assessment of digital trade and e-commerce readiness and

Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)

Research Report

Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and

Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States

of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

(OECS)

Book_5136_C000.indd 1Book_5136_C000.indd 1 11-10-2021 19:48:1011-10-2021 19:48:10

Author: A-Z Information Jamaica Limited

© Commonwealth Secretariat 2021

All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise provided it is used only for educational purposes and is not for resale, and provided full acknowledgement is given to the Commonwealth Secretariat as the original publisher.

Views and opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author and should in no way be attributed to the institutions to which they are affiliated or to the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Wherever possible, the Commonwealth Secretariat uses paper sourced from responsible forests or from sources that minimise a destructive impact on the environment.

Printed and published by the Commonwealth Secretariat.


Contents \ iii

ContentsList of Experts Consulted for this Report v

Abbreviations and Acronyms xi

Executive Summary xiii

1. Introduction and Background 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Objectives and methodology 3

Reference 4

2. Macroeconomic Analysis 5

2.1 Economic overview of the OECS states 5

2.2 Snapshot of doing business in the OECS states – Trading Across Borders 10

2.3 Transportation and logistics – a supporting pillar of e-commerce

and digital readiness 18

References 23

3. Enablers of E-commerce in the OECS Region 24

3.1 Infrastructure systems in the OECS states 24

References 28

4. OECS Legal and Regulatory Regime for E-Commerce and Digital Trade 29

4.1 Levels of OECS regulation of e-commerce and digital trade 29

4.2 Data protection legislation in the OECS states 30

4.3 Cybersecurity in the OECS 32

4.4 Consumer protection 34

4.5 Intellectual property: a key pillar of e-commerce 39

4.6 The creative and cultural industry (CCI) as an engine of growth in the OECS 41

4.7 Gap analysis of the OECS legislative landscape for IP-related aspects of

e-commerce 43

4.8 Exporting OECS creativity: a case study of music e-commerce 44

4.9 Financial services in the OECS 51

References 60


iv \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

5. Summary of E-Readiness Survey Results 63

5.1 A-Z Gap Index – AZGI 63

5.2 Assessment of individual pillars 64

5.3 Regional A-Z Gap Index – by pillar and country 71

5.4 Distribution at country level 74

5.5 Groupings based on the rankings of individual indicators 78

6. OECS Treatment of E-Commerce-related Disciplines in Trade Agreements 84

6.1 OECS liberalisation commitments in e-commerce-aligned services sectors 84

6.2 Mapping the interest of OECS states in ongoing WTO e-commerce

negotiations 85

6.3 The emerging WTO landscape for market access commitments in

e-commerce 88

6.4 The treatment of digital trade and e-commerce in OECS bilateral

agreements 88

6.5 The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and its relationship to

e-commerce and digital trade in the OECS 93

References 101

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 102

7.1 Conclusions and recommendations 102

7.2 Elements of an OECS Strategy on Digital Trade and E-Commerce and

related roadmap and approaches to developing e-commerce in the

OECS subregion 105

7.3 Strategic Framework and Roadmap for Developing E-Commerce in the

OECS subregion 110

Reference 111

Appendices 112

Appendix 1: Summary of OECS e-commerce legislation 112

Appendix 2: E-readiness survey data summary 113

Appendix 3: Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table 155

Appendix 4: De minimis thresholds 158

Appendix 5: Trade Strategy Assessment Matrix 165

Appendix 6: Summary of stakeholder feedback from the

OECS–Commonwealth Secretariat Stakeholder Consultation

on Electronic Commerce Readiness 178

Appendix 7: Statistics on selected commercial banks and credit unions 192

Reference 194


List of Experts Consulted for this Report \ v

List of Experts Consulted for this Report

Name Role

Dr Peter Alfred Key Expert 1: Team Leader, Trade in Goods and Customs Expert

Natallie Rochester Key Expert 2: Trade in Services and E-commerce Expert, Project Manager

Ava-Gail Gardiner Key Expert 3: Legal Expert (Intellectual Property and Digital Rights Management)

Audel Cunningham Key Expert 4: Legal Expert (Trade and Customs Proce-dures)

Vimla St. Hill Key Expert 5: Local Financial and MSME Expert

Angela Strachan Key Expert 6: Trade Facilitation and Business Environment Expert

Telly Valerie Onu Key Expert 7: Digital Innovation Expert

Jomo Cato Key Expert 8: Infrastructure and E-Commerce Strategist

Dr Noel Watson Key Expert 9: Economist /Strategic Planner


List of Tables \ vii

List of TablesTable 1 High priority e-readiness grouping of related gaps in the OECS xvii

Table 2.1 Population for the six (6) OECS member states (2016–20) 6

Table 2.2 GDP in constant prices (EC$M) (2016–20) 6

Table 2.3 Growth of gross domestic product by economic activity in constant prices (%) (2016–20) 7

Table 2.4 Inflation rate (%): December 2016 to December 2020 7

Table 2.5 Total exports of goods (EC$M) 8

Table 2.6 Total imports of goods (EC$M) 8

Table 2.7 Trade in goods balance (EC$M) 8

Table 2.8 Exports of services (EC$M) 9

Table 2.9 Imports of services (EC$M) 9

Table 2.10 Balance of trade in services (EC$M) 9

Table 2.11 OECS and CARICOM more developed country rankings by topic, World Doing Business 2020 11

Table 2.12 Customs documentation and border compliance – performance of the OECS versus selected CARICOM and CARIFORUM states 12

Table 2.13 Trading across borders – St Kitts and Nevis 13

Table 2.14 Trading across borders – Grenada 13

Table 2.15 Guiding principles for an OECS Customs Union and the free circulation of goods 16

Table 2.16 English-speaking Caribbean countries – transport infrastructure 18

Table 2.17 Total contribution of travel and tourism (T&T) to GDP and employment in 2019 19

Table 2.18 OECS member countries’ container ports throughput, 2018–19, and year-on-year variation versus other English Speaking (ES) Caribbean countries’ port throughput for the same period 19

Table 3.1 Ranking of CARICOM countries on the UPU 2IPD 25

Table 3.2 Selected telecommunications indicators: all ECTEL states 25

Table 4.1 State of implementation of e-commerce-related legislation in OECS states 30

Table 4.2 Commercial banks in the OECS 52

Table 4.3 Financial regulatory bodies in the OECS 54

Table 4.4 FINTECH companies in the OECS 55

Table 4.5 Recommendation of Canada’s Competition Bureau (CCB) on FinTech regulation 58

Table 5.1 Pillars of e-commerce readiness 64


viii \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

Table 5.2 Regional summary by pillar 64

Table 5.3 Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility 65

Table 5.4 Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery 65

Table 5.5 Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce 66

Table 5.6 Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerce 67

Table 5.7 Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce 68

Table 5.8 Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation 70

Table 5.9 A summary of the six gap indices for the six OECS countries 71

Table 5.10 Distribution at the country level 74

Table 5.11 Ranking of ten lowest A-Z Gap Indices 78

Table 5.12 Ranking of ten highest A-Z Gap Indices 79

Table 5.13 Band A AZGI 86% to 98% 80

Table 5.14 Band B AZGI 76% to 85% 81

Table 5.15 Band A AZGI 86% to 98% 82

Table 5.16 Band B AZGI 76% to 85% 83

Table 5.17 Bands A and B AZGI 76% to 98% – 60 indicators in both bands 83

Table 5.18 Bands A and B 83

Table 6.1 Issues of concern for developing countries in the WTO E-Commerce Work Programme 86

Table 6.2 Target sectors for deep liberalisation commitments in JSI E-commerce negotiation 89

Table 6.3 OECS EPA commitments in key e-commerce-aligned services sectors 91

Table 6.4 Indicative framework for OECS discussions on e-commerce in the WTO using the accelerated implementation of the TFA 98

Table 7.1 High-priority e-readiness gaps in the OECS 106

Table 7.2 BAND A: AZGI 86% to 98% 107

Table 7.3 BAND B: AZGI 76% to 85% 109

Table 7.4 Relevant initiatives on e-commerce in the OECS 110

Table A1 Summary of e-commerce legislation in the OECS – adapted from the UNCTAD Global Cyberlaw Tracker 112

Table A2 Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table 155

Table A3 De minimis thresholds 158

Table A4 Trade Strategy Assessment Matrix 165

Table A5 Country Reports of Priority Actions from Stakeholder Consultations 185


List of Figures \ ix

List of FiguresFigure 2.1 OECS and CARICOM more developed country rankings by topic,

World Doing Business 2020 11

Figure 2.2 TFA implementation status – Category A 1/2 14

Figure 2.3 TFA implementation status – Category A 2/2 15

Figure 2.4 TFA implementation status – Category B and C1/2 17

Figure 2.5 TFA implementation status – Category B and C2/2 17

Figure 2.6 Monthly number of aircraft departures 21

Figure 3.1 OECS fixed broadband penetration 2014–18 26

Figure 3.2 OECS mobile broadband penetration 2014–18 27

Figure 4.1 Blockchain system for the music industry 48

Figure 5.1 AZGI regional summary – by e-readiness pillars 64

Figure 5.2 Regional AZGI 71

Figure 5.3 AZGI by Country Pillar 1 72






Figure 5.9 Regional AZGI 74

Figure 5.10 AZGI Antigua & Barbuda 75

Figure 5.11 AZGI Dominica 75

Figure 5.12 AZGI Grenada 76

Figure 5.13 AZGI St Kitts & Nevis 76

Figure 5.14 AZGI Saint Lucia 77

Figure 5.15 AZGI St Vincent and The Grenadines 78

Figure 6.1 Time reduction in trade facilitation due to different TFA-related reforms recorded by Doing Business in 2016/2017 94

Figure 6.2 Schematic for OECS risk management systems governing the circulation of goods 95

Figure 6.3 Procedures for managing risk in the goods-importing process in the OECS 96

Figure 6.4 Addressing cross-border electronic consignments data for goods – trade facilitation and risk management 100

Figure 6.5 Risk management model for express e-commerce consignments 100


Abbreviations and Acronyms \ xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific (Group of States)

ANU Antigua and Barbuda

ASYCUDA Automated System for Customs Data

AZGI A-Z Gap Index

B2B Business to Business

B2C Business to Consumer

B2G Business to Government

C2B Consumer to Business

C2C Consumer to Consumer

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CBEC cross-border e-commerce consignments

CCB Canada Competition Bureau

CCI creative and cultural industry

CP consumer protection

CS cybersecurity

CSME Caribbean Single Market and Economy

CTD Committee on Trade and Development (of the WTO)

CTU Caribbean Telecommunications Union

DP data protection

EC$ Eastern Caribbean dollars

ECCB Eastern Caribbean Central Bank

ECCU Eastern Caribbean Currency Union

ECTEL Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority

EDI electronic data interchange

EGRIP E-Government for Regional Integration Project

EPA economic partnership agreement

EU European Union

FDI foreign direct investment

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GDP gross domestic product

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation (of the EU)

GRD Grenada

HIPCAR Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory procedures in the Caribbean (ITU Project)

IATA International Air Transport Association


xii \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

ICPEN International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network

ICT information and communications technology

ICT4D ICT for Development

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IDP international development partner

IMF International Monetary Fund

IP intellectual property

IPS indigenous payment solutions

ISP internet service provider

ITU International Telecommunications Union

JSI Joint Statement Initiative

LAC Latin America and the Caribbean (region)

MDC more developed country

MFN most favoured nation (status/ treatment)

MSBs money service businesses

MSMEs micro, small and medium-sized enterprises

OAS Organization of American States

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

PI payments infrastructure

PRO performance rights organisation

SDT special and differential treatment (provisions)

SIDS small island developing states

SKN St Kitts and Nevis

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises

STEM science, technology, engineering, mathematics

SOPs standard operating procedures

SVG St Vincent and the Grenadines

T&T travel and tourism

TEUs twenty-foot equivalent units

TFA Trade Facilitation Agreement (of the WTO)

TRIPS Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights

UNCITRAL UN Commission on International Trade Law

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNECLAC UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UPU Universal Postal Union

WCO World Customs Organization

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

2IPD Integrated Index for Postal Development


Executive Summary \ xiii

Executive SummaryThe members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) are small island, tourism-dependent, developing nations seeking to position themselves for competitiveness in the digital economy with the support of several development partners. Initiatives are undertaken at the national, OECS, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and wider pan-Caribbean and international levels within the ambit and framework of the Treaty of Basseterre of 18 June 2010, which established the OECS Economic Union, and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, as revised in 2001 establishing the Caribbean Community. Both regional integration movements envision a single space, or harmonised regimes, and policy co-ordination in relation to information and communication technology, financial services and other aspects of the economies of member states.

OECS potential gains from e-commerce

E-commerce has the potential to positively impact innovation, competitiveness, job creation and growth in the OECS. The damaging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on OECS economies and sociocultural disruption of the pandemic’s distancing requirements have rendered even more urgent the OECS optimisation of e-commerce and digital trade systems. As observed in the OECS report, COVID-19 and Beyond, Impact Assessments and Responses, the effect of the pandemic on the OECS includes supply chain disruptions and related increases in transportation and overall procurement costs. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that in 2018, the global e-commerce market was worth US$25.6 trillion dollars, representing the equivalent of 30% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in that year. UNCTAD estimated that global e-commerce sales jumped to US$26.7 trillion in 2019, up 4% from 2018.

While precise figures are not available for the proportion of retail purchases online in the OECS market, online shopping as a percentage of retail sales is significant in prospective OECS markets, representing an opportunity. For example, in China, the online share of retail sales was 25.9% in 2020, compared to 18.2% in 2018. In the United Kingdom, online sales were 23.3% in 2020, up from 14.9%

in 2018; while in the United States, online sales were 14% in 2020, compared to 9.9% in 2018. This trend signals the need for OECS member states to participate effectively in the global marketplace, which is increasingly online, in order to reach traditional and non-traditional partner markets and avoid being marginalised in the digital economy.

A starting point for this report is that leveraging e-commerce by the OECS member states is constrained by the absence of a coherent regional regulatory framework across the subregion, limited financial instruments and high business transaction costs. The report reviews existing e-commerce infrastructure and regulatory gaps in OECS states, some of which are potential impediments to the growth of digital trade and access to markets.

Findings of literature review

The OECS member states have a multilevel regime for digital trade and e-commerce; at the national level, regulatory bodies grant licenses for business operations where applicable, including in emerging, technology-enabled, financial services. At the national level, there is variance in the type of legislation; for example, only Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis have Virtual Assets Bills. At the OECS level, member states are guided by the Treaty of Basseterre, and there is policy co-ordination and governance of information and communication technology, finance, and other legal and policy regimes in five (5) out of the six countries: Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines belong to the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL). Therefore, not all the states have made the transition from the traditional telecoms-based regulatory system to the more forward-looking electronic communications legal framework based on the ECTEL model bill.

While OECS states have implemented legislation on electronic transactions, not all of them have done so with respect to data protection, cybersecurity and consumer protection. Based on the literature review, all OECS states have implemented legislation influenced by, or based on, UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law. Three OECS states,


xiv \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia, have implemented legislation on data protection. All other states are considering state legislation. All OECS states, except St Vincent and the Grenadines, have implemented legislation on cybercrimes, while St Vincent and the Grenadines is considering draft legislation. Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia currently have modern legislation on consumer protection, while St Kitts and Nevis is revising its legislation. St Kitts and Nevis also passed a Virtual Assets Bill in January 2020, aimed at easing business in a cashless society and keeping pace with the use of virtual assets. Initiatives are underway to support the rollout of a more comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce and digital trade. The legislative framework is being strengthened progressively through donor-supported projects. However, survey respondents have identified significant gaps in the enabling policy framework and ecosystem for e-commerce in multiple areas.

Survey findings on OECS e-commerce and digital trade readiness

The stakeholder survey administered during the project investigated OECS member states’ performance using 160 indicators, which were grouped into six pillars of e-commerce readiness, as follows:

Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility

Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery

Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce

Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation

Responses were received from 124 stakeholders. Most respondents, 56%, were from the directorate or top-level management within their organisations.

The report identifies OECS states’ capacity gaps in each of the e-readiness pillars, based on the responses to the OECS digital trade and e-commerce readiness survey administered, including the public sector, across the OECS databases and client databases of multiple institutional partners. Stakeholders were filtered to maximise relevance of their experience to the subject matter of the survey. The survey findings

elucidate the observations and initial conclusions of the regulatory gap analysis, based on the review of the legal and regulatory frameworks and other literature. Overall, the respondents viewed the readiness of the enabling environment for e-commerce as being limited.

Using a newly constructed A-Z Gap Index (AZGI), the extent to which OECS e-readiness has been achieved in each pillar was reflected in percentage terms, with 0% representing full e-readiness (no gaps) and 100% representing the total absence of e-readiness (extensive gaps) in a particular pillar. The detailed evaluation of e-readiness, based on survey responses, was assessed using quartiles, with 25 percentage points as a threshold, especially the Fourth Quartile.

The regional A-Z Gap Index was 74%. The readiness index on a country basis ranged from the lowest gap of 69% in Saint Kits and Nevis to the highest gap of 75% for St Vincent. The AZGI presents a narrow range of indices at the country level. The other A-Z Gap Indices were 73%, 73%, 74%, 74%, for Saint Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, and Antigua and Barbuda, respectively. The general conclusion was that on a country level, St Vincent required the most work and resources to reduce the impediments to e-commerce in the OECS. On the other hand, St Kitts presented the lowest barriers to the attainment of greater levels of efficiency in e-commerce, albeit with an index level of 69%, located in the Third Quartile.

When assessed from the perspective of the six pillars, the results showed that Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery, presented the widest gap, with an index of 86%. This is the area to which most attention will have to be focused, as the OECS strives towards increasing the level of e-commerce activity in the regional economy. Pillar 1 National IT infrastructure and accessibility, with a commendable Index of 49%, was the best-positioned pillar as it related to e-commerce readiness across the subregion. The other four pillars, based on increasing gap index, were: Pillar 6 E-commerce policy and regulation, Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 5 Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, with A-Z Gap Indices of 75%, 78%, 79% and 81%, respectively.

The results indicate that major constraints need to be addressed to improve the readiness for e-commerce in the region, particularly in the areas


Executive Summary \ xv

of Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery, Pillar 5 Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce. With a range of 49% to 86%, representing 37 percentage points, the AZGI showed a much greater variability across pillars than across countries. This suggests that OECS states are similarly positioned in terms of e-readiness.

The ten most severe gaps in the region were associated with Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery, Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 5 Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce. All ten indicators presented very wide gaps, ranging from 95% to 98%. These gaps in ascending order of gap severity, were: (1) Education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools; (2) Capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries; (3) Regulations that allow for electronic mobile payments; (4) System reliability; (5) Availability of online payment methods; (6) Online security; (7) Privacy and confidentiality of transactions; (8) Credit card fraud; (9) Data breaches; and (10) Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).

