EPA
Official declarations and objectives made by the EU
and ACP counterparts have collectively
demonstrated the desire for an EPA agreement
that also pursues the ACP goal of sustainable
development. Approximately six years after its
signing, it is possible to benchmark progress in
three areas: market access and fair trade; policy
space; and resources for development.5
Market access and fair trade
This entails enhanced competitiveness,
addressing supply side constraints, strengthened
capacity of the domestic sector and addressing
equity issues related to poverty and gender. In an
effort to achieve this, donors such as the EU have
provided funding towards addressing technical,
non-tariff barriers and SPS issues that may
adversely impact on Caribbean exports to the EU.
However, EPA trade flows were also significantly
affected by the global recession where virtually all
CARIFORUM states saw a steep decline in the value
of their exports to the EU by one-third. In terms of
intra-regional trade, the post-EPA period showed
significant increases in some CARICOM member
states’ exports to the Dominican Republic,
particularly from Trinidad and Tobago (energy
products, fertiliser inputs, iron/steel, car batteries
and processed foods), Barbados (paper labels) and
Belize (fruit juices). Similarly, exports from the
Dominican Republic to CARICOM almost doubled in
value during 2007 to 2013 (US$76 million to US$142
million). Despite such observations, overall the EPA’s
influence for this indicator has yet to be examined.
Policy space
This encompasses enabling sustainable
development and asymmetrical liberalisation
between the EU and its ACP partner countries, while
acknowledging the potential contribution that trade
liberalisation can have on development. Policy space
here can entail the ability to manage the liberalisation
process in a phased approach. This would involve
building long run capacity and may be examined in
conjunction with good governance and institution-
building efforts necessary within developing
countries (e.g. AfT activities that focus on facilitating
trade reforms and institutional development such as
training and the ability to meet regulatory
standards6). In this regard, CARIFORUM countries,
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 4
3Gill, op. cit.
4Nurse and Greene, op. cit.
5Corrales-Leal, W. The EPAs and Sustainable Development: Benchmarks for Pro-development Monitoring of the Negotiations. Geneva
and Brussels: ICTSD and APRODEV, 2005.
6Agboghoroma, A. et al. Aid for Trade: Making trade effective for development – Case studies for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Hamburg:
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Hamburg Institute of International Economics, 2009.
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 5
with the support of AfT, have started to implement
their liberalisation commitments. Highlighted
outcomes of AfT activities have included human and
institutional capacity-building, as well as improved
processes in the CARIFORUM region. Consequently,
the reported impacts of AfT initiatives include
increased regional integration or regional trade,
the mobilisation of domestic investment, export
growth and enhanced mobilisation of foreign direct
investment. Results-based management (RBM) has
been used by some AfT actors to help track the
progress of beneficiary support such as within the
CARIFORUM states. This has assisted in capturing
relevant implementation impacts and to help
highlight valuable lessons learned.
Resources for development
This entails effective access to financial inflows to
overcome supply side constraints, institutional
adjustment, technical assistance and capacity-
building. Development co-operation and the role of
AfT have played a significant role. Overall, as much
as US$445 million of CARIFORUM’s gross official
development assistance (ODA) disbursements
were attributed to AfT activities in the areas
of ‘economic infrastructure and services’,
‘multisector/cross-cutting’ and ‘production
sectors’.7The EU institutions over the past five
years have been the leading donors of ODA to the
Caribbean region, disbursing up to US$508.67
million in funds, of which US$188 million was
provided under the 9th and 10th EDFs. UK and
German funded projects have also dedicated
US$11.4 million and US$5.7 million respectively.
Based upon one ex-ante estimate,8the
CARIFORUM’s EPA adjustment cost would be
US$1.030 billion. Despite aid inflows, there is
currently a financing gap between AfT inflows and
the total cost of EPA related adjustments. In this
regard AfT disbursements, needed to help fill
resource gaps in implementation, fall short by as
much as 57 per cent or US$585 million of the
estimated adjustment revenue needed (based
upon total ODA US$ value received). Furthermore,
AfT activities to date have focused largely on the
area of ‘skills/productivity adjustment’, while the
majority of foreseen costs estimated by Bilal and
Stevens related to ‘fiscal adjustment’ (US$418
million). Consequently, despite noteworthy
progress observed under past and ongoing AfT
interventions, this demonstrates the still existing
resource deficit that continues to exist within
CARIFORUM’s EPA implementation process.
