Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its Member States and the CARIFORUM Member States

(1)

Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its

Member States and the

CARIFORUM Member States

Implementation Report

(2)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Trade,

Directorate for Africa, Caribbean and Pacific, Asia (II), Trade and Sustainable Development, Green Deal;

Unit C1, Economic Partnership Agreements - Africa, Caribbean and Pacific, Overseas Countries and Territories

E-mail: TRADE-EPA-CARIFORUM-STUDY@ec.europa.eu

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

Prepared by Appleton Luff Author David Luff

(3)

Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its

Member States and the

CARIFORUM Member States

Implementation report

(4)

4 LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-22285-9 doi: 10.2781/703226 NG-02-20-748-EN-N

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

(5)

REPORT STRUCTURE

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction and methodology

I.

Objectives II. Outline

III. Overall Methodology

Chapter 2. EPA Parties’ Trade Policy State of Play I. European Union

II. CARIFORUM

III. Ratification status of the CARIFORUM – EU EPA

Chapter 3. Implementation of liberalisation commitments I. Trade in Goods

a. Tariff bindings

b. Elimination of other duties and charges c. Elimination of export duties

d. Non-discrimination e. Quantitative restrictions f. Transparency

II. Trade in Services

a. Services schedules of commitments b. Non-discrimination

c. Regional integration- Progressive removal of barriers between CARIFORUM States

d. Ongoing liberalisation

e. Entry of key personnel, graduate trainees and business sellers, contractual service suppliers and independent professionals

f. Transparency

Chapter 4. Implementation of regulatory commitments I. Trade in Goods

a. Customs and Trade Facilitation b. Specific rules for agricultural goods c. Rules of origin

d. Technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures e. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures

f. Trade defence II. Trade in Services

a. Courier services

b. Telecommunications services c. Financial services

d. International Maritime Transport e. Tourism and cultural cooperation

f. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications III. Electronic commerce

IV. Capital Movement V. Intellectual Property VI. Protection of Personal data VII. Public procurement

VIII. Investment IX. Competition rules

X. Sustainable development and social aspects XI. Regional Preference

XII. Outermost Regions of the EU

(8)

8

Chapter 5. Implementation of Institutional Aspects I. Joint Institutions

II. Monitoring

III. Development Cooperation IV. Dialogue

Chapter 6. Summary regarding implementation, trade irritants and challenges I. Progress achieved since the September 2014 five-year review

II. Shortcomings

III. Conclusions regarding the implementation of the EPA IV. Remaining trade irritants

III. Challenges regarding implementation

Chapter 7. Conclusions and recommendations

I. Overall conclusion regarding implementation and challenges

ANNEXES

Annex 1. List of documents obtained from consultations

Annex 2. Questionnaire sent to stakeholders to collect implementation information

Annex 3. List of consulted stakeholders

Annex 4. Analysis of tariff compliance for CARIFORUM countries Annex 5. Summary of Services Commitments

Annex 6. Summary of Implementation gaps of the CARIFORUM – EU Economic Partnership Agreement

Annex 7. Summary Business Climate improvements of CARIFORUM countries

(9)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific States

AEO Authorized Economic Operator

CAHFSA Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CARIFORUM Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

CCP Common Commercial Policy

CDB Caribbean Development Bank

COTED Council for Trade and Economic Development CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism CRIP Caribbean Regional Indicative Programme

CRITI Caribbean Regional Institute for Communications and Translations CROSQ Caribbean Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality CRNM Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery

CRSTDP Regional Sustainable Tourism Development Programme CSME CARICOM Single Market and Economy

CTO Caribbean Tourism Organisation

CV Customs Valuation

DR Dominican Republic

EC European Commission

ECTEL Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority

EDF European Development Fund

EPA Economic Partnership Agreement

ESFS European System of Financial Supervision

EU European Union

EUD European Delegation

FTA Free Trade Area

IICA Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura

IP Intellectual Property

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ISO International Standardisation Organisation

IT Information Technology

LAC Latin American Countries

MFN Most-Favoured-Nation

MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement

OCTs Overseas Countries and Territories

ODC Other Duty and Charge

OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

OIE Office International des Épizooties (World Organization for Animal Health)

OTN Office of Trade Negotiations

RoO Rule of Origin

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SG Secretary General

SME Small and Medium-size enterprise

SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary

TBT Technical Barrier to Trade

TEU Treaty on European Union

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TORs Terms of Reference

TPR Trade Policy Review

TRIPs Trade-related aspects of the protection of intellectual property rights

UCC Union Customs Code

USTR United States Trade Representative WCO World Customs Organisation

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation

(10)

(11)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives

This report provides a preliminary assessment of the implementation of the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) by the parties to the EPA. It indicates whether and to what extent, at this date, the parties to the EPA have implemented the EPA provisions. It furthermore identifies critical implementation issues. The assessment is based on prima facie evidence of the existence of adequate implementation actions and measures by the countries concerned. However, none of the assessments made may be deemed to constitute a definitive legal opinion of the exact nature of implementation. Such legal opinion would require a much deeper analysis of the details of each measure considering the EPA obligations, which is beyond the scope of this study. The report is part of the Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its Member States and the CARIFORUM Member States and serves as input for the Final Report for this evaluation.

Methodology

The tentative assessment of the implementation of the EPA was carried out in two phases: an information-gathering phase and an analysis phase.

The information-gathering phase consisted of internet research covering all relevant websites in the EU and the CARIFORUM regions, a collection of laws, regulations, treaties, reports and studies, the preparation and dissemination of questionnaires to the key stakeholders, face-to- face interviews with stakeholders, remote interviews with stakeholders, and the outcome of the Open Public Consultation, although the survey responses received from such consultation has not proven relevant for the purposes of the identification of implementation gaps of the EPA.¹ The analysis phase entailed an examination of the information obtained to identify the state of play of the implementation of the EPA. Where possible, the information provided by the

stakeholders was verified with documents obtained through internet research or provided by the stakeholders themselves.

