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
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
Graduates
Media Workers, Artistes, Sports Persons, Musicians
Service Providers, Entrepreneurs, and Managerial, Technical
And Supervisory Staff and Family Members
Issues Arising from the Review of Initiatives to Facilitate
Free Movement
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
23
23
23
23
24
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
Supporting Institutions
Regional and National Standard Setting Bodies
National Accreditation Bodies
The Caribbean Court of Justice
27
27
27
27
8.0
Impediments to Free Movement
29
9.0
Sections of The Caribbean Community Benefiting Most From
The CSME
31
10.0
10.1
10.2
Lessons from the EU Experience
The Role of Social Policy in the EU
Problems Encountered by the EU
32
35
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
2
14.0
14.1
14.2
14.2 [a]
14.2 [b]
14.3
14.3 [a]
14.3 [b]
14.4
14.5
People’s Perspective on the CSME: Qualitative Aspects
Issue I: Knowledge of the CSME
Issue II: Education on the CSME
Questions Persons Want Answered
Suggestions for Improving the Education Programme
Issue III: Support for the CSME
What Frightens Caribbean People
What Excites Caribbean People
Issue IV: Attitude of Caribbean People Towards Each Other
Issue V: Hassle Free Travel
46
47
48
48
48
49
49
50
51
53
15.0
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
54
54
55
55
56
15.6
15.7
15.8
Recommendations for NGO Advocacy
A right to free movement for all Caribbean people
More integration; less bureaucratisation
Complaints authority for CARICOM’s people
Public education regarding the CSME
National-regional duplication in standards and professional
accreditation
Politicisation of the CSME
Full utilisation of the services platform
CARICOM rights and privileges
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
56
57
57
58
3
ABERRATIONS
ACCP
CARICOM
CCJ
CET
CM
COFAP
COHSOD
COTED
CPC
CPDC
CROSQ
CSME
CU
EC
ECSC
EEC
EU
FTA
FTAA
GIS
NTB
OECS
SEM
TEU
WIF
WTO
Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians
Caribbean Community and Common Market
Caribbean Court of Justice
Common External Tariff
Common Market
Council for Finance and Planning
CARICOM Council for Human and Social Development
Council for Trade and Economic Development
Central Product Classification
Caribbean Policy Development Centre
CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality
CARICOM Single Market and Economy
Customs Union
European Community
European Coal and Steel Community
European Economic Community
European Union
Free Trade Area
Free Trade Area of the Americas
Government Information Service
Non Tariff Barrier
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
Single European Market
Treaty on European Union
West Indies Federation
World Trade Organisation
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
4
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
5
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
6
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
7
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
8
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
9
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 transborder 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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
10
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:
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
11
•
•
•
•
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;
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
12
•
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
13
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
14
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.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
The free trade area;
The customs union;
The common market
An economic union; and
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
15
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 supranational 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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
16
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
17
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
18
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
19
“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 “HassleFree 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
travelling to their jurisdictions;
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
community nationals
20
ii.
iii.
iv.
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.
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.
ii.
Not to impose any new measures that would restrict free movement
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.
ii.
iii.
Commercial presence or the right of establishment;
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;
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
21
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
22
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,
Supervisory Staff And Family Members
And
Managerial,
Technical
And
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
23
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The immediate term
The short term
The medium term
The long term
no later than 31 December 2002
no later than 31 December 2003
no later than 31 December 2004; and
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
24
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
25
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
26
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
27
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
28
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
29
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
30
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
31
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
32
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
33
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:
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
34
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
A personal right to free movement and residence subject to the limitations and
conditions laid down in the treaty and secondary law;
Electoral rights in European Parliament and municipal elections in the place of
residence [Article 8 B (1) and (2)];
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);
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
35
This Social Charter spoke to the following issues:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
Improvement of living and working conditions
Right to freedom of movement
Employment and remuneration
Right to social protection
Right to freedom and collective bargaining
Right to vocational training
Right of equal treatment of men and women
Right to information, consultation and worker participation
Right to health protection and safety at the workplace
Protection of children and adolescents
The provision of pensions for the elderly
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
36
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
37
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
38
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
39
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
40
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
41
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
42
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
43
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
44
VIEWS OF THE BARBADIAN POPULATION
74%
50%
37%
16%
Support for Freedom of
Support for Free
Movement
Movement including
unskilled persons
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
45
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
Issue II
Issue III
Issue IV
Issue V
Knowledge of the CSME
Education on the CSME
Support for the CSME
Attitudes of Caribbean people towards each other
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
46
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
47
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-today 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 nonBarbadian, 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
programme included:
•
•
•
•
•
suggestions
for
improving
the
education
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
48
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
49
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
50
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
51
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
52
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
53
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
54
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
55
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
PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION
IN
STANDARDS
AND
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
56
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 intracorporate transfers will allow companies to achieve the level of integration that they
determine is necessary. The CPDC represents the interest of several small service
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
57
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
58
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
th
This poll was initially published in the Nation Newspaper on April 13 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).
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
59
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
University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.
1990 (Third Edition) The
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
60
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).
