FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF THE CARIBBEAN SINGLE

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF THE CARIBBEAN SINGLE MARKET AND ECONOMY

(CSME)

Paper prepared for the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC)

��

by

Peter W. Wickham Carlos L. A. Wharton

Dave A. Marshall Hilda A. Darlington-Weekes

of

Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES)

January 2004

Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)

2

CONTENTS

0.0 Abbreviations 04 1.0 Executive Summary 05 2.0 Introduction 14 3.0 Free Movement and Its Relevance to a Common Market 15 4.0 Free Movement in the Caribbean Context 18 5.0 Free Movement and The CSME: The State of The Art 18 6.0 Status of Initiatives to Facilitate The Free Movement of Persons 23 6.1 Graduates 23 6.2 Media Workers, Artistes, Sports Persons, Musicians 23 6.3 Service Providers, Entrepreneurs, and Managerial, Technical And Supervisory Staff and Family Members 23 6.4 Issues Arising from the Review of Initiatives to Facilitate Free Movement 24 7.0 Supporting Institutions 27 7.1 Regional and National Standard Setting Bodies 27 7.2 National Accreditation Bodies 27 7.3 The Caribbean Court of Justice 27 8.0 Impediments to Free Movement 29 9.0 Sections of The Caribbean Community Benefiting Most From The CSME 31 10.0 Lessons from the EU Experience 32 10.1 The Role of Social Policy in the EU 35 10.2 Problems Encountered by the EU 36 11.0 Freedom of Movement: CARICOM versus the EU 38 12.0 Freedom of Movement Successes in CARICOM and The EU 41 13.0 People’s Perspective on the CSME: Quantitative Aspects 43


3

14.0 People’s Perspective on the CSME: Qualitative Aspects 46 14.1 Issue I: Knowledge of the CSME 47 14.2 Issue II: Education on the CSME 48 14.2 [a] Questions Persons Want Answered 48 14.2 [b] Suggestions for Improving the Education Programme 48 14.3 Issue III: Support for the CSME 49 14.3 [a] What Frightens Caribbean People 49 14.3 [b] What Excites Caribbean People 50 14.4 Issue IV: Attitude of Caribbean People Towards Each Other 51 14.5 Issue V: Hassle Free Travel 53 15.0 Recommendations for NGO Advocacy 54 15.1 A right to free movement for all Caribbean people 54 15.2 More integration; less bureaucratisation 55 15.3 Complaints authority for CARICOM’s people 55 15.4 Public education regarding the CSME 56 15.5 National-regional duplication in standards and professional

accreditation 56 15.6 Politicisation of the CSME 57 15.7 Full utilisation of the services platform 57 15.8 CARICOM rights and privileges 58 16.0 Endnotes 59 17.0 Select Bibliography 60 18.0 Appendices 62 18.1 Appendix I Focus Group Schedule and Protocol 62 18.2 Appendix II Relevant Aspects of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas 65 18.3 Appendix III

Issues for Future Study and Further Investigation 71

18.4 Appendix IV Summary of Status of Key Elements (of the CSME) 72


4

ABERRATIONS

ACCP Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market CCJ Caribbean Court of Justice CET Common External Tariff CM Common Market COFAP Council for Finance and Planning COHSOD CARICOM Council for Human and Social Development COTED Council for Trade and Economic Development CPC Central Product Classification CPDC Caribbean Policy Development Centre CROSQ CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality CSME CARICOM Single Market and Economy CU Customs Union EC European Community ECSC European Coal and Steel Community EEC European Economic Community EU European Union FTA Free Trade Area FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas GIS Government Information Service NTB Non Tariff Barrier OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States SEM Single European Market TEU Treaty on European Union WIF West Indies Federation WTO World Trade Organisation


5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Discussions that were initiated with the 1989 Grand Anse Declaration, have culminated in an agreement to establish the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. As an organisation that represents Caribbean Civil Society, the CPDC is anxious to enhance its understanding of issues related to the CSME and also to develop firm positions on the CSME which it can seek to advance through the structures available to it. It is therefore anticipated that this paper will guide that process and inform the opinions of the CPDC on the CSME. FREE MOVEMENT AND ITS RELEVANCE TO A COMMON MARKET A review of the theory of integration demonstrates that there are different levels of integration and argues for the inclusion of specific components at each stage. This review demonstrates that:

i. Higher forms of integration will naturally emerge when deficiencies inherent in the lower forms begin to manifest themselves;

ii. Specific ingredients are necessary in order for each “type” of integration to function.

Having established that we are at the stage of establishing a Common Market, the case is made for the free movement of the factor of production known as labour. It is argued that labour mobility is critical to the development of CARICOM since:

i. Mobile labour ensures that our regional pool of skills is fully exploited and can move quickly to areas of greatest need; and

ii. Mobile labour ensures that the common market is free from bias as a result of either very high or very low-priced labour in some areas of the region.

FREE MOVEMENT IN THE CARIBBEAN CONTEXT Although CARICOM is often compared to the EU, this region has to be distinguished from the EU since the GDP in most countries of CARICOM is dominated by the services sector, while most of the EU economies trade heavily in goods. As such the Eurocentric theorist argues that social integration is not a prerequisite for lower level integration, however, the history of both CARIFTA and CARICOM has demonstrated that the inability to integrate the most vital component of our GDPs has retarded the full development of our union. The paper therefore argues that our reliance on services requires a prioritisation of the human element in regionalism and therefore freedom of movement is a primary rather than secondary concern.


6

FREE MOVEMENT AND THE CSME: THE STATE OF THE ART Although the term freedom of movement can be subjected to various interpretations, in this context, it refers to the “right” or “ability” of members of a formal economic community to move and work freely within that community. The alternative interpretation which relates to “hassle free” travel is acknowledged in the paper, but is only employed with reference to an initiative of the Independent West Indian Commission. The paper noted that genuine freedom of movement existed in the Caribbean while it was under colonial rule, however, this freedom disappeared long before independence and there is even evidence that movement was restricted among the islands that were a part of the 1958 West Indies Federation (WIF). Hence freedom of movement was not on the agenda of the earliest integration initiative CARIFTA and its successor CARICOM. Both of these institutions specifically denied any right to freedom of movement that might have been implied by that Treaty. Freedom of movement was reintroduced into the Caribbean integration agenda by the Grand Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement. This agreement anticipated a phased approach to freedom of movement beginning with skilled or professional persons, along with the elimination of passport and work permit requirements. Hence the Treaty of Chaguaramas has been revised and in its new form it anticipates the elimination of passport and work permit requirements for (qualified) community nationals, along with the establishment of mechanisms to certify qualifications and transfer social security benefits. The Revised Treaty also introduced a potentially useful facility whereby non-wage earners can move freely, as it deals extensively with service providers and demands that Member States not prohibit their movement by erecting new barriers and also that Member States should seek to dismantle all existing barriers. The enormous potential of this facility is encumbered by the implication that such providers not take up residence in the country in which they either offer or procure services. The movement of service providers is contingent on the type of service offered. Where there is commercial presence, it is very likely that the service provider would be resident in the territory where such presence is established. STATUS OF INITIATIVES TO FACILITATE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS Notwithstanding the passage of the deadline of January 2003 for the enactment of regulations to facilitate the movement of skilled graduates, freedom of movement for skilled nationals is still not a reality in the Caribbean. Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Jamaica are the only CARICOM Members who have administrative and legislative provisions in place to facilitate the movement of graduates, while in all other cases (with the exception of Montserrat and Suriname), States still had not (as of June 2003) established the mechanisms to identify and verify graduates who were to be accorded special privileges.


7

In order to facilitate the movement of media workers, artistes, sports persons and musicians, Member States will have to amend existing legislation and Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda are the only CARICOM members that have put arrangements in place. Other territories have agreed to do so, while Barbados allows these categories of persons to move freely, but this needs to be formalised by enacting the appropriate legislative instruments (Free Entry and Movement of Skilled Nationals Act). It is noticeable that the Revised Treaty speaks exhaustively to the movement of service providers, entrepreneurs, managerial, technical and supervisory staff and their families and seeks to facilitate these categories on a phased basis, concluding in December 2005. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REVIEW OF INITIATIVES TO FACILITATE FREE MOVEMENT The freedom of movement principle in its broadest interpretation, should facilitate the greatest possible mobility for the largest number of people within the Community, however the Member States have identified specific groups and sought to liberate them individually. Hence critical issues arise that speak to the proper functioning of the Single Market:

i. Business persons are “ring fenced” from other persons, therefore legislative and administrative arrangements have to be repeated for each category and this will be exacerbated once the quantity of categories inevitably increase.

ii. It is uncertain whether the intention is to treat all service suppliers equally with

respect to the freedom of movement, since the requirements of a supplier who is associated with a commercial enterprise would be very different from the requirements of a small businessperson or itinerant salesperson and the latter category of persons is currently the target of great obstruction within CARICOM.

iii. It is important that there be a removal of passport requirements, as mandated by COTED, however, administrative difficulties have made this impossible and specific measures need to be put in place to facilitate the removal of passport requirements for all categories of persons within the CSME.

iv. Many of the delays encountered in the implementation of the freedom of movement provisions are related to resource deficiencies and a lack of determination in specific communities and there has been no discussion of how such hurdles can be overcome.


8

v. The freedom of movement initiative has been pursued without any

complementary legislation attempting to harmonise other national policies that will affect free movement. For instance, failure to harmonise certain incentive regimes in individual countries could perpetuate bias and discrimination within the Member States.

vi. Some CSME Members still retain Alien Land Holding legislation which retards the functioning of the CSME. These are to be removed by 2005.

vii. Some Member States have approached the freedom of movement issue on the basis of the principle of reciprocity and this is incompatible with the tone of the programme which often requires unilateral action. This problem arose as a result of an error in the drafting of the model legislation at the Secretariat. Most countries adopted the model with little changes and incorporated this erroneous principle unintentionally. These inconsistencies have been identified and Member States have agreed to amend the inconsistent provisions,

viii. Throughout the CSME Social Security and related benefits are unequal and therefore this will cause problems as claimants move among the Member States.

SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS Regional and National Standard setting bodies, National accreditation bodies and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) have been identified as three critical supporting institutions. Bodies which will deal with matters of accreditation and the setting of standards are essential to the fabric of the CSME, especially since the market as it is currently configured, relies heavily on an administrative infrastructure and in cases where this infrastructure is not in existence, it will invariably impact negatively on the functioning of the CSME. CARICOM has established its own body to set standards and in all countries except Montserrat and Suriname, national bodies are in existence. In the case of the CCJ, the protocol that sets out its framework has been signed by all members except Dominica, Montserrat and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, which has expressed difficulties with the institution. The CCJ will eventually help to create a body of Community Law which will help build the fabric of CARICOM as a community and moreover, it can help to reinforce whatever rights Community Members might have. However, it must be noted that any court is by its very definition not accessible to the less prosperous members of the community.


9

IMPEDIMENTS TO FREE MOVEMENT The main impediment to free movement appears to be the slowness, unwillingness, or inability of the Member States to implement agreements concerning the CSME. The approach chosen by the Heads of Government often relies on an administrative infrastructure that is often not present or underdeveloped in some States. The removal of these impediments would either require that the administrative infrastructure throughout the region be upgraded, or the approach to the implementation of the CSME simplified. Nowhere is this more obvious than in relation to the “ring fencing” of certain categories of persons who are to be privileged within the Community, and, given the benefit of extensive and complex facilities to move and hence will not be motivated to lobby government to broaden the scope of existing provisions. SECTIONS OF THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY BENEFITING MOST FROM THE CSME In its current form, the CSME seeks to enable specific categories of persons in the Community to move freely and while concrete data is not available, it can be estimated that at most 10% of the Community will benefit from the freedom of movement provisions of the Revised Treaty, since these persons would be categorised as “skilled nationals”. In addition, the Revised Treaty also seeks to facilitate providers and consumers of services and gives a broad interpretation in this regard, however, it would be expected that such persons would NOT live and work in the country that they provide and consume services. In instances where services are such that a commercial presence is necessary, then service providers can reside in the targeted country. LESSONS FROM THE EU EXPERIENCE The EU experience has been instructive for CARICOM due to the similarity of the objectives, but the approach has been quite different and currently the EU model can be said to be more successful. The EU founding documents reflect a high level of commitment to full factor mobility and moreover the EU established supra national institutions that have been a catalyst to the movement. These were:

I. The High Authority; II. The Council of Ministers; III. The Common Assembly (now the EU Parliament); and IV. The Court of Justice


10

The Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 initiated freedom of movement within that environment since it was important for the success of the CM that the factor of production known as labour be mobile. The Treaty targeted employees, the bulk of whom were unskilled and sought to establish rights to move, work and also sought to ensure that migrant workers would not be discriminated against. Later with the establishment of the Single European Market (SEM), freedom of moment was further entrenched by the creation of European Citizenship, which provided representational rights and promoted the concept of a European identity. Essentially therefore, the EU experience is demonstrative of a Community that established freedom of movement initially through the integration and protection of workers and thereafter sought to create genuine citizenship with its attendant benefits. Significantly, the EU approach embraced two components which are important to appreciate as a precursor to discussing the CSME. These are:

I. The attempt to facilitate the movement of employees who were largely unskilled, presumably because this was the larger section of the community; and

II. The embodiment of a “right” to remain in the member state during and after employment.

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL POLICY IN THE EU Initially the EU sought to address social issues that were directly related to the movement of workers, such as social security in the Treaty of Rome. Although this was adequate at the time, as the EU became a genuine Community with large numbers of workers moving between countries, complex issues arose and the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers was articulated. This charter offered trans-border protection to workers who were made more vulnerable by the differences in social protections offered in the different sections of the community. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE EU Although the EU has been quite successful in their initiatives to achieve freedom of movement, some problems have arisen that are noteworthy:

I. Officials in some States continue to request documents that are not required under community law, placing a burden on citizens seeking to move between states;

II. Community nationals are discriminated against on the basis of nationality when seeking work in the public sector of a community member;

III. Community nationals, who move between the public service in different states, often lose their rank upon the assumption of a similar post in a different territory; and

IV. Uneven social security benefits continue to be problematic.


11

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: CARICOM VERSUS THE EU Although it is acknowledged that the EU process is much older than that of CARICOM, a comparison of the two suggests that CARICOM has been less successful. Arguably, this is related to the fact that since the Treaties of Rome when factor mobility was attempted, the EC attempted to mobilise the largest section of the Community, while CARICOM was initially established with a proviso that freedom of movement should not be inferred from their agreement. Subsequently, the Grand Anse Declaration has anticipated some freedom of movement within the Community, but this related only to skilled members, while the EC facilitated unskilled members, which accounts for a significant proportion of the Community. More recently, the EU has moved towards the definition of rights of the European Citizen, which remedies several deficiencies encountered in the functioning of the EU, however the CSME agreement speaks only to the “right to seek work”. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT SUCCESSES IN CARICOM AND THE EU One of the bases of the success of the EU has been its inclusion of Supra-national political institutions and it is noteworthy that CARICOM has thus far resisted the development of such institutions and expressed the desire to remain a Community of sovereign States, which adheres to the unanimity rule. These constraints represent the strongest point of the EU and the weakest point of CARICOM, since even in instances where the community is able to articulate anything that resembles rights; these will still be subject to national laws. It is therefore evident that CARICOM needs to develop a unique “personality” that carries privileges that are similar to the European Citizenship envisaged in the Treaty of Maastricht and this development continues to be retarded by the absence of any functioning supra-national institution. PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE CSME: QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS In this section, evidence of support for Caribbean integration beyond the level that is currently being pursued is presented. Specifically, reference is made to a 2003 CADRES poll which asks respondents in Barbados specific questions related to aspects of a common market. The survey recorded a majority of persons who were supportive of freedom of movement and who felt that the current approach was too limited. In addition, reference was made to a published survey carried out by UWI academic Cynthia Barrow-Giles, in Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Antigua. She demonstrated that half of persons in the four countries studied favoured “intensified” integration, while only 14% were opposed to intensification. PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE CSME: QUALITATIVE ASPECTS To further probe aspects of this general support detected at the national level, focus group discussions were held with Caribbean citizens to establish how they felt about aspects of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). Specifically, the discussions were to establish:


12

• The extent and reliability of information available regionally on the CSME • Levels of regional support for the CSME • Expectations and concerns regarding the CSME • Attitudes of Caribbean people towards their neighbours.