EPA Parties’ Trade Policy State of Play CARIFORUM States

The Caribbean Forum (CARIFORUM) was established in 1992 in order to encourage cooperation between Caribbean countries and the European Union. Its members include 14 members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) plus Cuba and the Dominican Republic (DR). With the exception of Cuba, all other Member States are signatories to the ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement and the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement.

The CARIFORUM does not have an autonomous trade policy. Hence, trade policy must be analysed at the level of the separate members of CARIFORUM. 14 CARIFORUM States are also Members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The CARICOM was created by the original Treaty establishing the Caribbean Community and Common Market of 1973 and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing the Caribbean Community and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) of 2001. Article 82 of the revised Treaty of Charaguamas provides for a Common External Tariff and Article 80 provides for coordination of the external trade policy of the CARICOM Member States. CARICOM countries jointly concluded several trade agreements with third parties:

• the CARICOM-Venezuela FTA;

• the CARICOM-Colombia Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement;

• the CARICOM-Dominican Republic FTA;

• the partial scope CARICOM-Cuba Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement; and

• the partial scope CARICOM-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement.

CARICOM countries also have separate preferential agreements with third countries.

The Dominican Republic (DR) conducts its trade policy autonomously. In addition to its

agreement with the CARICOM countries, the DR has concluded the Dominican Republic-Central

1 For a more elaborate description of the stakeholder consultations, please see the final report for the ex-

(12)

12

America Free Trade Agreement with the United States (DR-CAFTA) as well as an FTA with Central America and a partial scope preferential trade agreement with Panama.

In December 2007, the CARIFORUM–EU negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) were completed. The agreement was signed in October 2008 and it entered into provisional application on 29 December 2008. The EPA is a comprehensive reciprocal trading arrangement that replaces the one-way preferential access the Cotonou Agreement conferred to the ACP States. The EPA covers trade in goods, services, investment, e-commerce and trade related issues (competition, innovation and intellectual property, personal data protection and public procurement). It also contains a development component to assist the CARIFORUM in promoting its developmental strategies and to mitigate adverse effects of the EPA. Haiti signed but has not ratified the Agreement yet. Based on its constitutional order, Haiti can only start applying the EPA once it has ratified the Agreement.

All CARIFORUM States, except the Bahamas, are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Bahamas has an observer status at the WTO and is well advanced in the process of accession to the WTO.

European Union and its Member States

The Common Commercial Policy (CCP) of the European Union (EU) mandates the EU to

negotiate, conclude and implement trade agreements with other countries of the world. It finds its basis in Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

In all areas covered by the WTO, as well as in foreign direct investment and harmonisation of trade-related measures, the European Union has exclusive competence. This means that the EU Member States no longer have the authority to legislate or conclude agreements with third countries on any of these matters. Only the European Union, through its institutions, may do so.

Under the CCP, the EU has negotiated and concluded no less than 38 trade agreements, which are all in force. In addition, several trade agreements are provisionally applied, pending ratification.

Ratification status of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA

25 out of 28 EU countries and 10 out of 14 analysed CARIFORUM countries ratified the Agreement. This represents a substantial increase since the last Review of 2014.

The Agreement is now under provisional application by virtue of Council Decision of 15 July 2008 on the signature and provisional application of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part.

Implementation of liberalisation commitments

Shortcomings in the implementation can be identified regarding liberalisation commitments for goods and services. The 2014 CARIFORUM-EU EPA Implementation Review already identified several implementation deficits. Nevertheless, progress can be observed in the CARIFORUM countries and in the EU since the last review.

Goods

Imports of originating products from the EU into the CARIFORUM States are exempt from all customs duties² other than those listed in Annex III of the Agreement. Annex III contains the schedule of tariff liberalisation of the CARIFORUM States and indicates the maximum customs duty that may be applied at the HS 6-digit level. It also specifies exceptions for particular CARIFORUM States, where relevant. At the end of the progressive liberalisation, the percentage of tariff lines of the CARIFORUM countries for which customs duties will be authorized should vary between 8.6 % (Dominican Republic) and 13.5 %(Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines).³ At the end of the process, the number of the remaining dutiable

2 “Duties” within the meaning of Article 11 of the Agreement.

3 World Trade Organization, Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, Factual Presentation, Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States and the European Union, WT/REG255/1, 31 May 2018.

(13)

tariff lines range between 604 (Dominican Republic) and 870 (Grenada). The average final dutiable tariffs range between 20 % (Dominican Republic) and 31.6 % (Bahamas).⁴

The CARIFORUM States excluded from the liberalisation commitments so-called sensitive products up to 13.1% of the value of their imports, thus collectively liberalising their trade with the EU for at least 86.9% of it. The main sensitive products excluded from tariff liberalisation on the Caribbean side are in the sectors of spirits, alcoholic beverages, agricultural and processed agricultural products; chemicals, furniture and some other industrial products.

Several CARIFORUM countries did not implement their tariffs commitments, and they maintain export duties and quantitative restrictions. These commitments are certainly among the basic elements of the Agreement, and the failure to implement them neutralises the impact of the Agreement in the countries concerned and limits benefits for EU exporters. CARIFORUM

countries also exhibit important transparency deficits regarding their tariffs. This is exacerbated by lack of completion of the transposition process from HS2002 to 2017 for all CARIFORUM States.

While the EU maintains duty free quota free access for CARIFORUM exports, CARIFORUM countries express concern with the “Octroi de Mer”. Other concerns regarding the EU relate to its numerous and often changing technical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary

measures, which are seen by some countries as de facto import restrictions and limit the benefits accruing to CARIFORUM countries from the EPA.

Services

Implementation issues related to trade in services concern market access and national treatment commitments of the CARIFORUM States.

Overall, each CARIFORUM country has significantly extended the sector coverage and the level of commitments under the EPA as compared to GATS. Several CARIFORUM States reported that they had not completed the implementation of their market access commitments yet.

Furthermore, violations of national treatment were observed in a few CARIFORUM States.

Overall market access rights granted by CARIFORUM Member States to EU providers are also more limited than commitments taken by the EU.

