America latina e Caraibi
Il CESE lavora con le organizzazioni che sono le sue controparti in America Latina e nei Caraibi sin dagli anni Novanta. Diversi pareri del Comitato si sono concentrati sulle relazioni con tale regione intrattenute a livello regionale, sub-regionale e nazionale. Le priorità del CESE comprendono lo sviluppo delle organizzazioni della società civile, lo sviluppo economico e sociale, l'integrazione regionale e la cooperazione multilaterale.
A livello regionale, il Comitato organizza riunioni biennali tra i rappresentanti delle organizzazioni della società civile in Europa, America Latina e Caraibi, che fanno parte degli incontri preparatori in vista del vertice tra l'UE e la Comunità degli Stati latinoamericani e caraibici (CELAC).
A livello sub-regionale e nazionale sono state istituite diverse strutture permanenti: nel 2009 il CESE ha avviato una tavola rotonda della società civile con il Consiglio per lo sviluppo economico e sociale del Brasile allo scopo di creare un forum di dialogo e cooperazione costante tra i rappresentanti della società civile brasiliana ed europea. L'accordo di associazione UE-Cile ha conferito al Comitato il mandato di creare un comitato consultivo misto con la sua controparte della società civile in Cile, il quale è stato poi istituito nel 2016. Per quanto concerne i paesi della Comunità andina, il CESE prende parte al gruppo consultivo interno che monitora l'accordo di libero scambio UE-Colombia/Perù/Ecuador. Partecipa inoltre al comitato consultivo Cariforum-UE che monitora il relativo accordo di partenariato economico. Sono state istituite relazioni permanenti con le controparti istituzionali del CESE nel Mercosur (il forum consultivo economico e sociale) e nell'America centrale (il comitato consultivo del sistema di integrazione centroamericano).
Ex-post evaluation of the EPA between the EU and its Member States and the CARIFORUM Member States
Joint statement from the fifth meeting of the CARIFORUM-EU Consultative Committee
Concept note proposal to establish a CARIFORUM-EU Centre in Europe – Joint Statement appendix
The main conclusion of the paper is that the incorporation of environmental provisions within the EPAs may present some benefits to ACP countries. These include increased enforcement of environmental laws and the raising of domestic environmental standards. However, developing countries will have to seek ways to mitigate some risks and challenges associated with internal and regional coordination in negotiations, legal burdens of the negotiating process itself and the implementation of obligations as well as the establishment and maintenance of appropriate levels of environmental protection and institution building. ACP countries will need appropriate packages of technical assistance, capacity building, and environmental cooperation to meet this new environmental agenda in their trade agreements.
In October 2008, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Dominican Republic, being members of the Forum of the Caribbean Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (CARIFORUM), signed the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU). Haiti signed the agreement in December 2009, but has not yet applied it, as it still has to be ratified.
The first objective of Article 1 of the Agreement indicated that the EPA is expected to contribute to “the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty through the establishment of a trade partnership consistent with the objective of sustainable development, the Millennium Development Goals and the Cotonou Agreement” but also to promote regional integration, economic cooperation and good governance, and to improve CARIFORUM States' capacity in trade policy and trade-related issues.
In the context of the implementation of this EPA, the ILO Decent Work Team (DWT) for the English and Dutch-speaking Caribbean based in Trinidad and Tobago put together, with the financial support of the EU, the project “Support to Facilitate Participation of CARIFORUM Civil Society in the Regional Development and Integration Process: Challenges to CARIFORUM Labour, Private Sector and Employers to Fulfil their EPA Obligations”. It targeted all CARIFORUM countries and was to be implemented between 2015 and 2018. This project is herein after referred to as the “ILO-EU Project”.
At the dawn of the new millennium, the European Union (EU) wanted to change profoundly its economic and commercial relationship with the countries of the Africa-
Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) with whom she had a privileged relationship. This relationship was hitherto based for a quarter of a century on a traditional vision support to the former British and French colonies through the opening non-reciprocal nature of the European market to products originating from these countries. This arrangement was gradually considered ineffective and not in accordance with the rules of the international trade. This led the EU to favor a new approach neo-liberal inspiration, nuanced by a certain consideration of the differences in between the EU and ACP countries. It has in fact acted, through the Economic Partnership (EPA), to put in place free trade agreements between
the EU and large ACP regions, de jure demanding a strong reciprocity with openness from 2008 ACP markets to products (goods and services) originating in the EU.
The OECS and IOC are two small regional integration and cooperation organizations, respectively, founded by small island ACP States to support them in their economic and social development efforts, and which have subsequently opened up to a certain degree of differentiated participation in French overseas territories in a context of evolving international and commercial relations.
In this article, we propose a comparative analysis of these two organizations and this participation, highlighting the common points, but also the important legal, political, socio-economic and financial differences.
The first part is devoted to the comparative analytical presentation of the two organizations, before going on to discuss in a second part the question of the participation of French Overseas Territories and its differentiated modalities. The conclusion provides an overall assessment of observed dynamics.