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
61
18.0
18.1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE AND PROTOCOL
SCHEDULE
Coordinator:
Facilitator:
Location:
Issue:
Stig Merrit
Hilda Weeks
Dining Club, Manor Lodge Complex, St. Michael, Barbados.
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
•
•
•
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
•
•
•
•
•
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CSME
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?
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
62
ISSUE III
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
•
SUPPORT FOR THE CSME
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
63
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?
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
64
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;
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
65
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
66
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
67
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
68
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
69
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
70
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
71
APPENDIX IV
SUMMARY OF STATUS OF KEY ELEMENTS
Taken from: www.caricom.org
1.1.
ELEMENTS
TREATY REVISION
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
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.
The Bahamas and Montserrat to
sign
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 (InterMinisterial 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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
72
ELEMENTS
SUPPORTING
INSTITUTIONS
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
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
The Bahamas and Montserrat to
sign
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
establish
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
GOODS
4.1.
Implementation of Rules of
Ten (10) Member States have
2002
and Suriname to
National
Standards
OF
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
HS
structure
due
for
73
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;
Belize to remove application of
import duty on 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.
Member States applying Customs
Service Tax/User Fee to ensure
that charges reflect the cost of
processing imports rather than a
tariff measure.
Jamaica applies a Customs Users
Fee( JM$600 - 3000) on goods of
Community origin
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.
Member States to remove the
discriminatory
application
of
Internal Taxes and other Fiscal
charges 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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
74
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.
5.
FREE
MOVEMENT
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 13 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 .
OF
th
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.
6.
FREE
MOVEMENT
PERSONS
Task Force established by COTED
made recommendations
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 SubCommittee 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.
OF
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
75
ELEMENTS
PERSONS
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
6.1.
Free Movement of Skills
6.1.1.
Implementation
Legislation
Skills
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.
Montserrat awaiting instrument of
entrustment. Barbados, St. Kitts
and Nevis to amend existing
legislation to provide for free
movement of these categories
of
Barbados is currently facilitating
free movement of these categories
administratively.
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.
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
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)
Jamaica has taken action re
immediate removal of restrictions.
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.
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
76
ELEMENTS
STATUS
travel (e.g use of ID card)
ACTION REQUIRED
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
IntraCARICOM 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
NonCARICOM Nationals.
Conference
decision
re
implementation by December 2003
6.4.
Mechanism for equivalency
and accreditation
6.4.1.
Establishment
and Regional
Infrastructure
Fully functioning national bodies in
Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago;
Inter-Governmental Agreement to
be finalised.
Regional Accreditation Body to be
put
in
place
to
oversee
accreditation and equivalency.
of National
Accreditation
Institution established in St. Kitts
and Nevis with limited functions;
Barbados, Saint Lucia, Belize,
Guyana and Suriname in the
process of establishing national
institutions.
6.5.
Agreement
Transference of
Security benefits
6.5.1.
Signature and Ratification of
Agreement
COHSOD had agreed that National
Accreditation Bodies be put in
place by March 2003 in other
Member States.
on
Social
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.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
77
ELEMENTS
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
Vincent and the Grenadines,
Trinidad and Tobago.
The Bahamas also has signed and
ratified the Agreement.
Suriname to regularise its Social
Security arrangement.
Suriname does not have a national
social security system similar to
that in other Member States.
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
CAPITAL
OF
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 13 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.
th
Montserrat
granted
two-year
derogation from its obligation to
implement Programmes.
7.2.
Capital Market Integration
7.2.1.
Establishment
Exchange
7.2.2.
Cross-listing and trading
of
Stock
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 SubCommittee on CSME
Montserrat to develop Programme
during this second year.
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
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 CrossListing and Trading by other
Member States.
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
78
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
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 13 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.
OF
th
Jamaica has taken action towards
meeting its commitment for
immediate removal of restrictions
Montserrat
granted
two-year
derogation from its obligation to
implement Programmes
9.
COMMON
POLICY
9.1.
Implementation
Phase of CET
10
HARMONISATION
LAWS - to include:
10.1.
10.2
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 SubCommittee on CSME
Montserrat to develop Programme
during this second year.
EXTERNAL
of
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.
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
Legal
Draft Model
Review by Member States and
Regime
Fourth
OF
for
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
revised and refined
79
ELEMENTS
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
Establishment, Services and
Capital
by CPCs
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
Legislation
Technical work being undertaken
10.7
Companies/Other
Entities
10.8
Intellectual Property Rights
10.9
Standards and
Regulations
10.10
Labelling of Food and Drugs
10.11
Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary
Measures
10.12
Commercial Arbitration
10.13
Securities
approval by LAC
Legal
Technical
Some drafts are with Member
States
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
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
80
ELEMENTS
12.9
12.10
12.11
12.12
13.
STATUS
ACTION REQUIRED
Public
education
activities
undertaken by Member States
independently and by Member
States in collaboration with the
Secretariat continue to be ongoing.
Intensification of Public Education
Programme
at
national
and
regional level.
Infrastructure
Industrial Relations
Legal Infrastructure
Development
of
Social Infrastructure
Role of the Public
Authorities
and
interface with the
private sector.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Updated
12 September 2003
Freedom of Movement and the CSME (CADRES)
81