On the EU side, while liberalisation commitments are larger, CARIFORUM States complain that burdensome domestic legislation in EU Member States can in practice limit their expected benefits under the EPA. This concerns demanding qualification requirements, lack of recognition of professional qualifications, lengthy and complicated authorisation and registration

procedures, residency requirements in certain services sectors, restrictions on real-estate purchases, and immigration procedures. CARIFORUM countries, consider their market access undermined in the EU with respect to Mode 4 (movement of natural persons) due to

immigration policy – which is in large part outside the scope of the Agreement – in several EU Member States.

The EPA Parties have not initiated further negotiations to liberalise investment and trade in services. Article 62 of the EPA prescribes entering into such negotiations not later than five years from the EPA’s entry into force. The Agreement only entered into provisional application.

However, CARIFORUM countries have expressed a clear offensive interest in this sector.

Implementation of Regulatory Commitments

Similarly, concerning regulatory commitments, the shortcomings are identified in both trade in goods and trade in services. Several shortcomings are also observed in the cross-cutting regulatory issues of the EPA, such as intellectual property, public procurement, and competition policy.

Goods

As far as goods are concerned, critical shortcomings are observed in the CARIFORUM States concerning trade facilitation. All countries surveyed, except the Dominican Republic, are below the average of the Latin American and the Caribbean region according to OECD Trade

Facilitation Indicators. This is also the case for the transparency obligations regarding the

(14)

14

customs fees and procedures in CARIFORUM Countries. This stated, this review registers significant progress in this area since the 2014 review.

Other shortcomings observed in the CARIFORUM concern the likely maintenance of export subsidies in few countries and the existence of quantitative restrictions towards agricultural products originating in other CARIFORUM countries. Possible shortcomings may exist regarding the adoption of technical regulations, standards and SPS measures of several CARIFORUM countries, given the complaints that WTO Members have expressed. However, only a deeper analysis of the particular SPS or TBT issues raised would allow an assessment of their compliance with EPA and such analysis would fall outside the scope of this report. Serious shortcomings are observed with respect to the transparency requirements of the EPA, especially the countries’ SPS measures, despite progress observed in the implementation of the TBT and SPS transparency commitments when compared to 2014.

On the EU side, although overall the trade facilitation commitments are implemented, difficulties for CARIFORUM economic operators arise from the fact that the EU customs legislation is

implemented by the EU Member States and that national rules are scattered in different documents, complicating the practical interaction with national customs authorities. For the same practical reasons, CARIFORUM exporters have difficulties to access recourse procedures in EU Member States.

The regulatory “Acquis” regarding the EU’s quality infrastructure, known as the “New Legislative Framework”, is perceived by the EU’s trading partners, including CARIFORUM countries, as particularly burdensome. The latter must establish the necessary infrastructures and capacity to comply with the EU requirements. This is a major area of concern for CARIFORUM’s exports.

Generally, CARIFORUM States demand more cooperation between the EU and the individual CARIFORUM States on all issues affecting their trade in goods with the EU. They also demand more cooperation to facilitate addressing technical barriers to trade and meeting SPS

requirements. There is a concern, resulting from the feedback obtained on the ground, that technical assistance is concentrated at the regional level in the CARIFORUM, generating a sense that the needs of individual CARIFORUM countries are insufficiently addressed in this respect.

Services

As far as services are concerned, a lack of adequate regulation, as required in the EPA, is observed in the CARIFORUM countries in the sectors of courier services, telecommunication services, financial services and tourism services. Most shortcomings are observed regarding the insufficient regulation to prevent abusive or anti-competitive practices in the sectors concerned and insufficient protection of personal data in the financial services sector. Progress, however, is observed in relation to the establishment of the telecommunication authority in all CARIFORUM countries. Furthermore, twelve out of fourteen CARIFORUM countries developed their own environmental and sustainable standards in tourism.

On the EU side, while the regulatory requirements of the EPA are generally fulfilled in the services sectors, concerns arise with respect to the implementation of the EPA requirements regarding cultural cooperation, as enshrined in the Protocol III of the EPA. This is despite some progress observed in this area since six CARIFORUM countries indicated they have engaged with the EU or its Member States to facilitate exchanges of cultural activities, goods and services. A UNESCO study concluded that market access for cultural services, artists and performers of the CARIFORUM States in the EU has not improved in practice. The authors of the study refer to remaining and often divergent economic needs tests and professional qualification requirements in the EU Member States as a problem. They also refer to the burdensome visa requirements in the EU Member States as an even bigger problem. While the EU is providing substantial funding to facilitate the implementation of the EPA, as well as cultural initiatives, there do not seem to be specific actions, which would grant preferences not available elsewhere, to the CARIFORUM States under Protocol III.

Another area where the EPA falls short of expectations concerns the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Other than efforts conducted for architectural services in CARIFORUM, no work is ongoing to develop joint recommendations potentially leading to negotiations on a mutual recognition agreement between the CARIFORUM States and the EU.

Cross-cutting regulatory commitments

Shortcomings and progress are observed in the CARIFORUM countries in the following areas:

(15)

• Electronic commerce: some countries still apply customs duties on electronic deliveries.

Efforts are insufficient to maintain a dialogue with other EPA Parties on regulatory issues raised by electronic commerce and to exchange information on legislation regarding electronic commerce and consumer protection;

• Capital movement: restrictions on international payments are observed in the Bahamas.

Several countries did not provide information in this regard;

• Intellectual property: in several CARIFORUM countries, one can observe:

- a lack of abidance by the existing IP Treaties and the TRIPS, despite several CARIFORUM countries acceding to relevant international treaties during the review period;

- a lack of enhanced protection of geographical indications and the preservation of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore; and

- a lack of mechanisms to ensure effective enforcement of the protection of intellectual property rights. Several countries state they do not have an independent judicial system that can provide preliminary injunctions and final rulings regarding intellectual property rights.

• Generally, there is insufficient cooperation and dialogue regarding the transfer of technology;

• However, there have been new initiatives to strengthen the protection of IP rights in the CARIFORUM countries including new intellectual property or revisions of intellectual property legislation and drafting process. Some progress was also observed in the field of regional integration as regards patent administration, harmonisation of regional trademark legislation and regional Trademark Manual;

• Protection of personal data: several countries failed to establish appropriate legal and regulatory regimes to ensure an adequate level of protection of individuals regarding the processing of personal data;

• Public procurement: several laws were adopted in the area of public procurement.