Generally, respondents were familiar with the basics of the CSME, but lacked specific knowledge, which they seemed very anxious to be exposed to. There was general support for the objectives of regionalism; however it was clear that the CSME in its current form was not fulfilling the expectations of respondents who often indicated that they felt no different to tourists as they moved around the region. Most persons seemed to believe that the CSME should provide privileges that are more consistent with the EU model. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NGO ADVOCACY It is recommended that the NGO community focus its advocacy on the following specific issues and these recommendations appreciate the fact that the NGO community in this instance represented by the CPDC is a stakeholder in the CSME, but does not have the capacity to make changes to either the form or substance of the CSME as it is currently presented. Apart from the stated philosophy of the CPDC which is supportive of regionalism, the paper argued that there is substantial logic to greater freedom of movement since:

I. Mobile labour would integrate the single greatest resource of CARICOM; II. Mobile labour would integrate the economic resource which feeds the services

sector that is the economic platform upon which a majority of the Caribbean economies are based;

III. Mobile labour would ensure that our regional pool of skills is fully exploited and can move quickly to areas of greatest need; and

IV. Mobile labour would ensure that the common market is free from bias as a result of either very high or very low-priced labour in some areas of the region.

The paper therefore recommends: • That CARICOM be pressed to examine the level of support regionally for greater

freedom of movement for itself and thereafter act on this information to embrace a wider cross-section of the Caribbean’s population in CSME initiatives. Specifically, we feel that consultation mechanisms such as referenda and the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP), would go a long way towards demonstrating the high level of support for regionalism, which will hopefully influence future policies;


13

• That the CPDC press the Heads of Government to make the CSME less

bureaucratic and more “user friendly” which would in most cases mean that CARICOM nationals should be able to secure the benefits of the CSME after the simplest demonstration that they are a citizen of a member country;

• That the Heads of Government be pressed to establish a regional ombudsman who

can hear complaints from community members who feel that they have been treated unfairly by the officials of CARICOM governments;

• That the CSME education programme be altered to help people understand in

simple language:

i. What rights and benefits they will enjoy under the CSME; ii. The conditions under which such rights and benefits are available; and iii. How such rights and benefits can be secured.

• That the CPDC press the Heads of Government to discuss and ultimately articulate

a policy on what standards would be a concern for regional agencies and thereafter national agencies would be expected to defer to regional agencies, or cease to exist completely. In addition, the CPDC should encourage the establishment of regional professional bodies that would determine the acceptability of various qualifications and licence practitioners in various professions.

• That the CPDC use its influence as a legitimate representative of Civil Society which

would be represented in the ACCP, to lobby for this body to be re-activated and to meet so that it can insert some much needed political activity into the CSME and the wider CARICOM process. As an interim or fall-back position, the CPDC should lobby for representation either by itself, or other actors in Civil Society on bodies that are guiding the CSME process.

• That the CPDC lobby for an amendment to CSME policy which allows service

suppliers to remain and live in the targeted territory for as long as is necessary to supply services.

• That the CPDC should welcome the opportunity to frame the type of rights that

would ultimately be embraced into a CARICOM constitution; however, immediately, it should lobby for the creation of a right to move and work for all CARICOM nationals.

• That the CPDC should lobby to have the Heads of government articulate clear rights

to move and travel within the community as a first step towards the articulation of a full set of rights which it should begin discussion on at this stage.


14

2.0 INTRODUCTION Discussions on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) can be traced back to the 1989 Grand Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement. This ambitious document re-introduced the concept of political integration to the CARICOM programme and initiated a dialogue that has now culminated in the establishment of the CSME. The CSME is important to the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) because it represents the interest of all major NGO networks throughout the region and attempts to make a significant contribution to Caribbean development by influencing the manner in which these issues are addressed. In an effort to make a meaningful contribution to ongoing CSME discussions, the CPDC therefore seeks to become more familiar with issues relating to the CSME and specifically seeks to:

• Examine the importance of the application of the principle of free movement to a successful integration initiative particularly as it relates to the implementation of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME);

• Identify and analyse the political and legal impediments to the speedy

implementation by Caribbean States of the Free Movement of People (in all categories) as prescribed under the CARICOM Single market and Economy (CSME);

• Undertake an assessment of the attitudes of Caribbean people relating to the

feasibility and potential value of the CSME; • Undertake a comparative analysis of the European Union’s (EU) approach to the

free movement of people taking note to critically examine the EU’s implementation process and its practice;

• Examine the importance of public education to the successful implementation of

the Free Movement of People in Integration initiatives, identifying a structured role of Caribbean Civil Society in the CSME process.


15

3.0 FREE MOVEMENT AND ITS RELEVANCE TO A COMMON MARKET The importance of free movement to the CSME project is heavily rooted in an understanding of what a Single Market is and what components are necessary for it to function effectively. The CSME is essentially an inelegantly titled Common Market (CM) and as such it fits within the well established theory on regional integration discussed by theorists such as Jacob Viner (1961) and Bela Balassa (1961), who have spoken extensively to the issue of economic integration, which is the theory that has inspired CARICOM. Balasaa defines economic integration as both a process and a state of affairs. Regarding the former, “it encompasses measures designed to abolish discrimination between economic units belonging to different national states” while if it is viewed in terms of the latter , it is a state of affairs where “there is an absence of various forms of discrimination between national economies” (Balassa, 01). Based on this definition, Balassa outlines a range of integration options that reflect the removal of discrimination to varying extents at early and more advanced stages of integration. Presumably, states that embark on such a path start with basic integration and move to more advanced stages, hence each stage along the path to comprehensive integration is labelled and necessary ingredients identified. The stages identified are:

i. The free trade area; ii. The customs union; iii. The common market iv. An economic union; and v. Total economic integration.

Initially a Free Trade Area (FTA) is envisaged as an agreement between participating states that removes all tariffs and quantitative restrictions, while states would retain the tariffs and restrictions against non-members. This model was reflected in the initial post-federal initiative in the Caribbean that was known as the Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA). The FTA reflects the most basic commitment to integration; however, it excludes potentially controversial issues that arise from disharmony between government policies. One such area of disharmony relates to the customs rates charged to countries outside of the FTA and this is addressed in the Customs Union, which is the second level of integration identified. Here the removal of discrimination relating to commodity movements within the area is complimented by the equalisation of tariffs that are levied on goods coming into the area from outside. CARICOM attempted to achieve such a union since the 1980s, with the introduction of the Common External Tariff (CET) programme. This improvement removes the advantage that a state can potentially gain from the comparatively lower tariffs against raw materials and other imports from third countries; however states with lower wage rates or greater access to capital will still have an inherent advantage within the integration group.


16

The next stage of integration seeks to address the need to integrate the factors of production by removing restrictions on factor movement within the integration group. This is known as the Common Market (CM) and while CARICOM is labelled a CM, the fact that the Treaty of Chaguaramas specifically excluded factor mobility by denying the freedom of movement of people and capital, means that CARICOM is yet to achieve this status. Once a CM is achieved, the integrating region can move towards an economic union which is distinguished by the attempt to harmonise national economic policies which create imbalances, but are not strictly speaking external or trade policies. This level of integration is highly political since it will often require that government discontinue or shift national policies that responded to national constituencies, in favour of regional policies that might initially be unattractive to the residents of a state. Thereafter, the theorists anticipate that all this will lead to total economic integration and at this stage integration forces would embrace monetary, social and fiscal policies and a supra-national authority would emerge with powers over national entities. The foregoing “road map” demonstrates two issues that are central to this paper:

i. Higher forms of integration will naturally emerge when deficiencies inherent in the lower forms begin to manifest themselves;

ii. Specific ingredients are necessary in order for each “type” of integration to function.

Arguably, both of these points can be demonstrated with reference to the Caribbean integration experience, since it is now evolving from the limited beginnings of CARIFTA, through the CET experience and is now contemplating the more ambitious Common Market (CM). Ironically, CARICOM, which was established in 1974, claimed the status of a CM, however, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that CARICOM did not previously posses the ingredients necessary to satisfy the theoretical requirements of a CM. The CM is distinguished as a form of economic integration in which “not only trade restrictions, but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished”. One such factor is labour and as such we would anticipate that all restrictions on the movement of this factor would either be removed, or their removal anticipated within CARICOM. Historically, economists have argued that the factors of production are land, labour, capital. Cumulatively, these components are essential to the production of any good or service. Hence if the common market is intended to facilitate production, then it is important that all factors are mobile within the Community. Mobile labour therefore assists production within the community in two key ways:

i. Mobile labour ensures that our regional pool of skills is fully exploited and can move quickly to areas of greatest need; and


17

ii. Mobile labour ensures that the common market is free from bias as a result of either very high or very low-priced labour in some areas of the region.


18

4.0 FREE MOVEMENT IN THE CARIBBEAN CONTEXT Although the theorists make a good case for the inclusion of freedom of labour as a component of the Caribbean Common Market, it is important to note that theorists such as Balassa had a Eurocentric bias which speaks directly to large industrial economies such as the EU, Latin American and the Central American Common Market countries. The impact of such a bias is important since the Caribbean economies are very different and hence the approach we use would also need to be different. In the Caribbean, our countries are very much unlike the large industrialised, export oriented countries which Balassa included in her model. Balassa therefore does not immediately consider social or political integration necessary for there to be successful lower level economic integration, although the absence of such has obviously handicapped the erection of an effective free trade area in the Caribbean. In the Caribbean instance, exclusively economic initiatives have not been effective since we trade heavily in services and this necessarily involves human interaction and the regulation of intellectual property and investment is not dissimilar. Unfortunately, Caribbean integration has proceeded based on schemes that conceptualise the development of Caribbean economies around purely economic and especially trade issues. There has always been an assumption that a trade-driven approach to integration could develop the Caribbean economies in a way that was similar to that of many European economies, an assumption that could be correct for Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. However, in other Caribbean countries such as Antigua and Barbuda, the percentage of total GDP contributed by manufacturing between 1980 and 1990, was a mere 3.9%. Moreover, the unavailability of land and the current orientation of several Caribbean governments suggest that this imbalance is unlikely to change. CARICOM integration has, as a result, ignored the tremendous developmental potential of services generally and specifically, tourism and the off-shore sector, which during the decade of the 80's accounted for no less than 20% of total GDP in any single Common Market Country. 5.0 FREE MOVEMENT AND THE CSME: THE STATE OF THE ART Any discussion of freedom of movement in the Caribbean has first to be contextualised since this concept can be subjected to two interpretations within a regional community, or free trade area. In the wider context, freedom of movement is associated with the right of members of a “formal” regional community (such as CARICOM) to settle and work in any member state of that community. In the Caribbean context, however, the term “freedom of movement” has been associated with the less ambitious objective that is commonly referred to as “hassle free travel”. In this paper, references to freedom of movement will normally be associated with the former instance and any references to the latter will be specifically stated. Freedom of movement is a relatively recent addition to the Caribbean integration agenda, which is intimately associated with post-colonial independence in the Caribbean. Initially, the entire Anglophone Caribbean region was administered under


19

the UK colonial office and the absence of sovereign status, along with limited local governance meant that persons resident in the Caribbean were free to move, live and work in any of the Caribbean islands. This situation changed even before the establishment of the 1958 West Indies Federation (WIF), which was perhaps the only federation known to humanity, where it was theoretically possible to deport a citizen of that federation, from the Federal Capital in Trinidad and Tobago. Commentators such as Hugh Springer (1962) argued that the absence of freedom of movement prevented a genuine West Indian nationalism from developing and his comments are perhaps no less true today. Although restricted movement within the WIF was controversial, Trinidad and Tobago remained unconvinced of the need to abolish these restrictions and with the establishment of independent Caribbean states, when the WIF broke up in 1962, restricted movement became a firmly established feature of post-colonial Caribbean statehood. Against this background, the first post-federal regional initiative, the Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA), did not contemplate freedom of movement and focused exclusively on a narrow interpretation of the removal of barriers to intra-regional trade. Later, when CARIFTA was upgraded to the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), the issue of freedom of movement did occupy the attention of the framers of this agreement. In this instance, however, freedom of movement was mentioned negatively in Article 38 which stated:

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as requiring, or imposing any obligation on, a Member State to grant freedom of movement to persons into its territory whether or not such persons are nationals of other Member States of the Common Market.”