Towards an OECS digital trade strategy for multilateral negotiations

E-commerce accounts for an increasing proportion of international trade and the multilateral trading system has been concerned with e-commerce since the start of public internet adoption in the 1990s. World Trade Organization (WTO) members are exploring new rules on e-commerce, which could result in international rules that impact OECS states as founding WTO members and as trading partners of the proponents of new rules. The e-commerce negotiations are taking place pursuant to the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) proposed during the 11th WTO Ministerial in Buenos Aires in 2017 by 71 WTO members, which accounted for 77% of global trade at the time. Since then, more than 80 countries have joined the group of negotiating countries; the group does not include OECS countries, but rules would set standards that would impact OECS states. E-commerce negotiations potentially overlap with other disciplines, including trade in goods, technical standards, telecommunications, cross-border trade

in services, investment, and trade facilitation. The OECS has relatively modest WTO commitments on trade in services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and has committed to trade facilitation reforms in the context of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and related CARICOM Strategy for Regional Implementation of the TFA; as well as pursuant to an OECS Customs Union and Regime for Free Circulation of Goods. The high level of TFA implementation notified by the OECS to the WTO appears to be linked to a relatively strong position in the World Bank Doing Business Trading Across Borders indicator, which could augur well for the OECS if a complementary e-commerce ecosystem is in place.

The conclusion of a multilateral agreement on e-commerce under the auspices of the WTO would result in the creation of a new normative framework in this area at the multilateral level. It is not clear whether the agreement, if successfully concluded, would take the form of a plurilateral agreement or whether it would become a part of the single undertaking structure of the WTO. The costs/benefits to the OECS in signing on to a multilateral agreement are also unclear at this stage of the negotiations, though some focus areas of the negotiation may be instructive to the OECS in setting priorities for unilateral reform, and for the treatment of e-commerce in bilateral or regional agreements.

At the WTO level, the e-commerce discussions in the context of the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) mainly cover:

• facilitating electronic transactions, digital trade and logistics;

• promoting openness in electronic commerce;

• promoting trust in electronic commerce;

• cross-cutting issues with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and other regulatory issues;

• telecommunications; and

• market access.

While the OECS WTO members are participating in the WTO Work Programme on E-commerce, they are not participating in the JSI, which is also effectively a consensus-building exercise for digital governance in which more than half of the WTO membership is involved. Negotiations on trade in


xvi \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

services, trade facilitation, investment facilitation and MSMEs are significant and should be monitored to ensure a coherent approach to e-commerce and digital trade, given the overlap and inter-relation of these negotiating areas. Creating an equitable e-commerce agreement is predicated on an appreciation of the existing digital divide between developed and developing countries, and the potential implications for their respective policy positions and capacity to adopt obligations on e-commerce governance. A multilateral or plurilateral agreement on e-commerce may realise negotiating efficiency for OECS states and mitigate the emergence of a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of e-commerce rules. Therefore, OECS member states should not necessarily adopt a completely defensive posture with respect to the JSI negotiations and should instead consider a nuanced approach. There is the potential for at least some of the proposed disciplines to be of significant benefit to OECS states. However, the JSI negotiations and emerging text could exert disproportionate influence on policy developments in the OECS states and relative to overarching digital trade and development strategies.

There are several obligations in the proposed JSI text that are beyond the current capacity of the OECS member states, and they would need support in developing legislative frameworks to accommodate the implementation of these obligations. It is therefore encouraging to note that the JSI text specifically addresses the issue of technical co-operation and proposes a modality whereby assistance can be provided to developing countries at their request. A commitment to implementing the agreement would necessarily implicate OECS states undertaking an inventory to develop a comprehensive list of areas in which technical support would be required.

It is yet to be seen whether the approach adopted in the TFA – that is, the classification of obligations by category, with each category tied to specific implementation timeframes and conditionalities – will ultimately inform the JSI negotiations. The evolving architecture of the text does not suggest that this approach is currently being considered, but it should not be ruled out if it could lead to an outcome where more developing countries feel comfortable in assuming the proposed obligations on the understanding that the very architecture of the text recognises and gives effect to the development asymmetries which

exist within the WTO membership. The trade strategy matrix outlined in this report presents, based on the literature review, the possible areas of engagement of the OECS in WTO e-commerce negotiations anticipated.

E-commerce strategic framework for monitoring and evaluation

Based on survey responses, the highest priority e-readiness gaps in the OECS are listed in Table 1. High priority e-readiness grouping of related gaps in the OECS. The priority areas for intervention were identified by grouping the individual indicators with the most severe gap indices into related strategy areas. All indicators in the Fourth Quartile were selected, with indices ranging from 98% to 86% being placed in Band A, while indicators with AZGI from 85% to 76% were placed in Band B. There are ten strategy areas in Band A and seven strategy areas in Band B, with two of these, namely, Marketing focus and Advocacy – political, being new. As such, across the two bands, 12 gap areas for strategic intervention have been identified.

Pillar 1 is the best performing pillar. All pillars of e-readiness, except Pillar 1, National ICT infrastructure and accessibility, contributed indicators which are represented in Band A. The most severe indicator is Payment methods for e-commerce, presenting an A-Z Gap Index of 0.85, which is outside the range for the more severe band. Likewise, Band B consists of individual indicators from five pillars, with Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, being the exception.

The areas reflected in the table inform the recommended strategy and roadmap for advancing OECS e-readiness. These will be combined with those specific gaps identified in the literature review and could be used by OECS stakeholders and development partners in programming activities. The roadmap will include an indicative logical framework matrix covering the status quo, target benchmarks, strategic actions, timeframe, actors involved, resources required, assumptions and risks.

Recommendations of the report include:

• Harmonisation in OECS e-commerce-related legislation (and policies) to align to best practices already adopted in some states, including through accelerated adoption of draft legislation and regulations.


Executive Summary \ xvii

• Development and adoption of new legislation, with commensurate adjustments to the regulatory and institutional framework as may be required, including for commercial digital innovations.

• An OECS regional payment gateway, which builds on existing work on payment infrastructure, and mobilisation of financing for a practical pilot.

• Strong focus on citizen readiness, including through completion of digital skills assessments anticipated under the World Bank in the OECS and the wider CARICOM Digital Transformation Initiative.

• E-business solutions for inclusion of marginalised groups, including women.

• In order to build on training initiatives on e-commerce in the OECS region, training support could include not only e-readiness in the context of emerging trends and commercial realities, but also topics such as: digital adoption; remote tech (getting online remotely during COVID-19); digital transformation; and digital finance.

While e-readiness is a multivariate concept and does not have a single definition for all OECS member states, measuring OECS preparedness for different types of e-business is important in preparing for the increased participation in international trade, further value chain fragmentation and the future of work. Some variances in country-specific priorities and gaps were observed in the e-readiness survey

response findings; however, more distinct recommendations emerged from the stakeholder consultation on the survey findings. These are reflected in the summary of recommendations of the working level stakeholder consultations held online on 8 June 2021 and reflected in Appendix 6.

Organisation of report

The report is divided into the following chapters:

Chapter 1.0 Introduction and Background – This chapter identifies key components of e-commerce in the context of the digital economy, with reference to trends in e-commerce, and observations on the combination of policy instruments required to create an enabling environment for e-commerce. The objectives and methodology for the OECS E-Readiness Assessment and Regional E-Commerce Strategy are also set out in this chapter.

Chapter 2.0 Macroeconomic Analysis – This chapter reviews the economic organisation and trends of the OECS countries, including trade in goods and services over the 2016–2020 period, to reflect the already-visible economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter also provides a snapshot of doing business in the OECS states, by reviewing the trade facilitation performance of the OECS in practice with a focus on the Trading Across Borders indicator of the World Bank Doing Business Index. The chapter also reviews the transportation infrastructure of the OECS and wider Caribbean, taking into account the relatively high cost of transportation in the Caribbean and the impact of COVID-19 on trade in goods in the region.

Table 1. High priority e-readiness grouping of related gaps in the OECS

Band A Priority Areas (Azgi 85–98%) Band B Priority Areas (Azgi 76%–84%)

i. Data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity Marketing focus

ii. Capacity building and training Advocacy – political

iii. Payment infrastructure and solutions Payment infrastructure and solutions

iv. Transportation (subset: Logistics & delivery) Data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity

v. Trade promotion Stakeholder engagement / participation

vi. Stakeholder engagement / participation Trade facilitation

vii. Financing infrastructure and solutions Investment promotion

viii. Trade facilitation

ix. Investment promotion

x. Advocacy – administration


xviii \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

Chapter 3.0 Enablers for E-Commerce in the Region – This chapter reviews the commercial, postal and telecommunications infrastructure and access that enable e-commerce, with reference to the position of the OECS and other Caribbean states.

Chapter 4.0 OECS Legal and Regulatory Framework for E-Commerce – This chapter examines the existing legal and regularly framework for e-commerce in the treatment of electronic transactions and communications; fixed, mobile and broadband telecommunications; treatment and protection of data; cybersecurity; consumer protection; and intellectual property regulatory gap analysis. Particular attention is paid to the creative industries sector, with a case study on music e-commerce, covering potential revenue streams, blockchain technology and sector-specific policy issues for the music sector.

Chapter 5.0 Summary of E-readiness Survey Results – This chapter provides an overview of the OECS e-readiness survey responses, from 124 stakeholders, spanning the public and private sectors and non-state actors. The chapter also introduces the ranking of e-readiness indicators, namely the A-Z Gap Index (AZGI), which captures the extent to which respondents perceived a disparity in the optimal position for a readiness indicator when compared with what existed.

Chapter 6.0 OECS Treatment of E-Commerce-Related Disciplines in Trade Agreements – The chapter reviews the liberalisation commitments of OECS states in the service sectors of relevance to e-commerce, the treatment of e-commerce in agreements to which OECS member states are party, and the OECS’s interests in the WTO negotiations on e-commerce pursuant to the Joint

Statement Initiative and the WTO working group on e-commerce. The chapter also suggests a framework for assessing options in plurilateral WTO trade negotiations on e-commerce pursuant to the Joint Statement Initiative.

Chapter 7.0 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations – The chapter recaps the main findings of the literature review and the high priority OECS e-readiness gap areas emerging from the survey administered under the project, while summarising the state of play for e-readiness in the OECS and suggesting a strategic approach to developing e-commerce in the OECS subregion. In outlining a strategic framework and roadmap for e-commerce in the OECS sub-region, the chapter also includes a list of recent and ongoing e-commerce-related initiatives in the OECS and suggests a coordinated approach among development partners for optimal impact.

Appendix 1 provides a summary of OECS legislation. Detailed results of the e-readiness survey are found in Appendix 2 of this report. Appendix 3 presents the ranking of e-readiness indicators from six pillars for OECS states. Appendix 4 presents an overview of de minimis thresholds for countries covered in the World Customs Organization survey. Appendix 5 outlines a detailed trade strategy assessment for the OECS based on participation in multiple negotiating arenas. Appendix 6 presents a summary of stakeholder feedback from the OECS-Commonwealth Secretariat Stakeholder Consultation on E-Commerce Readines, held virtually on June 8, 2021. Appendix 7 reports on the financial landscape of the OECS states, particularly commercial banks and credit unions.


1. Introduction and Background \ 1

1. Introduction and Background1.1 Introduction

OECS member states are trade dependent, small island developing states, which up to the onslaught of COVID-19, had been enjoying sound economic growth rates and positive forecasts. Internet access and telephony is widely enjoyed across Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) member states, though translating connectivity and access to commerce is constrained in practice. There is a lack of e-commerce-related regulations to enforce the quality standards of services provision, and to regulate competition among operators; for example, ensure fair pricing from telecommunications of two dominant telecommunication players. There are also no specific laws for e-mobile, though a few states are providing for mobile transactions through other business legislation.

The OECS trading environment has been severely impacted by COVID-19, with the path to recovery the subject of regional consultations at the OECS and CARICOM levels. Transportation of goods and people among OECS member states, and between the OECS subregion and elsewhere, is a serious challenge. Since COVID-19 pandemic, the regional airline LIAT has been declared bankrupt and restructured. As a result, flights have been severely reduced, and there are fewer transport options by air and sea. Regional air transportation was a casualty of COVID-19, as well as some ferry services between the islands, thereby reducing the transportation and logistics options available. This also stymies the potential for near-term tourism recovery.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that in 2018, the global e-commerce market was worth US$25.6 trillion dollars, representing the equivalent of 30% of global gross domestic product (GDP). More than 25% of the persons aged 15 and older, approximately 1.45 billion people, made purchases online, reflecting an increase of 9% over 2017 figures. This figure has grown throughout the COVID-19 health crisis, as major global economies entered into states of lockdown and consumers were forced to turn to online shopping as a substitute for being able to visit ‘bricks and mortar’

establishments. E-commerce has the potential to positively impact innovation, competitiveness, job creation and growth in the OECS. There are 40 million persons across the Caribbean and diaspora. Though the e-commerce sector is under-explored by Caribbean businesses, the Caribbean had seen an expansion in online purchases, even before the onset of the pandemic. Based on data from the leading economies in e-commerce representing 65% of the e-commerce market, UNCTAD estimates that e-commerce represented 19% of retails sales in 2020, up from 16% in 2019. Overall online retail sales grew 22% in these markets.

This report is intended to develop a regional e- commerce assessment for the benefit of six protocol member states of the OECS (except for Montserrat) – Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines. It aims to achieve the following objectives:

1. Review the legal and institutional framework for e-commerce in OECS member states.

2. Prepare an e-readiness assessment regional report, which highlights the similarities and significant differences between the six members states.

3. Develop a strategy document on e-commerce, outlining a road map and proposing approaches to develop e-commerce in the region.

4. Identify the areas and sectors for which OECS member states can participate in e-commerce value chains and expand its market share of global e-commerce trade.

5. Identify the gaps in supply-side capacity and trade-related infrastructure deficiencies and make recommendations for interventions, which can be proposed to development partners for funding to maximise the benefits of e-commerce and thus build competitive advantages.

6. Enhance e-commerce knowledge for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (especially women owned SMEs) though trainings and capacity-building programmes.


2 \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS)

7. Identify priority areas for regional integration and co-operation with other countries, to fast-track e-commerce development across the region.

The consultant interprets the objectives against the background of the critical issues arising from the rapid expansion of e-commerce globally and specifically in the OECS; these include the pace of change of technology and the emergence of a range of digital governance practices and rules at national, bilateral, regional and the multilateral levels. Taking these dynamics into account, the report focuses on legal and regulatory adequacy of the OECS for e-commerce governance, taking into account international best practice and preparedness of the OECS member states to assume international obligations on e-commerce in the context of international trade agreements. The report also focuses on e-readiness, based on the pillars of the UNCTAD e-readiness assessment framework, and OECS multistakeholder input on initial findings.

Combining the findings of the different methods of analysis, the report makes recommendations aimed at ensuring that the multifaceted aspects of e-commerce are addressed, while recognising the range of institutional partners in e-commerce and highlighting the need for coherence and efficiency in execution of e-commerce development activities within a strategic framework for monitoring and evaluation. It is posited that creating an ecosystem for e-commerce through regulatory reform and other approaches should not be viewed as a static or definitive exercise, but rather as an ongoing effort supported by strengthened institutional mechanisms and public awareness. It is recommended that the OECS member states and their development partners refer to this assessment as a first step in a more extensive process of co-ordination and continuous assessment, to ensure the OECS strategic framework for e-commerce keeps pace with social, commercial, legal and regulatory imperatives.

Framework for assessing-electronic commerce in the OECSElectronic commerce, commonly known as ‘e-commerce’, is trading in products or services conducted via computer networks such as the internet. Electronic commerce draws on technologies such as mobile commerce, electronic funds transfer, supply chain management, internet

marketing, online transaction processing, electronic data interchange (EDI), inventory management systems and automated data collection systems. Modern electronic commerce typically uses the World Wide Web at least at one point in the transaction’s lifecycle, although it may encompass a wider range of technologies, such as e-mail, mobile devices, social media and telephones as well.

Key components of e-commerce in the context of the digital economy include:

• communications infrastructure;

• digital financial infrastructure;

• e-commerce modalities;

• business processes and modelling;

• channels and interfaces; and

• marketplaces.

Communications infrastructure: The underlying communications infrastructure provides the ability to deliver products, services, information or payments via networks like the internet.

Digital financial infrastructure: Providers of e-commerce services interface with financial services providers, primarily through financing for start-up enterprises and expansion and the provision of payment processing services which backstop consumer transactions.

E-commerce modalities: The flow of information and transactions conducted between businesses differs from that carried out between a business and its customers. There are five generally accepted types of e-commerce:

• Business to Business (B2B)

• Business to Consumer (B2C)

• Consumer to Business (C2B)

• Consumer to Consumer (C2C)

• Business to Government (B2G)

Business processes and modelling: ‘E-commerce’ means activities that support commerce electronically by networked connections. For example, business processes like manufacturing and inventory management etc.

Channels and interfaces:

• Online: e-commerce is an electronic environment that allows sellers to buy and


1. Introduction and Background \ 3

sell products, services and information on the internet. The products may be physical like cars, computers and books or services like news or consulting.

• Mobile: this includes e-commerce conducted using mobile devices.

• Content: e-commerce deals with various media, for example data, text, video, web pages and internet telephony.

Marketplaces: e-commerce involves a worldwide network. A local store can open a web storefront and find the world at its doorstep – customers, suppliers, competitors and payments services; of course, an advertising presence is essential.

The following six pillars of e-commerce are assessed in the report, based on primary and secondary data:

Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility

Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery

Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerce


Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation

Stakeholders perceived significant gaps in e-readiness across the board, while the ten most severe gaps revealed by the A-Z Gap Index in the OECS region were associated with Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery, Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 5 Financial and Banking ecosystem to support e-commerce. The initial report findings have been validated by more than 80 stakeholders at a working level consultation of the public and private sector and other non-state actors.

While there are existing business marketplaces and e-commerce trends internationally, they are not curated to reflect the Caribbean business environment, particularly in terms of tastes and needs. Therefore, there are untapped market opportunities for the OECS to exploit. There is significant scope for improving matchmaking services in the Caribbean, based on a nuanced understanding of the region, as Caribbean entities are limited to using one-way search services. The success of search platforms hinges

on the level of national and regional support received at the governmental and private sector levels. For example, Alibaba in China and www.flipkart.com, as well as Amazon.com, are facilitated by their respective governments through support via:

• legislative frameworks that enable expansion and innovation, i.e. net neutrality;

• government partnerships – military, law enforcement and state-level procurement contracts;

• protective measures that ensure international entrants do not displace local players; and

• empowering e-commerce education and global access for rural and grassroot suppliers and institutions through NGOs/ state/private sector partnerships.