However, some shortcomings are observed in CARIFORUM countries with respect to non-discrimination and transparency. More important deficiencies are reported in the area of tendering processes and awarding steps of tenders, including a lack of

publication of award procedures. However, most CARIFORUM countries did not provide sufficient information regarding their tendering procedures to enable a proper

assessment of compliance in this regard;

• Investment: regulatory prescriptions are insufficient to affect the behaviour of investors and to prevent their possible abuses, such as corruption, circumvention of core labour standards or environmental obligations to which the hosting country committed under public international law. Furthermore, there has not been a review of the investment- related provisions of the EPA three years after the entry into force of the Agreement, as prescribed by the EPA;

• Competition: shortcomings are observed in several CARIFORUM countries regarding the lack of adoption of a domestic competition legal framework, including for State-owned trading enterprises. However, for the countries that are CARICOM Members, such deficiency may be partially resolved by the common rules of the CSME, as far as anti- competitive cross-border conduct is concerned;

• Regional preference: several CARIFORUM countries indicated either they do not extend to all CARIFORUM countries the more favourable treatment they granted to the EU or they did not provide information in this regard. However, the implementation of this commitment has now largely improved since several countries joined the group of compliant countries;

• Sustainable development: environmental standards, the right to collective bargaining, freedom of association, the prohibition of child labour and the prohibition of forced labour are overall better respected and employment discrimination is better regulated in the CARIFORUM countries than in the 2014 Review period.

On the EU side, EPA implementation concerns are:

• Electronic commerce: a lack of sufficient regulatory dialogue;

• Intellectual property: a lack of sustained dialogue and cooperation on technology transfer and technical innovations, cooperation among research teams and technical centres, exchanges of scholars, and joint research networks. Difficulties in obtaining visas can in practice limit the expected benefits of the EPA in this regard.

One can observe an overall insufficient targeted dialogue on the EPA’s regulatory issues among the EPA Parties, other than the technical assistance activities. The latter, however, seldom influence the higher levels of power in the countries concerned.

Implementation of institutional commitments

(16)

16

High-level dialogue is supposed to be conducted through the CARIFORUM-EU institutions. While these institutions were established and meetings were conveyed, perhaps this dialogue is not focused enough on finding solutions to the specific situations and cases affecting individual countries. The Committee on Trade in Services, the establishment of which was agreed at the Joint Council 2017, has not started its operations yet.

A rather important implementation shortcoming concerns the lack of establishment of a joint mechanism for EPA monitoring, "with the objective of having it in place in time to inform the second five year review of the EPA, scheduled for 2020". The absence of such mechanism resulted in there being no formal benchmarks or indicators to assess the effectiveness of the EPA. This affected the extent to which the Parties could utilise objective data on regular basis to assess and make decisions regarding the operation of the EPA.

Regarding the development cooperation aspects of the EPA, the EU has released substantial funds dedicated to EPA implementation, in the context of the Caribbean Regional Indicative Programme (CRIP) that is provided under the Cotonou Agreement. The EU also funded several technical assistance (TA) programmes for the benefit of the CARIFORUM region. Only an in- depth analysis of the evaluation reports of these TA programmes would enable a robust conclusion regarding the effectiveness and sustainability of the EU development cooperation efforts, but the number of evaluations is still limited. Reports of critical TA programmes, such as the 10^th Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Project, have not been made available yet. A more in- depth assessment of development co-operation is provided in the final report of this evaluation.

Remaining trade irritants

Despite some progress achieved since the 2014 Review, trade irritants remain numerous, limiting the most substantial expected market access benefits for the parties.

Among the trade irritants observed are those that result from a clear lack of implementation of the EPA, as indicated above. Most of these irritants are found on the CARIFORUM side, although the EU itself cannot be exempt from criticism.

Other trade irritants are not necessarily due to violations of the EPA, but due to burdensome and at times confusing domestic regulations of the EPA Parties. The practical difficulties to trade resulting from these regulations limit the expected benefits of the Agreement. This criticism is typically addressed to the EU in relation to both goods and services. Heavy technical rules and SPS requirements require the CARIFORUM countries to put in place the necessary

infrastructures and capacity to comply with these requirements. Immigration policies, which fall outside the scope of the Agreement, limit in practice the expected benefits from services commitments, especially regarding Mode 4 (movement of natural persons).

For the EPA to deliver its expected benefits and maintain its legitimacy for the EPA Parties, it would be important to address both categories of trade irritants, not only those that are a violation of the EPA.

Challenges regarding implementation

For the EPA to be fully implemented, several challenges need to be addressed.

Firstly, there is a need to improve the transparency of all measures of EPA parties that affect the functioning of the Agreement. Transparency requirements appear throughout the

Agreement. They concern trade in goods, trade in services, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, public procurement and other trade-related areas.

Shortfalls concerning transparency were detected with respect to EPA implementation by both Parties: CARIFORUM and the EU. All EPA Parties complain about the availability and quality of the information of the other Parties. Poor quality or availability of information makes it hardly possible for the Parties to use it and take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Agreement. This refers in particular to important need to increase a transparency of applicable EPA rates in the CARIFORUM and completing of the HS transposition process.

Secondly, there is a need to improve the awareness of the EPA. The 2014 EPA Implementation Review noted that despite the dissemination efforts by national and regional bodies, there was a perception of an “information deficit” with respect to the rights and responsibilities under the Agreement, particularly among the private sector. Although information continues to be disseminated through different channels, the 2019 consultations show that the perception remains. Business operators, investors and other stakeholders interviewed reported that they were not familiar with the opportunities stemming from the EPA. The language and structure of

(17)

the EPA are considered too technical and complex to enable SMEs to take advantage of the Agreement. Hence, unless being supported by professional lawyers, it is difficult for private operators to exercise market access rights offered by the Agreement, especially towards public administrations, such as customs authorities, or regulatory bodies, which have responsibilities under the Agreement. The information deficit remains certainly one of the major challenges in the effective implementation of the EPA.