This article in the CARICOM Treaty (1973) effectively set aside initiatives towards greater freedom of movement and during this period Caribbean islands only maintained limited “informal” mechanisms to allow the movement of employees of regional institutions such as the UWI and Meteorological Service as well as Lawyers. In 1989, the CARICOM Heads of Government suddenly placed the matter of freedom of movement within the Caribbean Community on the regional agenda in the Grand Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement. This declaration addressed both aspects of freedom of movement identified above in that it anticipated:

“arrangements by January 1991 for the free movement of skilled and professional personnel as well as for contract workers on a seasonal or project basis”; “the elimination by December 1990, of the requirement for passports for CARICOM nationals travelling to other CARICOM countries; and


20

“the elimination of the requirement for work permits for CARICOM nationals beginning with the visual and performing arts, sports and the media travelling to CARICOM countries for specific regional events”

This declaration, not only placed the wider issue of free movement to live and work within the Community, but also implicitly suggested that Caribbean citizens ought to be able to move between the islands for business or pleasure without a passport. In 1992, the Independent West Indian Commission (WIC) introduced the concept of “Hassle-Free Travel” and supported the Grand Anse call for the elimination of passports for intra-regional travel. In addition they recommended that Caribbean states make special provisions for CARICOM members in air and sea ports. While several of these recommendations can be considered “token,” the significance of the WIC’s recommendations lie in the fact that they emphasised that personal contact was an important precursor to greater Caribbean integration. This approach was distinctively different from previous CARICOM reviews such as the 1981 Demas report which focused on technical and structural factors that inhibited Caribbean integration. In relation to the other aspect of freedom of movement, namely the right to move and work, the WIC argued for the “ultimate objective [of] freedom of movement of all Caribbean citizens within the region.” The significance of this objective was, however, implicitly undermined by the fact that the WIC endorsed the Grand Anse approach to limited free movement and encouraged the addition of UWI graduates; and Media workers to the pool of CARICOM nationals deserving of the right to move freely and work. The WIC therefore inherently contradicted itself by suggesting that personal contact was an important precursor to regional integration, while refusing to recommend the full freedom of movement, or to offer substantive reasons why full free movement is not plausible. In the post WIC period, it would appear as though Hassle Free Travel has declined in its importance and the CARICOM Secretariat now sees free movement in terms of the elimination of the need for a work permit for a CARICOM national to gain employment, or conduct any legitimate form of business activity in another Member State. Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus broadly indicates that “Member States commit themselves to the goal of free movement of their nationals within the Community”. It has been stated that the ‘ultimate goal’ of the Heads of Government is to cover “all” persons, but it was decided that a phased approach be adopted for the facilitation of free movement (SER/WG2003/7/4). Therefore, under Article 46 of the Revised Treaty, Member States agreed to accord to University Graduates, Musicians, Artistes, Media Workers and Sportspersons the right to seek employment in the territory of another Member State. Member States also agreed that they would provide for the movement of these skilled persons into and within their jurisdictions without the harassment or the imposition of impediments. This included:

i. the elimination of the requirement for passports for community nationals travelling to their jurisdictions;


21

ii. the elimination for the requirement of work permits for community nationals seeking approved employment in their jurisdictions;

iii. establishment of mechanisms for certifying and establishing equivalency of degrees and for accrediting institutions;

iv. harmonisation and transferability of social security benefits. The movement of persons is also covered under Articles 33-37. These articles provide for the free movement of non-wage earners, in the case of service providers (and entrepreneurs) and/or in the case of the right of establishment through which the managerial, supervisory and technical staff associated with these businesses. The right of the latter category can be directly related to the establishment of a commercial presence or on an individual basis. These provisions appear to have the potential to include large numbers of small and individual business persons; however its utility is compromised by the fact that the Revised Treaty implies that service providers would neither live, nor seek work in the country that they offer or procure services. Moreover, it is unclear whether persons who reside through the right of establishment are entitled to seek employment and continue to reside in the Member State if they become disassociated from that enterprise. The Treaty also states that Members should establish measures aimed at abolishing restrictions that affect the movement of the spouses and immediate family members of the category of persons outlined above. It should be noted here that the service suppliers covered under this agreement would include all categories of services outlined in the United Nations Central Product Classification. To facilitate Freedom of Movement Member states agreed to the following:

i. Not to impose any new measures that would restrict free movement ii. To remove any existing legislative and/or administrative arrangements that

restricts free movement on assigned category of persons The level of movement provided for the categories of workers outlined in Articles 33-37 is limited to following:

i. Commercial presence or the right of establishment; ii. The temporary movement of service providers, where the supplier of the services

enters another Member State for a period to offer a service and returns to his/her country of residence;

iii. Where the consumer of the service travels to the jurisdiction of the service supplier consumes the service and returns to his/her place of residence.


22

The service providers and business persons mentioned in Articles 33-37, are not offered the same level of privileges as those categories of persons covered under the Treaty’s freedom of movement provision. Under Article 46, university graduates, media workers, sportspersons, artistes and entertainers are granted the right to seek employment and the right to enter another Jurisdiction without the requirement of a passport. These provisions are not extended to service providers and business persons.


23

6.0 STATUS OF INITIATIVES TO FACILITATE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS

The Heads of Governments agreed in February 2003 that the deadline for the free movement of graduates, media workers, musicians, artistes and sports persons be July 2003. There has been no indication that the categories of persons will be extended to all by 2005. 6.1 Graduates The latest report from the COTED (COTED/2003/15/36) indicates that Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are the only Members that have all the arrangements effectively in place. It is noted that while Barbados has to some extent implemented the necessary legislative and administrative arrangements to enable free movement, formalisation of these arrangements was still some way off. In January 2003, the Secretariat indicated that although all countries (with the exception of Montserrat and Suriname) enacted or amended legislation to give effect to the movement of University Graduates, they still needed to put in place the necessary regulatory and administrative arrangements to start issuing and accepting the certificates of CARICOM Skills Recognition and to allow University Graduates to move freely through the Community to seek and gain employment (SER/WG/2003/7/4). 6.2 Media Workers, Artistes, Sports Persons, Musicians To facilitate the movement of these categories of workers, Member States will have to enact and/or amend existing legislation to provide for the free movement of these persons in their respective Jurisdictions. With respect to these categories of workers, Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda are the only Member States to have arrangements effectively in place. Guyana, Belize, Dominica, St. Vincent and Grenadines and St. Lucia have the necessary legislation in place, while Barbados, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago still have to “take necessary action or complete the process of enacting or amending the necessary legislation”. It should be noted that Barbados already allows for the free movement of these categories through an administrative procedure, but this will be formalised when the Caribbean Community (Free Movement of Skilled Persons) Act, 1999 is enacted. 6.3 Service Providers, Entrepreneurs, And Managerial, Technical And Supervisory Staff And Family Members To accommodate the free movement of these categories of persons, Member States agreed to establish a programme for the removal of restrictions on the right of establishment, Capital and the provision of services. According to the Secretariat, this programme recognises four timeframes during which restrictions would be removed.


24

i. The immediate term no later than 31 December 2002 ii. The short term no later than 31 December 2003 iii. The medium term no later than 31 December 2004; and iv. The long term no later than 31 December 2005

The aim of this programme is to remove all discriminatory measures on national treatment affecting the abovementioned persons from Member States. It should be noted that a number of the legislative instruments identified as having discriminatory provisions relate to the supply of services. A table providing updated information on the progress of individual territories seeking to move towards the CSME is available in Appendix IV. 6.4 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REVIEW OF INITIATIVES TO FACILITATE

FREE MOVEMENT Broadly speaking the freedom of movement principle suggests that all persons, whether natural or juridical (corporate), should be allowed to move throughout the Community with minimum hassle. As stated above, Member States have opted to address the free movement of University Graduates and other business persons and as a result, a number of issues arise that require further discussion and investigation:

I. The carving out of university graduates, media persons, artistes, sportspersons and entertainers from the other business persons and service providers mentioned in Articles 33-37 will result in duplication of efforts and wastage of the limited administrative and legislative resources within Member States. The revised legislation will have to be amended once the categories of persons expand.

II. With respect to the free movement of service providers and the four modes of

supplyi Member States would have to determine the levels of treatment afforded to service providers that qualify under the different modes of supply. For instance, a service provider operating under the “commercial presence” provision, will require a more permanent status than a service provider who is simply entering the territory temporarily, performing a service and returning to their place of abode. Similar consideration would have to be given to the consumer that travels to a member state to consume a service. Clearly, under the present framework, the benefits offered for this category of persons would not be as substantial as those other categories of persons that move in order to provide a service. It should be noted that these distinctions would be unnecessary if freedom of movement was afforded to all persons.


25

III. When considering the freedom of movement of University Graduates, Musicians,

Artistes, Sportspersons and Media workers, the provision concerning the requirement to hold a passport continues to be a problem and administrative difficulties at customs prohibit progress in this area. It does not appear that this mandate will be met by 2005. Notwithstanding the above, Member States endorsed the timelines of June 30, 2003 for the acceptance of photo ID cards for intra-regional travel, common embarkation and disembarkation forms and CARICOM/non-CARICOM lines at immigration points. These measures would facilitate intra-regional trade; however, this timeline has not been met. (COTED/2003/15/36).

IV. The pace at which legislative and administrative arrangements allowing free

movement of persons has progressed is symptomatic of the resource problem affecting most Member States. Furthermore, what appears to be a low political commitment and lack of decisive persuasion from the private sector, labour and the rest of civil society have resulted in a measure of complacency in the execution of this mandate.

V. With respect to the removal of restrictions on the right of establishment, capital

and services, the categories of persons that benefit from the freedom of movement provisions should also benefit from incentive regimes in place to promote export and business development in individual Member States. This also raises the broader question of the adequacy of free movement without broader legislative and fiscal harmonisation.

VI. It should be noted that the programme for removal of restrictions highlights the

fact that a number of Member States have discriminatory alien land holding instruments that are inconsistent with the principle of free movement (Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname). These Member States have agreed to remove the restrictive provisions by December 2005.

VII. A number of Member States still have provisions within their respective

legislative instruments that endorse elements of reciprocity vis-à-vis the movement of persons. These provisions are inconsistent with the Revised Treaty, since its intention is for Member States are to remove all discriminatory provisions affecting the movement of persons unilaterally. Member States should therefore remove all limitations on national treatment affecting service providers, the right of establishment and the movement of capital, without awaiting reciprocal action by community members.

VIII. Member States have not agreed on how to address matters affecting

contingent rights. For instance, the question frequently arises whether a person from another Member State will receive the same social benefits as a national of the host Member State, when such benefits are payable. This is particularly


26

acute when vast differences exist between benefits payable in different Member States.

IX. It should be noted that the CSME’s existence has been brought to the attention

of the WTO’s Council for Trade in Services as mandated under Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. This will ensure that the level of treatment afforded to CARICOM Nationals under the CSME will not need to be extended to other WTO Members. However, to ensure that the integration process is substantially deeper than the proposed level of integration at the FTAA, it would seem that freedom of movement should be extended to all persons, which would represent a qualitative difference between the CSME and the FTAA and ensure that members of the FTAA cannot claim that they are being discriminated against by CSME members.


27

7.0 SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS The development of the CSME will require the establishment of institutions to support the framework set out in the Revised Treaty. Consequently, to facilitate the movement of the categories of persons outlined in Articles 33-37 and 46 of the Revised Treaty CARICOM Member States will have to ensure that the right institutions are in place to adequately facilitate and regulate the movement of persons identified. 7.1 Regional and National Standard Setting Bodies The development of national and regional standard setting bodies is critical to the development of the CSME for a number of reasons. Most notably standards will have to be developed to ensure that the products and services offered under the CSME regime are consistent with the international best practice. These bodies ensure that there is high quality of output associated with the free movement regime. All countries except Montserrat and Suriname have established national standard setting bodies and the CARICOM Standard Setting Body is operational. 7.2 National Accreditation Bodies These bodies are important to ensure that service providers have been appropriately trained to supply services and are pivotal to ensuring that the quality of service providers is high. To date only Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have national accreditation bodies. It should be noted that in Barbados, Cabinet approved the establishment of a national accreditation Agency and the draft legislation is being prepared by the Attorney General’s Office. This accreditation body will be the certifying authority that regulates the movement of qualified community nationals to Barbados. It will also be responsible for recognising the qualification of community nationals seeking to enter Barbados. 7.3 The Caribbean Court of Justice The establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice is critical to the future survival of the integration process. This institution, once operational will bring a level of credibility to the CSME and other integration efforts within CARICOM. Moreover, the CCJ will begin the process of creating a body of Community law by passing judgement on matters brought to its attention. To date Barbados, Belize, Guyana, St. Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago ratified the Agreement establishing the CCJ, while Dominica, Montserrat and St. Vincent and the Grenadines still have to sign the Agreement.


28

The CCJ is intended to be the final court of appeal in the region on all matters and would also have a role in relation to interpreting the Revised Treaty. As such it will be an important cornerstone of the CSME. It is, however, important to note that the CCJ is a court and by definition it can more readily address the concerns of the more affluent sections of the Community, since it is a formal institution that would require that a complainant secure the type of legal representation that is not easily available to some sections of the Community.


29

8.0 IMPEDIMENTS TO FREE MOVEMENT The Revised Treaty is still not binding on Member States and this has been the Achilles Heel to implementation of the integration process and hence the freedom of movement. The establishment of the CCJ is critical in this regard, since it can attempt to enforce Community Law, however, it is left to be seen how effective such “law making” will be in the absence of a “supra national” political body which can articulate such law. A major impediment to free movement therefore has been the lack of a political commitment to implement the decisions to remove the legislative and administrative barriers to the free movement of persons. In some cases, government has made the legislative commitments, but the administrative hurdles continue to be problematic. Specific impediments have also been identified:

I. The public relations strategy should be called into question. To date the PR strategy has been less than desirable. The public relations strategy has to take a holistic approach to meet the required objective of sensitising Caribbean people of their rights under the CSME. Lack of a clear PR strategy can have a negative impact on the extent to which the CSME evolves. While the Treaty sets out the framework for its establishment, making the CSME operational will require a level of appreciation and understanding of the issues that need to be covered. This PR strategy should be multi-tiered and targeted towards, civil society, the business community, government, the University of the West Indies and other research based institutions.

II. The ring fencing of certain categories of persons makes the free movement of all

persons extremely complex and elitist. Hence it will take longer to implement an effective regime to govern free movement, since the CSME has to accommodate two types of Community national.

III. The private sector agencies that have critical lobbying power already have the

ability to move throughout the community. It is felt that these agencies are already mobile within the community and will therefore not feel inclined to pressure governments into making the Single Market and Economy a reality for all community members.

IV. It should also be noted that the consultation process is relatively shallow,

touching elite members of civil society, or more specifically the private sector. For consultations to be effective, they need to be on-going and should reach all levels of society. This would increase the discourse on and help shape the direction of the single market.


30

V. The administrative impediments at the ports of entry are often cited as

impediments to free movement. For instance Immigration and Customs Officials make it difficult for some Community nationals to enter the ports of various Member States, not withstanding the attempts to create a CARICOM friendly process at the arrival halls. These impediments will have to be improved and a less discriminatory approach used to monitor the movement of CARICOM nationals under the proposed CSME framework.