The legislative framework is being strengthened progressively through donor-supported projects. However, there still appears to be significant gaps in the enabling policy framework and ecosystem for e-commerce in multiple areas. These will be discussed later in the report.

1.2 Objectives and methodologyThe project involved a comprehensive analysis of the OECS states and the potential contribution of e-commerce to trade-led developmental objectives. Given the nature of the exercise, particular attention was paid to the methodological aspects of the project. The broad theoretical/conceptual approach encompassed aspects that belong to more specific domains, such as, macroeconomic, microeconomic, development, legal and results-based approaches.

Likewise, requisite attention was paid to the analytical processes employed throughout this project. Various analytical processes were used, namely:

• (a) socioeconomic analysis (demographic, gender, education, ICT access, employment);

• (b) microeconomic analysis – a sectoral overview of e-commerce activity and potential use of e-commerce;

• (c) export readiness;

• (d) analysis of business readiness for e-commerce;


www.flipkart.com


• (e) macroeconomic analysis – competitiveness, investment attractiveness;

• (f) legal analysis – (i) regulatory requirements for e-commerce (ii) capacity to comply with trade commitments/ international standards on e- commerce and products traded;

• (g) gaps;

• (h) trade policy and development policy analysis and implications for trade negotiation positions in the WTO; and finally,

• (i) trade practice (trade facilitation and logistics) – moving goods, trading physical and intangible products.

The research methodology utilised the mixed methods approach, with quantitative and qualitative aspects, principally through a survey instrument and a stakeholder consultation, respectively. Various data collection methods were employed. These included extensive desk research to collect information on the range of factors which impacted on the e-commerce ecosystem across the six countries. In addition, interviews were conducted with key informants from different organisations and sector-specific groups. A stakeholder consultation was held, during which participants from each of the six target countries deliberated on the status of e-commerce within their countries and gave suggestions to improve e-commerce in their individual countries, and by extension, the OECS region.

The collection of primary data was centred around the administration of a survey instrument. The questionnaire consisted of 45 questions, grouped into six pillars of e-commerce readiness. The pillars were selected based on the request of the Commonwealth Secretariat. In addition, the work of UNCTAD was used to select the indicators for the pillars. The 140 indicators were assessed via a combination of open-ended, closed-ended, and Likert scale-type questions.

The data was analysed through descriptive statistics charts, graphs, measures of frequency and measures of position. An important feature of the research was the calculation of the A-Z Gap Index (‘the AZGI’). This index was determined by the manner in which survey participants responded to binary-type outcomes and was used to categorise the indicators, based on their relationship to the desired positive outcomes. The AZGI was used to rank the individual indicators, based on their contribution to the readiness of the six pillars, and

subsequently to establish the most important gaps which need to be closed and the strategy areas which need to be prioritised. The AZGI captured the extent to which respondents perceived a disparity in the optimal position for a readiness indicator, when compared with what existed; for example, ‘Excellent’ and ‘Non-existent’, and ‘Strongly agree’ and ‘Disagree’. The innovation of the AZGI ranking enabled more detailed analysis and discussion of e-readiness indicators, beyond broad e-readiness pillars to more specific thematic areas and related indicators across pillars. The thematic strategy areas spanned multiple indicators in different pillars.

At the level of the thematic strategy area, the clustering of gap areas at high scores on the AZGI signalled the need to further investigate the particular needs of individual OECS member states and to identify priorities and sequencing for programming interventions. The working level stakeholder consultations strongly supported the listing of stakeholder-led recommendations of relative priorities of the e-readiness indicators and thematic areas. Some stakeholders suggested the need for further examination of actions to be taken at the national level, relative to the OECS subregional level, or at the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and international levels.

Collectively, the literature review, survey findings and stakeholder consultations improve the information available on the state of information and communication technology and e-commerce adoption in OECS member states. However, there were data constraints in relation to the access to information and communication technologies of OECS states, figures for which were not available on the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU’s) Core Household indicators or database of individuals using the internet by gender (International Telecommunications Union 2019).

ReferenceInternational Telecommunications Union (2019), Global and Regional ICT Data available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx

UNCTAD, 2021, “Global E-Commerce Jumps to $26.7 Trillion, Covid-19 Boosts Online Retail Sales” UNCTAD/PRESS/PR/2021/009, Geneva available at: https://unctad.org/press-material/global-e-commerce-jumps-267-trillion-covid-19-boosts-online-retail-sales


https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx



https://unctad.org/press-material/global-e-commerce-jumps-267-trillion-covid-19-boosts-online-retail-sales



2. Macroeconomic Analysis \ 5

2. Macroeconomic Analysis2.1 Economic overview of the OECS statesThe Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) was created on 18 June 1981 by the Treaty of Basseterre. This treaty was revised in 2010 to create an even deeper level of subregional integration. The independent member countries of the OECS are Antigua and Barbuda, The Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and The Grenadines. These states have all been classified as small island developing states (SIDS), which means that their special vulnerability to global economic and environmental shocks has been acknowledged. Although, comparatively, OECS states have some of the highest standards of living in the Latin America and Caribbean region, they all face challenges in successfully implementing strategies that will support their ability to achieve sustainable economic growth.

One of the key planks of OECS development policy has been the pursuit of deeper regional integration. The states view regional integration as being key to helping them overcome the systemic challenges that they face, such as lack of economies of scale, small internal markets and lack of international competitiveness. OECS states are parties to the regional integration systems known as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and they participate in the deepest level of economic integration within CARICOM, which is known as the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). The specific historical and geographical linkages between the OECS states have, however, impelled them to pursue an even deeper level of subregional integration now, known as the OECS Economic Union.1 Over time, one of the key achievements of OECS subregional integration has been the creation of the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU), an entity that co-ordinates macroeconomic and financial policy for the states.

In a 2019-20 study by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (Alleyne et al. 2020), the following

1 The OECS Economic Union was implemented by the Revised Treaty of Basseterre in 2010.

summary of the expected economic performance of the ECCU was given: ‘The macroeconomic outlook for the ECCU countries continues to be positive in the short to medium term, with real GDP growth forecast to accelerate, reaching 4.2% in 2020. The continued strong performance of the tourism, construction and ancillary sectors, as well as inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI) driven by the member states’ CBI programmes, are expected to underpin this expansion in economic activity.’

Unfortunately, the above predictions were abruptly reversed due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. Trade in services (dominated by tourism services) is the mainstay of OECS economies and the virtual destruction of the global tourism and travel services markets, owing to a lack of demand for international travel coupled with governmental restrictions on the movement of peoples across borders, had a catastrophic effect on OECS economies. The ensuing economic situation in OECS member states was discussed by Timothy NJ Antoine, the Governor of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB), at the National Emergency Operations Centre COVID-19 Daily Briefing on 2 May 2020 (Antoine 2020). In a presentation to the officials then present, the governor noted inter alia, that:

• there had been a sharp contraction in gross domestic product (GDP) throughout the ECCU and this was likely to range between 10% and 20% among member states in 2020;

• tourism, the leading economic sector, had ground to a halt;

• unemployment was rising sharply and may have been as high as 50% in some countries;

• government revenues had fallen by at least 50%;

• foreign direct investment (FDI) was projected to decline;

• oil prices were low, thereby providing relief;

• four million dollars of grant funding had been provided to member countries (St Kitts and Nevis received 500,000 Eastern Caribbean dollars [EC$]);



• support for loan deferrals was being provided by banks; and

• the ECCB had cut the discount rate from 6.5% to 2%.

The above situation typifies what happened globally to most economies due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following macroeconomic overview provides data and some analysis of the performance of certain key variables in the 2016–20 period, such as population, GDP, GDP growth, inflation, and international trade in goods and services. This will help to establish the macroeconomic context for this project. The information on trade in goods and services will provide some indication of the importance of the OECS states achieving high levels of e-readiness.

Population

Table 2.1 shows that the population of each of the six (6) OECS states grew slowly and steadily over the 2016 to 2020 period. The total population for the six (6) states grew from 608,956 in 2016 to

626,090 in 2020, which is a 2.8% increase. In 2020, Saint Lucia had the largest population of the six (6), with a population of 181,192, accounting for 29% of the overall population. St Kitts and Nevis had the smallest population of 49,319, accounting for 8% of the population of the six (6) states.

Gross domestic product

The GDP of each state is shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.3 shows that all six (6) states had positive real GDP growth in 2018 and 2019, but they experienced a decline in GDP in 2020, which was attributable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Saint Lucia experienced the greatest decline in GDP growth (-24.43%) in 2020, while St Vincent and the Grenadines was most robust, with a decline of only -2.73%. It is worth noting that Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis also experienced negative GDP growth in 2017, which would have been largely because of Hurricanes Maria and Irma. This shows the vulnerability of SIDS to natural disasters. It is likely that the GDP of St Vincent and the Grenadines will be adversely impacted

Table 2.1. Population for the six (6) OECS member states (2016–20)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 92,157 93,581 95,014 96,651 98,093

Dominica 71,234 69,472 69,511 72,231 73,370

Grenada 110,910 111,467 112,139 112,580 113,420

St Kitts And Nevis 48,493 48,735 48,978 49,221 49,319

Saint Lucia 175,819 177,301 178,696 179,995 181,192

St Vincent and The Grenadines 110,343 110,431 110,520 110,608 110,696

TOTAL 608,956 610,987 614,858 621,286 626,090

Overall growth of population 0.33% 0.63% 1.05% 0.77%

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.2 GDP in constant prices (EC$M) (2016–20)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 3,174.65 3,274.48 3,502.07 3,619.43 3,041.28

Dominica 1,216.72 1,133.99 1,160.05 1,200.18 999.64

Grenada 2,268.92 2,369.63 2,467.76 2,516.66 2,234.02

St Kitts And Nevis 2,052.25 2,011.66 2,070.49 2,113.02 1,886.01

Saint Lucia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

St Vincent and The Grenadines 1,760.37 1,777.98 1,816.44 1,825.43 1,775.63

Source: ECCB.Note: EC$M=Eastern Caribbean dollars (millions).



by the recent eruption of La Soufriere volcano in April 2021.

Inflation

In terms of price stability, Table 2.4 shows that the six (6) states experienced very low or negative inflation rates over the 2016 to 2020 period. According to UN ECLAC, [Economic Survey of the Caribbean 2020: Facing the Challenge of COVID-19, Studies and perspectives, Series 99] inflation is expected to be further constrained by a combination of weak global growth and demand owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, low oil prices and fiscal prudence by member governments in response to the economic contraction.

Trade in goods (EC$M) (2016–2020)

Tables 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 provide data on exports and imports of goods and the trade balance for the 2016–20 period.

Table 2.5 shows that except for St Vincent and the Grenadines, exports declined in all states between 2019 and 2020. Saint Lucia exported the most,

followed closely by St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Kitts and Nevis. Dominica recorded the lowest level of exports.

Table 2.6 shows imports of goods for the six (6) states for the 2016 to 2020 period. Imports fell in all states over the 2019 to 2020 period, which would have been expected due to the impact of COVID-19 on incomes. Saint Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda registered the highest level of imports over the period and Dominica the lowest.

Given that the imports of goods exceeded the exports of goods in all six (6) states, all six of the OECS member states recorded negative trade balances in all cases (see Table 2.7). The trade balance fell (smaller negative values) for all states in the 2019 to 2020 period, reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the greater decline in imports compared to exports. The negative trade balances reflect the high dependency on imports of goods in these SIDS.

The fact that over EC$6 billion of trade in goods took place in the six (6) states suggests that e- commerce could play a greater role in these states.

Table 2.3. Growth of gross domestic product by economic activity in constant prices (%) (2016–20)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average growth pre-pandemic

Antigua and Barbuda 5.50 3.14 6.95 3.35 −15.97 4.73

Dominica 2.56 −6.80 2.30 3.46 −16.71 0.38

Grenada 3.74 4.44 4.14 1.98 −11.23 3.58

St Kitts And Nevis 2.83 −1.98 2.92 2.05 −10.74 1.45

Saint Lucia 1.92 3.63 2.84 2.77 −24.43 2.79

St Vincent and The Grenadines 1.90 1.00 2.16 0.49 −2.73 1.39

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.4. Inflation rate (%): December 2016 to December 2020

Country Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18 Dec-19 Dec-20

Antigua and Barbuda (1.12) 2.36 1.74 0.69 2.78

Dominica 0.72 (1.48) 3.98 0.14 1.73

Grenada 0.92 0.53 1.41 0.07 (0.80)

St Kitts And Nevis 0.03 0.76 (0.75) (0.83) (1.18)

Saint Lucia (2.83) 1.98 1.55 (0.70) (0.68)

St Vincent and The Grenadines 0.95 3.02 1.37 0.45 (0.99)

ECCU OVERALL (1.28) 2.28 1.03 (0.12) (1.70)

Source: ECCB.



Trade in services (EC$M)

Tables 2.8 through to 2.10 present data on trade in services. Given the services orientation of these economies, it is not surprising that trade in services is greater than trade in goods in all six (6) states.

Table 2.8 shows that over the 2016 to 2020 period, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia typically recorded the highest levels of services exports, followed by Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis.

Export of services is dominated by travel, followed by transportation and other business services. In all cases, export of services fell dramatically in 2020, which was clearly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Imports of services are typically less than exports of services in all six (6) states. Imports of services are typically dominated by other business services, followed by transportation, travel and insurance.

Table 2.5. Total exports of goods (EC$M)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 69.03 56.31 69.77 101.73 58.78

Dominica 47.89 31.67 27.43 49.04 38.21

Grenada 81.34 81.12 84.45 85.55 58.93

St Kitts And Nevis 137.92 135.76 146.41 155.66 140.68

Saint Lucia 323.07 342.90 167.95 221.56 172.86

St Vincent and The Grenadines 126.21 114.70 117.91 103.17 146.41

Total 785.46 762.46 613.92 716.71 615.87

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.6. Total imports of goods (EC$M)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 1,290.61 1,496.49 1,886.65 1,892.41 1,333.39

Dominica 577.50 534.37 816.11 861.98 576.30

Grenada 946.38 1,134.78 1,260.72 1,267.68 1,066.88

St Kitts And Nevis 900.04 834.10 903.21 912.85 733.03

Saint Lucia 1,767.83 1,768.52 1,778.73 1,615.28 1,406.84

St Vincent and The Grenadines 903.84 890.87 954.85 905.14 818.24

Total 6,386.20 6,659.13 7,600.27 7,455.34 5,934.68

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.7. Trade in goods balance (EC$M)

Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda −1221.58 −1440.18 −1816.88 −1790.68 −1274.61

Dominica −529.61 −502.70 −788.68 −812.94 −538.09

Grenada −865.04 −1053.66 −1176.27 −1182.13 −1007.95

St Kitts And Nevis −762.12 −698.34 −756.80 −757.19 −592.35

Saint Lucia −1444.76 −1425.62 −1610.78 −1393.72 −1233.98

St Vincent and The Grenadines −777.63 −776.17 −836.94 −801.97 −671.83

Total −5600.74 −5896.67 −6986.35 −6738.63 −5318.81

Source: ECCB.



Imports of services declined in all cases in 2020. Antigua and Barbuda, followed by Saint Lucia, had the highest levels of imports of services over the 2016 to 2020 period.

The positive balance of trade in services across the states reflects the fact that exports of services dominate imports of services.

Given that globally a significant and growing amount of economic activity in travel, other

business services, transport, etc. is being carried out electronically, it is important that these OECS states develop a high level of e-readiness. It should be noted further that the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the need for delivery of certain types of services through digital means via Mode 1, which relies critically on digital infrastructure and a generally enabling environment to support digital trade

Table 2.8. Exports of services (EC$M)

COUNTRY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 2,681 2,585 2,682 3,081 1,519

Dominica 659 552 391 491 229

Grenada 1,313 1,449 1,556 1,565 1,082

St Kitts And Nevis 1,293 1,285 1,543 1,652 848

Saint Lucia 2,239 2,551 2,849 3,086 1,072

St Vincent and The Grenadines 691 672 708 771 307

Total 8,876 9,096 9,728 10,647 5,058

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.9. Imports of services (EC$M)

COUNTRY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 1,296 1,288 1,377 1,442 729

Dominica 382 393 365 405 232

Grenada 599 664 739 818 528

St Kitts And Nevis 597 567 611 701 476

Saint Lucia 943 1,029 1,069 1,189 558


Total 4,205 4,295 4,525 4,944 2,757

Source: ECCB.

Table 2.10. Balance of trade in services (EC$M)

COUNTRY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Antigua and Barbuda 1,385 1,297 1,305 1,639 790

Dominica 278 159 26 86 (3)

Grenada 714 786 817 747 555

St Kitts And Nevis 696 719 931 951 373

Saint Lucia 1,296 1,522 1,781 1,897 514


Total 4,671 4,801 5,203 5,703 2,301

Source: ECCB.



2.2 Snapshot of doing business in the OECS states – Trading Across Borders

An enabling business environment is a key component for building an e-commerce ecosystem that will be able to successfully harness the opportunities afforded by cross-border trade in both goods and services.

Logistics and import and export requirements have a direct bearing on goods-related e-commerce conducted on a cross-border basis, given the positive impact that efficient trade facilitation has on a country’s competitiveness in cross-border trade. Conducting an analysis of the OECS’s performance in relation to internationally recognised business indicators provides an opportunity to address the supply side capacity and trade-related infrastructure deficiencies of these states.

Respondents in the Digital Trade and E-Commerce Survey reported that cross-border e-commerce in the OECS was constrained by inefficient trade facilitation and trade logistics and suggested that several components required improvement. According to the survey, challenges to growth in the sector were seen as being due to weak co-ordination between government agencies, high shipping costs, inadequate information and clarity about VAT, other applicable taxes, the de minimis customs regime, and the lack of a Single Window to facilitate efficient submission of customs and related documentation.

Eight out of ten business readiness for e-commerce indicators were predominantly rated ‘Limited’ by respondents. Based on responses to the following ten (10) indicators, the business environment for e-commerce in the region is greatly lacking in terms of:

1. Number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons

2. Policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium and large enterprises

3. Ability for the private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

4. Computers and network use by business

5. Internet connectivity by business

6. Use of websites for business

7. Business-to-government electronic interaction

8. Business-to-consumer electronic interaction

9. Size of IT-enabled service business

10. Foreign direct investment in ICT

The top indicators that were identified to be the most important constraints, as confirmed by more than 60% of respondents, were:

1. the ability for the private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online;

2. challenges or bottlenecks encountered;

3. business-to-government electronic interaction;

4. business-to-consumer electronic interaction, and;

5. size of IT enabled service business

The stakeholder inputs suggest the need for substantial improvement in the business environment in the OECS region, if the states are to be able to reap significant benefits from cross-border e-commerce. There is, however, some evidence that compared to other CARICOM economies, the OECS states are in a much more favourable position to engage in cross-border trade. The World Bank Doing Business Report (2020a) reveals that with respect to the time it takes to clear goods while complying with documentary and border requirements, most OECS member states are ranked significantly higher than Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, three of the more developed countries (MDCs) of CARICOM.