Thirdly, there is a need to address the capacity constraints in the Cariforum States and in the EU related to the EPA implementation. The 2014 Report stressed that capacity-building needs are consistently highlighted throughout the EPA. This concerns the needs of public

administrations as well as economic operators. Despite the mobilised capacity-building actions by the EU and several development agencies and committed funds dedicated to the EPA

implementation during the current review period, consultations conducted in the field reveal the problem remains. The 2019 consultations with CARIFORUM institutions, business associations and investment stakeholders confirm the strong capacity-building needs in the CARIFORUM countries.

Fourthly, budgetary constraints of SMEs must be better considered. The difficulties of medium or small businesses seem not to be sufficiently addressed under the EPA despite the specific private sector development programme in place.⁵ The SMEs face high costs to adjust to the needs of both inter-regional trade and the even more burdensome environment and

complex markets in the EU. The availability of capital to make the necessary investments is not guaranteed given the remaining perception of risk to accede to third markets. In the absence of a capacity of private operators to take advantage of the EPA, the risk is that the agreement remains an empty shell for them. This may lead to lower levels of ownership of the agreement in the countries concerned, and therefore lower pressure to foster implementation. The issue also arises for public agencies, which lack sufficient resources to provide all services which would enable economic operators to fully take advantage of the EPA. National EPA Units complain they often lack resources to operate effectively. However, as already indicated in the 2014 Review, the resources vary depending on the country and their governments’ willingness to dedicate funds to the EPA implementation.

Fifthly, lack of political willingness to implement is observed in the Cariforum region. There are aspects where implementation is not a priority for the parties, especially in light of civil society concerns regarding the possible adverse economic impacts of the EPA, existing capacity and budgetary constraints to implement the EPA, and the remaining obstacles to take

advantage of it. There is also a growing popular demand in the CARIFORUM countries and the EU countries to better encourage local economic ties as a factor of social cohesion and

production and distribution practices based on the shortest distance of transportation.

The research and 2019 consultations revealed that there is actually no apparent conflict or political priority given over the EPA to other trade agreements.

Sixthly, there is a need to improve the business climate in the CARIFORUM countries. A positive business climate is certainly among the factors that facilitate the investments required to adjust to the EPA and take advantage of it. According to the World Bank 2020 “Doing Business” Report, none of the CARIFORUM countries is placed in the top 50 countries as far as ease of doing business is concerned. It results from the Report that the business environment of CARIFORUM countries is relatively poor as compared to the EU Members’ business climate and this should thus be addressed.

Conclusions

Overall, this independent report highlighted several shortcomings in the implementation of the EPA, throughout all topics of the Agreement. This situation was observed in 2019, more than ten years after the entry into force of the agreement. It seems that Parties underestimated the implementation capacities in the negotiations or the difficulty of the proper and adequate follow- up of the EPA implementation.

Our analysis has identified the main reasons for which the agreement is only partially implemented.

5 Private Sector Development Programme implemented by the Caribbean Export Development Agency:

(18)

18

In the CARIFORUM countries, the main reasons for partial implementation stem from protectionist pressures of industry or protectionist reflex of governments to deficient administration, lack of regulatory capacity and initiative, and budgetary constraints.

Importantly, poor perception of opportunities stemming from the agreement also discourage implementation efforts and political drive for them.

In the EU, there are no real implementation issues, but mostly trade irritants, which can be explained by the realities of EU integration and the subsidiarity principle of the EU regarding, for instance, the scattering of national rules implementing the EU Customs Code or cultural

cooperation. Other trade irritants stem form industry protectionist pressures, development of science or simply legislative activity regarding the often changing technical regulations, standards and SPS requirements, public pressure regarding the high level of protection of technical regulations, standards and SPS requirements and heavy regulation in services. Other concerns relate to public pressure regarding immigration laws, insufficient political drive to achieve cooperation in cultural matters, insufficient dialogue on electronic commerce, and insufficient dialogue and cooperation on technology transfer and technical innovations. There may also be capacity shortcomings in the EU to deploy relevant cooperation activities and dialogue with EPA parties. There is also a drive in the EU to protect the interest of outermost regions, which is at the source of the Octroi de Mer tax in outermost regions, and which irritates Cariforum countries.

The most important challenge to foster implementation of the EPA lies in the need to foster real ownership of the agreement and proactively seek to ensure it produces benefits for all parties. The main obstacle in the implementation of the EPA lies in the insufficient interest the EPA generates in the productive sectors of the Cariforum economies. The economic operators in the Cariforum States, especially micro, small and medium size companies find it almost

impossible to take advantage of the market access opportunities in the EU due to the existing trade irritants in the EU market and capacity constraints. It is essential to obtain private-sector support and political drive for the full implementation of EPA.

(19)

1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 Objectives

This report provides a preliminary assessment of the implementation of the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) by the parties to the EPA.

It indicates whether and to what extent, at this date, the parties to the EPA have implemented the EPA provisions and it identifies critical implementation issues. Where a lack of

implementation is observed, this report highlights the possible reasons for it.

The assessment is based on evidence and information obtained in the EPA parties, in accordance with the methodology indicated in section III below.

Reference is hereby made to the summary of the EU-CARIFORUM EPA, which is provided in Annex A of the Inception Report.

1.2 Outline

This report analyses the implementation of the EPA for each CARIFORUM country and for the European Union (EU) as a whole. Indeed, at the EU level, almost all obligations of the EPA fall within the exclusive competence of the European Union. For those limited areas that fall under the shared competence of the European Union and its Member States, a separate analysis is provided.

The analysis of the implementation provides a preliminary assessment of implementation of each key provision of the EPA. The assessment is based on prima facie evidence of the existence of adequate implementation actions and measures by the countries concerned.

However, none of the assessments made may be deemed to constitute a definitive legal opinion of the exact nature of implementation. Such legal opinion would require a much deeper analysis of the details of each measure considering the EPA obligations, which is beyond the scope of this study.