31

9.0 SECTIONS OF THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY BENEFITING MOST FROM THE CSME

There have not been any data presented by either CARICOM, or Civil Society, which can provide a precise indication of the sections of the community that benefits, or will benefit most from the CSME. This issue therefore has to be examined by reference to the Revised Treaty which continues to focus on the business sector, which is not dissimilar to the original treaty of Chaguaramas. The CSME focuses on the integration of the community through economics and as such the freedom of movement provisions are intended to enable workers to move freely, which is not an unreasonable approach if we assume that a significant proportion of the community works and would hence be entitled to CSME privileges. The reality of the CSME is, however, less inclusive. The Revised Treaty admits to targeting “skilled workers” and other specialised sections of the community like media workers and entertainers, hence there is a certain amount of “illogic” associated with that approach which effectively alienates the majority of persons living in this region from what should perhaps be a fundamental right within an economic community. Accurate data on the percentage of the Caribbean population that has graduated from University are not readily available, however, Marshall (1992) indicated that since its inception and until 1990, UWI has graduated 3,467 Barbadians with first degrees and this amounts to just over 1% of the population of Barbados. Ironically, Barbados has the largest proportion of University graduates and even if equal numbers of Barbadians received their degrees from non-UWI sources, it can be estimated that more than 90% of that population would still be excluded from CARICOM freedom of movement privileges. Hence our approach will at best result in an “elitist” common market with major sections of the Caribbean population remaining alienated. It is noteworthy that the Revised Treaty has sought to include service providers in the widest possible interpretation and this should help smaller providers and consumers move within the region. The more established business in the region, have had little difficulty peddling their services throughout the region under the old regime and there is also evidence to suggest that professional service providers already move with considerable ease. The potential benefit will therefore be to smaller providers, and consumers who have been indirectly covered by the treaty. It has, however, already been stated that these provisions assume that providers and consumers will not live and work in the country they provide or consume in, therefore the impact is severely limited.


32

10.0 LESSONS FROM THE EU EXPERIENCE Initiatives to promote freedom of movement within the economic spaces of the EU and CARICOM have been approached using methodologies which have been quite contrasting in their alacrity and effectiveness. With respect to the EU as it is now called, freedom of movement was seen as an integral aspect of European integration and was thus provided for in the Founding Treaties establishing the EC. One of the Treaties of Rome of 1957, specifically the Treaty Establishing the EEC was aimed at, according to Article 2 of the Treaty:

“… establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the states belonging to it” (Nugent 1999).

The establishment of this common market included measures to promote not only the free movement of goods between the Member States but also the free movement of persons, services and capital. It is noteworthy that in the preliminary stages of the European integration movement, the founding treaties sought to establish a European common market via the removal of trade restrictions and impediments to factor mobility. In addition, they established a number of supranational institutions which predated the 1957 Treaties of Rome and effectively gave binding force to the very policies which were to effectively establish the common market. Indeed, under the 1951 Treaty of Paris, which established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), four such supranational institutions were created:

I. The High Authority, which was set up, “To ensure that the objectives set out in the treaty are attained in accordance with the provisions thereof.” (Article 8 of the Treaty establishing the ECSC);

II. The Council of Ministers was established to “…harmonise the actions of the High

Authority and that of the Governments, which are responsible for the general economies of their countries…” (Article 26 Treaty of Paris);

III. The Common Assembly (now the European Parliament) was to provide a

democratic input into ECSC decision-making; and

IV. The Court of Justice was to settle disputes between the states, between the organs of the Community, and between the states and the organs. (Treaty of Paris, 1951).

Freedom of movement policy within the then EC was initiated by the common market created by one of the 1957 Treaties of Rome, namely the Treaty Establishing the EEC (hereafter referred to as the EEC Treaty). However, the free movement of persons was conceived originally as primarily an economic phenomenon, with the emphasis being


33

placed on the mobility of human resources as a factor of production in the European common market. Hence, as El-Agraa (1990) points out, such initiatives were centred on employees, the bulk of whom were unskilled. The EEC Treaty therefore adopted the principle of the free movement of wage earners, along with rules to give it practical effect, and to ensure equal treatment of migrants and indigenous workers. This point is illustrated in Title III, Article 48 of the EEC Treaty, which makes provisions for the free movement of workers, which entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. Furthermore, Article 48 affords the individual the right to remain in the Member State, not only during, but also after having been employed in that particular state. It must be noted that not only has the Treaty currently under discussion sought to establish mechanisms designed to promote the freedom of movement of wage earners throughout the EC (as it then was), but it also included a few social policy provisions designed to protect the interests of the workers. For example, Article 117 of the EEC Treaty speaks to the need of Member States to “promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained.” Furthermore, Article 118 empowers the Commission to promote close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to employment, labour law and working conditions, basic and advanced vocational training, social security, prevention of occupational accidents and diseases and the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers. Clearly, such provisions embedded within the Founding Treaties of Rome highlight the recognition and intent on the part of the leaders of that movement to allow from its inception for the erosion of inhibitors to free factor mobility. However, certain deficiencies within the EC have been exposed by authors such as El-Agraa. Specifically, it has been posited that in the initial stages, difficulties relating to work of a professional nature occurred where Member States were reluctant to modify their own regulatory and training requirements. In addition, the right to reserve employment in the public sector for nationals was seen as an impediment to the early free movement policies. Indeed, by the period of the early 1970s, the economic climate of the EC had not reflected the early progress and enthusiasm of the initial stages of the EC. As McCormick (1996) states, the 1970s was a period of economic stagnation, where remaining barriers to internal trade denied European businesses full assess to a true single market. Moreover, by the period of the 1980s, though the customs union was in place, non-tariff barriers remained to the free movement of people, namely differing national technical, health, and quality standards. The first noted effort to augment the freedom of movement policy and by extension the European integration movement came in June 1984 with the establishment of the Adonnino Committee. This committee was mandated to look at ways of making the general public more aware of the importance of the EC and of strengthening its identity. Specifically, it made suggestions related to the development of the free movement


34

policy and included issues such as the need to speed up measures to recognise professional qualifications, the right of EC nationals to vote in local elections and opening up the right of residence to EC nationals who spend their working lives in the Community, but would wish to relocate to another member state on retirement. The report of this committee argued that deficiencies remained under the free movement policy and therefore suggested that the ease of movement be enhanced by the speedy introduction of an EC passport. The establishment of the Adonnino Committee occurred in the midst of a debate within the EC about the true meaning of the concept of the ‘free movement of persons’. Some Member States felt that this should apply to EU citizens only, which would involve keeping internal border checks in order to distinguish between citizens of the EU and non-EU nationals. Others argued in favour of free movement for everyone, which would mean an end to internal border checks altogether. This schism led five Member States, namely France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to form in 1985, a sub-regional territory without internal borders known as the ‘Schengen Area’. The following year however heralded a new era in the development of the EC. The Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 ushered in the ‘internal market’ (under Article 8a) otherwise known as the Single European Market (SEM), which comprised an area without internal frontiers. It included policies designed to promote the free movement of goods, services, capital and people between Member States, as well as to enable the EC to act jointly and present a common front in its economic and trading relations with third countries. Originally, the internal market was supposed to have been completed by 1992, however, the deadline came and went with only 92% of the proposals adopted by the Council of Ministers, and only 79% adopted and transposed into national law. Regardless, the single market went into force in January 1993 with the understanding that the backlog of legislation would be cleared as soon as possible. The SEA was particularly important to the expansion of free movement policy in the EC in that it contained a social dimension embodied within the 1989 Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers. Freedom of movement policy reached its apex in Europe with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, also referred to as the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This Treaty, which heralded the establishment of the EU as it is now called, was based upon three pillars. The first pillar, the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) established Union citizenship, whereby every national of a member state was declared a citizen of the EU. The significance of this lies in the fact that freedom of movement was elevated form being solely an economic phenomenon, to that of a fundamental right accorded to all EU citizens. According to the European Commission, this was meant to make the process of European integration more relevant to the individual citizens by increasing their participation, strengthening the protection of their rights and promoting the idea of a European identity (Second Report of the European Commission on Citizenship of the Union). Specifically, the Maastricht Treaty provided for:


35

i. A personal right to free movement and residence subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the treaty and secondary law;

ii. Electoral rights in European Parliament and municipal elections in the place of residence [Article 8 B (1) and (2)];

iii. Protection by diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State in a third country where the citizen’s own Member State is not represented (Article 8C);

iv. Access to non-judicial means of address through access to the Ombudsman and a right to petition the European Parliament (Article 8D).

The Maastricht Treaty also included a Title IV on Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons, which included rules on a uniform format for visas. In addition, Article 57 provides for the issuing of directives for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in order to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, as well as the progressive abolition of restrictions in the case of the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions. This treaty therefore made every effort possible to dismantle any remaining barriers to freedom of movement. 10.1 THE ROLE OF SOCIAL POLICY IN THE EU Social Policy was provided for from the inception of the EC under the 1957 Treaty of Rome. However, the early approach was more economic in its perspective, and was limited to issues surrounding the free movement of workers. Specifically, the Rome Treaty provided for social security for migrant workers (Article 51), equal pay for male and female workers (Article 119), specific commitments to improve health and safety at work (Article 118) and the harmonisation of social security provisions for migrant workers (Article 121). The Rome Treaty also established the Social Fund (Articles 123, 128) but its functions were limited to vocational training or resettlement allowances and the maintenance of income levels of workers temporarily out of work (Moxon-Browne 1993). This situation remained relatively unchanged until the 1970s. By then, the Social Fund established under the Rome Treaties had been deemed inadequate to combat the high level of unemployment that had swept across Europe. The European Social Fund in 1972 was therefore expanded to overcome the difficulties experienced by certain backward regions, or disadvantaged groups such as migrant workers (from 1974), young unemployed persons in 1975, women (1978) and the handicapped. The advent of the Single European Market required a new focus in the social policy of the EC. The development of a single market without internal frontiers meant that the movement of people for purposes of work, training or residence raised a number of complex questions concerning the preservation, acquisition and the exercise of social and family rights. Hence, the need for a “social dimension” within the Single European Market gave rise to the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers in 1989.


36

This Social Charter spoke to the following issues:

i. Improvement of living and working conditions ii. Right to freedom of movement iii. Employment and remuneration iv. Right to social protection v. Right to freedom and collective bargaining vi. Right to vocational training vii. Right of equal treatment of men and women viii. Right to information, consultation and worker participation ix. Right to health protection and safety at the workplace x. Protection of children and adolescents xi. The provision of pensions for the elderly xii. The protection of the disabled.

10.2 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE EU While the evolution of the European integration movement has been accompanied by an ever-increasing array of rights, which seek to facilitate free movement, certain challenges still remain in ensuring that these rights are readily available to the citizens of the respective Member States. According to the Commission’s Report on EU citizenship, though the Maastricht Treaty has reinforced the concept of freedom of movement as a fundamental and personal right which may be exercised irrespective of economic activity, the right of entry and residence is still governed by two Regulations and nine Directives based on several other articles of the EC Treaty. The Commission has stated that problems encountered by EU citizens when exercising their entry and residence rights stem mainly from incorrect or particularly restrictive administrative practices, such as requesting documents not required under Community law. Secondly, while considerable progress has been made regarding the equal treatment and access to employment in the private sector, there still appears to be a lacuna between rights conferred by treaty and rights actually enjoyed by persons seeking employment in the public service. Theoretically, under Article 48 (4) of the Rome Treaty, the only jobs which may be reserved for national citizens, are those which involve the exercise of government and the safeguarding of the general interests of the Sate or local authorities, but for every other job in the public sector, the rule of equal treatment will apply. Such provisions notwithstanding, Community citizens continue to suffer discrimination based directly on nationality as regards access to certain jobs in the public sector, even where the posts in question have no connection with the exercise of government. Furthermore, where non-nationals are integrated into the public service, Community workers may encounter difficulties as a result of non-recognition, in particular when determining the level at which they start their career. The most serious problem highlighted by the Commission is the failure to take account of experience acquired in another Member State. The illustration is drawn of a doctor who has worked for 15


37

years in a public hospital in France and who, wishing to accompany his wife who has been transferred to Austria, finds employment in an Austrian hospital and is faced with the unfortunate necessity of beginning his professional career from scratch in Austria. If he remains only a few years and then resettles in another Member State, he will once more have to restart his career. Another area of concern for the enjoyment of free movement rights occurs in the area of social security. While social security measures have been put in place for self-employed workers (Directive 73/148/EEC), pensioners (90/565/CEE), persons having sufficient resources and sickness/maternity insurance (90/564/CEE) and students (93/96), several problems remain in the area of family reunification and access to social advantages. For example, though the right of a citizen to be joined by his spouse is addressed under Article 10 (1) of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 this right apparently is not extended to an unmarried partner. Hence, if an unmarried partner finds employment in another Member State, then the other partner, if unemployed, must prove that he/she has sufficient resources and social insurance in order to qualify for the right of residence in the second Member State. Clearly therefore, while the respective treaties ratified by the EU have diligently sought to confer the right to freedom of movement to its citizens, as well as providing for those areas which are integral to the success of these policies, some areas of concern which may limit these very rights have occurred. This, however, does not detract from the giant strides that have been made in the advancement of free movement policy in Europe. Indeed, it may well be argued that such problems can be expected in a union of 370 million persons.


38

11.0 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: CARICOM VERSUS THE EU From the foregoing, it is clear that the EU has recognised the critical importance of the effective removal of restrictions on factor mobility, if it is to truly reflect its professed status as an economic union and to progress toward total economic integration. Indeed, efforts to promote the free movement of the factors of production have been pursued since the inception of the EEC in the Founding Treaties of Rome (1957) with apparently great alacrity and success. It is a terrible indictment on the Caribbean integration movement that the same cannot be said. This state of affairs within CARICOM has occurred as a result of a number of factors. Firstly, whereas the Treaties establishing the EEC have spoken directly to the need for freedom of movement, the Treaty of Chaguaramas of 1973, the treaty establishing the Caribbean Community made no such provisions though purporting to be establishing a Caribbean Common Market. Indeed, a look at Balassa’s theory of economic integration, which cites the removal of restrictions on factor mobility as a critical component of the common market, clearly conflicts with the purported status of CARICOM. This state of affairs has led Wickham (1993) to argue that:

“The Treaty of Chaguaramas therefore represented an anomaly, as it purports to be a Common Market, but specifically restricted the movement of the factors of production in its enabling document”.

The issue of freedom of movement was ignored by the CARICOM Heads of Government until its sudden emergence on the regional agenda, at the tenth Heads of Government meeting in Grande Anse, Grenada in 1989. According to Demas (1996) by then, there was a widespread feeling throughout the region that CARICOM, as it operated in practice, was not living up to its full potential. At this meeting, commonly referred to as the ‘Grand Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement’ the Heads of Government sought to work towards the establishment, ‘in the shortest possible time, of a single market and economy for the Caribbean Community’ (CARICOM Secretariat 1989). This Declaration sought to put in place steps to achieve this objective, and, with regard to the freedom of movement issue, it sought to remove all barriers to trade by July 1991 as well as arrangements by January 1991 for the free movement of skilled and professional personnel, and for contract workers on a seasonal or project basis. The Grand Anse Declaration went further in seeking to promote freedom of movement of CARICOM nationals as well as provisions for free movement of workers. This was sought via the provisions designed to eliminate, by December 1990, the requirement of passports for these nationals travelling to other CARICOM countries, as well as the elimination of the requirement for work permits, beginning with practitioners of the visual and performing arts, sports and the media travelling to CARICOM countries for specific regional events.


