K. Tucker - Possibilities of EPA for Caribbean Development

of 34

THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE EPA FOR CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT A View from the Experts

Kerrie-Ann M. Tucker

Introduction

Various points of view surrounding the weaknesses and viability of small Caribbean states in

the global political economy have had a significant impact on the way in which regional

development has been conceptualised. Academics and policy-makers have, over time,

fashioned a development framework hinged on a range of cooperation and integration and

strategies between and among the states located within the basin in overcoming concerns of

small size and openness, socio-economic fragility, patterns of decline and poverty and limited

access to technological and other resources. Studies have been commissioned by several

governments and agencies including the 1997 Commonwealth Secretariat’s A Future for

Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability which have indicated that the survival of small island

economies inherently lay in cooperative mechanisms which encourage partnerships with other

trade partners.

The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) signed 15th October 2008

marks the latest chapter in the trade and development cooperation relationship between the

Caribbean and Europe. The EPA is the follow-up to successive Lome Conventions which

were first signed in 1975, and the Cotonou Agreement signed in 2000. Lome I through IV, and

Cotonou were designed to facilitate preferential non-reciprocal European market access by

former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). The agreements also

combined essential elements of development assistance- including technical and financial

support- to aid ACP states in mitigating and overcoming obstacles to economic and social

development. There have been ongoing discussions about and commentaries on the

negotiation and implementation of the EPA within CARIFORUM– Caribbean Community

(CARICOM) member-states and the Dominican Republic.

of 34

The rise of newly industrialised countries (NICs) such as the Asian Tigers which includes

Singapore, and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) within the sphere of free trade and

capitalism is often cited as evidence in supporting the view trade liberalisation acts as a

stimulant to growth and development. There, however, has been very little evidence to

support this conception of free trade as a guaranteed solution to the development concerns of

LDCs which neither enjoy the advantages of vast territory, large populations and market, and

experienced extended periods of colonisation- as part of the Imperial and post-Imperial Age-

during which limited natural resources were utilised in an unsustainable manner and the

wealth derived repatriated to the homelands of the colonisers. It is proposed further, therefore,

that the rise of the ‘BRIC’ is an off-shoot- an unintended effect- of market capitalism and that

the increase in exports and productive capacity from foreign direct investment, in and of itself,

did not have a positive impact on development in these countries. Instead, liberal trade when

partnered with requisite social tools such as a high level of education and training, adequate

infrastructure and new technology, and placed within a context defined by past and present

realities and biases may yield positive results.

This research investigates the perspectives of several experts selected for study regarding the

potential impact of the recently concluded negotiations and the ensuing provisions of the on

Caribbean development. This study will examine texts- articles, presentations and elite

interview transcripts- which present the perceptions of persons who were involved in the

negotiation process and others who have embarked upon the critical assessment of the

agreement through scholarship of how the implementation of the EPA will affect the socio-

economic environment and future of the region as well as how regional stakeholders may take

advantage of the agreement’s provisions. We will examine the praxis of the Caribbean’s

developmental challenge and the underpinnings of international development standards.

of 34

Traditional economic theory proposed by Adam Smith (1776) emphasises free trade and the

self-regulated market as a near panacea for underdevelopment and negative economic

growth. Particularly as it relates to developing economies, trade and access to foreign markets

has been advanced as the most pragmatic means to improve countries’ balance of payments

as well as earn much needed income by attracting foreign investment and expanding local

markets. It also propounded that small domestic markets limit productive sectors ability to take

advantage of economies of scale- the comparative lowering of unit costs experienced by

producers with increased output. The argument, which to some extent had been accepted in

the global South, holds that an increase in trade earnings was indicative of economic growth

which in-turn could be observed in a trickle-down effect in the areas of social services,

infrastructure and the general well-being of citizens.

The emphasis placed on production and consumption within the global marketplace has made

it more important for states to embark upon what former US Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright termed a ‘multilateralism’ in order to go beyond “factors and constraints of

development through a movement to expand and deepen relations with other states that have

shared priorities and objectives”(Serbin and Bryan 1996:92). Karl Falkenburg, the Deputy

Director General for Trade of the European Union has noted that the EPA would “consolidate

trade in goods between the European Union and CARIFORUM with an expanded relationship

into areas of services and investment”1. The EPA is envisioned to manage the liberalisation of

trade in goods and services between the Caribbean and one of its largest economic partners

through the removal, or reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers and the establishment of

reciprocal duty-free quota-free (DFQF) access.

However, claims put forward by free-market economists and development strategists of the

positive impact on development in less advanced countries have not been substantiated. This

1 Karl Falkenburg in “Caribbean Countries to evaluate EPA”, January 8, 2008, http://dr1.com/trade/articles/439/1/Caribbean-countries-to-evaluate-

EPA/Page1.html. (accessed February 15, 2008)

of 34

may be noted on 3 main grounds. Firstly, less developed countries (LDCs) have limited

access to the technological and financial resources and, in some cases, the expertise

requisite for maximising output and in producing finished goods and services at a competitive

price. As such, LDCs often function as the first stage in the production process by providing

producers in the industrialised North with much-needed raw materials which fetch a

comparably lower price than finished or manufactured goods.

Secondly, the inability of small-island developing states (SIDS) to sustain high levels of

production due to the restrictions of small size and low economies of scale relative to their

larger competitors. Neither do markets in SIDS of the Lesser Antilles with small populations in

the tens of thousands such as St. Kitts and Antigua encourage or absorb high volume of

output, nor does the geography facilitate large-scale industries. Lastly, the high volume and

range of manufactured goods produced and exported under free trade arrangements by

developed states at low cost often marginalise domestic sectors in particular small farming

and cottage industries. For example, several quantitative studies conducted on the impact of

the asymmetrical Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) of the 1980s between the US and countries

of the region aimed at facilitating the growth of the “Greater Caribbean”, have revealed that

US$3.5 billion in CBI goods entered the US for the period January to September 2001 under

the 2000 expansion of the CBI- the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. That year, US

exports to CBI countries totalled US$20.7 billion in that year. As such, it has become

increasingly difficult to engender development as a direct product of market access- reciprocal

or preferential.