Figure 2.1 and the corresponding data in Table 2.11 reflect the relative ranking positions of the six OECS states covered in this report, along with Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.

The data presented in Table 2.11 indicate that the OECS generally does better on the overall World Bank Doing Business Ranking than the CARICOM MDCs. Meanwhile, Trading Across Borders is better than the average World Bank rank in Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines. The score is better than the median in Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. This mixed picture for the



Table 2.11. OECS and CARICOM more developed country rankings by topic, World Doing Business 2020

World Bank Doing Business Indicator

ANU DMA GRD SKN SLU SVG BDOS JAM T&T

Starting a Business 130 71 89 109 69 93 102 6 79

Dealing with Construction Permits

117 83 130 58 38 51 152 70 126

Getting Electricity 50 57 93 110 56 105 117 120 43

Registering a Property 124 179 147 185 107 168 118 85 158

Getting Credit 165 152 152 165 165 165 152 15 67

Protecting Minority Investors 79 79 105 103 79 79 136 61 57

Paying Taxes 145 83 143 125 84 100 96 124 160

Trading Across Borders 112 91 137 71 93 81 132 136 134

Enforcing Contracts 36 95 80 49 79 61 170 119 174

Resolving Insolvency 132 136 168 168 131 168 35 34 83

Average rank 109.0 102.6 124.4 114.3 90.1 107.1 121.0 77.0 108.1

Median rank 120.5 87.0 133.5 109.5 81.5 96.5 125.0 77.5 104.5

Source: World Bank Doing Business 2020a.

Figure 2.1. OECS and CARICOM more developed country rankings by topic, World Doing Business 2020

Source: World Bank Doing Business 2020a.(Key – ANU – Antigua and Barbuda, DMA – The Commonwealth of Dominica, GRD – Grenada, SKN – St. Kitts and Nevis, SLU – St. Lucia, SVG – Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, BDOS – Barbados, JAM – Jamacia, T&T – Trinidad and Tobago).



OECS countries’ relative positions on Trading Across Borders, when compared to other countries covered in the index, and relative to other Doing Business indicators, is contextualised by customs clearance and compliance costs for St Kitts and Nevis and Grenada.

It is also of importance to examine the extent to which there are marked differences in customs clearance from one state to another, as this is an issue which has implications for the overall level of international competitiveness of each state. Table 2.12 presents a comparative assessment of the OECS states and selected other CARICOM states and the Dominican Republic with respect to customs-related issues.

The data reveal that it takes St Kitts and Nevis, the OECS’ top performer, almost half the time it takes Jamaica to meet customs clearance requirements – 70 hours, compared to 136 hours in Jamaica, and significantly less than half the costs of clearing customs in Jamaica, US$401 compared to US$996. St Kitts and Nevis also offers the lowest total import compliance costs at US$401, when compared to its Eastern Caribbean neighbour Barbados, where the cost of meeting similar import requirements is US$1,926. On the other hand, with import compliance costs at US$1,306, and the lowest ranked (#137) in Trading Across Borders in

the OECS, Grenada’s grades suggest that some of the reforms which have had positive impacts in neighbouring states, have yet to be satisfactorily implemented in Grenada. This shortcoming will need to be addressed to ensure that Grenada is as competitive as other OECS member states in cross-border e-commerce.

A closer look at the underlying costs and effort involved in importing2 in both St Kitts and Nevis and Grenada highlights wide variances in time and costs to comply with documentary and border requirements in both countries (see Table 2.13 and Table 2.14).

In the case of Grenada, although the time to deal with port and border procedures is slightly less than the time spent in St Kitts and Nevis (37.3 hours compared to 37.1 hours), the associated costs for obtaining, preparing and submitting documents during port or border handling, customs clearance and inspection procedures, are almost ten times the costs in St Kitts and Nevis. Considering that fewer border compliance documents are required in Grenada (seven compared to eight in St Kitts and Nevis), it is likely that inefficient processes,

2 Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Table 2.12. Customs documentation and border compliance – performance of the OECS versus selected CARICOM and CARIFORUM states

Doing Business Report Indicators, 2020

Country Trading Across Borders rank

Trading Across Borders score*

Customs clearance** (in hours)

Import compliance (costs, US$)

Antigua and Barbuda 112 68.7 109 646

Dominica 91 74.3 63 956

Grenada 137 61.5 61 1,306

St Kitts and Nevis 71 81.0 70 401

Saint Lucia 93 73.3 41 940

St Vincent and the Grenadines 81 77.4 72 630

Latin America and the Caribbean 106.0 69.1 55.3 735.7

Dominican Republic 66 83.5 38 619

Barbados 132 62.8 127 1,926

Jamaica 136 61.5 136 996

Trinidad and Tobago 134 62.6 122 885

Source: World Bank Doing Business 2020a; * OECD (no date); ** Mugica et al. (2018).



duplication in procedures and unnecessary bureaucracy are significant contributing factors for this anomaly. A similar observation is noted with respect to the differences in the time required for obtaining, preparing, processing, presenting and submitting documents in both countries. According to World Bank’s Doing Business 2020, St Kitts and Nevis customs is able to process all clearance and inspections within 3 hours, eight times faster than Grenada customs, which requires 24 hours for a similar import.

These gaps highlight the importance of fast and efficient adoption of trade facilitation measures across OECS member states, since improvements in documentary and border compliance has a direct

relationship on each member state’s ability to keep pace with and operate at the speed needed to make the most of cross-border e-commerce.

Relationship between the OECS Trading Across Borders performance, WTO TFA commitments and cross-border e-commerce

As the relative importance of tariffs as a main policy instrument has receded, non-tariff measures, as well as trade facilitation measures and trade logistics issues, have become a matter of greater concern, especially for small firms. The World Bank suggests that trade facilitation measures, such as automated trade and customs procedures

Table 2.13. Trading across borders – St Kitts and Nevis

Components of border compliance and trade documents

Components of border compliance Time (hours)

Associated costs (US$)

Trade documents

Import: Clearance and inspections required by customs authorities

3.00 200.00 • bill of lading

• commercial invoice

• customs import declaration

• gate pass

• packing list

• terminal handling receipts

• customs receipt for paying customs

• SOLAS certificate

Import: Clearance and inspections required by agencies other than customs

0.00 0.00

Import: Port or border handling 37.10 110.70

Table 2.14. Trading across borders – Grenada

Components of border compliance and trade documents

Components of border compliance Time (hours) Associated costs (US$)

Trade documents

Import: Clearance and inspections required by customs authorities

24.00 350.00 • bill of lading

• customs import declaration

• commercial invoice

• packing list

• customs release order

• gate pass

• SOLAS certificate

Import: Clearance and inspections required by agencies other than customs

0.00 0.00

Import: Port or border handling 37.30 906.00

Source: World Bank Doing Business 2020a.



and Electronic Single Windows, which limit the number of interactions between traders and border agencies, could lower costs by 16.5% for low-income economies, 17.4% for lower middle-income economies and 14.6% for upper middle-income economies (World Bank 2020a).

In the context of the OECS, there is emerging evidence that member states that have been more aggressive in implementing commitments under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), are showing better than average performance in Trading Across Borders (see charts below). Based on notifications3 submitted to the WT0, St Kitts and Nevis has implemented the most TFA measures (57), well ahead of Saint Lucia, Grenada and Dominica, which have each implemented 36 measures. OECS members have all implemented the TFA commitments, which support common customs protocols required for the clearance of goods entering the OECS Customs Union: Article 5.2 Detention; Article 7.8 Expedited Shipments; Article 10.3 Use of International Standards; Article 10.5 Pre-Shipments Inspections; Article 10.9 Temporary

3 As of November 2019, per CARICOM Secretariat data.

Admission of Goods and Inward and Outward Processing; and Article 11 Freedom of Transit.

St Kitts and Nevis is the only member state that has implemented specific measures which can aid more efficient and transparent decision-making and facilitate faster clearance of goods. These include measures that provide timely information to traders (Article 1.3 Enquiry Points); and those that make it easier for customs and border agencies to co-ordinate more efficiently and promote compliance and co-operation (Article 12 Customs Co-operation), including measures promoting compliance and co-operation and exchange of information.

It is also one of the few member states to have implemented measures supporting Post Clearance Audit (Article 7.5) and Trade Facilitation for Authorized Economic Operators (Article 7.7). Both measures allow customs authorities to assess risk and defer standard border checks, thus allowing cross-border consignments to be released faster. Measures which promote business confidence in customs and border decisions and allow for consultations with the trading community (Article 2.1 Opportunity to Comment and Information Before Entry into Force), have

Figure 2.2. TFA implementation status – Category A 1/2



been adopted by Dominica, Grenada, and St Kitts and Nevis, with an important provision (Article 2.2 Consultations) implemented by Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis.

Notably, TFA measures that would help customs and border agencies better manage the fast pace of cross-border e-commerce (Article 3 Advance Rulings; Article 6.2 Specific Disciplines on Fees and Charges imposed on or in Connection with Importation and Exportation; Article 7.6 Establishment and Publication of Average Release Times; and Article 10.4 Single Window) are yet to be adopted by OECS member states. These measures, especially Single Windows, Advance Rulings and Specific Disciplines on Fees and Charges, would result in a step change in the OECS’ Trading Across Borders rankings and improve the perception of the region’s e-commerce clients.

Suggestions for the way forward

The OECS Commission has itself identified a range of inefficiencies in the legal and regulatory framework that inhibit the free flow of goods within the region (see Table 2.15). The commission’s proposals to address bottlenecks include strengthened national risk management programmes and an integrated regional risk

management system that is compatible with the customs management system (called ASYCUDA [Automated System for Customs Data] World); introduction of a Single Window, which integrates customs and all border and trade regulatory approval agencies; the removal of import taxes and formalities in intra-OECS trade in goods; and harmonised port operating standard procedures for handling, storing and delivering goods in circulation within the region.

Along with the above proposals from the commission, the OECS should prioritise TFA implementation in the areas that can bring the biggest premium in terms of promoting digital trade and cross-border e-commerce. These include:

1. Introducing automation and efficiency, simplified regulations and enforcement, and reduction of corruption through mechanisms such as Single Windows.

2. Considering reviewing current import regulations, including auditing systems that have been traditionally set up for bulk cargo and not for smaller cross-border e-commerce consignments.

3. Ensuring representation in technical bodies like the World Customs Organization (WCO), which are tasked with developing

Figure 2.3. TFA implementation status – Category A 2/2



customs rules that are specifically geared to e-commerce shipments.

4. Implementing Category C commitments as quickly as possible, giving preference to the following TFA measures, which will boost the region’s competitiveness in cross-border e-commerce:a. Article 1 Information availability

b. Article 5 Impartiality and transparency measures

c. Article 7 Making release of goods more efficient, including:i. Article 7.4 Risk management

d. Article 10 Simplifying formalities for imports, exports and transit, including:i. Article 10.1 Streamlining

formalities and documentation requirements

ii. Article 10.2 Government departments accepting paper or electronic copies instead of original documents

iii. Article 10.4 Implementation of Single Windows to allow the sharing of information between parties in a trade transaction using a single platform.

Table 2.15. Guiding principles for an OECS Customs Union and the free circulation of goods

Current bottlenecks Proposed actions

OECS Customs Union

Varying legal and regulatory frameworks for trade in goods, including sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, technical barriers to trade (TBT), cus-toms requirements

OECS customs code and harmonised agriculture, health, food safety and quality infrastructure legislative and regulatory framework

Varying border taxes and classification structure (e.g., common external tariff (CET), Harmonised System Code (HS Code), other duties and charges (ODCs), value added tax (VAT), E-Tax, etc)

OECS harmonised border tax structure

Varying levels of national risk management programmes, reflected in:

• Limited-to-no integration among national border and regulatory agencies; and

• no regional programmes or systems in place.

1. Strengthened national risk management programme

2. Regional risk management system including integration of OECS Rapid Alert Database (ORAD), OECS Agriculture Health and Food Safety Database (OAHFSD), OECS Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (ORASFF), Auto-mated System for Customs Data (ASYCUDA World)

Lack of information sharing and connectivity among customs and other border agencies at the national and regional levels

Interconnectivity of customs, border control agencies and port authorities (Electronic Single Window – OECS Trade Facilitation Portal)

OECS free circulation of goods regime

Import taxes and formalities applied to intra-OECS trade in goods

Removal of import taxes and formalities on intra-OECS trade in goods

Varying port procedures for goods traded within the OECS Economic Union

Harmonised port standard operating procedures (SOPs) for handling, storage and delivery of goods in free circulation

Source: Cosbert Woods, OECS Commission – Trade Policy Unit.



In the short term, improvements (or declines) on the Trading Across Borders ranking will help OECS member states gauge the effectiveness of their TFA and related cross-border e-commerce strategy.

Figures 2.4 and 2.5 demonstrate the position of each member state with respect to outstanding TFA measures (shown in red) and provide some indication of the technical assistance package that each state will require.

Figure 2.4. TFA implementation status – Category B and C1/2

Figure 2.5. TFA implementation status – Category B and C2/2



2.3 Transportation and logistics – a supporting pillar of e-commerce and digital readinessIn much the same way that the electronic sale of digital goods and services (music, art, etc.) rely on a robust intellectual property framework to protect e-commerce creators and consumers, physical e-commerce relies on efficient transportation and logistics to ensure that cross-border e-commerce consignments reach their destination at the optimal time required by consumers. For OECS states, small in size and geographically isolated, the availability of reliable air and sea links is essential, not just to facilitate access to tourism markets, but also for connecting the islands to supply chain partners and e-commerce consumers in intra-regional and extra-regional markets. Detailed recent studies on the state of transportation and logistics within the OECS and its regional and external markets are limited, but the latest available data suggest a mixed picture with respect to the availability, capacity and efficiency of the transportation and logistics infrastructure considered essential for competitive e-commerce and digital trade.

A new report by UNECLAC (Gonzalez Moncada 2020) provides an overview of transportation infrastructure in the 13 English-speaking Caribbean

countries,4 including the six OECS member states. There are 68 airports offering varying levels of airlift. Twenty-two (22) airports offer both international and domestic flights, while the remaining 46 operate only domestic flights. Most of these flights offer air cargo services. A total of 60 ports are scattered throughout the Caribbean region, including container terminals, cruise terminals and/or general cargo ports, with most countries having just one container terminal and several cargo seaports according to UNECLAC’s analysis (see Table 2.16).

At the time of the UNECLAC study (2020), the number of direct flights (and potential air cargo space) from English-speaking Caribbean countries to international markets was limited to a few destinations: Anguilla, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Curacao, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Grand Cayman, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy Martinique, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Barthelemy, Sint Maarten, Saint Thomas, Tortola, United Kingdom, United States and

4 The Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, Barbados, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Suriname.

Table 2.16. English-speaking Caribbean countries – transport infrastructure

Road Networks (km)

Ports Airports Inland Waterways (km)

Antigua and Barbuda 1200 1 1 –

Bahamas, The 2700 11 21 –

Barbados 1700 1 1 –

Belize 3300 1 11 –

Dominica 1500 2 2 –

Grenada 1100 1 1 –

Guyana 3995 6 4 330

Jamaica 22100 15 3 –

St. Kitts and Nevis 400 2 2 –

St. Lucia 1200 4 2 –

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 800 5 6 –

Suriname 4304 2 12 1200

Trinidad and Tobago 9600 9 2 –

Total 53899 60 68 1530

Source: UNECLAC (Data compiled from National sources, SEARATES by DP World. www.worlddata.info).


https://www.worlddata.info


Venezuela. UNECLAC’s research showed that most countries had direct flights to Canada and the United States, while Panama was used as the main hub for connections to Latin America.

The economic contribution of the transportation sector to Caribbean economies is captured in combined travel and tourism data, with its importance to OECS economies reflected in the data below (see Table 2.17). Based on 2019 data, the sector provides more than 50% of employment in Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines; in the case of Antigua and Barbuda, T&T provides more than 90% of all jobs.

2.3.1 Maritime transport and port capacity

In 2019, global container throughput increased by 2.03% over the 2018 figure, to reach around 802 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs); however, it had declined by 8.6% by February 2020, just before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wider Caribbean region, container ports saw throughput increasing by 6.2% between 2018 and 2019.

The throughput of trade managed through OECS ports was relatively small in comparison to other English-speaking Caribbean countries (see Table 2.18). Pre-pandemic, Grenada recorded a

Table 2.17. Total contribution of travel and tourism (T&T) to GDP and employment in 2019

Country T&T contribution to GDP (percentages)

T&T % of total employment (percentages)

No. of jobs (millions)

Antigua and Barbados 42.7 90.7 33.8

Saint Lucia 40.7 78.1 62.9

Grenada 40.5 42.9 24.3

Dominica 36.9 38.7 13.6

St Vincent and Grenadines 28.6 45.2 19.9

St Kitts and Nevis 28.2 59.1 14.1

Source: UNELAC, based on World Travel and Tourism Council reports.

Table 2.18. OECS member countries’ container ports throughput, 2018–19, and year-on-year variation versus other English Speaking (ES) Caribbean countries’ port throughput for the same period

OECS countries Throughput 2018 (TEUs)

Throughput 2019 (TEUs)

Year-on-year variation 2019/2018 (%))

Grenada 23,887 12,343 −48.3

St Vincent and the Grenadines 19,818 20,150 1.7

Saint Lucia 32,500 39,328 20.7

Other ES Caribbean Countries

Bahamas, The 1,182,836 1,555,803 31.5

Barbados 100,962 98,435 −2.5

Belize 75,825 37,235 −50.9

Guyana 58,210 58,543 0.6

Jamaica 1,833,053 1,647,609 −10.1

Suriname 110 109.2 −0.7

Trinidad and Tobago 358,475 446,232 24.5

Source: UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.



drop in trade, as reflected in the 48.3% decline of container throughput moved through the port in 2019 (12,343 TEUs) versus 2018 (23,887 TEUs); St Vincent and the Grenadines recorded a 1.7% increase year on year (20,150 TEUs as compared to 19, 818 TEUs); while Saint Lucia’s ports managed a 20.7% increase in throughput (39,328 TEUs compared to 32,500 TEUs in 2018). The contrast to regional neighbours (Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago), which have larger ports and, importantly, larger export and import volumes, is noteworthy – as seen in Table 2.18. As UNECLAC’s report notes, volumes moved by various ports throughout the region reflected not just the availability of port infrastructure, but also the productivity and efficiency of the ports. The ability of ports to receive and manage cargo, which includes cross-border e-commerce consignments, is an essential component of OECS member states’ ability to serve their markets adequately.