In other words, should the assessment be made that adequate action or measures are taken to implement the EPA, this should not mean that no violation could be found from a deeper assessment of the details of the measure adopted (it could be a law or regulation) or the way the measure is applied in practice. Inversely, should the assessment be made that there does not appear to be a proper implementation measure, this should not mean that necessarily the country concerned is in breach of the EPA. A relevant measure may simply not have been brought to the consultants’ attention. Indeed, given the limited on-line availability of the

information required to carry out the implementation assessment, the consultants had to rely to a large extent on interviews on the ground with key stakeholders. Of course, interview results do not constitute robust legal evidence, nor do they present a guarantee of objectivity and neutrality. Where possible, the consultants based their assessments on the text of existing laws and regulations. Details of the methodology followed are found in Section III.

This report provides a summary of the areas of concern, per EPA obligation. Chapter 3 deals with the market access commitments of the EPA parties. Chapter 4 highlights areas of concern related to the implementation of the regulatory commitments of the EPA.

Chapter 5 analyses the establishment and operation of the joint institutions provided in the EPA:

the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council, the CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee, the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee, the CARIFORUM-EU Consultative Committee, and the Special Committee on Customs Cooperation and Trade Facilitation. Possible concerns regarding the level of cooperation and dialogue within these committees are highlighted, as well as the prospects for the creation of a Special Committee on Services, which is desired by the CARIFORUM States.

In addition to the above-mentioned implementation analysis, this Report contains Chapter 6, which summarises the observed trade irritants among the parties and whether they are covered by the EPA. It addresses the most immediate implementation challenges, and the reasons behind them, which may be a lack of political willingness, a lack of capacity, budgetary

constraints, a priority given to, or conflict with, other trade agreements, insufficient awareness of the EPA and/or a poor business environment.

(20)

20

The Report concludes with Chapter 7, which provides recommendations for implementing the EPA, and proposes immediate measures (low-hanging fruit) that could be taken to foster cooperation and goodwill among the parties.

1.3 Overall Methodology

The tentative assessment of the implementation of the EPA was carried out in two phases: an information-gathering phase and an analysis phase.

1. Information gathering

The information-gathering phase consisted of:

• Internet research covering the relevant websites of:

- the governments and relevant ministries of each country;

- the customs authorities of each country;

- the regional organisations in the Caribbean:

▪ CARICOM Secretariat;

▪ CARIFORUM Directorate;

▪ The Office of Trade Negotiations;

▪ Caribbean Export Development Agency;

▪ The Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (CROSQ);

▪ Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA);

▪ Caricom Competition Commission (CCC).

- the European Union:

▪ European Commission;

▪ European Parliament;

▪ Market Access database.

- existing international standardisation organisations;

- the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the CODEX Alimentarius, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE);

- the World Trade Organisation (WTO);

- the International Labour Organisation (ILO);

- other relevant international organisations such as:

▪ World Bank;

▪ International Monetary Fund (IMF);

▪ Organisation of American States (OAS);

▪ United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.

- academic institutions (ECLAC);

- think tanks (such as the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM).

• The list of documents obtained (laws, regulations, treaties, reports and studies) is included in Annex 1 of this Report;

• Preparation and dissemination of questionnaires to the key stakeholders. The questionnaires used are included in Annex 2 of this Report;

• Face-to-face interviews with stakeholders. The list of stakeholders interviewed is included in Annex 3 of this Report;

• Remote interviews with stakeholders. The list of stakeholders interviewed remotely or consulted via questionnaire is included in Annex 3 of this Report;

• Preparation of summary country reports, aggregating the information obtained through the responses to the questionnaires and the interviews (face-to-face and remote) with the key stakeholders;

• Outcome of the public stakeholders’ consultation, although the report received from such consultation has not proven relevant for the purposes of the identification of implementation gaps of the EPA.

The process of identifying stakeholder identification and selection and how information was gathered from them is explained in the Inception Report. It entailed work by local consultants in the countries concerned and the extensive cooperation of the national EPA coordinators of the EPA countries.

2. Analysis

Based on the information obtained, the Consultants analysed the state of play of the

implementation of the EPA. Where possible, information the stakeholders directly provided was verified with documents obtained through Internet research or those the stakeholders

(21)

themselves provided. Compliance with international standards or human rights-related agreements and standards was verified using the website of the relevant international organisation. Inconsistencies and gaps were regularly notified to the local consultants for verification and discussion with local stakeholders.

As explained above, the assessment of compliance is indicative given time and information constraints. Where no information was provided or readily available regarding the

implementation of an EPA provision in a particular country, this can be interpreted in different ways:

• the assessment of implementation cannot be made, not even based on an assumption;

or

• an assumption can be made regarding lack of implementation, or at least lack of transparency; or

• with respect to liberalisation commitments on services, investments and public

procurement, an assumption can be made that if no complaints were registered, by any stakeholder, including in the WTO Trade Policy Review (TPR) and in the EU’s market- access database, there is a sufficient implementation of the commitments made.

This study has suffered from poor collaboration of several EPA countries, which either did not respond, or partially responded to the questionnaires that were sent to them.

(22)

(23)

2 EPA PARTIES’ TRADE POLICY STATE OF PLAY

2.1 CARIFORUM States

The Caribbean Forum (CARIFORUM) was established in 1992 in order to encourage cooperation between Caribbean countries and the European Union. It is a sub-grouping of the African Caribbean Pacific group of nations. Its members include 14 members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)6 plus Cuba and the Dominican Republic (DR). With the exception of Cuba, all other Member States are signatories to the ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement and the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement.

The CARIFORUM does not have an autonomous trade policy. Hence trade policy must be analysed at the level of the separate members of CARIFORUM.

As indicated above, 14 CARIFORUM States are also Members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The CARICOM was created by the original Treaty establishing the Caribbean Community and Common Market of 1973 and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing the Caribbean Community and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) of 2001.

The CSME provides for the free movement of goods, the right of establishment, the right to provide services and the right to move capital in the Community. Detailed provisions also deal with the establishment of a common industrial policy, a common agricultural policy, a common trade policy, a common transport policy, a regional competition policy, the management of natural resources and a series of common supportive measures, such as intellectual property protection, a standardisation program, the development of a sound macro-economic

environment, a legal infrastructure and a social infrastructure.