To this end, and being cognizant of the previous discussion, answers to the following

questions were sought:

1. What are the discourses surrounding the impact of the EPA on

Caribbean Development?

of 34

2. What, if any, are the implications of these discourses in preparing for

the impact of full implementation of the EPA on various regional

stakeholders including governments, businesses, skilled persons,

and consumers?

Background The West Indian Commission recommended in its 1993 Time for Action report that the states

of the English-speaking Caribbean which form CARICOM should seek to “widen and deepen”

integration efforts towards a “transformation of perceptions of a Commonwealth Caribbean to

those of a Caribbean Commonwealth”2.

Since the collapse of the West Indies Federation in the 1960s and several piecemeal attempts

at economic integration through the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) and

CARICOM, the English-speaking Caribbean has continuously pursued regional co-operation

agreements including the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). However, these

have been aimed at creating a larger more profitable market as a sub-region by taking

advantage of better economies of scale to reduce the high cost of production, increase

international competitiveness and comparative advantage as well as to reduce the impact of

external shocks from fluctuations in overseas markets. It is proposed that the CSME which

promises the formation of a single and unified economic space characterised by the free

movement of Caribbean people, goods, services and capital which facilitate diverse and

improved opportunities will allow small producers to “consider more seriously Europe as a

niche market for their specialty products and build brand recognition and competitiveness

beyond the free trade area”.3

2 West Indian Commission, Time for Action Report, 1993 in Serbin and Bryan, Distant Cousins, 1996

3 Berridge. “The Economic Partnership Agreements: Opportunity or Threat?”, The Democrat Newspaper, February 15, 2008,

http://www.pamdemocrat.org/Newspaper/Details.cfm?Nz=$7GIJ2%20%20%20&Iz=$(BXK%20P (accessed February 15, 2008)

of 34

Scholarship on Caribbean integration movements and regionalism as a mechanism to

promote sustainable development and confront globalisation (Bryan 1995; Bryan and Bryan

1999; Serbin and Bryan 1996; Serbin 1998; Pantin 1994), however, indicates that economic

cooperation between and among the small-island states of CARICOM would prove

inadequate- though creating a combined market somewhere in the region of 6 million people.

Additionally, these islands have remained largely dependent on a small export base

comprised largely of few agricultural products, tourism and raw materials, and whose

industries have been insufficiently infused with new technologies in order to boost production.

As such, it has been argued that by Serbin and Bryan that the English-speaking Caribbean

must place a higher value on hemispheric trade partnerships “as part of a process of erecting

a framework to move then from the protected inward-looking arrangements of the past that will

improve their chances in dynamic global markets in the Western Hemisphere, Western

Europe, Asia or elsewhere” [Serbin and Bryan 1996:123]

Junior Lodge, Technical Coordinator of the EPA Negotiations in the Caribbean Regional

Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) which took the lead position on behalf of CARIFORUM,

proposes that the “EPA should strengthen CARIFORUM regional integration in terms of

facilitating deeper ties with The Bahamas and Haiti – two states whose relationships with the

CSME are ill-defined”4. He further asserted that it is the entrenched right of every

CARIFORUM member-state to grant each other preferences that do not have to be awarded

to the EU. This strengthening of ties between CARICOM and its Latin American neighbours

has also been endorsed under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas as part of enhancing

socio-cultural linkages through shared space and experience as well increasing the scope and

opportunities available to regional people and business upon consolidation of the CSME.

4 Lodge. “CARIFORUM EPA Negotiations: An Initial Reflection”,

http://www.crnm.org/documents/ACP_EU_EPA/epa_agreement/TNI_240108_FINAL.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2008)

of 34

Multilateralism as conceptualised by Albright, upon which the notion of an EPA is founded,

has its epistemological roots in the mercantilist project which gave rise to the capitalist

industrial economies of Western Europe and North America. The bias of free trade is firmly

grounded in the Western- ‘Anglocentric’- experience from which industrialised states derived

substantial wealth from the global activities of their multi-national corporations throughout

Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean in mining, agriculture and other primary

productive areas. From this perception, one discerns the clear link between the rhetoric of

liberal trade regimes and the potential for capital expansion.

However, these gains may not be replicated and principles applied to developing nations of

the South as they will not be afforded a similar attempt at exploitation vis-à-vis neo-liberal

thought of interdependence and ‘partnering for development’ in the contemporary setting.

Furthermore, Eurocentric musings and notions of development often belie the fact that the

development of the British, French, Belgian and US economies occurred at the expense of

their former colonies- today’s Third World. Dr. Jessica Byron and Dr. Patsy Lewis of the

University of the West Indies have cautioned LDCs of CARIFORUM to critically assess the

implementation of the EPA and other similar agreements. They have suggested specific

benchmarks to ensure that the agreement does not have an opposite intended effect and that

“the liberalisation of trade should not be undertaken in such a way as to undermine the

regional integration process and negatively impact the production of the region’s economies

(Byron and Lewis 2007).

This argument leads us to the primary concept being explored- that of development. A post-

colonial postmodernist outlook suggests that in order to assess the circumstance, concerns,

expectations, aspirations and misgivings embroiled in the EPA debate one must conceive

development as a broad concept. It is essential to deconstruct development in an attempt to

isolate the ideals and measures defined by and relevant to a specific space from a more

of 34

general or global value system. Having reconsidered the literature on Caribbean integration as

a response to correcting global imbalances, relieving the burden of fragility and alleviating the

persistent underdevelopment which has conditioned the region and its roles in the politico-

economic landscape, some reflections on the value-laden concept of development must

inform the study. For the purpose of this analysis, therefore, we will examine the variant

meanings of development- without and within the milieu of Caribbean economy and society.

What is Development?

Development is essentially a construct which is defined by a process of observation, analysis

and reporting of social interaction. It also derives and takes on value and meaning from the

particular space within which it is viewed and assessed, and from the observer. The term is

conceptualised according to a specific contextual truth and is grounded in specific or shared

experiences of the observers and the subjects within that setting. As such, it has come to

encompass a variety of constituent elements and interpretations which have had far-reaching

implications on decision-making and socio-economic policy. ‘Development’ is a fusion of a

variety of truths- knowledge, experience, suppositions, abilities, authority, values and biases-

and dominant opinions of governments, agencies and intellectuals surrounding what are

acceptable standards, targets.