39

Also emanating from the Grande Anse Declaration was the establishment of the Independent West Indian Commission (WIC) chaired by Shridath Ramphal. The WIC merely re-affirmed the position of the Grande Anse declaration, and recommended that the free movement of CARICOM nationals should begin with all graduates of the University (UWI) and other recognised institutions and duly accredited media workers. The WIC argued in its Time For Action Report that the establishment of a Single Market and Economy by 1994 was, in the final analysis to assume the free movement of all factors of production throughout the region, which assumed the removal of all remaining barriers to trade (Time For Action: Report of the Independent West Indian Commission, 1993). While it is fortunate that the CARICOM Heads of Government finally realised the importance of freedom of movement to the Caribbean common market in 1989, this belated measure still finds itself compared unfavourably to similar initiatives in the EU. It must be remembered that not only did the founders of the EC realise the necessity of freedom of movement from the beginning, moreover, freedom of movement was accorded to a large section of the population; the workers. Furthermore, post-Maastricht freedom of movement is now a fundamental right granted to all EU citizens. CARICOM, in contradistinction however, preferred to adopt a more restrictive approach, providing for the free movement of “skilled persons” and effectively alienates the majority of persons living in this region from what should be a fundamental right within an economic community. The limited propositions of the 1989 Grand Anse Declaration and the Report of the West Indian Commission notwithstanding, the mechanisms to promote regional freedom of movement continued at an agonisingly slow pace. Indeed, the CARICOM Heads of Government did not agree to the free movement of University Graduates throughout the region and the consequent elimination of the need for work permits for that elite group of persons until the1995 Heads of Government Conference, which was to have taken effect from January 1996. Even then, actual operation of this mandate was to be dependent upon the completion by Member States, of a number of legal steps, such as enacting and proclaiming legislation. As a result of this state of affairs, freedom of movement is no more a part of the reality of the CARICOM national now than it was when it was first introduced at the Grand Anse Declaration of 1989. Instead, we have witnessed a seemingly never ending series of deadlines which have come and gone, as many CARICOM Member States still lack the institutional capacity and in some cases political will to achieve freedom of movement. It can already be seen that in the case of the EU, the comprehensive approach to the free movement of persons has required the need for that regional grouping to pay particular attention to the social needs of the citizens of the EU. Indeed, the social rights and family status of persons moving from one country to another within the Union is a fundamental aspect of the free movement of persons. Efforts by CARICOM to follow this trend have been manifested in the 1997 CARICOM Agreement on Social Security. According to the CARICOM Secretariat, this Agreement can be considered to be fully operationalised, as a number of CARICOM nationals are already receiving benefits under the Agreement. The Secretariat argues that some schemes have commenced


40

payment of benefits to qualified claimants, however, the efficacy of this scheme is questionable since there has not been any meaningful progress in relation to national schemes. It goes without saying that any deregulation of internal borders which must occur in a Single Market and Economy must include some sort of collaboration on the part of Member States to ensure that security and the monitoring of the criminal element is maintained even within a milieu where persons are accorded freedom of movement. However, the fact that free movement policy is still in the embryonic stage has negated any substantive dialogue on the collaboration of Member States on the issue of protection against crime and drugs, however both of these issues have been raised within various sections of CARICOM as reasons why freedom of movement should be approached with caution. The Maastricht Treaty anticipates this issue and demands cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs.


41

12.0 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT SUCCESSES IN CARICOM AND THE EU Having briefly examined CARICOM’s approach to the freedom of movement issue, critical attention must now be paid to the comparative success of the two approaches, with an attempt to account for the levels of success in both integration movements. In earlier discussion, an effort was made to highlight the foundational institutions which undergird the European integration movement. It can be recalled, that under the Founding Treaties of Rome establishing the EEC, the architects of this movement not only sought to create a common market mirroring that of the Balassa prototype, (namely a form of economic integration where both restrictions on trade and factor mobility are removed) but it also went further to establish a set of supranational institutions which would give binding effect to the provisions of the EEC treaties within the individual Member States. This therefore facilitated the effective implementation of EU policy in individual territories. CARICOM in direct contrast is characterised by the failure of Member States to implement decisions at all levels. This problem, according to Demas (1996) arose largely because the Treaty of Chaguaramas (1973) had avoided even the remotest suggestion of supra-nationality in community organs and institutions. Indeed, the CARICOM Treaty explicitly states that community decisions are left to each member state to implement in accordance with its own constitutional, legal and administrative procedures. Moreover, Protocol 1 of the Treaty of Chaguaramas affirms that “the community continues to exist as an association of sovereign states and this status is confirmed by the retention of the unanimity rule for decision- making on substantive issues in the Conference” (Treaty of Chaguaramas 1973). Furthermore, the very means of decision making within the CARICOM Community, the unanimity rule (as opposed to qualified majority voting in the EU) mentioned above, makes inordinate speed within the Community highly unlikely. Wickham (1993) argues that such unanimity within CARICOM is difficult to secure on anything other than the most non-contentious of matters. Consequently, this state of affairs has resulted in regional policy moving at the pace of its slowest member, or alternatively not moving at all. During the period of the 1980s preceding the Grande Anse Declaration, Demas (1987) referred to the general unwillingness of the political directorate of the day to support freedom of movement initiatives in a climate of general suspicion that such initiatives would lead to large scale migrations to the more prosperous islands. However, to argue that the agonisingly slow pace with which free movement policy has taken thus far can be attributed solely to a lack of political will may be misleading. Indeed, COTED has referred to the lack of institutional capacity, and the lack of professional staff in some Member States to operationalise key aspects of the CSME in general. If any effort to allow for the free movement of the factors of mobility is to be successful, some harmonisation of policy must occur among the Member States. Regrettably, though a Caribbean Organisation for Standards and Quality has been established, there are concerns about the adequacy and reliability of funding for the institution.


42

Rights and new provisions, which may be introduced to amend the Treaty of Chaguaramas, will be of no effect until they are conferred on the citizens of the respective Member States by their implementation into national law, as is the case in the EU. Furthermore, the fact that the EU, via the Maastricht Treaty has introduced the concept of the EU Citizen, who has a fundamental right to travel freely throughout the Union, has certainly gone a long way in bringing the integration movement to the people of the EU. Perhaps similar initiatives may be considered for us in due course, as we seek to deepen the regional integration movement. In the final analysis however, there is little to indicate that freedom of movement initiatives in the wider Caribbean will bear any degree of success. Certainly, while some enlightened proposals toward the removal of restrictions on factor mobility have been advanced since the advent of the Grand Anse Declaration; such proposals have been negated by CARICOM’s woeful record of implementation. This has been exacerbated by the fact that to this day, the political directorate of the Caribbean integration movement has failed to proceed by the same level of reasoning which has enlightened their European counterparts. It is evident that unless the bold step is taken toward the establishment of some form of supranational entity to give effect to CARICOM policy, the high level of stagnation which has crippled the Caribbean Community on a variety of issues, including freedom of movement will continue to cast its shadow over this regions efforts to move the integration movement forward.


43

13.0 PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE CSME: QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS The foregoing discussion implied that the region’s political directorate has approached the issue of freedom of movement with some amount of conservatism and the reasons for this are uncertain. It is, however, likely that Caribbean leaders are unsure of the extent to which their populations are supportive of such initiatives and have therefore chosen conservatism to ensure self-preservation. Unfortunately there have been few studies that attempt to asses the extent to which the Caribbean people support initiatives of regionalism and such research is necessary to compliment the quantity of technical work that has been done. Hence, leaders are generally unaware of the extent to which their populations are supportive of regionalism generally and freedom of movement specifically. The general issue of support for regionalism was tested by Cynthia Barrow-Giles (2002) in Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Antigua. In the paper entitled “Mass Support for Regionalism: Capitalising on a permissive climate” she presented results of a regional study which demonstrated that 50% of persons in the four countries studied favoured “intensified” integration, while only 14% were opposed to intensification. Since freedom of movement has previously not been a feature of Caribbean integration either at the level of the OECS or in the wider Caribbean movement, it can reasonably be assumed that respondents would perceive that freedom of movement is part of this intensification and hence are supportive of this. In Barbados a similar general survey was conducted by Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES) in 1998 and on that occasion, persons were asked if they would support either political or economic union of Barbados with the OECS and the largest proportion, 42% indicated that they were supportive of such a proposal. In 1999 another national poll reflected on Barbadians’ greatest achievements and disappointments of the 20th Century and it is noteworthy that the failure to achieve Caribbean unity was the fourth most frequently mentioned disappointment, while CARICOM was among the top two greatest achievements mentioned. These two polls provide further evidence of the level of support in Barbados for regionalism, of which the freedom of movement is a component. To further test the readiness of a CARICOM country to pursue freedom of movement, a national poll was conducted by CADRESii in Barbados on general and specific aspects of the freedom of movement. Initially Barbadians were asked the question “Do you generally support initiatives to facilitate freedom of movement throughout the Caribbean?” and their response is reflected in the appended chart which is appropriately captioned. It can be seen that the overwhelming majority of Barbadians support the concept of freedom of movement and moreover that there is relatively little uncertainly (10%) concerning the initiative. Support for freedom of movement is for the most part, evenly spread across all demographic characteristics identified in the survey. It was, however, noticeable that men are slightly more inclined to support freedom of movement than women. In the


44

sample, 78% of men were supportive, while 71% of women were supportive and while this shows a bias towards men, it does not suggest that women are not supportive of the initiative. Similar biases are reflected when the data are viewed from the perspective of the occupational status of respondents. As previously stated, 74% of persons generally support the initiative, however support among students rises to 88% implying that younger and perhaps more educated Barbadians are more supportive of freedom of movement than the general population. It is also significant that support among respondents who categorised themselves as “Working” stood at 79% which was also slightly higher than the average level of support. Comparatively, the lowest level of support was among Housewives and Househusbands who admitted that they do not work, but 59% of persons in this category still supported freedom of movement initiatives. Comparative support within salary ranges surveyed are also interesting, since 84% of persons working for more than $3,000 per month support the initiatives, while only 77% of persons in the lowest income earning category are supportive. This comparison does not negate any of the main findings of the survey, but does imply that persons who work for comparatively smaller salaries in Barbados feel slightly more threatened by the freedom of movement initiative. Since CARICOM leaders have taken a restrictive approach to the issue of free movement, respondents were asked whether they agreed with this approach, or if they felt that free movement should also include persons now regarded as “unskilled”. It is immediately noticeable that the support for the inclusion of “unskilled” persons is lower than the general support for the freedom of movement and there is a correspondingly higher level of opposition and uncertainty. Notwithstanding, the 50% of respondents who support the inclusion of “unskilled persons” is still the single largest response category in the survey, implying that a majority of Barbadians feel that the approach being taken by CARICOM currently, is too restrictive. Demographic categories in the survey are not dissimilar in their support or opposition to the inclusion of “unskilled” persons, however there is a slight trend noticeable in relation to the occupational status category. Here the highest level of support (53%) exists among persons who identified themselves as “Unemployed” in the survey and this is not surprising since one would expect that a large number of these respondents would themselves be considered “unskilled”. 47% of retired persons supported the inclusion of “unskilled” persons and this was the lowest level of support in any occupational status category.


45

74%

16%

50%37%

Support for Freedom ofMovement

Support for FreeMovement includingunskilled persons

VIEWS OF THE BARBADIAN POPULATION

These findings are especially important since Barbados is the CARICOM member with the highest population density and therefore it is likely that any negative effects of any freedom of movement initiative would be magnified significantly there.iii It is therefore likely that several Barbadians interviewed, such as students are aware of this peculiarly and still support freedom of movement initiatives nevertheless. Indeed, students interviewed are in one instance more supportive of initiatives than the remainder of the population. Barbados has also gained a reputation historically for being “indifferent” to association with its neighbours as was reflected in the Confederation Riots of 1876. At that time, Barbados was, by far, more prosperous and hence resistant to cooperative arrangements than other islands and while the situation has changed substantially, it is apparent that Barbadians continue to perceive themselves as being economically superior and would therefore be more resistant to unification than other islands. One can therefore reasonably assume that there is considerably greater support outside of Barbados for enhanced freedom of movement, since most other Caribbean states have less to lose. This supports the suggestion that Caribbean government either misunderstand, or have not investigated the extent to which their populations would support enhanced freedom of movement and have therefore been too cautious in both the conceptualisation and implementation of their programmes.


46

14.0 PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE CSME: QUALITATIVE ASPECTS In an effort to further probe aspects of this general support detected at the national level, focus group discussions were held with Caribbean citizens to establish how they felt about aspects of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). The specific objectives of these focus group discussions were to establish:

• The extent and reliability of information available regionally on the CSME • Levels of regional support for the CSME • Expectations and concerns regarding the CSME • Attitudes of Caribbean people towards their neighbours.

These objectives can be satisfied with reference to five broad areas, namely:

• Issue I Knowledge of the CSME • Issue II Education on the CSME • Issue III Support for the CSME • Issue IV Attitudes of Caribbean people towards each other • Issue V Hassle free travel.

The rationale for use of focus groups was based on the belief that selected respondents whose opinions the client was particularly interested in soliciting would help to convey an understanding of the issues arising from the attitudes towards the CSME. The selected respondents were representative of:

I. Caribbean/ non-Barbadian respondents II. Barbadian respondents III. Frequent Caribbean travellers


47

14.1 ISSUE I: KNOWLEDGE OF THE CSME There was no variation in the response of the different groups to this issue. The term CSME was identified as Caribbean Single Market and Economy and included such matters as: • “getting rid of boundaries to trade”; • “freedom of movement of people within the Caribbean territories”; • “trade liberalization within the region”; • “the meshing of trade policy and elements of a federation”; • “one country with the removal of barriers to trade”; and the • “standardization of policies and systems”. It was generally felt that the region was being forced to develop the CSME as a result of globalisation and that there would be some advantages as well as disadvantages. The activities which respondents thought would be permitted in the short and long term would be removal of taxes, levies, reduced interrogation of the traveller by immigration officers, lower passport costs, since persons would be able to travel using a driver’s license as a means of identification and regular travellers would therefore need to renew their passports less frequently. The respondents felt that freedom of movement of people was important for the development of the CSME. They were divided on the issue of a common currency which some respondents felt was the ideal, while they had reservations about its practicality because of the wide differences in the value of the dollar within the region. Some respondents felt the Barbados dollar was the strongest and Barbadians would fear devaluation of their currency.


48

14.2 ISSUE II: EDUCATION ON THE CSME All groups were of the opinion that the education programme on the CSME needs to be greatly enhanced; the programme seemed to be targeted at the government officials, persons in the higher echelons of the society and businesses. Issues such as day-to-day issues which affect the masses are not being addressed. The right people are not being targeted. One person expressed the opinion that the lack of education has been deliberate “so that we don’t know the consequences and what is involved in the CSME”. 14.2 [a] The groups identified specific questions they would like to have

answered: • How will it affect our standard of living? • What is in it for me? • How could it affect the job that I am doing? • What am I required to do as a manager in relation to employing people who are non-

Barbadian, and who have the requisite skills which Barbadians do not have? • Are Barbadians being disadvantaged and do international companies overlook

trained Barbadians when filling certain posts. 14.2 [b] Specifically, the suggestions for improving the education

programme included: • Town hall meetings; fora in which the CSME is discussed; • The use of electronic media and the GIS to inform the general populace; use of

strategies similar to those employed by candidates seeking election to political office such as the use of brochures and pamphlets;

• Open day for CSME. • The use of a multi-media approach. • Wider use of the internet.