Several English-speaking Caribbean countries are key players in the transportation and logistics pillars needed to support physical e-commerce. Jamaica has positioned itself in the transportation and logistics business as a competitive global logistics hub, while Trinidad and Tobago is currently recognised as a subregional port. Other ports, including those in the OECS, are classified as service ports and receive significantly fewer vessels. Pre-pandemic, the number of vessels calling at Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines on a weekly basis was fewer than ten.

2.3.2 Air transport and the aviation sector

Aviation provided more than 1.6 million jobs and contributed an estimated US$35.9 billion, or 14% to the Caribbean’s GDP, in 2018, according to a report from IATA.5 Air transport is not only critical for moving passengers but is also a vital means of facilitating trade within the Caribbean region. Between 2016 and 2018, the volume of freight (including cross-border consignments) attributed to air transport in Caribbean small island states increased by more than 50%.

UN ECLAC further notes that while the Caribbean currently boasts 68 international air terminals,

5 Per statement by IATA’s Peter Cerda, Regional Vice-President, The Americas, 29 June 2018.

several countries have plans to expand and enhance the facilities, which would offer more options for outbound e-commerce consignments. Jamaica is using a public–private partnership (PPP) model to fund expansion and updating of its two main airports, while Trinidad and Tobago is planning to develop 168 acres of land for mixed business use, which would be become the Caribbean’s first ‘aerotropolis’. The facility would be targeted to logistics providers, such as those offering e-commerce services that benefit from being on-site at the airport.

Airlines which have been serving the Caribbean up to 2020, include American Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, Aero Mexico and Air Canada flying from North America; and Air France, British Airways, Iberia, KLM and Lufthansa from Europe, which fly to the larger islands before offering connections to regional airlines such Caribbean Airlines, LIAT, Air Antilles and Caribbean Wings.

2.3.3 How COVID-19 has affected movement of people and cargo in the OECSCaribbean countries took several steps to reduce negative effects on the region’s trade, transportation and logistics once the COVID-19 public health emergency was declared. UN ECLAC reports that CARICOM Heads of Government met to harmonise their responses, which resulted in joint policies on logistics and transport to ensure common standards in intra-regional transport of people and goods. Trade facilitating measures were adopted to reduce disruptions to supply chains. These included closing borders to all but essential connectivity required for the importation of essential commodities, such as food, medical supplies, and equipment and fuel.

While cargo planes were largely unaffected, the ban on inbound and outbound passengers meant a 45–50% reduction in air cargo that would normally be transported in the belly of passenger aircraft. Countries including OECS states rely heavily on two principal inter-regional airlines, LIAT and Caribbean Airlines, which introduced cargo-only charter services to respond to the need for transporting essential medical supplies and to meet the lockdown demand for online purchases. Other trade- and transportation-facilitating measures included a temporary reduction in taxes, fees and airport charges by some countries like



St Vincent and the Grenadines. Despite these measures, traffic to most countries declined significantly, impacting not just passenger capacity but also the options for air cargo and cross-border e-commerce consignments.

COVID-19 introduced new transportation and logistics challenges for the OECS. Smaller regional carriers, such as Antigua and Barbuda-based LIAT Airlines, which provided vital passenger and cargo services inter-regionally, were forced into liquidation (in June 2020 in the case of LIAT).

2.3.4 Customs operationsAll customs authorities within the OECS use the ASYCUDA customs management system to process most cross-border trade procedures. The system supports e-commerce by promoting paperless processing, assessing risk of cross-border e-commerce consignments, and by producing trade data analysis used by policymakers, traders, and transport and logistics providers. During the height of the pandemic, OECS member states adopted country-specific measures to facilitate cross-border movement of goods and persons.

According to UN ECLAC, Antigua and Barbuda created new office hours and a fast-track system, including pre-arrival processing of goods declarations and release of the goods upon arrival; designated priority lanes for brokers and the trading public; prioritisation of the clearance of essential items; and facilitation of online services. Grenada

eased restrictions and instituted special measures to enable farmers and fish exporters to sell to regional and international markets. St Kitts and Nevis specified that all vessels were required to lodge all documentation to approval agencies prior to arriving in port, while strict limitations on contact were introduced for visiting crew members and cargo clearance ground staff. Saint Lucia introduced strict social distancing guidelines and schedules for cargo deliverables, while St Vincent and the Grenadines opted to keep most ports and airports open – but with safety protocols in place.

2.3.5 Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for the future of air connectivity in the OECS

For a region already susceptible to sudden shocks affecting transportation and logistics services, the recent pandemic emphasised the OECS’ vulnerability to inadequate air connectivity for both passengers and cargo. With the decision by many countries to close their borders to manage the pandemic, air traffic worldwide declined by 88% between March and April 2020, and airports in the Caribbean recorded slumps of 94%, based on UN ECLAC’s analysis (see Figure 2.6). Antigua and Barbuda experienced the most precipitous decline in flights (falling by 97%) and St Kitts and Nevis recorded decreases of 90%. Flights that were cleared for continuing service included cargo and commercial couriers, which would typically include cross-border e-commerce consignments.

Figure 2.6. Monthly number of aircraft departures



Prior to the start of the pandemic, regional airlines had anticipated growth and expansion of services based on the strong positive growth forecasts for 2020. Traditionally tough operating conditions, further exacerbated by the pandemic, meant that like many other airlines in the world, LIAT, the main regional airline for the OECS, was forced to go into liquidation, as it was unable to raise the infusion of US$5.4 million it needed to keep afloat.

The loss of LIAT has not just dealt a blow to Antigua and Barbuda’s efforts to function as a logistics air hub for the OECS. It has also accelerated discussions within the region on what mechanisms now need to be put in place to replace a service that ironically disappeared at a time when adoption of e-commerce in the OECS had picked up speed significantly during lockdown. The pandemic has brought with it a marked increase in inbound courier services and online ordering of goods (perishables and household items), according to feedback at the recent stakeholders’ consultation. However, significant increases in the cost of shipping goods regionally and internationally, as well as the reduction in and the limited transport options now available, are major challenges which OECS stakeholders have flagged as issues requiring urgent policy solutions.

2.3.6 ConclusionsMore so than their larger Caribbean neighbours, OECS member states face an added challenge of reorienting their transportation and logistics infrastructure, not just to serve the needs of traditional exporters, but also to satisfy the requirements of entrepreneurs wishing to take advantage of opportunities in physical e-commerce. Despite the dearth of OECS-specific data on the transportation and logistics requirements for e-commerce and digital trade, the consultation with project stakeholders has, to a large extent, confirmed the findings of the UN ECLAC study and confirms potential priority areas for OECS members states and stakeholders. The need to improve market access for cargo and passengers is a first priority. CARICOM and the OECS have moved in this direction by approving air transport agreements, which could open more opportunities to increase regional air connectivity. For example, under the CARICOM Multilateral Air Services Agreement, airlines owned by CARICOM nationals would be able to provide air services

throughout the community. Under the agreement, there are also proposals to have a policy of no restrictions on routes, capacity or traffic rights, measures which could result in cost savings as a result of increased intra-regional traffic and more cargo options for exporters and importers.

2.3.7 RecommendationsAs with other regions of the world, the OECS should consider using the lessons from the pandemic as a guide on how to build transportation and logistics resilience for the future. Suggestions from UN ECLAC’s research and stakeholders at the recent Digital Trade and E-commerce Consultation include:

• Further strengthening the co-operation between OECS countries and the wider CARICOM, to resolve the problems impeding cross-border trade, and collectively designing solutions which can be deployed as expeditiously as possible. Alongside this recommendation, is the need to develop logistics and transportation linkages between the OECS states and United States territories in order to obtain on-ramp access into the US postal system.

• Harmonising regional regulations and incorporating international maritime legislation in domestic law, as well as investing in the skills and personnel needed to foster modern port infrastructure development that will support physical e-commerce; developing guidelines to eliminate supply-chain barriers and facilitate logistics chain development; and digitalising maritime trade and port logistics.

• Developing a regional Air Transport Authority that would be responsible for a single Caribbean space, with its related common laws and regulations.

• Adopting and fast-tracking automation of customs and border clearance procedures, including updated versions and modules of ASYCUDA that include risk management tools to facilitate the fast clearance of traditional exports and cross-border e-commerce consignments at air and seaports.

• Reducing taxes, fees and charges as a way to establish commercially sustainable routes, as advised by IATA, whose studies have shown that the Caribbean is considered highly taxed



in both intra- and extra-regional markets, with taxes, fees and charges some 10% higher for intra-regional flights.

• Implementing regional and subregional co-operation strategies to monitor and manage the infrastructure for coastal transportation, to protect and limit damage to the OECS’ marine and coastal resources.

For e-commerce to thrive in the OECS region, certain enablers must be in place. These enablers are in keeping with the broad e-readiness pillars and include:

• well-developed infrastructure systems (ICT and package delivery);

• digital sophistication on the part of OECS consumers;

• trade facilitation improvements; and

• financial services that are attuned to the needs and peculiarities of OECS e-commerce providers, many of whom are SMEs.

Trade facilitation and financial services are discussed in Chapters 2, 4 and of this report.

ReferencesAlleyne, D, M Hendrickson, S McLean, M Oyolola, M Pantin, N Skerrette and H Tokuda (2020), ‘Preliminary overview of the economies of the Caribbean 2019–2020’ – Studies and Perspectives,

Series 92, ECLAC Sub-Regional Headquarters for the Caribbean, available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45729/1/S2000292_en.pdf

Antoine, TNJ (2020), ‘Presentation at National Emergency Operations Centre: COVID-19 Daily Briefing’, 2 May, available at: https://www.eccb-centralbank.org/files/PRESENTATION%20AT%20COVID%2019%20DAILY%20BRIEFING.pdf

Gonzalez Moncada, V (2020), Impact of COVID-19 on transport and logistics connectivity in the Caribbean, UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), Santiago, ChileMugica, IZ, M Youbi and C Ferro (2018), ‘WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement and Doing Business Reforms: Are they related and how?’, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Commission (2020) “COVID-19 and Beyond, Impact Assessments and Responses” OECS, St. Lucia available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ditc-ted-04062020-OceansWebinar-OECS.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (no date), ‘Making Trade Work For All’, OECD, Paris, available at: http://www.oecd.org/trade/understanding-the-global-trading-system/making-trade-work-for-all/

World Bank (2020a), Doing Business Report, available at: www.doingbusiness.org


https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45729/1/S2000292_en.pdf



https://www.eccb-centralbank.org/files/PRESENTATION%20AT%20COVID%2019%20DAILY%20BRIEFING.pdf



https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ditc-ted-04062020-OceansWebinar-OECS.pdf



http://www.oecd.org/trade/understanding-the-global-trading-system/making-trade-work-for-all/



https://www.doingbusiness.org


3. Enablers of E-commerce in the OECS Region3.1 Infrastructure systems in the OECS statesUNCTAD’s B2C E-commerce Index (2020a) ranks four regions, transition economies and developed economies in terms of their abilities to support e-commerce, based upon a number of indicators. The four regions examined in the assessment are: Africa; East, South and Southeast Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; and Western Asia. Indicators which feature in the assessment are as follows: share of individuals using the internet; share of individuals with an account (15+); secure internet servers and the Universal Postal Union (UPU) Postal Reliability Score. Based on the values for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), it was concluded that apart from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest regional score. This, it was concluded, indicated that some underlying factors were holding back the potential of e-commerce in this region (UNCTAD 2020a).

With a specific focus on assessing the strength of the enabling indicators in the OECS states, UNCTAD’s finding that within the LAC region, only Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were among the top-ten ranked developing and transitional economies, is concerning. From this, it can be deduced that not only are the enablers of e-commerce deficient in the CARICOM region, but they may also be especially so in the OECS states.

A key consideration behind the UNCTAD ranking for the LAC region in the B2C Index was overall low UPU Postal Reliability Scores.

The UPU’s Development Report 2020 makes the following findings:

• Latin America and the Caribbean was one of the regions with the most challenging situation in terms of postal development;

• compared with its level of economic development, the LAC region had the worst relative performance worldwide; and

• postal operators in this geographical zone were facing significant challenges.

For comparative purposes, Table 3.1 lists the CARICOM countries in order of their 2020 UPU Integrated Index for Postal Development (2IPD)1 score. The table also indicates whether, compared to previous assessments, the score of each state had improved or worsened.

Of the 170 countries covered by the 2IPD, none of the OECS states fell within the top 100. Saint Lucia was the highest ranked country of the OECS states and Dominica was the lowest ranked. Of these states, only Saint Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda registered an improvement in their score over previous assessments. All the OECS states had rankings and scores well below those of Jamaica, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago, three of the more developed CARICOM countries. By way of illustration, Saint Lucia’s score was approximately three times lower than that of Jamaica and Dominica’s score was almost ten times lower.

1 According to the UPU, ‘the 2IPD provides a composite picture of postal development in 170 countries, with a ranking that focuses on the performance of traditional postal operators’. The UPU further notes that the 2IPD is based upon four pillars: ‘Reliability’ reflects performance in terms of speed and predictability of delivery, across all the key segments of physical postal services (letter post, parcel post and express). ‘Reach’ synthesises global connectivity by evaluating the breadth and depth of the postal operators’ international network. These are measured by the number of partner networks and the volumes of international exchanges, respectively, across all the key segments of physical postal services. ‘Relevance’ measures the intensity of demand for the full portfolio of postal services relative to the best performers in each category of postal activity, also taking into account elements such as the number of international transactions and the number of post offices. ‘Resilience’ indicates the level of diversification of revenue streams, as well as the capacity to innovate and deliver inclusive postal services (UPU 2020).


3. Enablers of E-commerce in the OECS Region \ 25

The noticeable disparity among the OECS states in terms of rank is consistent with wider observable trends regarding the development asymmetries between the states in this subregion. The overall disparity among these states and the CARICOM MDCs is consistent with the development asymmetries, which is a distinct feature of the CARICOM arrangement. Except for China, The Russian Federation and Belarus, all the top-20 countries on the 2IPD are developed countries. This underscores the correlation between the level of financial resources available to a state and its ability maintain a properly functioning postal system that is supportive of its economic and social interests. It is therefore not surprising that the OECS states had very low scores and ranks on the 2IPD, given the resource challenges they face – not only as developing economies but also as SIDS.

However, the states must urgently address the unreliability, low global connectivity, relevance and

resilience of their postal systems, if these systems are to be able to fulfil their key role as enablers of e-commerce within the region. Interventions in relation to this issue should be prioritised at the highest levels of national and regional governance systems. Although the privatisation of social-linked services within the Caribbean is traditionally a taboo subject, governments should at least consider whether their postal systems would be better served by going down this road.

In contrast to the inadequate postal infrastructure within the subregion, there are some encouraging indicators with respect to ICT and related infrastructure.

Over the review period, investment in the telecommunications sector was highest in 2015, but declined for the two subsequent years. There was a rebound in 2018, but not to the level observed in 2015. Although 2019 and 2020 data are not yet available, it can be anticipated that the

Table 3.1. Ranking of CARICOM countries on the UPU 2IPD

CARICOM MEMBER* UPU RANK UPU SCORE CHANGE

Jamaica 72 37.98 -4.09

Barbados 93 27.49 -1.68

Trinidad and Tobago 105 22.56 +0.55

Bahamas, The 122 17.01 +-6.96

Belize 127 15.95 -2.69

Saint Lucia 139 13.04 +4.20

Suriname 143 12.37 -1.57

Guyana 144 12.21 -1.25

St Kitts and Nevis 149 10.20 -3.48

Antigua and Barbuda 151 9.63 +2.45

St Vincent and the Grenadines 159 6.51 -0.79

Dominica 166 3.89 -0.75

Haiti 169 0.34 -0.82

Source: UPU Postal Development Report 2020 *No data available for Grenada.

Table 3.2. Selected telecommunications indicators: all ECTEL states

Indicator 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Investment (EC$M) 124 155 104 100 136

Mobile penetration 109% 111.7% 108.6% 107.1% 107.9%

Fixed broadband penetration (%) 17.1% 19.0% 19.3% 20.71% 19.4%

Mobile broadband penetration 7.4% 40.2% 44.6% 57.1% n/a

Source: Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL).



COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, will have negatively affected the flow of investment into the sector. Mobile penetration figures exceeded 100% for each of the years in the review period, suggesting the over-adoption of mobile phones.

More direct e-commerce-aligned indicators are fixed broadband penetration and mobile broadband penetration. Fixed broadband penetration increased steadily between 2014 and 2017 but declined slightly in 2018 from the 2017 high of 20.71%. At its highest, therefore, no more than one-fifth of the OECS population had access to this service. Mobile broadband penetration figures were, with the exception of 2014, much higher for the period 2015–17. In 2015 and 2016, mobile broadband penetration was more than double the level of penetration of fixed broadband penetration and, in 2017, it was almost double the level of penetration of fixed broadband.

This indicates the strong preference of OECS consumers to connect to the internet through smart phones and other mobile computing devices. It further suggests the need to ensure that other e-commerce enablers, such as payment processing systems, are aligned to this digital reality. At a high of 57.1% in 2017, almost half of OECS consumers either did not have access to or did not choose to take advantage of mobile broadband services. It is, however, recognised that some of these consumers might have had internet connectivity through fixed broadband services. There was no

available data to support an analysis of the extent to which consumers utilised one service to the exclusion of the other.

At a country-specific level, there were wide disparities with respect to both fixed and mobile broadband penetration (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). In 2017, the last year for which data were available, mobile broadband penetration was highest in Grenada (86.7%) followed by St Kitts and Nevis (75%). It was lowest in Dominica (41.3). In addition to the significant gap between Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis and Dominica, what is also quite interesting is the overall pattern of growth in the states. There was virtually no mobile broad penetration (0%) in Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines in 2014, but significant growth was observed over the subsequent one-year period. Over this period, Dominica moved from 0% to 44.3% and St Vincent and the Grenadines moved from 0% to 38.1%. In contrast to the other states which had zero to low rates of penetration in 2014, St Kitts and Nevis had a relatively high rate of penetration at 46.1%. Except for 2017, in which a significant dip was recorded, mobile broadband penetration increased year-over-year in St Kitts. This suggests that St Kitts is the OECS state that has registered the most significant achievements in relation to mobile internet connectivity over the period. In 2018, fixed broadband penetration was highest in St Kitts and Nevis (31.7%) and lowest in Dominica (7.5%). These figures might have been influenced by more persons opting over time for

Figure 3.1 OECS fixed broadband penetration 2014–18

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

PERC

ENTA

GE %

YEAR

DMA GRE SKN STL SVG


3. Enablers of E-commerce in the OECS Region \ 27

mobile broadband services instead of fixed line data services, but there are no data to confirm this.