Development is often identified through widespread ‘betterment’ and forward movement. In his

Notes on the Meaning and Significance of Development Girvan outlines the different notions

associated with and embodied in what we refer to as ‘development.’ He further posits that

“probably the most widely used concept of development” is that of sustained economic

growth. He contends that throughout the 1980s development was viewed as being

“synonymous with the population” as an increase in Gross National Product (GNP) coupled

with a lower rate of population growth would necessarily result in a nominal increase in

income per capita and improved standards of living (Girvan 1999:13 He emphasised that the

of 34

dominant and traditional social science theory narrowly defined development as the presence

of economic growth in terms of wealth and projected increases in a country’s earning and

purchasing power. As such, development discourse was preoccupied with levels of production

across different sectors, income generating capacity and investment experience by a country

or geographical area.

This perspective is indicative of several fundamental assumptions of neo-classical economic

theory and analysis rooted in a distinctly patriarchal structure. The emphasis on the pre-

eminence of the state and its symbiotic relationship to economic wealth is one which has been

examined by feminist scholars as emerging from ontology of masculinity. Girvan, however,

proposes that distinctions may be made between development, within a strictly economic

perspective, as growth, the remodelling of the systemic relations between economic agents

and actors or as a dynamic multi-dimensional “process” in which all areas of human life and

activity – political, economic and social- undergo improvements and positive change (Girvan

1999:13). Contemporary trends in world politics and research into the area have ‘humanised’

the global agenda and debates on issues of human security including stemming inequalities

have become more relevant and has shifted some focus from concerns of war and security.

Post-modernist debates on development policy which emerged in the 1960s, which are being

particularly examined through feminist critiques (Sen 1999; Nussbaum 2000) sought to

expand development thought beyond economics towards a study of human development.

The 1996 United Nations Human Development Report proposed that “there is no link between

economic growth and human development, but when these links are forged with policy and

determination, they can be mutually reinforcing and economic growth will effectively and

rapidly improve human development.”5 As such, increases in GNP do not speak to socio-

economic disparities and qualitative analyses which of the distribution of wealth, consumer

5 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 1996, Retrieved 29 March 2008,

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1996_en.pdf

of 34

spending and access to basic resources. The majority of citizens are not typically beneficiaries

of wealth created and quite often do not enjoy improved standards of living.

The redefinition and reconstruction of ‘development’ have taken further consideration of the

particular needs and state of the most vulnerable and marginalised such as women and the

poor- which includes poor states- in trade policy formulation, implementation and analysis.

According to the 1998 HDR, “the concept of human development provides an alternative to

the view of development equated exclusively with economic growth.” Human development is

defined as “a process of enlarging peoples choices” and is “achieved by expanding human

capabilities and functionings.”6 The development paradigm has not excluded quantifiable

measures such as GDP per capita from consideration but has been reconfigured to focus on

the individual and making the private concerns of these individuals integral to public policy.

The Research Process This study of the potential impact of the EPA on Caribbean development, therefore, is aimed

at unearthing and opening up the intellectual closet on economic exploitation, small state

survival strategies and the meanings derived from trade agreements by political and civil

society actors. It aims at distinguishing the non-quantifiable values- welfare, capacity,

innovation etc.- which combine to give dimension to development approaches.

The research was conducted using a Discourse Analysis methodology. Discourse is

“language-in-action” (Bloomaert 2005:2) as conversations, texts, presentations and other

linguistic forms encode connotations and importance which may be observed and assessed

as data.

The analysis of discourse builds on a constructionist epistemology which privileges the

participants’ definition of specific concepts and themes, and inter-subjective understanding

6 UNDP. Human Development Report 1998, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)

of 34

involved in the various processes of human interaction and activity. As such, discourses are

not stagnant and not merely reflective of an assigned meaning. The discourses on Caribbean

development and the potential effects of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA during and since the

negotiation process are located, assessed and understood within the current political,

economic and social reality. The study cannot proffer an explanation of what is, as the

perspective under analysis of projections and expectations are informed by the

implementation of free trade arrangements in other less developed regions and countries such

as CAFTA in Central America and NAFTA in Mexico. The perceptions were also heavily

nested within the state of the global economy and its vulnerability to high oil and food prices,

the decline of the US dollar against the Euro and the threat of a US recession, concerns with

food security and the paradigm shift in North/ South trade relations from preferences to

reciprocal DFQF market access.

The method focused on interpretation of the ways in which importance was attributed to

themes such as development- economic as well as social, competitiveness within the global

market, economic growth and institutional strengthening. The discourse analysis was carried

out using Grounded Theory techniques (Strauss and Corbin 1990).

The discussion of research findings revealed a critical analysis of the reality which framed the

negotiation of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA and the perspectives of the selected experts. Alfred

Schutz’s emphasis on recognizing and appreciating how reality is formed and represented

facilitated the “reconstruction” of the origins of the “objective meanings of action in the social

world” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003:297).

Discourse analysis also proved most relevant as it relies upon an ‘interpretivist’ approach to

ideas. The analysis establishes the ‘intertextual’ relationship between and among discourses

(Titscher and Meyer et. al. 2000:146). As such, uncovering linkages between the

development, free trade, regionalism, viability and vulnerability, and institutional strengthening

of 34

discourses within the Caribbean and internationally will reveal the meaning of the perspectives

on the potential impact of the EPA as a reflection of the specificity of that time and social

setting. Simply put, that the texts analysed were influenced by and influenced thinking on the

implications of the EPA for the region; the discourse is also influenced by the socio-economic

conditions being experienced.

The study hinged on expert opinion- the perspectives of those who were involved in the

negotiating process or who have done extensive work in the area of Caribbean progress or in

relation to the EPA. A clear challenge existed in collecting primary data using interviews and

other forms of field research due to this stipulation. All experts were not accessible for face-to-

face observation due to time and financial constraints in the data collection process. Firstly, a

population of 10 regional experts was identified within the relatively small population which fit

the necessary profile of having been involved in the process or having extensive knowledge of

the focus. A sample of 3 experts with whom face-to-face interviews could be conducted were

selected and approached to participate in the study. As such, a combined approach was

utilized as the sample involved elements of both judgment or purposive sampling and

convenience sampling. Of the three, two interviews were conducted.