Regarding trade policy, Article 82 of the revised Treaty of Charaguamas provides for a Common External Tariff and Article 80 provides for coordination of the external trade policy of the

CARICOM Member States. Article 80 paragraph 2 provides that “the Community shall pursue the negotiation of external trade and economic agreements on a joint basis”. CARICOM Member States are allowed to separately conclude bilateral agreements “in pursuance of their national strategic interest”. However, this must be “without prejudice to their obligations under the Treaty”. Prior to the conclusion of bilateral agreements, the CARICOM Secretariat must certify that “the agreements do not prejudice or place at a disadvantage the position of other CARICOM States vis-a-vis the Treaty.” In addition, for those bilateral agreements that would involve tariff concessions, the approval of the Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) is required.

Based on these provisions, CARICOM countries jointly concluded several trade agreements with third parties:

• In October 1992, the CARICOM-Venezuela FTA was signed as a non-reciprocal agreement granting market access to Venezuela for the products originating in the CARICOM countries. This agreement is now being revised to implement reciprocity of trade concessions;

• In 1994 the CARICOM-Columbia Trade, Economic and Technical Co-operation Agreement was signed; it entered into force on 1^st January 1995. This is a reciprocal free trade agreement;

• In August 1998 the CARICOM-Dominican Republic FTA was signed, which entered into force in 2001. This was an important step forward in the commercial relationship between the Dominican Republic and the CARICOM States⁷;

• In June 2004 CARICOM countries also signed the partial scope CARICOM-Cuba Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement;

• in March 2004 the partial scope CARICOM-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement was signed;

and in April 2019, the CARICOM – UK Agreement was signed, although it has not entered into force yet.

CARICOM countries also have separate preferential agreements with third countries:

• Guyana has a partial scope agreement with Brazil (entry into force 31 May 2004) and a preferential trade agreement with Venezuela (entry into force 28 June 1991);

6 Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

(24)

24

• Saint Kitts and Nevis joined the preferential trade agreement between Guyana and Brazil in 2014 with respect to a specific list of items;

• Trinidad and Tobago signed a preferential trade agreement with Panama (2013) but it is not in force);

• Suriname signed a partial scope agreement with Brazil (1992).

The Dominican Republic (DR) conducts its trade policy autonomously. In addition to its

agreement with the CARICOM countries, the DR has concluded a partial scope preferential trade agreement with Panama (signed in 1985) and the so- called DR-CAFTA (Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement) signed in 2004. The DR–CAFTA’s parties are Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.

DR also concluded a separate free trade agreement with Central America in 1998.

In December 2007, the CARIFORUM–EU negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) were completed. The agreement was signed in October 2008 and it entered into provisional application on 29 December 2008. The EPA is a comprehensive reciprocal trading arrangement that replaces the one-way preferential access the Cotonou Agreement conferred to the ACP States. The EPA covers trade in goods, services, investment, e-commerce and trade related issues (competition, innovation and intellectual property, personal data protection and public procurement). It also contains a development component to assist the CARIFORUM in promoting its developmental strategies and to mitigate adverse effects of the EPA. The provisions of the EPA are set out in six Parts, three Protocols, six Joint Declarations, and liberalisation schedules for trade in goods, trade in services, and commercial presence. The majority of CARIFORUM States signed the EPA with the EU in Barbados on 15 October 2008, with Guyana signing in Brussels on 20 October 2008 and Haiti on 11 December 2009.

CARIFORUM did not sign the EPA in its own right; Member States did so in their individual capacity. Haiti signed but has not yet ratified the Agreement. Based on its constitutional order, Haiti can only start applying the EPA once it has ratified the Agreement.

All CARIFORUM States, except Bahamas, are members of the WTO. Bahamas has an observer status at the WTO and is well advanced in the process of accession to the WTO.

2.2 European Union and its Member States

Since the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the Treaty of Rome provided for a Common Commercial Policy (CCP), allowing the EEC to negotiate, conclude and implement trade agreements with other countries of the world. The Common Commercial Policy has been one of the most integrated policy areas of the European integration project. It now finds its basis in Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

In all areas covered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as in foreign direct investment and harmonisation of trade-related measures, the European Union has exclusive competence. This means that the EU Member States no longer have the authority to legislate or conclude agreements with third countries on any of these matters. Only the European Union, through its institutions, may do so.

Member States of the European Union maintain their competences in areas that do not fall within the Common commercial policy and which are not already subject to common rules of the EU under the EU single market. If an agreement with third countries provides for trade

commitments and concerns and at the same time it addresses one of the areas in which Member States maintain their competence, Member States must also be a party to it, in addition to the EU. The Agreement is then said to be a “mixed agreement”. This is the case, for instance, for the many free-trade agreements of the EU that also contain provisions relating to the criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights, cultural cooperation and labour protection. This is the case for the EU-CARIFORUM EPA.

The European Union has legal personality, which means that it can negotiate and conclude international agreements binding on Member States through its internal institutional rule making process. The EU is also a member of the WTO in its own right.

The Lisbon Treaty (the TFEU) integrated the CCP into the new EU’s external policy, thus providing common objectives and principles to both policies. The EU’s trade policy therefore is also intended to support the new common EU’s external action in other political areas than mere commercial relations, such as human rights, labour rights and the promotion of

sustainable development, and to contribute to its effectiveness.

(25)

Under the CCP, the EU has negotiated and concluded no less than 38 trade agreements, which are all in force. In addition, several trade agreements are provisionally applied, pending ratification. Third countries understand that the multiplication by the EU of free-trade

agreements inevitably entails a loss of competitive advantage in the EU market for all countries that do not have an FTA with the EU and an erosion of preferences for those countries that historically signed an FTA with the EU.

2.3 Ratification status of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA

The table below provides the status of ratification of the EPA by the EPA parties.

Country Ratification status

Antigua and Barbuda Ratified

Bahamas Not yet ratified

Barbados Ratified

Belize Ratified

Dominica Ratified

Dominican Republic Ratified

Grenada Ratified

Guyana Ratified

Jamaica Not yet ratified

Saint Kitts and Nevis Ratified

Saint Lucia Ratified

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ratified

Suriname Not yet ratified

Trinidad and Tobago Not yet ratified

European Union Ratified by European Parliament

Austria Ratified

Belgium Ratified

Bulgaria Ratified

Croatia Ratified (automatic by EU accession (art.