Notwithstanding the progress made in achieving mobile broadband penetration, OECS states have some distance to go in reaching the internet access penetration rates observed in more developed economies. These states must take more active steps to ensure digital literacy and internet access availability to their population, if the digital divide between themselves and developed countries is to be overcome. There are already some strategies and programmes that are either currently underway or have recently concluded, and which can help the states to achieve this goal. These include the following.

(i) The CARICOM Single ICT Space: The Roadmap for the CARICOM Single ICT Space was approved at the Twenty-Eighth (28th) Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on 16 February 2017 in Georgetown, Guyana. The conference identified the CARICOM Single ICT Space as a priority area of focus in building the digital economy. It is defined as an ecosystem of regionally harmonised ICT policies, legislation, regulations, technical standards, best practices, networks and services. The policy framework approved by the conference envisages that the Single ICT Space will be characterised by:

1. regionally harmonised ICT policy, legal and regulatory regimes;

2. robust national and regional broadband infrastructure;

3. common frameworks for governments, ICT service providers and consumers; and

4. effective, secure technology and management systems.

Implementation of the roadmap is ongoing (Caribbean Telecommunication Union [CTU] Secretariat 2017).

(ii) The Caribbean Regional Communications Infrastructure Program (CARCIP): This project was launched in 2012 and was co-ordinated by the CTU. Project funding was provided by the World Bank. The objective of the project was to assist in the digital transformation of several OECS states through, inter alia, the provision of funding for infrastructure works. Notable achievements of the project are the development of a new fibre optic network to better connect Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada and the implementation of a national broadband project in St Vincent and the Grenadines.

OECS states should implement national policies that are complementary to ongoing and concluded initiatives. In developing the ICT infrastructure and other enablers of e-commerce, the OECS states should pay particular attention to that gender divide. Anecdotal evidence suggests this exists in the region and manifests in the lower rates of involvement for women in e-commerce. While

Figure 3.2 OECS mobile broadband penetration 2014–18*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

PERC

ENTA

GE %

YEAR

DMA GRE SKN STL SVG

Key: DMA – The Commonwealth of Dominica, GRE – Grenada, SKN – St. Kitts and Nevis, STL – Saint Lucia, SVG – Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.



there are scant data on gender and e-commerce, and even less information that presents a comparative analysis of gender and e-commerce among the OECS member states, some limited insight can be gleaned from information that has been gathered at the country level. Between 2016 and 2018, the ILO Decent Work Team and Office for the Caribbean commissioned country studies on Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and Saint Lucia.

According to the Gender at Work in the Caribbean: Country Report for Saint Lucia (ILO 2018):

In Saint Lucia, MSEs struggle to gain access to formal credit and to exploit export opportunities. The National Industrial Policy of 2001 sets out the short- and long-term plans for micro and small enterprise (MSE) development in the country. The Policy attempted to help businesses to tackle these obstacles through the Small Enterprise Development Company, now known as the Small Business Development Centre (SBDC)… The SBDC aims to enable businesses to become competitive on an international level by providing them with a variety of different services including business consultancy, finance, market research and training. Established in 1994, the SBDC helped 858 women and 1,133 men to develop their businesses between 2010 and 2014. A total of 574 of these companies were owned by women and 813 by men. Thus, since more than half of Saint Lucia’s population is female, women are under-represented among SBDC’s clients. While the centre does have gender-disaggregated data regarding ownership of its clients’ businesses and their services, the CDB Gender Assessment concludes that greater efforts should be taken to attract female entrepreneurs.

Outlining other initiatives to support SMEs in Saint Lucia, the report states that, while the ‘Trade Export Promotion Agency (TEPA) works with small businesses to expand their reach into small markets, [even though] TEPA’s client surveys

reveal that women own and manage many of the medium and small businesses in the MSME sector; gender analysis is lacking from all of TEPA’s official documents. The absence of a gender sensitive approach excludes the possibility of developing specific improvements for the advancement of female entrepreneurs’ (ibid).

To the extent that this anecdotal evidence points to disparate rates of participation for males and females in the e-commerce ecosystem in the OECS states, regional and national policy-makers must prioritise the implementation of gender-informed e-commerce development strategies. These may include special grants targeted at female e-commerce entrepreneurs, special training programmes for female entrepreneurs and improving internet access to underserved communities.

ReferencesCaribbean Telecommunication Union (CTU) Secretariat (2017), ‘Vision and Roadmap for a CARICOM Single ICT Space’, available at: https://caricom.org/wp-content/uploads/vision_and_roadmap_for_a_single_ict_space_-_final_version_updated.pdf

International Labour Organization (2018), Gender at Work in the Caribbean: Country Report for Saint Lucia, ILO, Geneva, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/---sro-port_of_spain/documents/publication/wcms_651949.pdf

UNCTAD (2020a), ‘The UNCTAD B2C E-commerce Index 2020 Spotlight on Latin America and the Caribbean’, UNCTAD Technical Notes on ICT for Development No 17, available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d17_en.pdf

Universal Postal Union (2020), UPU Development Report 2020, available at: 2020 https://www.upu.int/UPU/media/upu/publications/2020-Postal-Development-Report.pdf


https://caricom.org/wp-content/uploads/vision_and_roadmap_for_a_single_ict_space_-_final_version_updated.pdf



https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/---sro-port_of_spain/documents/publication/wcms_651949.pdf




https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d17_en.pdf



https://www.upu.int/UPU/media/upu/publications/2020-Postal-Development-Report.pdf



4. OECS Legal and Regulatory Regime for E-Commerce and Digital Trade \ 29

4. OECS Legal and Regulatory Regime for E-Commerce and Digital Trade4.1 Levels of OECS regulation of e-commerce and digital trade

Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and WTO Working Group definitions on e-commerce emphasise a focus on electronic or internet-based technology as being the central element in e-commerce transactions. For this reason, a well-developed e-commerce ecosystem must, inter alia, be based upon appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks to support internet-based trade transactions.1 Legal and regulatory frameworks must address an important range of issues, including the following: electronic payments (e-payments), electronic signatures (e-signatures), data protection/privacy of consumers, and consumer protection, with a specific emphasis on electronic transactions. Furthermore, to instil trust and confidence in consumers, cybercrime legislation is also important.

Best practice for several of these regulatory areas has been established by model legislation developed within the United Nations system and by the Commonwealth. The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL) has developed model laws on electronic commerce2 and electronic signatures.3 There is also a UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.4 The Commonwealth has also

1 Legislation drafted under the E-Government for Regional Integration Project (EGRIP) is available at: https://www.oecs.org/our-work/knowledge/library/egrip

2 UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996, available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/e-commerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce

3 UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001, available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/e-commerce/modellaw/electronic_signatures

4 This convention was concluded in New York in 2005. It is available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/e-commerce/conventions/electronic_communications

developed a model law on electronic transactions.5 These instruments highlight that best practice for model legislation on electronic commerce includes disciplines on the following:

• non-discrimination against electronic information;

• recognition of electronic documents and signatures (including foreign documents and signatures);

• provision for receipt of evidence in electronic format;

• provision for formation of electronic contracts; and

• consumer protection provisions.

The OECS has been progressively building a framework for e-commerce. In 2008, the E-Government for Regional Integration Programme (EGRIP) was launched with the support of the World Bank. The OECS also participated in the International Telecommunications Union Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory procedures in the Caribbean (ITU-HIPCAR),6 which generated model legislation. The programme ran concurrently, and in collaboration with, the Information and Communication for Development (ICT4D) Strategy and Action Plan

5 The Commonwealth Model Law on Electronic Transactions 2017. This model law was developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Office of Civil and Criminal Justice Reform. It is available at: https://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/key_reform_pdfs/P15370_8_ROL_Model_Law_Electronic_Transactions.pdf

6 International Telecommunications Union–HIPCAR Project. The HIPCAR project was developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), in collaboration with the CARICOM Secretariat and the Caribbean Telecommunication Union (CTU), following requests from member states for a unified approach towards ICT development. See: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Projects/ITU-EC-ACP/HIPCAR/Pages/default.aspx



spearheaded by the CARICOM Secretariat. ICT for Development has been maintained on the CARICOM Agenda and forms part of the region’s Strategic Development Plan 2015–2019 (CARICOM Secretariat 2020), with ongoing work towards creation of a regional framework for e-commerce. At the level of the Caribbean Forum of the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, OECS states also adopted in 2016 the CARIFORUM ICT Services Strategic and Implementation Plan 2017–2019. Regional policies operate concurrently with national policies where they exist; however, there are variances in levels of adoption and coverage of policies and legislation across the OECS.

Spearheaded by the OECS Commission, OECS countries have prioritised the implementation of a package of laws that will directly facilitate e-commerce transactions or create a supportive framework for these transactions. Through EGRIP, draft model legislation has been prepared on:

• data protection;

• electronic crimes;

• electronic evidence; and

• electronic transactions.

However, in practice, OECS states are at various stages in their implementation of legal frameworks that address these issues. Table 4.1 provides an overview of the legislative landscape in the OECS states with respect to e-commerce.

As the table reveals, all the OECS states have adopted legislation on electronic transactions. These laws are all based on or have been influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. As such, they all contain provisions on the core framework provisions outlined above.

At present, only Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia have legislation on consumer protection, while St Kitts and Nevis is in the process of revising its legislation. All the states have implemented legislation which addresses cybercrime. Only three states have current legislation addressing data protection and privacy; however, the other three states are in the process of considering draft legislation on this subject.

4.2 Data protection legislation in the OECS statesData protection is one of the central issues to be addressed in developing a regulatory framework for e-commerce. In order for e-commerce to thrive, it is important that consumers have the trust and confidence that their personal information will be safeguarded. As noted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ‘consumer trust and legal compliance need to be front and centre in powering the digital economy and driving digital development’ (ITU 2018). This means that ‘companies must consider privacy and cybersecurity as integrated parts of their services, and at the forefront of future development and innovations across the entire ICT industry’ (ibid).

For OECS states, there are both external and internal stimuli impelling them to implement data protection regulatory frameworks. From the internal perspective, the implementation of such frameworks will support domestic and subregional e-commerce growth as the population achieves a heightened sense of digital sophistication and becomes increasingly concerned about the use of personal data in marketing and other related activities. From the external perspective, the extra-territorial reach of the European Union (EU)’s

Table 4.1 State of implementation of e-commerce-related legislation in OECS states

OECS State Electronic transactions

Consumer protection

Data protection

Cybercrime

Antigua and Barbuda x x x x

Dominica x - D x

Grenada x - D x

St Kitts and Nevis x x x x

Saint Lucia x x x x

St Vincent and the Grenadines x - D x



General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may force the issue of regulatory convergence within the OECS.

The extra-territorial reach of the GDPR arises in two distinct ways. First, Article 3(1) provides that the regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of the establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The effect of this is that once a data processor becomes established in the EU, the GDPR will apply with respect to all transactions involving that data – even if the actual processing is done by an affiliated or unaffiliated entity outside of the EU. There is an expansive definition of ‘processing’ in the regulation, to include any operation performed on personal data and including any use of such data. The sale of the personal data of EU citizens by data collection firms located within the EU to e-commerce providers in the OECS for marketing processes would therefore trigger the operation of the GDPR. The result of this is that OECS firms would be required to comply with its provisions, irrespective of their actual location outside of the EU.

The second way in which the extra-territorial reach of the GDPR arises is because of Article 44, which states that any transfer of personal data that are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer to a third country or to an international organisation shall only take place if specific conditions laid down in the regulation are complied with by the controller and processor. Article 45 allows data transfers to take place where the European Commission has decided that the third country etc. ensures an adequate level of protection. This directly implicates an assessment of the regulatory scheme in the third country for legal equivalence to the EU regime. OECS states may therefore be constrained to align their regulatory schemes on data protection with those of the GDPR, in order to ensure that their legal regimes support cross-border data flows from the EU.

The rules set out in the GDPR are based on the following principles:

1. lawfulness, fairness and transparency;

2. purpose limitation;

3. data minimisation;

4. accuracy;

5. storage limitation;

6. integrity and confidentiality; and

7. accountability.

These principles are elaborated upon in a detailed framework, which has as core components an expansive outline of the rights of the data subject and the obligations on data controllers and processors.

Although not as elaborate in scope as the GDPR, the existing data protection laws within the OECS subregion all contain provisions that aim to establish strong obligations for data processors with respect to ensuring the integrity of such data and respecting the rights of data subjects. All the existing legislation is based on the OECS Model Law and, as such, the frameworks are built upon the general principle that data processors should not engage in the processing of personal data without the explicit consent of the data subject. The laws also address with the following additional principles:

1. Notice and choice principle: Upon requesting their data, a data controller must inform data subjects of the purposes for which the personal data is being collected or further processed.

2. Disclosure principle: Personal data should not be disclosed without the consent of the data subject for any unauthorised purposes.

3. Security principle: When processing personal data, data users shall take practical steps to protect personal data from any loss, misuse, modification, unauthorised or accidental access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.

4. Retention principle: Personal data processed for any purpose shall not be kept longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose.

5. Data integrity principle: Data users shall take reasonable steps to ensure that personal data are accurate, complete, not misleading and kept up to date.

6. Access principle: Data subjects shall be given access to their personal data held by a data user and should be able to correct that personal data where the personal data are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or not up to date.



The OECS states that have implemented data protection legislation have succeeded in implementing one of the building blocks of an effective e-commerce regulatory framework. OECS states that have not yet implemented such legislation should be encouraged to do so at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to support the development of e-commerce in their territories. All these states are receiving assistance from the World Bank Funded Digital Transformation Project, to complete important aspects of the e-commerce legal framework. Component 1 of this project will support the development of a positive enabling environment for the region’s digital economy. As stated in the project appraisal document7, this component will focus on legal, regulatory and institutional reforms to support modernisation of the telecommunications and digital financial services sectors, while mitigating growing risks of a digital economy, including cybersecurity and data protection and privacy. In keeping with this focus, the beneficiary OECS states will receive assistance to implement necessary regulatory reforms in key areas such as cybersecurity and data protection.

4.3 Cybersecurity in the OECSIncreasingly, an ever-wider range of economic, political and social activities are moving online, encompassing various kinds of information and communications technologies (ICTs). The evolving forms of ICT used are having a transformational impact on the way business is done, and the way people interact among themselves, as well as with government, enterprises and other stakeholders. This new landscape gives rise to new business models and a wider scope for innovation. At the same time, it facilitates undesirable activities online, including cybercrime (UNCTAD 2016).

7 World Bank: International Development Association Project Appraisal Document on Proposed Credits in the Amount of SDR 20.5 million (US$28.0 million equivalent) to the Commonwealth of Dominica in the amount of US$8.0 million to Grenada in the amount of US $20.0 million to St. Lucia in the amount of US$30.0 million to St. Vincent and the Grenadines and a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 5.9 million (US$8.0 million equivalent) to the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) for a Caribbean Digital Transformation Project (“Digital Caribbean”) June 1, 2020 at page 19. This project appraisal is available at https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/848701593136915061/pdf/Dominica-Grenada-St-Lucia-St-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines-and-the-Organization-of-Eastern-Caribbean-States-Caribbean-Digital-Transformation-Project-Digital-Caribbean.pdf

Electronic transactions are of growing importance to governments, enterprises and consumers in most parts of the world. While greater reliance on electronic commerce (‘e-commerce’) creates significant opportunities, a lack of security and trust remains a critical barrier to such transactions. Online fraud and data breaches are growing concerns, requiring adequate legal and regulatory responses to boost domestic and cross-border trade. However, adopting an appropriate legal and regulatory framework is made difficult by the variety and complexity of cyberlaws and regulations, as well as the rapid evolution of technologies and markets.

Cybersecurity is an essential component for building e-commerce in the OECS. Broadly speaking, ‘cybersecurity is the organisation and collection of resources, processes, and structures used to protect cyberspace and cyberspace-enabled systems from occurrences that misalign de jure from de facto property rights’ (Craigen et al. 2014). It therefore involves the protection of computer systems, networks and online data from unwarranted penetration, malicious damage and misuse.

The state of cybersecurity and ongoing developments in the Caribbean and Latin America is explored in detail in the 2016 Cybersecurity Report (IDB/OAS 2016) and 2020 Cybersecurity Report.8 The latter highlights that, ‘whereas Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) governments are aware of the need to protect the digital space on which so much of society’s proper functioning depends, their cybersecurity policy implementation efforts have not advanced with the needed urgency’.9 The report further states that:

‘the Caribbean region has a maturity level between 1 (initial) and 2 (formative) in all dimensions. However, while ‘Legal and Regulatory Frameworks’ was the most mature dimension, as it was in 2016, ‘Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy’ was the least mature. The development of a national cybersecurity strategy provides a country with a more strategic and comprehensive approach that addresses and allows a better understanding of cybersecurity challenges. Likewise, this strategic

8 The updated 2020 report was recently released and is available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/2020-Cybersecurity-Report-Risks-Progress-and-the-Way-Forward-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

9 Ibid.



planning allows for prioritisation of their objectives and investments in cybersecurity. It is noteworthy that two of the countries with the greatest development in cybersecurity in the region have a national cybersecurity strategy, that is, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica.’

With the assistance of the HIPCAR project, OECS states have taken the step of translating policy into action by implementing cybersecurity legislation. Under the ICT legislative framework of the HIPCAR project, model guidelines and legislative texts on cybercrime and cybersecurity were developed. However, owing to capacity constraints and other reasons, it took some OECS member states almost a decade to enact legislation based on the HIPCAR model laws. The states that have not yet implemented this legislation should quickly move to identify the capacity and other constraints that are affecting their efforts to implement. Where appropriate, assistance should be provided through projects such as the World Bank Digital Transformation Project.

Ongoing regional initiatives can provide general policy support to OECS states in their efforts to implement appropriate legislative frameworks and develop cybersecurity infrastructure. The 2013 CARICOM Crime and Security Strategy makes express mention of cybercrime in Strategic Goal 8, which aims to strengthen CARICOM’s resilience to cybercrime, by: raising awareness and educating the general public on internet use; establishing a CARICOM Cyber Crime Centre; via a network of CARICOM Cybersecurity Points of Contact and a CARICOM Computer Emergency Response Team; and by forming active partnerships with the private sector. Most of these initiatives are still ongoing.

Under the Vision and Roadmap for a CARICOM Single ICT Space (approved on 16 February 2017; CTU Secretariat 2017), provisions exist for the creation of a consistent consumers rights’ regional regime and the development of a regionally harmonised cybersecurity policy framework. While these components have a proposed budget of US$2 million and a phase 2 priority status suggesting implementation in the 2018–19 period, only preliminary activities have been undertaken to date. A further recommendation in this area is that additional support for the CARICOM work programmes should be sought and provided within the framework of international donor programmes.