The sample was further expanded to include presentations prepared by two other experts

using a maximum variation sampling strategy (Maykut and Morehouse 1994:56). The

phenomenon is explored using the views which are expected to be most divergent.

“Maximum variation sampling provides the qualitative researcher with a

method by which the variability characteristic of random selection can be

addressed, while recognizing that the goal of a qualitative study is not

generalisability. It is not our goal to build a random sample…it is our

working knowledge of the contexts of the individuals and settings that

of 34

lead us to select them for initial inclusion in our study (Maykut and

Morehouse 1994:57)”

The interviewees selected were both female and have participated in the discourse on EPAs

and their application to asymmetrical arrangements between developed and developing

countries. Both elite interviews were transcribed into text for analysis. The documents

analysed were retrieved from online sources and selected on the basis of their authors’

location within the EPA discourse:

A. Will the EPA Enhance Our Development? April 14, 2004 authored by

Rosalea Hamilton, Trade Policy Consultant and CEO, Institute of Law and

Economics

B. CARIFORUM EPA Negotiations: Initial Reflections on the Outcome,

February 13, 2008 presented by Errol Humphrey, Vice-Dean of the

CARIFORUM College of EPA Negotiators

The 4 texts have come out of debates on whether or not the Caribbean stands to see any

tangible benefit from the EPA negotiated by the CRNM, or negotiators were pressured into

accepting an agreement which will allow the EU to exploit the region as an export destination

and exacerbate conditions of socio-economic decline on the developed North. There has also

been discourse of discontent and vulnerability with the limited consultations at the local levels

and investigation into the state of Caribbean societies and all possible outcomes of entering

into such an unbalanced agreement with a global power.

Regional heads of government have become embroiled in an underdevelopment and

dependence discourse in the sense that the Guyana Prime Minister has stated that the EPA

may be viewed as unfair mechanism which will further jeopardise regional development as

opposed to the arguments of the Jamaican Prime Minister which suggest that regional

of 34

development has consistently been thwarted by an ideology of mendicancy on the part of

Caribbean in its relationship with the industrialised countries.

General concepts were identified and noted throughout the texts. This established the

credibility of the categories to be coded and categories for organising the information

discovered. The texts revealed the common concepts of asymmetry, paradigm shifts in trade

policy, regional integration, economic diversification, socio-economic decline and institutional

strengthening.

The discourses emphasised inefficiency in regional production, a lack of competitiveness,

sustainable development and the use of metaphors of movement from one level to another

(‘dragging our feet’, ‘jump’, ‘build up’, ‘a good vehicle to advance’, ‘take yourself out of the

hole’, ‘come up’, ‘got off the ground’, ‘repositioning’). There was also emphasis placed on

uncertainty and hesitance when considering any potential positive impact of the EPA on

Caribbean development (‘it depends’, ‘may’, ‘it could’, ‘if’, ‘I don’t know if’), preparation and

training, coping strategies, opportunity and the importance of strong leadership in guiding the

execution of the terms of the EPA. The discourses also reflected attitudes ranging from

pessimism to cautious optimism.

Discourses further referenced the successive Lome Conventions, Cotonou and other

asymmetrical partnerships involving Latin American and Caribbean as well as the EPA

negotiating process states in designating trade agreements as unfair rivalry rather than as a

‘partnership’: the powerful Europe Union, which will unload cheaper goods an displace local

products and businesses is represented as exploitative and self-serving. The Caribbean as

fragile, susceptible and desperate are presented as having had no choice but to capitulate

and sign on to the EPA in light of having done so in the past and as opposed to the

alternative- facing economic isolation.

of 34

The data was finally interpreted at various linguistic levels- in particular orthography,

phonology and semantics- to interpret the space within which the different discourses are

located and the symbolic meanings which the texts are aimed at communicating. There is an

observable difference, therefore, between the discourses noted in the documents. The

document authored by Hamilton at the second phase of the EPA negotiation process revealed

what may best be considered a confrontation with negotiators and policy-makers to eke out

provisions that make the agreement meaningful and also to put in place a framework in which

the provisions may prove advantageous. The punctuation of phrases (‘Easier said than done!’,

‘It is imperative’) using exclamation marks for emphasis, for example, located the text within

the discourse on concern and anxiety. In contrast, distinctions may be made within

Humphrey’s text where pseudo-objective facts which place the EPA in a positive and

necessary light are highlighted and italicised (‘advance the region’s development’, ‘inject

much-needed resources’, ‘development-oriented EPA’, ‘CARIFORUM commitments are linked

to the delivery of EC support’).

Findings

The research pointed to possible negative as well as positive effects of the CARIFORUM-EU

EPA on Caribbean development. The construction of a theory of the impact of free trade

agreements on small, open economies, however, is limited by two realisations:

1. The inquiry was conducted on the basis of predictions, projections and informed

assumptions. The EPA has only recently been signed by the relevant heads of

government and there has been minimal progress in its implementation. The focus

was primarily on the ‘possibilities’ involved n pursuing this path to socio-economic

development.

of 34

2. The discourse on the EPA has evolved within an environment of severe economic

hardship for the region and the world. As such, the messages have been biased by

concerns that any proposition which has even the slightest potentially adverse

implication may meet with resistance out of simple human fear.

With these considerations in mind, we will commence discuss the findings under the broad

headings of new opportunities, engendering efficiency and competitiveness, assistance,

sustainable development, socio-economic instability and undermining Caribbean institutions.

New Opportunities

The DFQF reciprocal agreement presents several opportunities. The asymmetrical

liberalisation of trade in goods and services adopted under the EPA has accommodated less

extensive liberalisation within Caribbean states over longer periods than that of the EU. This is

most evident in the terms governing market access to CARIFORUM goods whereby the EU

liberalised all eligible imports as at January 1, 2008. The region, on the other hand, was

granted up to 25 years to liberalise much of its European tariff structure and special

exclusions were made on the importation of “sensitive” areas such as utilities, agricultural and

processed agricultural products and furniture. This period should be viewed as a chance for

Caribbean states to critically assess fiscal arrangements and make the necessary

preparations including the implementation of adequate tax reforms in order to reduce the

potential negative structural and economic fallout which accompanies a drastic change in

policy. Analysis revealed intonations of immediacy and un-avoidance (‘need’, ‘have to’,

‘imperative’) where the response to imminent change in itself holds potential.