49

14.3 ISSUE III: SUPPORT FOR THE CSME Participants in all three focus groups generally felt that there could be more support for the CSME by Barbadians and other Caribbean people but there was a dearth of information in all the territories. The respondents believed that both the support and objections were based on economics. It was believed that there would be an improvement in economic opportunities for some, as well as competition and therefore decreases in profits for business, plus a possible increase in the outlay necessary to keep ahead of the competition within the CSME. Respondents from all groups were of the opinion that competition on the job market fostered a dislike for immigrants who are willing to perform jobs for less monetary reward and work harder than the residents of the host country. This is the perceived consequence of the large influx of persons such as Guyanese into Barbados. One respondent was adamant that the CSME served purely economic considerations and there was no social element which would have been of greater interest to him. Most others felt that the CSME also served social causes such as travel to other territories for health reasons, educational benefits etc. Another respondent felt that the CSME should serve primarily, social causes. Persons must feel comfortable to express their culture in another country, from this follows other reasons for the CSME, he argued. Although some respondents did have family ties in the Caribbean, it did not appear that CSME would play a significant part in facilitating these ties. Visiting for recreation, vacation or family visits seemed to be easily accomplished at present even in the absence of the CSME provided the cost of travel could be overcome. Respondents were of the opinion that other associations such as professional, social, health, legal/judicial and educational linkages could be advanced with the help of CSME.

14.3 [a] What frightens Caribbean people most: Respondents felt that the build up of hopes and expectations of economic prosperity which may not be realized could spell disaster for the CSME. Some respondents expressed the fear of mass movement of persons and an influx of persons in the more economically advanced territories, while others felt this would not occur as there would be movement in both directions. Still others opined that a standardization of policies and systems would be necessary to equate services and opportunities throughout the region in order to prevent the expected influx into a given territory. The example of treatment for persons with HIV/AIDS was offered.


50

14.3 [b] What excites Caribbean people most: Respondents expressed the view that a wider market in which to sell products and services, as well as wider economic opportunities were possibilities which could be anticipated. It is noteworthy here that respondents were more outspoken on their fears, than their prospects.


51

14.4 ISSUE IV: ATTITUDE OF CARIBBEAN PEOPLE TOWARDS EACH OTHER Here respondents were asked to discuss popular myths and controversial issues in Caribbean regionalism.

Some groups felt that the infamous “Guyana bench” was a consequence of the Guyanese travellers “who brought this upon themselves” since many entered Barbados for vacation and did not return to their homeland. Most respondents felt it was inhumane to be treated as a criminal on entering a strange country and felt it was degrading to the visitor. One respondent felt that the “Guyana bench” derived its name because most persons who enter under questionable circumstances are Guyanese, but it is the bench reserved for would-be illegal immigrants, and should be more correctly referred to as the “deportation bench”. The groups felt that all countries have a system and a place reserved to process persons entering their country under suspicious circumstances. It is noteworthy that non Barbadian respondents were not familiar with the “Guyana Bench” myth. The groups did not react negatively to the fact that non-Barbadians dominate construction sites. Some respondents suggested that this could be caused by the fact that many Barbadian parents were socializing their off-spring in a way which channels them away from what are perceived as more menial tasks, resulting in labour shortages in many areas. Hence these jobs are filled by non-Barbadians who often accept a lower pay and are more reliable in their attendance at work. Respondents felt that Barbadian fishermen were unfairly treated by Trinidadian authorities. As a group, the frequent travellers reacted most strongly to this scenario and some said that they refuse to buy products manufactured in Trinidad. Another respondent noted that this was contrary to CSME objectives. All groups felt that it was upsetting to join a queue to enter other Caribbean countries and be interviewed in a similar manner as non-Caribbean people. One respondent noted that people from other non- Caribbean countries are referred to as tourists, while Caribbean people are called foreigners. It is significant that all groups expressed the belief that they were treated no different from non Caribbean travellers, suggesting that there was no special status associated with the citizenship of a CARICOM country. While the Barbadian respondents felt they treat Caribbean people well, they also noted that Caribbean people do not share the same view. They think Barbadians are unfriendly. The non- Barbadian group thought Barbadians were more reserved, but generally treated Caribbean people well. Respondents felt that Caribbean people treat Barbadians well as visitors to their homes, but they felt this was not so at the ports of entry.


52

Respondents agreed with some of the historical myths regarding Caribbean people.

“Jamaicans are too aggressive”

One respondent opined that it was this trait which helped other Caribbean people to attain the positions they have in other countries to which they immigrated such as the USA.

“Trinidadians are too tricky” All groups felt that Trinidadians are tricky, while the Trinidadians preferred to describe themselves as competitive.

“Barbadians are too full of themselves” Groups generally agreed that Barbadians were full of themselves, but Barbadians were not of the same opinion.


53

14.5 ISSUE V: HASSLE FREE TRAVEL Respondents generally felt that it is cumbersome to travel in the Caribbean. Immigration presents the greatest hassle and the officers are overly suspicious of the region’s people wanting to work illegally in other territories. Customs in Barbados was singled out as presenting significantly greater hassle to the traveller. It was the general opinion that the region’s authorities have not taken concrete steps to make the region’s travel easier, except for tourists for whom packages are offered. According to the groups, hassle free travel differs from freedom of movement. One can experience hassle free travel depending on the attitude of the immigration authorities, despite the fact that there are regulations with which the traveller must comply. Conversely, one may have freedom of movement, but still experience hassles. One respondent recalled his experience on the “Guyana bench” (although he was not a Guyanese). Another frequent traveller recounted her feelings when she was asked to show her return ticket.


54

15.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NGO ADVOCACY Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the NGO community focus its advocacy on the following specific issues. These recommendations appreciate the fact that the NGO community in this instance represented by the CPDC is a stakeholder in the CSME and is perhaps influential to some extent, but does not have the capacity to make changes to either the form or substance of the CSME as it is currently presented. It is also important to note that the CPDC and its membership is fully committed to the goal of regional integration, since it believes that only through regionalism can the developmental potential of Caribbean people be fully realised. The CPDC is itself a regional organisation with a membership and directorship that reflects its belief that a regional approach is superior to individual national efforts and this thinking would therefore inform the recommendations that are forthcoming. The CPDC’s philosophy would therefore lead it naturally to support freedom of movement of CARICOM nationals and believes that such movement should be widely defined. There is, however, evidence presented above that supports the economics of the logic of greater freedom of movement since:

I. Mobile labour would integrate the single greatest resource of CARICOM; II. Mobile labour would integrate the economic resource which feeds the services

sector that is the economic platform upon which a majority of the Caribbean economies are based;

III. Mobile labour would ensure that our regional pool of skills is fully exploited and can move quickly to areas of greatest need; and

IV. Mobile labour would ensure that the common market is free from bias as a result of either very high or very low-priced labour in some areas of the region.

15.1 A RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT FOR ALL CARIBBEAN PEOPLE The preceding analysis estimated that the approach currently being taken to the CSME is likely to facilitate the movement of approximately 10% of the population and this would seem illogical since considerable effort is being expended to integrate a minority of the Caribbean population, with the major section being excluded form this major benefit of the CSME. The apparent rationale for such hesitance is contradicted by evidence presented in this paper which suggests that the region’s people are more supportive of greater freedom of movement than it is generally believed. It is noteworthy that thus far, CARICOM has not attempted to examine support levels and has proceeded on assumptions that appear to be erroneous. Hence it is recommended that the CPDC press CARICOM to examine the level of support regionally for greater freedom of movement for itself and thereafter act on this information to embrace a wider cross-section of the Caribbean’s population in CSME initiatives.


55

The EU experience discussed demonstrated the utility of this approach since that region sought initially to integrate workers and defined such persons liberally, hence it embraced a majority and not a minority as CARICOM has done. This approach demonstrated the extent to which the market served the interest of “Europeans,” while our approach has the potential to create elite groups of “special” CARICOM nationals who enjoy the benefits of the Community and this can only alienate other persons who will soon begin to resent the institution, which is counterproductive. It is also noteworthy that in most cases, the development of the EU benefited from a series of referenda in member countries, which essentially amounts to the type of consultation with CARICOM’s people that it is recommended that CPDC argue for. Conversely, in no CARICOM country has there been a referendum or public vote which places the issue of deeper integration on the table and allows people to express their level of support or disapproval in a public way. Such consultation, either by way of scientific investigation of the level of support, or ultimately a referendum allows people to participate directly in the decision making process and moreover empowers the Heads of government to be more ambitious in their integration policy. 15.2 MORE INTEGRATION; LESS BUREAUCRATISATION The review of the state of the art with respect to the CSME revealed that the current approach is highly bureaucratic and this too appears to have been counterproductive. In instances where greater movement has been facilitated, the approach has been to require the issuance of certificates and the greater involvement of bureaucratic machinery that is in many cases non existent. Member states can therefore now claim resource deficiencies as a reason for not implementing freedom of movement polices and this is most unfortunate. It is therefore recommended that CPDC press the Heads of Government to make the CSME less bureaucratic and more “user friendly” which would in most cases mean that CARICOM nationals should be able to secure the benefits of the CSME after the simplest demonstration that they are a citizen of a member country. This approach would make citizenship the basis of qualification and remove the need for additional paperwork. CARICOM citizenship can be verified at the point of entry in a way that is not dissimilar to what is done currently and thereafter we feel that the national should not be forced to undergo further screening. 15.3 COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY FOR CARICOM’S PEOPLE The CCJ is to be established with a competence to address all disputes within the CSME and while this is important to the development of the institution, it has become obvious that CARICOM needs to have a machinery to receive complaints from CARICOM people. The nature of such complaints and the type of person to which we refer, is such that a court is an inappropriate institution, since many of CARICOM’s people would not have easy recourse to legal representation. To be sure, the governments of several Caribbean territories have come to similar realisations as it


56

relates to the rights of the individual and established the office of the Ombudsman who essentially functions as a “poor man’s lawyer” and brings justice to those without the capacity to approach a court. It would therefore seem beneficial that we take this concept to a regional level and seek to establish a regional ombudsman who can hear complaints from community members who feel that they have been treated unfairly by the officials of CARICOM governments. In our focus group discussions, it became clear that persons still encounter difficulty at our ports of entry and are subject to the “whims and fancies” of immigration and customs officials, with no obvious route of appeal thereafter. A regional ombudsman would therefore assist such persons, since it provides a clear appeal route and while the complainant will not always have their matter resolved to their satisfaction, it will give that person a sense of justice. This recommendation appreciates the obvious difficulties of establishing this body and does not attempt to articulate a concrete structure. Notwithstanding, such a body could sit in individual territories on a rotating basis and carry out investigations when complaints are received. Thereafter it could report to the CARICOM Heads of government in a manner that is not dissimilar to the national ombudsman. It is appreciated that ombudsmanship does not by itself guarantee rights, but more often than not, the ombudsman has secured rights for the complainant due to their (the ombudsman’s) “eminence;” hence of the selection of the appropriate ombudsman would be important and thereafter that individual would need to be skilful in the execution of his investigations and his reporting to CARICOM. 15.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION REGARDING THE CSME Investigations revealed that there is a perception among Caribbean people that CSME education generally is targeted at select groups and this does not seem to be an unfair criticism, since the CSME education would need to target the groups it includes. As a result people appear largely ignorant of anything beyond basic CSME knowledge as was reflected in the focus group discussions. Although there has already been an effort at public education, it is clear that it has not reached the masses of CARICOM and this shortcoming needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Specifically people need to know in simple language:

I. What rights and benefits they will enjoy under the CSME; II. The conditions under which such rights and benefits are available; and III. How such rights and benefits can be secured.

15.5 NATIONAL-REGIONAL DUPLICATION IN STANDARDS AND

PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION Already it would appear as though there is some duplication of bureaucracy at the national and regional levels, with regional standards agencies attempting to emerge, while national agencies continue to function. This can and will impair the freedom of


57

movement, especially since the programme currently relies heavily on a bureaucratic structure. Hence it is recommended that CPDC press the Heads of Government to discuss and ultimately articulate a policy on what standards would be a concern for regional agencies and thereafter national agencies would be expected to defer to regional agencies, or cease to exist completely. Related to this matter, but out of the control of the Heads of government is the matter of professional accreditation. Currently, professional organisations in each country determine whether professionals can practice their trade locally and this can and has been a barrier to free movement. Ironically, most of the region’s professionals in traditional areas emerge from regional institutions, however, as they return to different territories, their qualifications have different levels of acceptance and in some instances, professionals are required to submit themselves to national examinations before they can practice. Greater movement will require that this situation be streamlined and therefore it is recommended that CPDC encourage the establishment of regional professional bodies that would determine the acceptability of various qualifications and licence practitioners in various professions. 15.6 POLITICISATION OF THE CSME It is evident that the development of the EU benefited immensely from the establishment of supra-national political bodies and we feel that CARICOM can benefit from similar political bodies; notwithstanding the fact that at this time Member States retain their sovereignty. Already the Heads have agreed to the establishment of an Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP), however, this body faces an uncertain future and should perhaps be revived. The CPDC should therefore use its influence as a legitimate representative of Civil Society which would be represented in the ACCP, to lobby for this body to be re-activated and to meet so that it can insert some much needed political activity into the CSME and wider CARICOM process. As an interim or fall-back position, the CPDC should lobby for representation either by itself, or other actors in Civil Society on bodies that are guiding the CSME process. Noteworthy among these are the CSME working group under the direction of Barbados and the CARICOM Working Group on Services. 15.7 FULL UTILISATION OF THE SERVICES PLATFORM The CSME currently facilitates the movement of service providers whether or not these providers are associated with a commercial enterprise and we feel that this is an excellent policy. The full benefit to the Caribbean Community is, however, impaired by the fact that these providers are not expected to remain or live in the country that they provide services. Essentially this acts as a bias against providers who are not associated with a commercial presence, since these larger service suppliers would have an institutional presence in the targeted country and would therefore need to rely less heavily on frequent movement to the target country. Moreover, facilities such as intra-corporate transfers will allow companies to achieve the level of integration that they determine is necessary. The CPDC represents the interest of several small service


58

suppliers who are subjected to frequent harassment as they attempt to move up and down the island chain conducting legitimate business. It is therefore recommended that the CPDC lobby for an amendment to CSME policy which allows service suppliers to remain and live in the targeted territory for as long as is necessary to supply services. 15.8 CARICOM RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES Much of the cumbersome legislation and regulations establishing the CSME could be circumvented with the eventual creation of a right to live and work in any Community Territory, associated with a series of community rights; however this is a maximum position. Discussion of the EU experience demonstrated how members of that community benefited from the initial Treaty of Rome, which created the right to move and work, to the more recent stage where community citizenship was established with enhanced benefits. There is a distinctive difference between the establishment of the right to move and work and the entitlement to citizenship, with the latter being an ambitious option. Naturally the CPDC should welcome the opportunity at this stage to frame the type of rights that would ultimately be embraced into a CARICOM constitution; however, at this stage it should lobby for the creation of a right to move and work for all CARICOM nationals. Our consultations revealed the fact that CARICOM nationals who travel within the region under apparent “hassle free” arrangements, do not feel as though they are treated any differently and certainly no better than travellers from outside of the Community. Such persons will quite rightly ask whether Community membership carries any benefits and the assumption that it does not, helps to confirm the perception that the institution is irrelevant and is not worthy of support. The CPDC should therefore lobby to have the Heads of government articulate clear rights to move and travel within the Community as a first step towards the articulation of a full set of rights which it should begin discussion on at this stage.