While legislative reform is essential to address cybersecurity, governments must also make practical efforts to address cyberthreats, such as:

• requiring all government agencies to implement training or specific types of security policies and practices, and improving incidence response and preparedness;

• creating taskforces, councils or commissions to study/advise on cybersecurity issues; and

• supporting programmes or incentives for cybersecurity training and education.

Further, governments must work together with the private sector and civil society organisations, recognising that cybersecurity is a shared responsibility.

Companies in the OECS, especially those engaged in e-commerce, need to adopt policies to keep information secure, put in place technical safeguards, and develop response plans for data security incidents, as well as to avoid fraudulent, deceptive and unfair practices. Internet service providers (ISPs) may need to take extra measures to educate users on how to recognise and protect themselves from fraud.

Public education or awareness raising is another vital tool to change cybersecurity behaviour, but should be implemented in conjunction with other influencing strategies. It is very important for OECS member states to promote positive information security behaviours among stakeholders at every level. These practices, supported by user-friendly security technologies, will help to provide a solid foundation for a cyber-resilient society.

Cybersecurity awareness is growing across the region, as threats and vulnerabilities are recognised to have the potential to stifle innovation and advancement of the internet based-economy. While the OECS member states might recognise the need for a national cybersecurity strategy, hardly any have moved beyond the outline stage in this regard. Implementation of a national cybersecurity strategy requires that distinct organisations be established and dedicated to cybersecurity. Given the nature of cyberthreats, there is also a need for co-ordination between sectors and agencies.

As stakeholders in the OECS begin to recognise the need for strong cybersecurity frameworks, measures and capabilities, increasingly we are seeing that cybercrime does not recognise national



borders, and that multilateral and multidimensional co-operation is essential to address the range of cyber threats. As each member state seeks to reinforce its cybersecurity response, regional initiatives – such as the Vision and Roadmap for a CARICOM Single ICT Space – need to be allocated adequate resources in order to be properly developed and implemented.

In summary, the diversity of issues facing the digital economy and cybersecurity calls for an inventive set of responses. The Global Information Technology Report 2016 (Baller et al. 2016) highlights several simple government policies that can help increase internet access to residents:

One approach is to increase government use of ICT as part of state policy. This increases competitiveness in the market to provide services, forcing them to innovate, while simultaneously socialising the utility of the internet among those who must use it to interact with their government.

The report also recommends nurturing local information technology businesses, a practice that not only organically fosters development in information and communication technologies, but also can develop an industry that understands the local culture, which in and of itself, speeds up adoption (ibid).

Overall, the Global Information Technology Report indicates that common successful elements that provide for effective e-government and improving economies are: political support from the highest levels of authority; knowledgeable and well-placed human capital (individuals who not only understand the field, but who can connect with the right authorities and effectively communicate needs); and financial resources, as well as the willingness to specifically devote those resources to ICT development.

4.4 Consumer protectionOf all the areas where legislative reform is being undertaken to facilitate e-commerce in the OECS, consumer protection has been accorded the least attention, notwithstanding the importance of consumer confidence for business to consumer (B2C) e-commerce.10 Only Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia presently have modern consumer

10 Consumer protection seeks to address imbalances between businesses and consumers in all forms of commerce.

protection legislation, while St Kitts and Nevis is in the process of reviewing outdated legislation from the 1980s. Dominica, Grenada, and St Vincent and the Grenadines have no legislation addressing consumer protection.

The expansion of e-commerce in the OECS has exacerbated the risks to consumers. Given the nature of the internet, where important information on the seller (such as identity, location and business history) can easily be concealed, consumers are more vulnerable online to deceptive and fraudulent activities. Consumer protection laws can also help businesses engaged in e-commerce in terms of clarifying the requirements of doing business online within a particular jurisdiction. Therefore, consumer laws, policies and regulations may both outline consumers’ rights and business practices that are to be expected online, limit fraudulent and misleading commercial conduct, and help businesses develop self-regulatory regimes. OECS consumer protection legislation should afford effective protection for online shoppers, with respect to both domestic and cross-border purchases. Furthermore, by design, the respective national regulatory frameworks should be harmonised, given that differences in the way countries adopt relevant provisions can hamper cross-border transactions. These differences may be related to the rights and obligations of consumers and businesses, to what are considered acceptable terms and conditions, to disclosure obligations, and to effective international redress mechanisms.

The European Union (EU) presents a good model of the importance that regulatory harmonisation can have in promoting an increase in commercial transactions within a defined geographic area. In the EU, enterprises used to have to operate with 28 different sets of national rules when conducing cross-border trade. They therefore needed to identify the provisions of the applicable laws of particular countries, and assume the costs associated with translation, legal advice and adaptation of contracts.

To remedy this situation, the European Commission developed a Common European Sales Law to Facilitate Cross-Border Transactions in the Single Market. This gave traders the choice to sell their products to citizens in another member state on the basis of a single set of contract law rules which would stand as an alternative alongside the national contract laws. Parties to a cross-



border sales contract anywhere in the European Union would be able to choose, by express agreement, to apply the Common European Sales Law. (As quoted in UNCTAD 2015)

With a specific focus on the creation of a common consumer protection regime, the development of a similar policy model for the OECS might be a feasible option.

The cross-border enforcement of consumer protection is another challenge, requiring effective co-operation between national enforcement agencies. Some national authorities have set up semi-formal co-operation mechanisms and networks to serve as non-legal, political channels of co-operation. For example, comprising member countries and organisations, the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN) is a network of public authorities involved in the enforcement of fair-trade practice laws and other consumer protection activities. Its main objective is to identify ways to prevent and redress deceptive marketing practices in an international context.

The ICPEN has developed the econsumer.gov initiative to enhance consumer protection and consumer confidence in e-commerce. The website invites individuals to file complaints online at a single location (http://www.econsumer.gov).11,12

The main international reference framework for the protection of consumers online is the OECD Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce (OECD 2016); the guidelines were being revised at the time of writing. The objective of the revision is to reflect relevant policy principles pertaining to B2C e-commerce in several OECD Acts since their adoption in 1999. As they are updated for OECD member states, the

11 econsumer.gov began in April 2001 to respond to the challenges of internet fraud and improve consumer confidence. econsumer.gov began to gather and share cross-border e-commerce complaints. The secure website is hosted through the Consumer Sentinel Network platform by the US Federal Trade Commission.

The project has two components:i. A public website that allows consumers to make cross-

border fraud complaints. It is currently available in English and seven other languages.

ii. A secure econsumer.gov website that allows law enforcement around the world to share and access consumer complaint data and other investigative information.

12 No organisation from any OECS member state is currently participating in ICPEN or econsumer.gov.

OECS member states might consider adapting the content of these guidelines for their own domestic needs.

In light of market and regulatory developments, including those related to e-commerce, in 2015, the United Nations revised the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection (UNGCP) (UNCTAD no date b). The consultations specifically aimed at capturing the needs of developing countries. The revised guidelines include new provisions, addressing: the rights and obligations of consumers and businesses; vulnerable consumers; mobile platforms; payment; alternative dispute resolution; consumer education and awareness; data and privacy protection; applicable law and jurisdiction; and bilateral, regional and international co-operation.

E-commerce is specifically addressed by guidelines 63–65, which state as follows:

63. Member States should work towards enhancing consumer confidence in electronic commerce by the continued development of transparent and effective consumer protection policies, ensuring a level of protection that is not less than that afforded in other forms of commerce.

64. Member States should, where appropriate, review existing consumer protection policies to accommodate the special features of electronic commerce and ensure that consumers and businesses are informed and aware of their rights and obligations in the digital marketplace.

65. Member States may wish to consider the relevant international guidelines and standards on electronic commerce and the revisions thereof, and, where appropriate, adapt those guidelines and standards to their economic, social and environmental circumstances so that they can adhere to them, as well as collaborate with other Member States in their implementation across borders. In so doing, Member States may wish to study the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (ibid.)

4.4.1 Electronic communications regulation

The implementation of an effective regulatory environment demands a modern framework for the governance of providers of e-commerce, linked


http://www.econsumer.gov


communications services. Having determined that the existing telecoms regulatory schemes should be modernised to account for the challenges and new developments associated with regulating the telecommunications sector, ECTEL and the OECS states have moved to implement a new legislative framework. Instead of a traditional focus on telecommunications and linked telecommunications products, the new framework broadens the regulatory focus to electronic communications.

The Revised Draft Electronic Communications Bill13 defines ‘electronic communications’ to include telecommunications services, as well as the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, audio, video, animation, visual images, moving images, pictures, pulses, signals or other information, using wire, radio frequency, optical, other electromagnetic means or by way of any other technology. This broad definition captures all the services necessary to support current e-commerce platforms. The following features of the law are of significance to e-commerce development in the OECS subregion:

1. Both public and private electronic communications providers require licences

Bringing both public and private electronic communications providers within the scope of the regulatory scheme is important, to ensure proper oversight of all providers of services on which e-commerce providers depend. This is especially significant given the commitment in the law to issues such as universal access obligations and the control of anti-competitive behaviour.

2. Licensees who operate public electronic communications networks are obligated to provide for interconnection to their networks. Interconnection will only be required if it is technically feasible to enable that other licensee to install a facility, for use in connection with the supply of an electronic communications service.

Markets for electronic communications services suffer from high barriers to entry for a variety of factors, including the cost of building

13 The legislature of St. Kitts and Nevis enacted this Bill into law on the 18th February, 2021 as the Electronic Communications Act, 2020. St. Kitts and Nevis is the only OECS State which to date has enacted the Bill into law. In respect of the other OECS States, the Bill retains its status as a model law.

network infrastructure. Considering the significant costs associated with building and operationalising new telecoms infrastructure, the ability of new firms to successfully enter the market and compete with incumbent firms may well depend on their ability to rationalise costs by interconnecting their facilities and networks with those of incumbent firms. The interconnection rules in the legislation encourage the growth of e-commerce, by enabling lower-cost electronic communications services.

3. Licensees are obliged to ensure that the costs associated with interconnection and access are based on cost-oriented rates that are: (a) reasonable and arrived at in a transparent manner, having regard to economic feasibility; and (b) sufficiently unbundled so that licensees requesting interconnection or access do not have to pay for electronic communications network components that are not required for the interconnection or access.

The requirements for electronic communications providers to facilitate interconnection with and access to their networks, are based on the recognition that the high barriers to entry in electronic communications markets, including significant sunken costs, may preclude market entry by smaller providers. Mandating interconnection and access to networks is a regulatory response to these challenges, to ensure that a state of healthy competition within electronic communications markets prevails. This objective may in and of itself be an important policy imperative for a state. Interconnection and access obligations also give due recognition to what has become known in competition law as ‘the essential facilities doctrine’. This principle states that the owner of an essential facility has a duty to promote competition, by facilitating access to its facilities when such access is indispensable for competitors to gain a foothold in the market.

4. Interconnection/facilities access costs must be based on cost-oriented rates that are: (a) reasonable, arrived at in a transparent manner having regard to economic feasibility; and (b) sufficiently unbundled such that the licensee requesting the interconnection or access



does not have to pay for electronic communications network components that are not required for the interconnection or access.

The legislative requirement for interconnection rates to be reasonable has implications for end-users of electronic communication services, such as e-commerce providers. The success of the e-commerce business model depends on the availability of well-developed, reasonably priced electronic communications services. This is especially the case in developing countries, where the inability of MSMEs to achieve economies of scale results in high-cost operations. Ensuring that dominant providers of electronic communications services provide network access to smaller players at reasonable cost allows these players to, in turn, offer competitive and reasonable prices to end-users.

5. Licensees shall set tariffs that are fair and reasonable and shall not discriminate among similarly situated persons.

MSMEs face significant challenges in establishing an e-commerce presence and the high cost of electronic communications services can be significant contributory factor. High costs are likely to exist in a market that tips naturally towards monopolistic and oligopolistic structures, whereas competitive markets are more likely to yield more competitive prices. The requirement that licensees shall set tariffs that are fair and reasonable indicates the perceived value of regulatory intervention, to ensure that prices for electronic communications services in OECS markets remain fair and reasonable for all users.

4.4.2 Consumer protection provisions

Licensed electronic communications providers are obliged to comply with specific legislative requirements aimed at protecting the end-users of their services. These requirements include the obligation for licensees to, inter alia:

a. provide regulatory mandated information to consumers in the manner prescribed by the law;

b. provide customer contracts in the prescribed manner, which contain the prescribed terms and conditions;

c. advertise and promote an electronic communications service or electronic communications network, as prescribed; and to

d. protect data and information in the prescribed manner.

These provisions complement the consumer protection framework provided for in consumer protection legislation and create more avenues of recourse for aggrieved e-commerce customers.

Licensed electronic communications providers must comply with non-discrimination principles

The legislation prohibits licensees from discriminating between persons who are in an equivalent situation and who acquire or make use of electronic communications services offered by the licensee. Specifically, licensees cannot discriminate with respect to:

a. fees or charges for the electronic communications service provided;

b. the performance characteristics of the electronic communications service provided; or

c. any other condition on which the electronic communications service is provided.

These non-discrimination obligations support the interests of e-commerce providers in having electronic communication services that are consistent in quality. The rules also help these providers to avoid being placed at a competitive disadvantage to firms that may have a special relationship with service providers.

Licensees are required to comply with the principle of net neutrality

The law defines ‘net neutrality’ as being the principle that an electronic communications network and licensees must permit all data over the internet by not discriminating, interrupting, throttling, blocking or degrading such data. This principle prevents providers of electronic communications services from acting in a manner which is disadvantageous to the interests of internet users, in order to protect their own competitive interests or the competitive interests of firms with which they have commercial relationships. In the absence of net neutrality rules, it is conceivable that electronic communications



providers could facilitate priority access to their own content or that e-commerce providers could be asked to pay premiums for priority access to their sites. An example of the latter could be a dominant e-commerce provider entering into a relationship with the provider of electronic communication services, whereby traffic to the Amazon domain is routed at a much faster speed than traffic to other e-commerce sites. Net neutrality rules are an important part of the legal architecture in the OECS, aimed at maintaining an open internet and supporting the interests of MSME e-commerce providers.

The application of competition policy rules to providers of electronic communication services

The presence of competitive markets in the OECS will inure to the benefit of downstream users of electronic communication services in the form of greater innovation, improved service offering and lower cost. It is therefore imperative that these markets be properly regulated, to address any instances of anti-competitive behaviour that may arise. The revised Draft Electronic Communications Bill makes the National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) competent to determine, pronounce upon, administer, monitor and enforce compliance of all persons with competition laws, whether of a general or specific nature, as it relates to electronic communications. This competence is without prejudice to the competence of any court or a competition enforcement body, pursuant to the provisions of Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and the Revised Treaty of Basseterre. This means that the law does not seek to displace the jurisdiction of the CARICOM Competition Commission to carry out investigations into cross-border anti-competitive conduct or the jurisdiction of any regional or national competition authorities that may be established within the OECS geographic space. Prohibited conduct includes abuse of a dominant position and anti-competitive mergers, given that licensees are not allowed to engage in conduct that would result in substantial lessening of competition.

4.4.3 Obligations on licensees having significant market power (Section 95)

The NTRC can make assessments of whether one or more licensed providers of electronic communications services in a given market

has significant market power. Consequent on a determination that a licensee does in fact have significant market power, the commission may impose one or more obligations on the licensee aimed at promoting or maintaining effective competition within the market. It is significant that the Revised Electronic Communications Bill provides for these obligations to be imposed, irrespective of whether a corollary finding has been made to the effect that the licensee is abusing this market power. E-commerce providers will benefit from this provision, by way of its focus on the maintenance of competitive markets.

4.4.4 Promote goals of universal access/universal access fund

The Revised Electronic Communications Bill maintains the policy goal of universal access. Universal access supports the development of e-commerce, by virtue of more consumers having access to internet connectivity. The universal access fund previously established under telecommunications legislation is preserved, to achieve specific universal access goals. The goals that have the most relevance to the e-commerce ecosystem are:

i. ensuring efficient access to and use of an electronic communications network and an electronic communications service throughout the ECTEL member states, with a special focus on rural, under-served and maritime areas and with a goal to help promote social, educational and economic development;

ii. promoting technological innovation in electronic communications; and

iii. providing grant funds for information and communications technology entrepreneurial start-ups.

4.4.5 Recommendations on the regulatory environment:

The following is a list of priority action items to be addressed by OECS states for the regulatory environment supportive of e-commerce to be improved:

• Completion of legislative reform: Given the risks outlined in this report, there is increased urgency for legislators in the OECS member states to prioritise legislative reform, and to ensure that these laws are passed by 2022.



• Development of policies to complement new legislation: There is also an urgent need for policies to be developed to govern the day-to-day application of legislation, having regard to the idiosyncrasies of each OECS member – but also to ensure that these policies support the increasing development of intra-regional and international trade.

• Conducting public awareness and digital literacy/education programmes: Stakeholders have identified that there is a critical need for public awareness and digital literacy programmes in all of the member states. While increasing numbers of people and businesses are conducting transactions online, and in some countries the numbers of online transactions have doubled since the pandemic, stakeholders report that there are still issues with trust (of technology, institutions, doing business online), and limited capacity to transition to doing business online, especially among certain groups like the elderly and disabled. Even among groups like the youth, where there is high use of the internet and the adoption of online services, there is an urgent need to conduct sensitisation, especially around cybersecurity – as this segment of the population can be somewhat naïve about the risks and the ‘dark side’ of the internet.

4.5 Intellectual property: a key pillar of e-commerceThe protection of intellectual property (IP) rights in today’s innovation-driven and increasingly knowledge-based global economy is an important consideration for governments and businesses around the world.

While IP is increasingly being recognised across the globe as the highest value-bearing component of e-commerce, in the Caribbean it has been largely overlooked or subsumed under other issues. For this assignment, the review of a wide range of legislation and policy documents, as well as papers focused on e-commerce and ICT, found little mention of IP. When mentioned, it was cited as an emerging issue. This cursory/peripheral treatment of IP at both the national and regional levels (OECS and CARICOM), suggests that there is a lack of understanding of how IP underpins the larger-e-commerce framework. The desk review

also suggests that there is limited IP professional capacity within the region, and even less focus on IP as it relates to e-commerce. For these reasons, this report aims to establish the important relationship between IP and e-commerce, and to define a practical approach to make these connections a priority for stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ‘Intellectual property, very broadly, means the legal rights which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields’ (WIPO 2004). Intellectual property is traditionally divided into two branches, ‘industrial property’ and ‘copyright’. Industrial property is a key element of e-commerce, through the protection of patents, trademarks, industrial designs and other form of IP rights, whereas copyright and related rights flow from the technologies that have enabled the digitisation of works of IP, and the continued development of applications and other novel solutions for delivery via the internet.

According to the principle of territoriality, IP rights are limited to the territory of the country where they have been granted. The principle of territoriality permits states to tailor their national IP laws to suit their level of technological and economic development.