The statement by Hamilton which suggests that the regional systems are not prepared-

through their institutionalised lethargy or failure- and will require a great deal of transformation

is that she sees the EPA as “another opportunity to get our house in order”. This intimates that

of 34

the current policies, the capacity and efficiency in monitoring and collection, and training

programmes etc. are and have been lacking. The region will now be forced by the agreement

to fulfil a responsibility to itself which should have been previously addressed.

During the interview with Miss Harris she stated that “we have to have better control in respect

of customs and immigration” and that she was “worried about what it will mean in terms of

goods”. She further stated:

“It means far more monitoring. We been used to so much compromise

and hustling that that is going to leave the door open for all manner of

things.”

In both interviews an emphasis was placed on the need for restructuring the control

mechanisms in place, and retooling and reinvesting in equipment and training in the customs

and revenue agencies as well as the bodies, such as Jamaica’s Bureau of Standards, which

are mandated to stipulate and monitor the quality and safety of goods imported and exported.

Professor Brown in responding to the question on what steps should be taken to overcome

any weaknesses she perceived also indicated that the region’s governments had the

opportunity ahead of full implementation to asses the “institutional investments”.

The EPA Protocol on Cultural Cooperation goes well beyond the terms of Cotonou which was

limited to cooperation in cultural development to implementing a system of free trade in

cultural and entertainment services. The EPA has successfully liberalized services which

include the tourism sector, contract service providers and the movement of independent

professionals. There are further commitments to what Humphrey terms as “mutual recognition

of qualifications”.

These provisions are of contrasting importance in regional development. Firstly, it allows for

the free movement of artists and practitioners in music, dance, theatre, visual arts and access

and market access areas such as audiovisual production which has the potential to expand

of 34

the entertainment industry exponentially. This will mean an increase in employment in the

sector, exposure to foreign audiences and new technologies, highlighting the region’s dynamic

culture and enhancing its influence in global culture and an expected increase in export

earnings from entertainment as a combination of all these factors. However, as pointed out by

Brown, many of the possible positive implications for Caribbean development under the EPA

are premised on “best-endeavour clauses” with which she sees as being “vague” and “diluted”

when compared to “clear and precise” rules on an equally involved process such as

“dismantling” of barriers to trade. She also stated “I wouldn’t have minded changing those a

bit.”

The terms and conditions of these ‘commitments’ having not been as clearly outlined and

indisputably stated as the timelines and responsibilities of states in the removal of tariffs may

suggest that Caribbean cultural industries may in fact be met with difficulties in exploiting this

perceived opening. Qualifications and the recognition of these are highly subjective concepts.

That which adequately qualifies, or fails to, an artist in Trinidad is most likely to differ from that

which qualifies him in France. Culturally-speaking, and returning to the UNDP definition of

development, it is the value which the society or community places on the arts and art-form

which validates his contribution and any project in creating guidelines to assess capability.

Hence, Caribbean cultural entrepreneurs could face non-tariff barriers within the European

services market including the denial of entry. How does one certify a Destra? A Rupee? A

Beenie Man? It does not prove to be an easy question to answer. According to Harris the

Caribbean “will have to look at how to define what our space is in the global agenda…at our

university courses, see how they compare with sister countries elsewhere and to see from

those comparisons how you fit in to the changed marketplace in respect of what you

produce…”These persons could become constrained within repressive, hegemonic

perspectives to which regional talent may become forced to subscribe which undermine

‘contextuality’ of human development.

of 34

One must also acknowledge the negative spin-offs of the free movement of professionals and

talents who gain access- and acceptance- in Europe. The Caribbean is currently facing a

‘brain-drain’ of crisis proportions. The much-discussed shortage of medical professionals,

teachers etc. may be further aggravated and with the added dimension of ‘talent-drain’ would

have what may be seen as an unintended effect in hindering regional development. The best

and brightest could essentially be unavailable to build and promote the countries of the region

over the next 25 years.

Engendering Efficiency and Competitiveness

Within this transition period, new opportunities also present themselves through the

diversification within traditional areas of production. As previously indicated, market

economics places a higher value of finished, manufactured goods and knowledge-based

sectors such as Information Technology than on the raw materials used during the process.

Miss Harris indicated that the Caribbean will benefit from the EPA as it would encourage the

exploration of new exports as well as the potential to utilise development funds promised

under the agreement in skills and technical training.

Interviewer: Okay. How do you believe the Caribbean, and in particular Jamaica,

will benefit from the EPA?

Interviewee: From the development aspects of the EPAs. I believe that the value-

added that we need to put on our crops now meaning our primary- like

with sugar and what we are doing with ethanol- and the whole

changing energy atmosphere that we are in now and also in respect

of how our people can develop personally in terms of skills and

opportunities that can present themselves.

of 34

In the analysis of Humphrey’s text this diversification discourse also indicated that there were

“classic disadvantages of relying on the exports of one or two primary agricultural products”. It

is therefore understood that whether or not the EPA was precipitated by the WTO ruling on

the incompatibility of market preference to international trade which is referenced by the

interdiscursive elements of paradigm-shifts and the requirement to meet changing global

realities, Caribbean producers would have to face the impracticality and weakness of pursuing

such a narrow path which has contributed to the region’s “state of survival poverty” (Beckford

1986; Manley 1986).

Interviewer: What are the potential negative effects on Caribbean development

that you have perceived?

Interviewee: I found people have always thought there is an export market and

there is a domestic market. And people have always thought that if

you are small you stick to the domestic market because that is where

you can survive. There is no domestic market or international market

there is one world market. And you can be displaced wherever you

are.

The focus of the post-colonial era has remained entrenched in the ideology of smallness and

as such it has sustained socio-political and economic self-constraints. The EPA should

therefore revolutionise modes of production but also the attitudes and philosophy which have

imposed limits and replace it with one geared towards viability, developing the capacity to

compete at any level and finally thriving rather than surviving.

