EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

crafting the agreement, and therefore the D.R. accepted the CAFTA template and
concentrated the negotiations in the annexes of the agreement. This included key areas
as trade liberalisation, rules of origin, services, investment, intellectual property and
government procurement. In contrast, with the EPA, neither EU nor CARIFORUM had a
preconceived template on the agreement, having rather a foundation on the Cotonou
and a mutual vision to incorporate development dimension in trade liberalization. The
translation of this vision into an actual text and with its trade commitments was a big
challenge. In this process the CRNM took an important role, the participation of
CARIFORUM member states, and the active engagement of the EC negotiators.
As for the resources utilised, there is an interesting contrast between the D.R.-CAFTA
and the EPA. During the D.R.-CAFTA, time was the primary factor, therefore for a period
of a year all negotiating resources were allocated to this process. The crafting of the
D.R. annexes to the CAFTA was a tiresome and demanding task, which demanded a lot
of interaction with the civil society. Therefore between each of the three negotiating
rounds of the D.R.-CAFTA a lot of time and effort was allocated both in the public as well
as in the private sector. After the third and final round, a process of six months followed
and demanded equal amount of time and resources in order to harmonise the agreed
commitments between the D.R. and the Central American Countries, and to conduct the
legal scrub of the agreement
In contrast, the EPA negotiation was less intense, with a period three times as long as
the D.R.-CAFTA, and with a learning curve well climbed by D.R. negotiators. However
the real challenge for the D.R. was coordinating a regional position among CARIFORUM
countries. In retrospect, due to the time frame of the EPA as well as the requirement to
coordinate a regional position the actual time allocated to the negotiations was much
larger in the EPA than in the D.R.-CAFTA. But by the same token the actual time
invested to prepare for the negotiations was much more demanding under the D.R.-
CAFTA than under the EPA. This is based on two aspects: the D.R.-CAFTA was the first
comprehensive FTA conducted by the D.R. with an industrialised economy and the EPA
template, as it was being developed, was less embracing in its commitments as the
D.R.-CAFTA.
Other opportunity costs
The much experienced and efficient negotiating structure of the D.R., where the
negotiating team has been involved in all negotiations suggest a large degree of
specialisation of the unit in these issues, and therefore large opportunity costs are
unlikely.
4. Perceptions and lessons of the process
This section draws extensively on interviews and the views of people involved in the
negotiating process. It does not aim to establish facts, but to document the experience of
these countries during the negotiations.
Ethiopia
Expectations
79