59

16.0 ENDNOTES

i The Treaty highlights four ways to supply a service. Mode one is called cross-border. This is where the service provider offers a service from the territory of one Member State into the territory of another Member State. The Service provider and the consumer remain in separate territories. Mode two is called consumption abroad. This is where the service is provided in the territory of one Member State to the service consumer of another Member State. The consumer travels to the territory where the service is being offered. Mode Three is known as commercial presence. In this instance, the service is supplied through commercial presence in another Member State. Finally mode four is the movement of natural persons. Through this mode of delivery, the service is supplied through the presence of natural persons of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. In other words, the service provider temporarily enters a Member State, offers a service and returns to home territory. ii This poll was initially published in the Nation Newspaper on April 13th 2003 and is reproduced here with their kind permission. iii The population density of Barbados in 1990 was 597, (per Km sq) compared with that of 0.04 (per Km sq) in Guyana. (Marshall 1992).


60

17.0 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Balassa, Bela A. The Theory of Economic Integration. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.

Irwin Inc., 1961.

Barrow-Giles, C. Introduction to Caribbean Politics 2002. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica.

Barrow-Giles, Cynthia “Mass Support for Regionalism: Capitalising on a permissive climate” Paper presented to the Caribbean Studies Association, CSA 27th Annual Conference, Nassau Bahamas, June 2002.

Brewster, H. The Caribbean Single Market and Economy: Is It Realistic Without Commitment to Political Unity? Public Lecture Delivered on Monday April 7th 2003. Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI Cave Hill.

El-Agraa, A. Economics of the European Community 1990 (Third Edition) The University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.

Emmanuel, P. Approaches to Caribbean Political Integration 1987. Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI Cave Hill.

Marshall, I. Statistical Profile of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Black Rock, St. Michael: West Indian Commission 1992.

Moxon-Browne, Edward. “Social Europe.” In The European Community and the

Challenge of the Future, 2d ed., edited by Juliette Lodge. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Mullerleile, C. CARICOM Integration, Progress and Hurdles: A European View 1996. Kingston Publishers Ltd. Kingston, Jamaica.

Nugent, N. The Government and Politics of the European Union 1999 (Fourth Edition). The MacMillan Press Ltd, Great Britain.

Springer, Hugh. Reflections on the Failure of the West Indies Federation. Occasional Paper No. 4. Boston: Harvard Center for International Affairs, Harvard University 1962.

Viner, Jacob. The Customs Union Issue (Washington: Anderson Kramer Associates,

1961).

The West Indian Commission. Time for Action 1993 (Second Edition) UWI Press.

Wickham, P. Prospects for a United Caribbean: A Historico – Political Analysis of the Future of the Caribbean Integration Movement. (M. Phil Thesis) 1993. UWI Cave Hill.


61

Wickham, P. Public Opinion Poll on Barbadian Views on the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. 2003 Caribbean Development Research Services Inc. (CADRES).

Wickham, P. “Factors in the Integration and Disintegration of the Caribbean” in Issues in

the Government and Politics of the West Indies. Edited by John G. LaGuerre. St. Augustine; Trinidad: School of Continuing Studies, University of the West Indies, 1997.

IMPORTANT STUDIES (FORTHCOMING) Ifill, L and Garcia, A., “The Movement of Natural Persons: CARICOM Strategy for

Services Development and International Trade Negotiations” (2000).


62

18.0 APPENDICES

18.1 APPENDIX I FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE AND PROTOCOL

SCHEDULE

Coordinator: Stig Merrit Facilitator: Hilda Weeks Location: Dining Club, Manor Lodge Complex, St. Michael, Barbados. Issue: Freedom of Movement in the Caribbean • 1st session, Friday 1st August 2003, 1800 hrs.: Non Barbadian/Caribbean

respondents (6-10) • 2nd Session, Thursday 7th August 2003 1800 hrs.: Barbadian respondents (6-10) • 3rd Session, Friday 8th August 2003, 1800 hrs.: Professionals/Frequent Travelers

PROTOCOL

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION ISSUE I KNOWLEDGE OF THE CSME • What do you think is the meaning of the term CSME? • What activities do people like yourself think the CSME will permit, deny and

encourage in the i. Short term and ii. Long term

• Do you think that it is important for the development of the CSME that we have: i. Free movement of people; ii. A common currency;

ISSUE II EDUCATION ON THE CSME • Do you think that there has been an education programme on the CSME? • What specific information on the CSME have you gleaned from the education

programme on the CSME? • In your opinion has the education programme on the CSME:

i. targeted the right people; ii. addressed the issues that people are concerned about?

• In your opinion was this programme targeted at you? • In what ways can the future programme be improved?


63

ISSUE III SUPPORT FOR THE CSME • Do you think that the Barbadian and other Caribbean people support the CSME? • How do you think Barbadians will react to the influx of large numbers of persons

such as Guyanese into Barbados? • What do you think is the reason for this support or objection? (Do you think that it is

for economic reasons) • Do you think that any important social cause will be served by the establishment of

the CSME? • Do any of you have family ties in the Caribbean that will be facilitated by the

CSME? • What other types of associations do you think the CSME will help advance? • What frightens you most about the CSME? • What excites you most about the CSME? ISSUE IV ATTITUDE OF CARIBBEAN PEOPLE TOWARDS EACH OTHER • Can we chat briefly about the way in which the following scenarios make you

feel? i. Stories of the infamous Guyana Bench (explain if necessary); ii. The fact that several constructions sites in Barbados are alleged to be dominated

by non-Barbadians; iii. The fact that Trinidad exports large volumes to Barbados, but Barbadian

fishermen are frequently arrested by the Trinidadian authorities; iv. The fact that you have to join a queue to enter other Caribbean countries and be

interviewed in a similar manner to non-Caribbean people; • Would you say that Barbadians treat Caribbean people well? • Would you say that Caribbean people treat Barbadians well? • What is your opinion of these historical myths regarding Caribbean people:

i. Jamaicans are too aggressive; ii. Trinidadians are too tricky iii. Barbadians are too full of themselves

FINAL ISSUE V HASSLE FREE TRAVEL • Do you think that it is easy/difficult to travel in the Caribbean? • What in your opinion presents the greatest hassle?

i. Airlines; ii. Immigration; iii. Customs; iv. The countries people.


64

FINAL ISSUE V HASSLE FREE TRAVEL (CONTINUED) • Do you think that immigration authorities are overly suspicious of the likelihood

that the region’s people will try to work illegally in some territories? • In your opinion have the region’s authorities taken concrete steps to make

regional travel easier? • Do you think that hassle free travel is different from freedom of movement? • Finally, would you care to share any of the unpleasant experiences you have had

while travelling in the Caribbean?


65

18.2 APPENDIX II RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE REVISED TREATY OF CHAGUARAMAS

Article 33 – Removal of Restrictions on the Right of Establishment 1. Subject to the provisions of Article 221 and Article 222, the Member States shall remove restrictions on the right of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. 2. The removal of restrictions on the right of establishment mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to restrictions on the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. 3. Subject to the approval of the Conference, COTED, in consultation with COHSOD and COFAP, shall, within one year from the entry into force of this Treaty, establish a programme providing for the removal of restrictions on the right of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. The programme shall inter alia:

identify the activities in respect of which the right of establishment shall not apply; establish the conditions under which the right of establishment is to be achieved; and set out the conditions, stages and time-frames for the removal of restrictions on the right of establishment.

The Community Council may authorise a Member State whose nationals have been aggrieved by the violation of obligations set out in this Article, Article 32, Article 36 and Article 37 to take such measures as may be provided for in this Treaty. Article 34 In performing its tasks set out in Article 33, COTED shall, inter alia:

a. accord priority to the removal of restrictions on activities in respect of which the right of establishment encourages the development of: a) the production of trade in goods; b) the production of services c) which generate foreign exchange earnings.

b. require the Member States to remove administrative practices and

procedures, the maintenance of which impede the exercise of the right of establishment;


66

c. require the Member States to remove all restrictions on the movement of managerial, technical and supervisory staff of economic enterprises and on establishing agencies, branches and subsidiaries of companies and other entities established in the Community;

d. establish measures to ensure the removal of restrictions on the right of

establishment in respect of activities accorded priority treatment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Article as they relate to:

the establishment, in the territories of the Member States, of agencies, branches or subsidiaries belonging to an economic enterprise; and the conditions governing the entry of managerial, technical or supervisory personnel employed in such agencies, branches and subsidiaries, including the spouses and immediate dependent family members of such personnel;

e) take appropriate measures to ensure close collaboration among competent

national authorities in order to improve their knowledge of the particular situation regarding the relevant activities within the Community;

f) require the Member States to ensure that nationals of one Member State may

have access to land, buildings and other property situated in the territory of another Member State, other than for speculative purposes or for a purpose potentially destabilising to the economy, on a non-discriminatory basis, bearing in mind the importance of agriculture for many national economies;

ensure concordance in the Member States regarding the protection afforded the interests of partners, members and other persons with financial interests in companies and other entities.

With respect to the removal of restrictions: Article 35

1. COHSOD, in consultation with the competent Organ, shall establish common standards and measures for accreditation or when necessary for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications of the nationals of the Member States in order to facilitate access to, and engagement in, employment and non-wage-earning activities in the Community.


67

2. The Member States shall establish or employ, as the case may be,

appropriate mechanisms to establish common standards to determine equivalency or accord accreditation to diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications secured by nationals of other Member States.

3. COHSOD shall also establish measures for the coordination of legislative and

administrative requirements of the Member States for the participation of Community nationals in employment and for the conduct of non-wage-earning activities in the Community.

Article 36

1. The Member states shall not introduce any new restrictions on the provision of services in the Community by nationals of other Member States except as otherwise provided in this Treaty.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to the right of establishment,

persons providing services may, in order to provide such services, temporarily engage in approved activities in the Member States where the services are to be provided under the same conditions enjoyed by nationals of the Member State.

3. The Member States shall notify COTED of existing restrictions on the

provision of services in respect of nationals of other Member States.

4. For the purposes of this Chapter, “ services” means services provided against remuneration other than wages in any approved sector and “the provision of services” means the supply of services:

from the territory of one Member State into the territory of another Member State; in the territory of one Member State to the service consumer of another Member State; by a service supplier of one Member State through commercial presence in the territory of another Member State; and by a service supplier of one Member State through the presence of natural persons of a Member State in the territory of another Member State

Article 37

1. Subject to the provisions of this Treaty, Member States shall abolish discriminatory restrictions on the provisions of services within the Community in respect of Community nationals.


68

2. Subject to the approval of the Conference, COTED in consultation with

other competent Organs, shall, within one year from the entry into force of this Treaty, establish a programme for the removal of restrictions on the provision of such services in the Community by Community nationals.

3. In establishing the programme mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Article,

COTED shall:

accord priority to services which directly affect production costs or facilitate the trade in goods and services which generate foreign exchange earnings; require the Member States to remove administrative practices and procedures, the maintenance of which impede the exercise of the right to provide services; establish measures to ensure the abolition of restrictions on the right to provide services in respect of activities accorded priority treatment in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, both in terms of conditions for the provision of services in the territories of Member States as well as the conditions governing the entry of personnel, including their spouses and immediate dependent family members, for the provision of services; take appropriate measures to ensure close collaboration among competent national authorities in order to improve their knowledge of the conditions regarding relevant activities within the Community; and require the Member States to ensure that nationals of one Member State have on a non-discriminatory basis, access to land, buildings and other property situated in the territory of another Member State for purposes directly related to the provision of services, bearing in mind the importance of agriculture for many national economies.

Article 45 states the following: Member States commit themselves to the goal of free movement of their nationals within the Community.


69

Article 46 states the following:

1. Without prejudice to the rights recognised and agreed to be accorded by Member States in Articles 32, 33, 37, 38 and 40 among themselves and to Community nationals, Member States have agreed, and undertake as a first step towards achieving the goal set out in Article 45, to accord to the following categories of Community nationals the right to seek employment in their jurisdictions:

University graduates Media workers Sportspersons Artistes; and Musicians

recognised as such by the competent authorities of the receiving Member States.

2. Member States shall establish appropriate legislative, administrative and

procedural arrangements to:

facilitate the movement of skills within the contemplation of this Article; provide for movement of Community nationals into and within their jurisdictions without harassment or the imposition of impediments,

including:

the elimination of the requirement for passports for Community nationals travelling to their jurisdictions; the elimination for the requirement of work permits for Community nationals seeking approved employment in their jurisdictions;

establishment of mechanisms for certifying and establishing equivalency of degrees and for accrediting institutions;

harmonisation and transferability of social security benefits.

Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as inhibiting Member States from according Community nationals unrestricted access to, and movement within, their jurisdictions subject to such conditions as the public interest may require.

The Conference shall keep the provisions of this Article under review in order to:

e) enlarge, as appropriate, the classes of persons entitled to move and work f) freely in the Community; and

g) monitor and secure compliance therewith.


70

Also covered under freedom of movement According to the Report on the Seventh Working Group on Services the status of the Freedom of Movement of Skills and the CARICOM Social Security Agreement among Member States is as follows: Barbados: The immigration Act is under review with a view to Barbados meeting its

obligations in respect of Enactment of Legislation to Implement the Free Movement of Other Approved Categories and to regularise the situation with respect to graduates.

Belize: Draft statutory legislation was being drafted in respect of the Enactment of

legislation to implement Protocol II: Establishment, Services Capital. Dominica: Administrative arrangements were to be put in place to support existing

legislation regarding the free movement of University Graduates and the Free Movement of Other Approved Categories.

Guyana: Draft Legislation was being developed in respect of the Enactment of Legislation

to implement Protocol II: Establishment, Services, Capital. With the exception of Haiti, all Member States are accommodated.

Jamaica: Informal administrative arrangements were in place for graduates. Montserrat: Graduates were informally allowed to work. The necessary legislation was being

drafted for submission to the Executive Council.