Evidence supports the view that this economic overhaul will present a challenge but not an

insurmountable one (Commonwealth Secretariat 1997).

of 34

Development Assistance

The Caribbean is among the most heavily indebted regions in the world. Limited financial

resources, and the region’s long relationship with lending agencies such as the World Bank

which has left us nursing substantial debt-servicing commitments, have restricted regional

governments in making adequate investments in social and institutional development. As

such, the EPA debates have highlighted development cooperation and assistance as the most

beneficial aspect of the negotiations. Europe, under the European Development Fund (EDF)

and Aid-for-Trade programme, is expected to provide financial assistance to regional

governments towards tax reform, marketing the region, enhancing productive capacity among

other areas.

Humphrey’s treatment of issues of social development support, reflect the broader handling of

the areas of development under the EPA that will be of concern to the most vulnerable

elements of society and contribute to everyday life. His only indication to the funding of

projects such as community empowerment programmes which may potentially stem urban

decay and have a positive impact in reducing the rates of violent crimes which have

skyrocketed in Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and increased in countries such as St. Vincent,

was “CARIFORUM was insistent that while supporting the implementation of this Agreement

shall be one of the priorities…these should not be the only sources of EPA-related support.”

The emphasis placed on the importance of the interconnectedness of the development

discourse and the free trade discourse within the EPA negotiations themselves may be seen

as unsubstantiated as the negotiators were neither clear on the conditions nor made any

meaningful, detailed statement on a programme of funding social development and thereby

mitigating the negative effects on societies, communities and individuals.

Interviewer: What are the strengths, if any, of the EPA which was initialled in

December 2007?

of 34

Interviewee: It does come along with the ongoing development assistance in

the Cotonou Agreement- the development chapter of Cotonou. I

don’t know how much additional assistance there will be despite

all that is said. There will be assistance for those things which

the European Union has particular interest in such as tax reform,

customs and customs reform. Because those are the things they

want us to do. They make offers on security too because it

benefits them through their overseas territories, but it is not

embedded in the agreement.

The data collected therefore supports the view at the start of this discussion that free trade

must be seen for what it truly is- a tool which is most beneficially utilised by large,

industrialised economies and the search for new markets underlies the efforts to inculcate free

trade practices in the South. Development assistance representing only a small fraction of

projected European earnings- particularly financial aid- must be viewed as the most basic of

sweeteners in the EPA deal. A great deal of emphasis, as illustrated, is not placed on these

provisions as it is not of primary concern to the dominant actors in the international political

economy. Research also revealed that funding of the EDF is undertaken by the EU as best as

it can and there exists some confusion with how funding will be allocated to the region. The

reality is that Caribbean states may come away with much less in practice than they would

have appeared to have received on paper.

Interviewee: I know that we have been doing some training. I know within the

joint-Parliamentary Assembly we asked for more support to

come to our countries to do more training for our people so that

we wouldn’t face sanctions. Because part of that difficulty too is

of 34

the new nations which are coming into the EU they are pulling

up on all the EU Development Funds which is making it harder

for us to have it. So anything that’s not used get’s cut down.

Interviewer: It goes back?

Interviewee: No no. It gets cut down

Interviewer: For the next year?

Interviewee: No it gets reduced and then they take off a portion and keep it

within EU. So that’s really what is happening. It makes it harder

for us to come in because of procurement guidelines,

registration of persons as contractors or providing professional

services, certification…all of those matters we will have to look

at now.

The Un-sustainability of EPA Development

Concerns surrounding the possibility of dumping of cheap European imports on local markets

have occupied a central place in the EPA dialogue. Europe has enjoyed a high level of output

for some time due to its technological advances and government subsidies under the EU

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

On the issue of negative effect of the EPA on Caribbean development an interviewee stated:

“Ahm…I believe that you will find there are certain types of small

businesses going out of business too as they are having more difficulties.

Remember that this agreement is going to sooner or later bring far more

European products into our market. It’s a reciprocal agreement. It’s the kind

of 34

of agreement which eventually becomes reciprocal. So it some of our

businesses are not terribly efficient at what they do- we have a large

number of very small businesses that cannot even manage to export to

CARICOM.”

The collapse of specific industries such as sugar is a distinct possibility as actors may opt or

be forced to close operations when faced with direct competition from cheaper European

produce. The neo-liberal prescription posited as the solution to this problem- comparative

advantage- also poses a devastating threat to local industry. Comparative advantage

preferences specialisation in those areas where producers exhibit market dominance and

enjoy greater competitiveness. This theory, upon critique, represents another attempt to apply

the policies which succeeded in the global North to the South irrespective of its special

circumstances and divergent experiences.

The potential de-industrialisation of Caribbean economies within this difficult environment

would compromise rather than enhance regional economic growth and viability.

The Caribbean economies have the potential to become increasingly dependent on FDI and

utilized as mere processing zones as the bulk of support is expected to be channelled into

encouraging investment and enhancing economic capacity in the short to medium term. In an

environment where ‘hot money’ or temporary injections into an economy are commonplace,

the EPA may stimulate unsustainable ‘hyper-growth’ which produces dependence climate

economic instability. In the event that investments stimulated are no longer available-

investors opt to relocate in search of lower costs and so on- economic decline may pose

serious threats. Particularly where one considers the limited financial obligations made to

facilitate and assist with a programme of social development in areas such as education and

technology which are seen as the engines of growth. The sustainability of development under

the EPA is subject to a great deal of speculation.

of 34

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has also consistently criticized

the region’s governments for embarking on a “race to the bottom to attract foreign investors”

and argues that “the cost of a worker hired under the flexible terms that prevail today is

cheaper than the cost of buying, maintaining and disciplining slaves” during the region’s early

history.7 The EPA is likely to further marginalise the regions workers under conditions of low

wages which, in fact, has been used as a dubious marketing strategy by some Caribbean

heads of government8. As such, what is being proposed is a temporary and incomplete boost

to regional economies met with very little socio-economic gain or capabilities enhancement

within local communities.

Socio-economic Instability

As a result of the limited income-earning options available to the small economies of the

region, countries have become dependent on revenue earned from taxation which includes

import tariffs. Caribbean states “rely more heavily on foreign trade as a source of revenue via

import duties and licenses than their hemispheric neighbours” (Serbin and Bryan 1996:123).