Tracking overall EPA progress
Asignificant shortcoming of the CARIFORUM EPA
has been the lack of any harmonised overarching
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to track
implementation progress. However, a critical first
step has been achieved through insights ascertained
from studies conducted, the EU-funded five-year
review (2008–2013), and experiences recorded by
key stakeholders. Some of the main results reported
under the EU’s five-year review indicated:
• A lack of implementation and impact strongly
linked to capacity issues.
• Delays in starting EPA-related projects ‘on-the-
ground’, which significantly reduced their
potential impact. Most key CARIFORUM-EU EPA
programmes began only within the latter half of
the review period (2008–2013), implying that
measurable aggregate impacts are still well into
the future.
•The global recession has led EPA
implementation to become a second priority.
Therefore, as more co-operation projects are
implemented, there is a potential for additional
traction on the CARICOM side of the benefits
under the agreement.
• Limitations in the agreement itself. For example,
local private sector constraints were not
considered in the EPA and its corresponding role
on limiting their ability to leverage opportunities
in the agreement – such as high energy costs,
access to financing, etc.
•The importance of an agreed monitoring
mechanism going forward.9
Monitoring mechanisms used under AfT
Although no harmonised M&E mechanisms are
currently in place, AfT has proven to be a useful
means through which the EPA’s impacts could be
7OECD/DAC. Aidflows Beneficiary View: Official Development Assistance. OECD/DAC Database. 2013. http://www.aidflows.org (accessed
7July 2015).
8Bilal, S. and Stevens, C. (eds) The Interim Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and African States: Contents, challenges
and prospects. Policy Management Report, No. 17. Maastricht: ECDPM, 2009.
9Singh, R. et al. Monitoring the Implementation & Results of the CARIFORUM-EC EPA Agreement: Final Report.
EUROEPAID/129783/C/SER/multi, European Union, 2014.
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 6
Lesson Learned
Importance of leveraging external resources
such as AfT:
This can address capacity constraints and fill
resource gaps. In CARIFORUM, AfT actors have
especially done this under various internationally
financed development co-operation projects.
International actors have provided key tools as
well as crucial services that would have
otherwise been unavailable to both public and
private sector stakeholders. However, greater
need still exists to link projects to key national
trade and development priorities and thus
enhance political buy-in. Sustainability issues
can arise when donor funding ends, financially
and in terms of skills deficits.
Balancing economic commitments with
sustainable development:
Fears of adverse economic impacts and
capacity constraints to implement the EPA can
influence the implementation process leading
to a lack of policy measures enacted. However,
pre- and post-EPA economic analysis helped to
provide better guidance for CARIFORUM.
The importance of monitoring and evaluation
(M&E):
There is a need for a harmonised M&E system to
comprehensively track EPA implementation
progress. Existing studies and the work of AfT
activities have provided some insight here, where
the CARICOM Secretariat has an ongoing 2015
project to establish the first harmonised EPA
M&E system. The output of such a system could
ultimately strengthen government buy-in, with
tangible results of the implementation process to
back it up. To date AfT activities have indirectly
captured results of the implementation process.
Recommendation
The building of strategic partnerships:
Build strategic partnerships with key
stakeholders to address capacity constraints via
available AfT resources. It is important to start
planning very early as implementation of
projects can be delayed by years. AfT can be
used to strengthen or create national
institutions that are necessary for successful
EPA implementation. The sustainability of AfT
should always be considered in the planning
process, with the strong involvement and
building of local actors for continuation beyond
the conclusion of external support. Donor and
stakeholder co-ordination should also be
encouraged to ensure efficiency through
harmonised efforts.
Gain a clear understanding of varying socio-
economic and cultural contexts:
Research should be undertaken before and after
EPA signing to support policy-makers and
implementers, and should highlight the effects
on national development from EPA
implementation. This helps with political buy-in
from all stakeholders. It also assists external
development co-operation actors to better
understand local socio-economic conditions and
the implementation capacity of respective
partner countries – that is, business culture,
needed policy changes, bureaucratic and
administrative structures, etc. Such factors
should guide the implementation planning
process, with stakeholder analysis conducted.
