EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

5. Perspectives of EPA negotiations
a. How resources constraints have impacted the Negotiations
From the DR side, it is difficult to conclude that constraints in resources impacted
negatively in the outcome of the negotiations. From one side, there is overall
satisfaction with the results of the EPA negotiations. There was also an important
presence of DR delegates in the different TWG’s and TNG’s from public officials and civil
society (economic operators). In addition, resources allocated through the CRNM
allowed the financing of one official delegate to practically all coordinating meetings from
each of the CAIFORUM countries, including the DR.
The EPA negotiating process coincided with a time of economic growth in the DR,
therefore allowing for a greater flexibility in allocating resources, particularly in the
participation in meetings for both coordination and negotiation.
It is fair to say, that prior and during the beginning of the negotiations, there were limited
resources allocated in conducting impact studies in order to maximise the results in the
negotiations.
b. The EPA, compared with other negotiation processes
The EPA was a unique experience for the DR. It was the first time that it had to
coordinate regional positions, with a group of countries that speak four different
languages and with different points of view towards the negotiation. In addition it was
also the first time, and likely the last, that delegated the right to negotiate a Free Trade
Agreement to a third party, in this case the Colleague of Negotiators (CN). This handicap
was compensated by the transparency of the process, which gave it legitimacy. In
addition, the professionalism of the CRNM earned the trust of the DR.
The development dimension and the flexibilities built into the agreement, allowed for DR
sensitive sectors to be tolerant of both the process and the results. In addition the
market access gained to the EU, gave hope to other sectors to increase its exports.
On a regional note, the EPA demanded a lot of interaction with the CARIFORUM
countries, giving a broader understanding on the sensitivities of different sectors in the
different countries.
The EPA therefore, in some instances, was more of a diplomatic process than an actual
trade negotiating process. Although it included a trade dimension, it encompassed
relations within CARIFORUM and the future allocation of resources by the EU in order to
maximise the implementation of the agreement.
In addition, due to the previous experience in negotiating free trade agreements the DR
had an institutional structure in place that coordinated with the different ministries
involved and with the different stakeholders, primarily from the business sector.
Finally, because of the changes that had to be made after negotiating the DR-CAFTA,
both institutionally (creating and polishing different offices involved in international trade),
as well as budgetary, there was little change required in order to implement the EPA
agreement. Moreover, due to the three year moratorium in trade liberalisation, there
172