These states will be forced to increase the levels of domestic taxation. In responding to the

question “What are the weaknesses, if any, of the EPA which was initialled in December

2007”, the interviewee posited that several aspects of the agreement and negotiations- the

vast differences in size between the parties and late preparation to name a few- concluded

that these weaknesses would increase the burden on domestic consumers:

“Our taxes are going to go up (nod). Tax internally (pause). Domestic taxes are

going to go up significantly (emphasis). Cost of living”

7 Fifteenth Continental Conference, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, http://www.orit-ciosl.org/debate/basedoc.html, July 4, 2002.

8 Jamaica Prime Minister Bruce Golding emphasised in talks with the European Investment Bank (EIB) that European firms would “benefit from lower wage

rates” by relocating their operations to the Caribbean in Myers, The Daily Gleaner, 1 February, 2008.

of 34

This will further constrain regional governments’ ability to provide social welfare services, and

necessary infrastructure. It is believed that a backlash in the face of socio-economic hardship

is imminent in Jamaica and across the wider Caribbean. The interview also introduced the

discourse of resistance (‘riots’, ‘frustration’) which has been examined in previous scholarship

by Bryan. He states, “further impoverishment of the masses through the fiscal inability of

governments could have dire consequences” (Bryan 1995).

Undermining Caribbean Institutions

The ongoing disagreement on various aspects of institutional strengthening within CARICOM

and the implementation of the CSME has brought regional governments to a virtual stand-still.

As Girvan points out, the decisions on EPA trade matters to be taken by the joint

CARIFORUM-EC Council are ‘binding on the Parties’ which ‘shall take all measures

necessary to implement them’. He contends that it endows the body with “greater legal

powers over member states than the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM,

CARICOM’s Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) or any other organ of

the Caribbean Community established by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas” (Girvan 2008).

It is commonplace in trade agreements that bodies such as the Council administer the

implementation of “dynamic” international agreements. However, it is the spirit of the

commitment which contravenes the regional process. CARIFORUM undertook an initiative

which regional Heads of Government are yet to agree upon. The study revealed they are

“signing away a lot of their ability to maintain that control.”

Also despite the direct involvement of the CRNM in the negotiation process, CARICOM and

other regional institutions will play no part in the implementation and monitoring of the trade

and development partnership it having been agreed with CARIFORUM. From a legal

standpoint CARIFORUM has not been institutionalised. It has often been aligned to

CARICOM and functioned through that mechanism. However, under the terms of the

of 34

agreement the, CARICOM institutions such as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will have

very little input into the way in which the relationship with the EU proceeds. The EU, however,

has the necessary institutional capacity to exert such influence as to secure its interest as a

group.

The data collected revealed a distinct emphasis on the need for leadership at the domestic

and regional levels from governments, organisation and civil society in ensuring that the

development of the Caribbean is given priority. Research spoke to “deliberate, proactive

policies and strategies” (Hamiltion), “quality of leadership” (Interviewee).

Coupled with the loss of momentum in finalising regional commitments due to lengthy

negotiations, the non-completion of regional arrangements prior to establishing external

linkages calls into question the commitment of regional government’s. The region’s stated

goals of unity, common action and integration may be illustrated through the joint negotiation

of the EPA vis-à-vis the CRNM. According to Byron and Lewis, the CARIFORUM proved

“disarticulate” in a negotiation process which lacked transparency for much of the region’s

stakeholders (Byron and Lewis 2007). The sheer difficulty in accessing draft texts of the

agreement up to this point and limited public consultations also contributed to a distinctively

un-integrated process for Caribbean people who will be expected to ‘own’ the EPA.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most telling utterance in this study came towards the end of the interview with

one UWI academic who was contrite in stating:

“…while I feel that some liberalisation is necessary, I am- I am not sure I

think complete trade liberalisation in very unequal circumstances is

necessarily thing for our economies. I am not certain that I think

globalisation (emphasis) is the best thing for everybody. Because I think

that it will benefit some parts of the world and some size economies more

of 34

than others. But I don’t think it’s something that automatically benefits

everybody. And I think that our countries need to be able to retain some

control over their parliaments and over their development process, and

they’re signing away a lot of their ability to maintain that control. So if they

want to do something to nurture a particular sector or to preserve an

environmental…they would have signed away that. Probably unknowingly

because they would not have envisaged that this situation would arise at

some time. But these situations do arise.

And so there are possible benefits but they are not automatic and maybe

100% trade liberalisation is not really the best thing, what is interesting is to

see the debates on trade liberalisation in countries that formerly used to

benefit from it. For instance, the United States is no longer as rosy; it

doesn’t look through rose coloured spectacles at globalisation in the same

was as it used to. Because all of a sudden is on the scene and China is

reaping greater benefits and other players are more competitive in certain

sectors and you see people backing off from globalisation very fast.

So that’s when you realise that we’re fed a lot of- there’s a lot of

propaganda that we are fed to make us go along with things. That doesn’t

mean that it is the only truth that exists. It is somebody’s truth (emphasis)

because they want it to be the truth- it doesn’t have to be our truth (with

sarcasm).”

It is in international trade agreements and economy that self-interest is often most clearly

noted among states. The view of the developed world as benevolent and pacts as

partnerships is utopian at best and manipulation at worst.

of 34

The development discourse is fraught with claims and counter-claims regarding the role of

free trade and the market in promoting and sustaining meaningful growth. Simply put, it has

not been proven that liberal trade by itself stimulates the kind of development which trickles

down to the majority and creates more options for empowerment and improves access to

these options on a large scale. However, there have been few studies done which disprove

the opinion that the economies of SIDS and LDCs pay a high cost for DFQF market access.

There have been even fewer qualitative studies undertaken to examine the social effects. It is

proposed by the findings of this study that Sen’s conceptualisation of development in

facilitating the ‘freedom’ of the smallest actors and marginalised peoples (Sen 1999) does not

find its way to the negotiating table. That the terms and conditions of development cooperation

embodied in agreements including the EPA focus primarily on markets, profit, production and

not enough on those areas which benefit people- health, housing, training and education, food

security and the environment.

The discourses surrounding EPAs highlighted above have been dominated by the

industrialised states in Europe and North America in terms of influencing the outcomes

(power). They also point to the Westernisation of development and the ‘othering’ of weaker

states. The trade paradigm has shifted according to the aims and circumstances of more

powerful economic actors. The paradigm shift has necessitated the negotiation of space-

uncomfortable and insufficient as it may be- by the ‘out-group’ of LDCs within the political

economy.