Programmes should be able to adapt to
accommodate the realities of local actors.
Early establishment of a harmonised M&E
system:
From the outset of EPA implementation,
benchmarking and identification of overarching
progress indicators with key partners should be
undertaken. This may assist in detecting
shortcomings and should include mechanisms for
reform where necessary. M&E framework should
have accompanying tools for data capturing,
analysis and reporting of all implementation work
conducted with key partners. Such mechanisms
should be sustainable, easy to use and cheap due
to limited capacities and resources of developing
country partners, where free online platforms
may be useful.
No.
1
2
3
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 7
analysed to date. Responsible entities tend to be
international agencies where M&E mechanisms
are mandatory. The CARICOM Secretariat has
also been a key political partner and Caribbean
Export (the only regional trade and development
agency, charged with executing EDF funds for
trade facilitation related to the EPA)10 alikewise
partner for the private sector. GIZ and Caribbean
Export have attempted to harmonise their
monitoring mechanisms employed, where
information has been gathered via online surveys,
interviews, external assessments and end of
workshop evaluations.
In terms of the national mechanisms to capture
such data, a GIZ 2014 EIU assessment revealed
that so far only four countries have a monitoring
implementation matrix, of which only two include
progress indicators. While two of these countries
assessed their existing monitoring plan as
‘adequate’, they lacked progress indicators to
more effectively keep track of successes achieved
and obstacles which may arise. All other national
EIU respondents perceived their monitoring tool as
‘inadequate’. However, an ongoing 2015 CARICOM
Secretariat and GIZ initiative plans to help
establish the much needed M&E system for the
EPA. Such an M&E system can help enhance
transparency and accountability in matters of
trade regime reform, and serve thereby as a tool
for advocacy.11
Conclusion
The EPA, its regulatory challenges and market
opportunities remain a fairly muted topic both
within the Caribbean and the EU. Due to its
comprehensive nature, there remains a significantly
unfinished implementation agenda to complete
before the CARIFORUM-EU EPA can lead to
noteworthy impacts upon the CARIFORUM states’
trade and development. However, through AfT
assessment one can determine that at least in the
area of building productive capacities, some
headway has been made. Nonetheless, additional
progress has yet to be further built upon, where the
introduction of monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms has been a vast shortcoming identified,
with ongoing steps made to address this issue.
10 Caribbean Export Development Agency. Caribbean Export: About us. 2015. www.carib-export.com (accessed 7 July 2015).
11 Bennett, J. Results-based monitoring and evaluation for trade facilitation: Practical guidelines. Bridgetown, Barbados: Caribbean Export
Development Agency and GIZ, 2012.
Previous Ten Issues of the
Commonwealth Trade Hot
Topics Series
Issue 120: Small States' Trade with Developing
Countries: Trends and Issues
Issue 119: The Ebola Crisis in West Africa:
Implications for Trade and Regional
Integration
Issue 118: Trade in Environmental Goods and
Services: Issues and Interests for Small
States
Issue 117: Emerging Investment Rules in Mega
Trading Blocs: Implications for
Developing Countries
Issue 116: The Importance of Trade and Productive
Capacity Post-2015: Lessons from the
Pacific
Issue 115: Sequencing the Implementation of
Obligations in WTO Negotiations
Issue 114: Do Green Box Subsidies Distort
Agricultural Production and International
Trade?
Issue 113: Trading with the Rising South: Challenges
and Opportunities for Sub-Saharan Africa
Issue 112: Fit for Purpose?: The Multilateral Trading
System and the Post-2015 Development
Agenda
Issue 111: Operationalising Stiglitz-Charlton
Proposals for Incorporating Right to
Trade and Development in WTO Dispute
Settlement Procedures: Some Thoughts
Trade Hot
Topics
ISSN: 2071-8527 (print) ISSN: 2071-9914 (online)
Commonwealth Trade Hot Topics is a peer-reviewed
publication which provides concise and informative
analyses on trade and related issues, prepared both by
Commonwealth Secretariat and international experts.
Series editor: Dr Mohammad A Razzaque
Produced by Trade Division of the Commonwealth
Secretariat
For further information or to contribute to the Series,
please email m.razzaque@commonwealth.int
Issue 121 | 2015 | Page 8

