27.02.2013 Views

EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• An estimated $214,000 in travelling<br />

• An estimated $50,000 for organising one of the negotiating rounds in Santo Domingo<br />

during 2006.<br />

If we also include the active participation of civil society (primarily Dominican organised<br />

business sector), and take as an estimate that civil society (business sector) equalled<br />

around 50% of the manpower allocated by D.R. officials, the total cost amounted to<br />

$499,000.<br />

In addition, it is important to point out that for mostly all meetings the CRNM financed the<br />

cost of one participant, including both per diems and airfare. These funds were obtained<br />

through different international grants. In addition, to that it might be appropriate to add<br />

the D.R. budgetary contribution to the CRNM, which account to $250,000 per year. After<br />

adding the two years, the estimated costs add up to $2 million.<br />

The resources to support <strong>EPA</strong> negotiation came from the D.R. internal budget. Each<br />

ministry was in charge of allocating its own resources to cover the expenses of the trade<br />

negotiators.<br />

Cost-benefit analysis of counterfactual costs<br />

The D.R. had a very clear offensive interest from the beginning of the process in<br />

obtaining market access for some agricultural commodities and better rules of origin for<br />

apparel exports. Concretely, banana, cigars, rum, textiles, footwear, cocoa and some<br />

vegetables were exported under the Cotonou agreement, accounting for €198 million,<br />

and not covered by GSP preferences. In addition, extensive liberalisation under CAFTA-<br />

US, its main trade partner, reduced the impact on trade diversion and on revenue loss.<br />

Fontagne et al. (2008) and Milner (2006) estimate revenue loss is around €50 millions.<br />

However, the case study reflects a lower dependency on tariff revenues once accounted<br />

for CAFTA-US, from 16.4% (Fontagne et al. 2008) to 8%, bringing the estimate loss to<br />

less than €24 millions. Therefore, for the D.R. the expected benefits from <strong>EPA</strong>s clearly<br />

outweigh the costs of GSP.<br />

Table 13 Counterfactual costs (millions)<br />

<strong>EPA</strong> GSP<br />

Negotiating costs a<br />

$2 0<br />

Impact on exports (+Preferential access for<br />

€198) a<br />

Preferential access for<br />

€198<br />

Trade creation<br />

positive 0<br />

a b c<br />

Revenue loss €50-€24 0<br />

Employment<br />

€24 0<br />

Adjustment b<br />

Other issues (trade,.) Positive benefits 0<br />

Source: a Own calculations, b Miner (2006) and c Fontagne et al. (2007)<br />

Comparison with CAFTA<br />

Regarding the negotiating process, it is interesting to compare the <strong>EPA</strong> experience with<br />

D.R-CAFTA negotiations. Under the D.R.-CAFTA the D.R. had limited involvement in<br />

78

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!