The specific discourse on the impact of the EPA on Caribbean development is firmly rooted in

conjecture at this point. The certainty with which its negotiators- Falkenburg, Bernal, Lodge

and Humphrey – have predicted the benefit is distinctly pitted against the thought observed

amongst the majority of Caribbean stakeholders’ inability to conceive of it as such particularly

within the current environment. This uncertainty has spurred the region into action and

of 34

recently greater attention has been paid within regional Houses of Parliament, amongst

private sector representatives, training and accreditation agencies, within the academy as well

as at the grassroots to the EPA; what it could mean and how to prepare for the outcomes- be

they good or bad. One could say this is the positive impact noted.

Deliberate and integrated effort having previously proven elusive within the region, the EPA

may unite the region out of fear from threat. A compromise between the arguments has been

noted- the EPA may not have been ideal for the region at this time but it was required by more

influential global realities including the ideological shift towards free trade. We have also noted

that there will be ill-effects at the domestic level with increase in taxation and suppression of

wages, the collapse of local businesses and the inability of governments to reinvest in social

welfare due to financial constraints. However, there are potential benefits- but they are not

“automatic”. The most significant possibility of the EPA for Caribbean development, as a

result, is believed to be possibility itself.

of 34

References

Books and Publications

A Caribbean Reader on Development edited by Judith Wedderburn, Kingston: Friedrich Ebert

Siftung, 1986

Bloomaert, Jan. Discourse: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2005

Bryan, Anthony. The Caribbean: New Dynamics in Trade and Political Economy, Transaction

Publishers, New Jersey, 1995

CARICOM Secretariat, CARICOM: Our Caribbean Community: An Introduction, CARICOM

Secretariat, Georgetown, 2004

Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvette. The Landscape of Qualitative Research, London: Sage

Publishing, 2003

Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International

Politics, Berkley: University of California Press, 1990

Girvan, Norman. “Notes on the Meaning and Significance of Development” in Gender in

Caribbean Development edited by Patricia Mohammed and Catherine Shepherd, Chapter 2,

Kingston: Canoe Press, 1999

Maykut, Pamela and Morehouse, Richard. Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and

Practical Guide, London: Routledge Falmer, 1994

Neuendorf, Kimberly. The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing,

2002

of 34

Nussbaum, Martha. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2000

Sen, Amrtya. Development as Freedom, New York: Alfred Knopf (Anchor Books), 1999

Serbin, Andres and Bryan, Anthony. Distant Cousins: The Caribbean-Latin American

Relationship, University of Miami North-South Centre, Miami, 1996.

Strauss, Anselm and Corbin Juliet. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Techniques, London: Sage Publishing, 1990

Sumser, John. A Guide To Empirical Research In Communication: Rules For Looking.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing, 2001.

Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth and Vetter, Eva. Methods of Text and

Discourse Analysis, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publishing, 2000

UNDP Human Development Report 1998, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998

Articles

Byron, Jessica and Lewis, Patsy. “Formulating Sustainable Development Benchmarks for an

EU-CARIFORUM EPA: Caribbean Perspectives”, University of the West Indies, Mona,

September 2007

Declaration of the Haitian Coalition, “Block the EPA”, Port-au-Prince, 17 October 2007

Lundy, Patricia. “Limitations of Quantitative Research in the Study of Structural Adjustment” in

Social Science and Medicine Volume 42, No. 3, 1996,

Myers, John. “Golding Slams EPA Critics” in The Daily Gleaner, 1 February 2008

of 34

Internet Sources

Berridge, Samuel. “The Economic Partnership Agreements: Opportunity or Threat?” The

Democrat Newspaper, February 15, 2008,

http://www.pamdemocrat.org/Newspaper/Details.cfm?Nz=$7GIJ2%20%20%20&Iz=$(BXK%2

0P

United Nations Human Development Report 1996, United Nations Development Programme

website, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1996_en.pdf

Dominican Republic Trade Information, “Caribbean Countries to evaluate EPA”, 8 January 8

2008, http://dr1.com/trade/articles/439/1/Caribbean-countries-to-evaluate-EPA/Page1.html.

Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery, CRNM Private Sector Trade Brief Volume 10

April- May 2006,

http://dr1.com/trade/documents/CRNM_Trade_Private_Sector_Trade_Brief_Volume_10.pdf

Delegation of the European Commission to Japan, Facts and Figures,

http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/relation/showpage_en_relations.figures.php

EPA Trade Document, European Union website,

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/march/tradoc_124787.pdf

Girvan, Norman. “Implications of the CARIFORUM-EC EPA”, 1 January 2008,

http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/girvanimplicationsepa10jan.pdf

Hamilton, Rosalea. Institute of Law and Economics, “Will the EPA Enhance Our

Development”, April 14, 2004, http://www.ilejamaica.org/publications/2004doc/April%2018-

Will%20the%20EPA%20enhance%20our%20Development.doc

of 34

Information Service, “Implementation of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy”

http://www.jis.gov.jm.special_sections/CARICOMNews.CSME1.html

Jamaica Information Service, “The CARICOM Single Market Up Close”,

http://www.jis.gov.jm/special_sections/caricomnew/TheCARICOMSingleMarket.html

Lodge, Junior. “CARIFORUM EPA Negotiations: An Initial Reflection”, Caribbean Regional

Negotiating Machinery website (CRNM)

http://www.crnm.org/documents/ACP_EU_EPA/epa_agreement/TNI_240108_FINAL.pdf

OXFAM Briefing Paper, “Stop the Dumping: How EU Agricultural Subsidies Are Damaging the

Livelihoods in the Developing World”, October 2002

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/2002/10stopdumping.pdf

Report on the Fifteenth Continental Conference, International Confederation of Free Trade

Unions, July 4, 2002, http://www.orit-ciosl.org/debate/basedoc.html

The Caribbean Negotiating Machinery website, www.crnm.org

The World Factbook, United States Central Intelligence Agency,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html

United Nation Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) Report,

“The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Government Finances in Jamaica”, 1 November 1999,

http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/7/10237/carg0574.pdf

K. Tucker - Possibilities of EPA for Caribbean Development

Documents

Transcript of K. Tucker - Possibilities of EPA for Caribbean Development