71

18.3 APPENDIX III

SUGGESTED ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION

• The Articulation of a Social Charter for CARICOM, which would examine the types of rights and privileges a future CARICOM citizen should enjoy and analyse the differences (if any) between the bills of rights of different CARICOM member states.

• An impact assessment of the OECS freedom of movement initiatives, seeking to

establish the extent to which people within the OECS have actually moved and the difficulties encountered in attempting to do so.


72

APPENDIX IV SUMMARY OF STATUS OF KEY ELEMENTS

Taken from: www.caricom.org

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED 1.1. TREATY REVISION

1.1 1.1 Signature of Revised Treaty

Thirteen (13) Member States have signed Revised Treaty - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago

The Bahamas and Montserrat to Sign

1.2. Protocol on Provisional Application of Revised Treaty

Twelve (12) Member States have signed - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.

The Bahamas and Montserrat to sign

1.3. Protocol on the Revision of the Treaty

Twelve (12) Member States have signed - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.


1.4. Ratification of Revised Treaty Seven (7) Member States have ratified Revised Treaty – Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Guyana, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago

All other Member States – Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis to ratify Revised Treaty

1.5. Enact Treaty into Domestic Law

Barbados and Suriname have enacted Treaty into Domestic Law

All Member States except Barbados and Suriname to enact Treaty into Domestic Law

2. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

2.1. Ministry with responsibility for CARICOM Affairs

All Member States have identified Ministry with responsibility for CARICOM Affairs

2.2. Establishment of National Consultative System (Inter-Ministerial Consultative and Business and Labour Advisory Committees)

System of consultations established and maintained by some Member States

Other Member States to ensure establishment of systems

2.3. Establishment of CSME Unit or focal point

Some Member States have formally identified a designated Officer.

Member States to confirm

3. ENFORCEMENT, REGULATION AND


73

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS

3.1. Caribbean Court of Justice 3.1.1. Signature of Agreement Twelve (12) Member States have

signed - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago


3.1.2. Ratification of Agreement Ten (10) Member States - Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago - have ratified the Agreement. The Agreement entered into force with the deposit of the third instrument.

Of the Member States which have signed - Antigua & Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis to deposit Instruments of Ratification.

3.1.3. Enactment of Agreement into Domestic Law

Barbados and Suriname have enacted legislation giving effect to Agreement

All Member States except Barbados and Suriname to enact legislation giving effect to Agreement

3.2. CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (CROSQ)

3.2.1. Signature of Agreement establishing CROSQ

Agreement signed by twelve (12) Member States - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago. The Agreement is being provisionally applied among these Member States.

Montserrat to sign which signature will bring the Agreement into force

3.2.2 National Standards Bodies National Standards Bureaux established in eleven (11) Member States - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago.

Montserrat and Suriname to establish National Standards Bureaux.

3.3 National Competition Authorities

National Competition Bodies established in Barbados and Jamaica.

All Member States except Barbados and Jamaica to establish national competition authorities.

4. FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

4.1. Implementation of Rules of Ten (10) Member States have 2002 HS structure due for


74

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED Origin (Schedule I of Revised Treaty) structured on 1996 HS

implemented 1996 HS based Rules of Origin - Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago

implementation by January 2004

4.2. Implementation of Revised Structure of CET based on 1996 HS

Ten (10) Member States have implemented Revised Structure - Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago

2002 HS structure due for implementation by January 2004

4..3 Tariffs and Non-Tariff Barriers

Grenada and St Vincent and the Grenadines have submitted comments

Task Force established by COTED reviewed NTBs and recommendations submitted to Fifteenth COTED which gave Member States additional time for comments

4.3.1 Removal of unauthorised import (or equivalent) duties on goods of Community Origin

Belize applies a Revenue Replacement Duty on a specific list of goods of Community Origin; Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines apply Customs Service Tax on goods of Community origin. Jamaica applies a Customs Users Fee( JM$600 - 3000) on goods of Community origin

Belize to remove application of import duty on goods of Community Origin. Member States applying Customs Service Tax/User Fee to ensure that charges reflect the cost of processing imports rather than a tariff measure.

4.3.2 Removal of export duties on goods of Community Origin

With the exception of Suriname which applies an export tax on lumber, no other Member States apply export duties on goods of Community Origin

Suriname to remove the application of the export tax on lumber.

4..3. 3 Removal of discriminatory Internal Taxes and Other Fiscal Charges

Discriminatory Environmental Levy applied by Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados on goods of Community origin. Discriminatory Environmental Tax applied by Belize; Discriminatory Environmental Surcharge applied by Dominica, Grenada and Guyana; Discriminatory Bottle Deposit Levy applied by St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. A discriminatory Standard Compliance Fee is applied by Jamaica on all imported goods of

Member States to remove the discriminatory application of Internal Taxes and other Fiscal charges on goods of Community Origin


75

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED Community origin on which there are compulsory standards; An Inspection Fee is applied by Trinidad and Tobago on certain goods of Community origin. A Statistics Fee and a Consent Fee are applied by Suriname on all imports of Community Origin. Discriminatory Consumption Tax applied by Antigua and Barbuda on all imports of Community origin; and by Guyana on imports of apparel of Community origin. Montserrat applies a Special Produce Import Tax on wine, beer and rum of Community origin.

4.6. Removal of unauthorised import licenses on goods of Community origin

Import licenses applied by Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname on various goods of Community origin.

Task Force established by COTED made recommendations

5. FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES

5.1. Removal of Restrictions to Provision of Services

5.1.1. Notification of Restrictions List of existing restrictions notified by all Member States in 2000

5.1.2. Implementation of Programmes for Removal of Restrictions

The 13th Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference in February 2002 formally approved the Schedules of Commitments for removal of Restrictions by Member States, which took effect from 1 March 2002 . Jamaica has taken action towards meeting its commitment for immediate removal of restrictions The Conference has agreed that Programmes for the removal of restrictions on international maritime and air transportation would be negotiated at a later date. Montserrat granted two-year derogation from its obligation to implement Programmes.

Legislative and administrative action to be taken by Member States to remove restrictions to provision of Services. CCS to complete activities to facilitate implementation. Member States to report Quarterly to the Prime Ministerial Sub-Committee on CSME. Programmes for the removal of restrictions on the provision of Transportation Services to be developed Montserrat to develop Programme during this second year.

6. FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS


76

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED PERSONS

6.1. Free Movement of Skills 6.1.1. Implementation of Skills

Legislation Legislation in twelve (12) Member States - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

Montserrat awaiting instrument of entrustment. Barbados to amend legislation to allow for graduates seeking work

6.1.1.1 Regulatory and Administrative arrangements for free movement of graduates.

11Member States have completed action to facilitate free movement.

St Kitts and Nevis to implement arrangements. Belize and Suriname to refine arrangements

6.1.2. Implementation of legislation for free movement of Media Workers, Artistes, Musicians, Sports persons

10Member States - Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines , Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago have explicit legal provision for free movement of media workers, artistes, musicians and sports persons. Barbados is currently facilitating free movement of these categories administratively.

Montserrat awaiting instrument of entrustment. Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis to amend existing legislation to provide for free movement of these categories

6.1.2.1. Regulatory and Administrative arrangements for free movement of Media Workers, Artistes, Musicians, Sports persons

11Member States - Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago - have completed action to facilitate free movement.

St Kitts and Nevis to implement arrangements. Belize and Suriname to refine arrangements

6.1.3. Legislative and Administrative arrangements for Free Movement of Self employed service providers, entrepreneurs, technical, managerial and supervisory staff, spouses and immediate dependent family members, persons consuming services abroad.

Removal of Restrictions under Chapter Three expanded the categories of persons eligible to move freely, to include these categories at latest in accordance with the time lines of December 2003, 2004, 2005. Jamaica has taken action re immediate removal of restrictions.

Member States to take legislative and administrative action to give effect to the free movement of these categories at latest in accordance with the time lines of December 2003, 2004, 2005.

6.2. Contingent Rights The Conference has agreed to the subsequent addition of a Protocol treating with Contingent Rights

The Secretariat to commence work to consider the development of policy framework in this area.

6.3. Facilitation of Travel 6.3.1. Elimination of need for

passport by CARICOM Nationals, for intra-regional travel (e.g use of ID card)

Most Member States continue to require CARICOM Nationals to present passports at ports of entry except:

Conference decision re implementation by all Member States by December 2003


77

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED travel (e.g use of ID card) except:

Regional Immigration and other officials holding on-going discussions on the matter.

6.3.2. CARICOM Passport Work is on-going at the Regional level and technical proposals have been developed.

Finalisation at Regional level by December 2003

6.3.3. Common E/D Form. Immigration and other Regional Officials have agreed on core elements for a CARICOM E/D Form.

Conference decision re implementation by December 2003

6.3.4. Elimination of Intra-CARICOM visa requirements

Visa requirements have been eliminated except in the case of Grenada and St. Kitts and Nevis which require visa for Suriname nationals. St. Kitts and Nevis administratively facilitates entry for Suriname nationals.

Grenada and St. Kitts and Nevis to amend existing legislation to provide for elimination of visa requirements in respect of Suriname nationals

6.3.5. Lines identified for CARICOM and Non-CARICOM Nationals at Ports of entry

Agreement reached at the Regional level on the implementation of two lines at ports of entry - $$ Lines for CARICOM

Nationals; and $$ Lines for Non-

CARICOM Nationals.

Conference decision re implementation by December 2003

6.4. Mechanism for equivalency and accreditation

6.4.1. Establishment of National and Regional Accreditation Infrastructure

Fully functioning national bodies in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago; Institution established in St. Kitts and Nevis with limited functions; Barbados, Saint Lucia, Belize, Guyana and Suriname in the process of establishing national institutions.

Inter-Governmental Agreement to be finalised. Regional Accreditation Body to be put in place to oversee accreditation and equivalency. COHSOD had agreed that National Accreditation Bodies be put in place by March 2003 in other Member States.

6.5. Agreement on Transference of Social Security benefits

6.5.1. Signature and Ratification of Agreement

Agreement entered into force on 1 April 1997. Twelve (12) Member States have signed and ratified the Agreement - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St.


78

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. The Bahamas also has signed and ratified the Agreement. Suriname does not have a national social security system similar to that in other Member States.

Suriname to regularise its Social Security arrangement.

6.5.2. Enactment of Social Security Legislation

Twelve (12) Member States have enacted national legislation to give effect to the Agreement - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. The Bahamas also has enacted national legislation. Barbados, Dominica, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago processing claims under the Agreement.

7. FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL

7.1. Removal of Restrictions to Movement of Capital

7.1.1. Notification of Restrictions List of existing restrictions notified by all Member States in 2000

7.1.2. Implementation of Programmes for Removal of Restrictions

The 13th Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference in February 2002 formally approved the Schedules of Commitments for removal of Restrictions by Member States, which took effect from 1 March 2002. Montserrat granted two-year derogation from its obligation to implement Programmes.

Legislative and administrative action to be taken by Member States to remove restrictions to the Free Movement of Capital at latest in accordance with the time lines of December 2003, 2004, 2005. Member States to report Quarterly to the Prime Ministerial Sub-Committee on CSME Montserrat to develop Programme during this second year.

7.2. Capital Market Integration 7.2.1. Establishment of Stock

Exchange National Stock exchanges established in - Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and the OECS(serving all OECS Members)

Belize, Guyana and Suriname to establish national Stock Exchanges

7.2.2. Cross-listing and trading Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are the only countries comprising the Regional Stock Market.

Legislative and administrative framework to be developed and implemented to facilitate Cross-Listing and Trading by other Member States.


79

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED 7.3. Intra-Regional Double

Taxation Agreement

7.3.1. Signature and Ratification of Agreement

Eleven (11) Member States have signed and ratified Agreement - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

Montserrat and Suriname to sign and ratify Agreement

7.3.2. Enactment of Legislation National Legislation enacted by eight (8) Member States - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

Of the Member States which have signed and ratified the Agreement, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis to enact national legislation to give effect to the Agreement.

8. RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT

8.1. Removal of Restrictions 8.1.1. Identification and Notification

of Restrictions List of existing restrictions notified by all Member States in 2000

8.1.2. Implementation of Programme for Removal of Restrictions

The 13th Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference in February 2002 formally approved the Schedules of Commitments for removal of Restrictions by Member States, which took effect from 1 March 2002. Jamaica has taken action towards meeting its commitment for immediate removal of restrictions Montserrat granted two-year derogation from its obligation to implement Programmes

Legislative and administrative action to be taken to remove restrictions to Right of Establishment at latest in accordance with the time lines of December 2003, 2004, 2005. Member States to report Quarterly to the Prime Ministerial Sub-Committee on CSME Montserrat to develop Programme during this second year.

9. COMMON EXTERNAL POLICY

9.1. Implementation of Fourth Phase of CET

Ten (10) Member States have implemented Fourth Phase - Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

Montserrat to implement Fourth Phase. Antigua and Barbuda and St. Kitts and Nevis to take action.

10 HARMONISATION OF LAWS - to include:

10.1. Implementation of Harmonised Customs Legislation, Regulations and Forms

Draft of 20 modules of model Customs Legislation have been reviewed by CPCs and Customs Officials and are being redrafted.

Finalisation of the redrafting by CPCs and CLDF

10.2 Legal Regime for Draft Model revised and refined Review by Member States and


80

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED Establishment, Services and Capital

by CPCs approval by LAC

10.3 Competition Policy Draft Model being examined by CPCs

10.4 Consumer Protection Draft Model with Member States CPCs to examine

!0.5 Dumping and Countervailing Measures

Draft Model with Member States CPCs to examine

10.6 Banking and Securities Legislation

Technical work being undertaken

10.7 Companies/Other Legal Entities

10.8 Intellectual Property Rights 10.9 Standards and Technical

Regulations

10.10 Labelling of Food and Drugs 10.11 Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary

Measures Some drafts are with Member States

10.12 Commercial Arbitration 10.13 Other 11. SECTORAL

PROGRAMMES AND CREATION OF ENABLING ENVIRONMENT 11.1 Industry 11.2 Micro and Small

Economic Enterprise Development

11.3 Services 11.4 Tourism 11.5 Agriculture 11.6 Transportation

12. COMMON SUPPORT MEASURES 12.1 Human Resource

Development 12.2 Research and

Development 12.3 Environmental

Protection 12.4 Intellectual Property

Rights 12.5 Community

Investment Policy 12.6 Harmonisation of

Investment Incentives

12.7 Macro Economic Policies

12.8 Financial

Technical work being undertaken Technical Work being undertaken


81

ELEMENTS STATUS ACTION REQUIRED Infrastructure

12.9 Industrial Relations 12.10 Legal Infrastructure 12.11 Development of

Social Infrastructure 12.12 Role of the Public

Authorities and interface with the private sector.

13. PUBLIC EDUCATION Public education activities

undertaken by Member States independently and by Member States in collaboration with the Secretariat continue to be on-going.

Intensification of Public Education Programme at national and regional level.

Updated 12 September 2003

Documents

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF THE CARIBBEAN SINGLE