247(2))

Republic of Cyprus Ratified

Czech Republic Ratified

Denmark Ratified

Estonia Ratified

Finland Ratified

France Ratified

Germany Ratified

Greece Ratified

Hungary Not yet ratified

Ireland Ratified

Italy Ratified

Latvia Ratified

Lithuania Ratified

Luxembourg Ratified

Malta Ratified

Netherlands Ratified

Poland Not yet ratified

Portugal Ratified

Romania Ratified

Slovakia Ratified

Slovenia Not yet ratified

Spain Ratified

Sweden Ratified

the UK Ratified

25 out of 28 EU countries and 10 out of 14 analysed CARIFORUM countries ratified the Agreement. This represents a substantial increase since the last Review of 2014.

(26)

(27)

3 IMPLEMENTATION OF LIBERALISATION COMMITMENTS

This chapter summarises the findings regarding the implementation by the EPA parties of their liberalisation commitments in goods and services.

Regarding goods, liberalisation – or market access – commitments concern the progressive elimination of tariffs according to the tariff schedule of each party and the associated

obligations, such as the elimination of all other duties and charges, the application of the most- favoured-nation clause, the elimination of quantitative restrictions and transparency obligations.

The commitments pertaining to trade in goods also concern the elimination of export duties.

Regarding services, liberalisation – or market access – commitments concern the elimination of barriers related to the supply of services according to the contents of the parties’ schedules of commitments annexed to the EPA. Associated obligations are also analysed, such as the application of the most-favoured-nation clause, the progress of regional integration in services, the specific obligations regarding entry of key personnel, graduate trainees and business sellers, contractual service suppliers and independent professionals, and transparency obligations.

3.1 Trade in Goods

1. Tariff bindings a. CARIFORUM States

According to Article 16.1 of the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement:

“Products originating in the EC Party shall not, on their importation into the CARIFORUM States, be subject to customs duties higher than those indicated in Annex III.”

Annex III contains the schedule of tariff liberalisation of the CARIFORUM States and indicates the maximum customs duty that may be applied at the HS 6-digit level. It also specifies exceptions for particular CARIFORUM States, where relevant.

Cariforum States committed to gradually eliminate customs duties on their exports and imports, in various phases. Pursuant to Article 16.3 of the EPA, for a period of ten years following the signature of the Agreement, the CARIFORUM States could continue to apply customs duties other than those listed in Annex III to any imports originating in the EU under two conditions:

that these duties were applicable to the product on the date of signature of the Agreement and were imposed on the like product imported from all other countries. Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the EPA, the CARIFORUM States were not required to begin a phased elimination of customs duties other than those listed in Annex III in the seven years after the signature of the

Agreement (until 2015). The process of liberalisation will take place over a period of 25 years.

At the end of the progressive liberalisation, the percentage of tariff lines of the CARIFORUM countries for which customs duties will be authorized should vary between 8.6 % (Dominican Republic) and 13.5 %(Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines).⁸ The tables below show the tariff liberalisation schedule of the CARIFORUM countries. Each following year indicates the additional percentage of tariff liberalized. The “MFN” indicates the percentage of country’s tariff lines on an applied duty free rate between 2009 and 2011 (depending on the country and data availability).

8 World Trade Organization, Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, Factual Presentation, Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States and the European Union, WT/REG255/1, 31 May 2018.

(28)

28 Duty

phase-out period

% of total lines in Antigua and Barbud a’s tariff schedul e

% of total lines in Bahamas’

tariff schedule

% of total lines in Barbados tariff schedule

% of total Belize’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in Dominica’

s tariff schedule

% of total lines in Dominican Republic’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in

Grenada’

s tariff schedule

MFN 5.3⁹ 11.2 5.6¹⁰ 10.0 6.0¹¹ 53.5 5.5

2009 4.5 3.7 57.6 0.0 16.4 12.6 0.1

2013 10.9 11.4 0.5 9.1 1.3 1.5 11.6

2018 35.8 37.1 1.5 38.6 34.6 8.1 39.2

2023 24.0 20.6 18.8 23.2 23.5 0.0 24.1

2028 3.6 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 0.1 3.6

2033 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.4 10.9 2.4

Percentage of tariff lines for which a duty is authorized at the end of the period

13.5 10.8 11.3 13.4 12.5 0.2 13.5

Duty phase- out period

% of total lines in Guyana’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in Jamaica’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in Saint Kitts and Nevis tariff schedule

% of total lines in St.

Lucia’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in St.

Vincent and the Grenadines tariff schedule

% of total lines in Suriname’s tariff schedule

% of total lines in Trinidad and Tobago’s tariff schedule

MFN 9.3 60.2¹² 5.6¹³ 39.3¹⁴ 8.5¹⁵ 5.1¹⁶ 61.5¹⁷

2009 42.7 1.1 17.5 6.3 0.0 5.6 0.2

2013 1.7 0.3 4.3 0.2 9.6 11.1 0.3

2018 8.5 2.4 30.5 18.5 38.6 36.2 2.0

2023 19.1 19.3 23.3 20.0 24.0 23.2 19.2

2028 3.1 2.8 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.2 2.8

2033 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 1.9

Percentage of tariff lines for which a duty is authorized at the end of the period

13.4 12.0 13.4 11.1 13.5 13.3 12.1

9 2010 MFN figure.

10 2010 MFN figure.

11 2010 MFN figure.

12 2007/2008 MNF figure.

13 2010 MFN figure.

14 2007/2008 MFN figure.

15 2007/2008 MFN figure.

16 2011 MFN figure.

17 2007/2008 MFN figure.

Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its Member States and the CARIFORUM Member States

Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its

Member States and the

CARIFORUM Member States

Implementation Report

Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its

Member States and the

CARIFORUM Member States

Implementation report

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT STRUCTURE

I.

ANNEXES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 Objectives

1.2 Outline

1.3 Overall Methodology

2 EPA PARTIES’ TRADE POLICY STATE OF PLAY

2.1 CARIFORUM States

2.2 European Union and its Member States

2.3 Ratification status of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA

3 IMPLEMENTATION OF LIBERALISATION COMMITMENTS

3.1 Trade in Goods