Countries have laws to protect intellectual property for two main reasons. One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.

Generally speaking, intellectual property law aims at safeguarding creators and other producers of intellectual goods and services by granting them certain time-limited rights to control the use made of those productions. Those rights do not apply to the physical object in which the creation may be embodied but instead to the intellectual creation as such. (ibid.)

E-commerce often involves selling products and services that are based on IP and its licensing. Many of these transactions are transborder or



international, so the territorial nature of IP rights raises the fundamental question of ‘how to deal with IP on the internet?’

According to WIPO:

The absence of territorial limits on the internet, along with the scope it offers for anonymity, has opened the door to infringements of intellectual property (IP) rights that are new in both nature and scale. Tangible counterfeit or pirated goods of almost every category are traded or exploited online, be it through legitimate business platforms such as online auction-houses, or through websites which trumpet their illicit character. Massive amounts of copyright-protected content in digital form, including software, music, films, electronic games and text, are also distributed online without the copyright owners’ consent, via dedicated websites or file-sharing networks.

The enforcement of IP rights with regard to such activities raises a number of legal questions. From an international perspective, the most comprehensive set of rules relating to the enforcement of IP rights is contained in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). While a number of standards set out by this instrument apply equally to the offline and the online dimension of IP enforcement, infringements carried out over the internet pose some very specific obstacles to effective enforcement, which are not addressed in the TRIPS Agreement or in any other global treaty. (WIPO 2007)

The WIPO Internet Treaties 14 are designed to update and supplement the existing international treaties on copyright and related rights, namely, the Berne Convention (WIPO no date) and the Rome Convention (WIPO 1961). They respond to the challenges posed by the digital technologies and, in particular, the dissemination of protected material over the global networks that make up the internet. The contents of the WIPO Internet Treaties can be divided into three parts: (1) incorporation of certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement 15 not previously

14 Having reached their 30th ratification or accession, both treaties have entered into force: the WCT on 6 March 2002 and the WPPT on 20 May 2002. A collection of information resources on WIPO’s work as it relates to the WCT and WPPT is available at: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/index.html

15 The World Trade Organization (WTO)’s TRIPS Agreement (the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) came into effect on 1 January 1995,

included explicitly in WIPO treaties (e.g., protection of computer programs and original databases as literary works under copyright law); (2) updates not specific to digital technologies (e.g., the generalised right of communication to the public); and (3) provisions that specifically address the impact of digital technologies.

4.5.1 The convergence of creativity and technology

As technology develops, copyright law has had to catch up, adapting its core principles to changes each time a new means and ways of creating, using and disseminating works appears. However, the challenges to copyright posed by the convergence of computer and communications technologies are more far-reaching than ever before.

While the internet represents an enormous opportunity for the creative and cultural industry (CCI), it poses a serious threat to the enforcement of IP rights. When they first appeared, innovations like photocopiers and videocassette recorders dramatically altered the nature of copyright enforcement, by making infringement inexpensive and easy. The infringing copies, however, were analogue and usually of a progressively reduced quality compared to the original. Today, modern technologies permit even easier reproduction and dissemination of works, higher-quality copies and a greater concentration of value.16

and is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property, covering: copyright and related rights; trademarks, including service marks; geographical indications, including appellations of origin; industrial designs; patents, including the protection of new plant varieties; layout-designs of integrated circuits; and undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data. The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards of protection to be provided by members, specifies domestic procedures and remedies for enforcement of intellectual property rights, and makes disputes about TRIPS obligations subject to WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. Further information and texts are available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

16 Digital technology offers the opportunity to make perfect copies with levels of speed, accuracy and volume well beyond what formerly existed. Each copy in turn can be further reproduced and disseminated, without any loss of quality. Even more significant, is the ability of this technology to make works available to the public in large numbers almost instantaneously. Digital networks allow dissemination to many individuals from a single point; each recipient on the network can engage in further dissemination of the work, causing the work to spread exponentially.



Against this background of technological evolution, in recent times SIDS in the OECS (and the wider Caribbean) are coming to understand and appreciate the importance of the cultural and creative industry to their economic and sustainable development.

4.6 The creative and cultural industry (CCI) as an engine of growth in the OECSThe CCI is one of the fastest growing sectors worldwide. In a 2019 Note, UNCTAD assessed the contribution of the creative economy to global GDP as being 3% (UNCAD 2019). In 2017, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) indicated that the creative economy generated annual revenues of US$2,250 billion and global exports of more than US$250 billion. UNESCO further noted that according to recent forecasts, cultural and creative industry sectors would represent around 10% of global GDP in the years to come (UNESCO 2018; Nurse et al. 2009). In the OECS, the CCI is dominated by micro, small or medium enterprises (MSMEs), with micro-enterprises and freelancers representing a large percentage of all actors. Since the early 2000s, the CCI has been identified as a key driver of economic growth across the Caribbean. Studies have attempted to define the economic contribution of copyright-based industries in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago (James et al. 2007; 2012). More focused studies have been carried out on the art and crafts sector in Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines (OECS 2011), and on the music and audio-visual sector in the OECS.

As stated in the Actions for our Creative Ecosystems 2010 –2012 report (Burke et al. 2011), the OECS members’ interest in their cultural industry sector can be traced back at least two decades. Yet, it was only from 2005 that any serious attempts were made to map the structure and performance of the sectors. In this regard, several studies were commissioned, including an analysis of festivals in the Anglophone Caribbean.17 The Nurse study mapped the structure and economic performance of festivals in Saint Lucia and St Kitts and Nevis, which were examined in terms of their structure and impact on their respective economies (i.e. tourist arrivals, hotel

17 Burke et al. 2011. This report lays out a development pathway for the OECS’ music and audio-visual industries.

accommodation, visitor satisfaction and benefit to cost analysis). The study’s findings suggested that there was great potential for growth, if the requisite support mechanisms were put in place.

Nurse 2005 presented a broad outline of the key policy interventions and of initiatives that needed to be undertaken by a range of CCI stakeholders. A short list of the main recommendations for fostering a local environment conducive to the development of the cultural industries included the following policy-oriented measures:

• Improved government–industry relations, through the harmonisation of government policies on trade, industry and IP. Proactive policies aimed at promoting cultural diversity and investment in the cultural sector should be preserved in bilateral and multilateral negotiations (for example, WTO) and in inter-regional arrangements (e.g. free trade area agreements [FTAA] and regional economic partnership agreements).

• Documenting the economic impact of the cultural industries and establishing benchmarks, targets and policy measure to promote employment generation, enterprise development, industrial upgrading and export expansion.

• Increasing local and regional content on the airwaves (radio and TV), through local content legislation/regulation where needed. Encouraging and facilitating the ‘uploading’ of local and regional content onto the World Wide Web, for example, through the webcasting of festivals and events.

• Copyright protection and collective administration forming a vital component of the policy agenda, including an anti-piracy enforcement and a public awareness campaign. National and regional rights management centres should be established for multiple areas of the cultural industries (for example, music and book publishing).

While the CCI might be cited for growth and development, SMEs in the CCI often lack good knowledge of innovation management, e-skills and access to finance. They also show low adoption of state-of-the-art ICT and target markets, which are often fragmented and localised, thus increasing the market entry costs and reducing their international competitiveness.



In 2006, the Caribbean Export Development Agency developed a strategic plan to inform support for the cultural industries under the 9th European Development Fund. The plan addressed some of the critical challenges facing Caribbean cultural industries and outlined four areas for support. The OECS facilitated an audit (2007) and stakeholder meeting (2008), which successfully analysed the structure and concerns of industry practitioners. Nurse 2005 and the subsequent Caribbean Export Development Agency strategic plan outlined a set of recommendations to improve industry performance and productivity (Nurse 2005).18

At the same time, other studies focused on broader economic development in SIDS, highlighting the essential role that technology plays in enabling a country to achieve and sustain rapid economic growth. This growth is highly dependent on the effectiveness with which institutions (or clusters of institutions) and policies support the technological progress and innovativeness of its (creative) enterprises. These studies advocate ‘policy reform to enable countries to assess their performance in this [technological] domain, exchange experiences and make tangible improvements’ (ibid).

There is no doubt that the CCI features on national innovation and economic development agendas across the OECS. While each country has its distinctive music, arts and crafts, carnival and other forms of creative expression, the internet is providing new opportunities to enhance and promote CCI across the region.

Globally, the increased interaction of CCI with ICT has led to: (a) new forms of artistic expression and entirely new genres of art (e.g. new media art, digital art, video art); (b) new understandings

18 This innovative study documents that Caribbean carnivals and indigenous music festivals have been pivotal to the development of the cultural industries and arts sector: ‘Festivals give a fillip to the entertainment sector through creating new clients, markets and media exposure thereby facilitating export expansion. They also stimulate infrastructure development, heritage conservation and investment into the arts. Festival tourism also makes an important contribution to the wider economy in that it (1) increases government tax receipts, generates employment and sectoral linkages between the tourism, travel and cultural industries; (2) it is a cost effective means of building destination image and attracts new business sponsorship and cross promotion opportunities; (3) it has a multiplier effect on the wider economy and a spill-over effect on ancillary sectors like the media and advertising industries, auto rentals and restaurants’ (Nurse 2005).

of creativity (e.g. in-museum, in-theatre and in-gallery apps); (c) new materials, processes and tools for creative practices; (d) new business models, digital market places, consumer groups and distribution channels, as well as entirely new ways of marketing and selling creative products, tools, apps and services; (e) new forms of user–producer interaction and collaboration; (f) new virtual communities of creators and innovators; and (g) new forms of creativity, such as human-free and computational creativity.

However, technology is also transforming old-school creative endeavours – music is being remixed and disseminated via new media, for example, downloads and live streaming; whereas in theatre and film, artificial intelligence is enhancing the way that art is being presented and experienced by the audience.

While ICT innovation has been trickling into CCIs across the OECS since the early 2000s (driven primarily by the diaspora in developed countries and by nationals who travelled overseas), the COVID-19 pandemic and the closing of national borders in early 2020, has brought an urgency for greater digital transformation across the region. As conventional forms of trade have been disrupted, e-commerce has emerged as a key survival strategy for many CCI enterprises across the OECS.

As CCI entrepreneurs adopt digital technology for e-commerce, they are preoccupied with ensuring the viability of their business. Given the pressure to adapt quickly, many CCI entrepreneurs are focused solely on the upside of the opportunity and fail to see or to fully appreciate the risks associated with e-commerce.

As e-commerce continues to grow and redefine trade across the OECS, many governments have been caught unprepared, especially when it comes to the CCI. CCI enterprises operate within complex business environments, defined both by the standard regulations concerning business and broader issues such as IP rights.

A key objective of this assignment is to define the critical issues posed by rapid expansion of e-commerce in the OECS, accompanied by a clear set of recommendations to ensure that e-commerce is facilitated and not stymied in the member states and across the wider region. However, rather than viewing this as a definitive exercise, the OECS member states should see



this as a first step in a more extensive process of continuous assessment, to ensure that their legal and regulatory framework keeps pace with the changes that are coming fast and furiously.

As mentioned before, the internet has revolutionised the way of distributing and sharing information and works of art, as well as how we collaborate in their co-production and co-creation. To gain a greater understanding of this changing landscape, this situational analysis will look more closely at the music sector later in this chapter.

4.7 Gap analysis of the OECS legislative landscape for IP-related aspects of e-commerceThis part of the assignment looks at the legislative landscape in each of the OECS countries, focusing on how IP relates to e-commerce and highlighting the gaps that must be addressed.

Legal systems across the OECS (and the wider Caribbean) are struggling to keep pace with the needs of the new information age. The traditional means of protecting IP rights are no longer fit for purpose. IP rights that are territorial in nature, meaning they only have a legal effect in the jurisdiction in which they were granted, are being challenged by the borderless nature of e-commerce.

Conventional legal penalties and enforcement mechanisms are inadequate to tackle electronic crimes such as online fraud, ID theft and spamming. While new legislation is being enacted in individual OECS countries, the regional grouping needs to find more effective solutions to create robust systems for tackling these crimes, while anticipating novel challenges that will arise as the internet continues to evolve. Given the dynamism of the digital economy and the risk of falling behind, it is recommended that the OECS adopts a visionary and proactive stance to better regulate the online ecosystem, while allowing for it to continue expanding.

Only by respecting IP and fostering the development of IP rights that are effective in fostering online trade, can we achieve high-performing, competitive markets. The issue of IP protection in e-commerce is a complex challenge, especially when tackling the online sale of counterfeit products. It involves more and

better co-operation and joint governance among relevant stakeholders, and the sharing of data and technologies among government authorities, IP rights holders and e-commerce platforms. Such an approach is essential if we are to make a real difference, achieve mutual benefit and ensure that e-commerce continues to thrive.

According to the Project Document for the World Bank Caribbean Digital Transformation Project, which is currently being implemented in the OECS member states of Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines, ‘Cross-cutting enablers of the digital economy such as cybersecurity, data use, and privacy are lagging in the region, and presents an opportunity for increased standardisation, harmonisation and collaboration between countries.19

OECS countries lack comprehensive polices, legislation, standards and capacity in these areas. This limits citizens’ trust that their personal information is safe when transacting online and in the ability of governments and the private sector to protect critical, digitally reliant infrastructure and information systems. Additionally, the lack of regional standards for these areas hinders domestic and cross-border digital service delivery, and limits the potential to achieve the scale needed to attract private investment and incentivise innovation and local content development within the region.

Over the last two decades, UNCTAD has been carrying out fundamental work on e-commerce and legislative reform in developing countries.20 The study Towards e-commerce legal harmonization in the Caribbean (UNCTAD 2017) underscores that, ‘The establishment of adequate legal frameworks can facilitate the transition to a digital economy and the take-up of e-commerce in-country but also regionally and internationally by reducing uncertainties, enhancing trust and addressing potential harms.’

This study reports on progress made by the countries regarding electronic transactions/electronic signatures, online protection of

19 World Caribbean Digital Transformation Project (Project ID: P171528) See: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/loans-credits/2020/06/22/eastern-caribbean---caribbean-digital-transformation-project

20 Including promoting international dialogue on issues related to ICTs for Development and contributing to building developing countries’ capacities to measure the information economy and to design and implement relevant policies and legal frameworks (UNCTAD).



consumers, protection of personal data, industrial and intellectual property, domain names, cybercrime, security of information, and pending legislation and challenges.

See Appendix 1, which provides a summary of e-commerce legislation in OECS member states. It is adapted from the UNCTAD Global Cyberlaw Tracker,21 which sets out the legislative instruments that address e-transactions, consumer protection, data protection and cybercrime.

Needs analyses have recognised that legislative reform in each of the OECS countries, as well as legal harmonisation across the subregion, are key. However, there are challenges both at the top and the bottom. As OECS policymakers continue to draft and enact new laws geared towards facilitating e-commerce, they need to understand the depth and breadth of the issues and appreciate that digital transformation is critical to their countries’ survival.

A 2015 workshop targeting a mix of representatives from business, industry/trade associations and the legal fraternity was held by the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) in collaboration with UNCTAD (ACS 2015). Focusing on legislative reform, topics included e-government strategy; mobile commerce; and trade facilitation geared towards increasing Caribbean businesses’ participation in regional/global markets and supply chains.

During the OECS Regional Consultation on E-commerce, hosted by the Commonwealth Secretariat and OECS Secretariat in November 2019, training was identified as essential to establishing the legislative framework and regulatory instruments necessary to manage electronic commerce and reap the associated gains. Notwithstanding the work that is being done in multilateral agencies such as UNCTAD and the WTO, the treatment of some issues in these forums lacks specificity to the local context of the OECS and there is significant scope to improve the information that is accessible to non-specialists.

21 Since 2015, the UNCTAD Cyber Law Tracker has been mapping e-commerce legislation in the areas of e-transactions, data protection, cybercrime and consumer protection online. See: https://unctad.org/topic/e-commerce-and-digital-economy/e-commerce-law-reform/summary-adoption-e-commerce-legislation-worldwide Tracker available at: https://unctad.org/page/cyberlaw-tracker-country-detail

To ensure that the importance of e-commerce is appreciated by all stakeholders, first, efforts must be made to communicate the key issues to a wide cross-section of stakeholders; and second, groups of stakeholders must be trained in how to benefit from e-commerce and the dynamic digital environment that facilitates it. The current project will recommend a training module to deepen the knowledge of key stakeholders on key legal issues related to e-commerce. The training module will intend to demonstrate why e-commerce laws are essential, both at the national level and across the OECS, and the potential impact of a more comprehensive legal framework in areas such as:

• increased participation in regional/global markets and supply chains;

• e-government strategy;

• mobile commerce; and

• e-payment systems.

4.8 Exporting OECS creativity: a case study of music e-commerceThe music industry offers important e-commerce opportunities for OECS countries. As services continue to assume a greater share of output in the global knowledge-based economy, the music sector is among the fastest growing and most internationally competitive. In the last two decades, the potential for music to generate significant export earnings has been recognised across the Caribbean,22 in addition to employment creation and promotion of national culture. Furthermore, there are strong complementary links to other sectors, notably tourism, which is a leading source of income in OECS countries, and the wider multimedia spectrum.

Current global trends clearly demonstrate that the share of developing countries’ participation in e-commerce-type activities in global trade is growing steadily. For the creative sector, all indicators are on the increase, especially around music, owing to the unique characteristics of the music products and services, notably:

22 Several studies have been done on the value and economic impact of the creative/cultural industries in some countries, for example, music in Jamaica, Carnival in Trinidad & Tobago.



a. Music is universal, with fewer language and cultural barriers than any other tradable creative product. Hence it lends itself easily to transmission and distribution over the internet.

b. Music can be relatively easily transmitted (compressed and transmitted) in order to obtain good-quality musical sound.

c. The global demand for music is on the increase worldwide, associated with the proliferation of broadcast media and online channels.

d. The distribution of music is increasingly via the internet, that is, through direct digital downloading and streaming services, such as Spotify. Such ‘customised listening’ is already well established in developed markets and is spreading rapidly throughout the OECS countries.

e. There is increasing acceptance and use of e-commerce as an additional channel of distribution by global music consumers (UNCTAD 2002).

Digital music can be stored, transmitted and consumed without deteriorating in any way. E-commerce in music represents the culmination of a long-term process of innovation and technical change in ICTs. As the dissemination of digital music becomes easier, this will continue to impact the music sector and the related audio-visual sector.

4.8.1 Music videos are increasingly important for visibility and promotion

The increased use of the internet as a primary media source, along with the growth of mobile digital devices and other digital platforms as important sources for entertainment media, have opened new opportunities for music video promotion and revenue generation, as well as legal challenges. Industry-players are trying to capitalise on the potential market for downloading and streaming of music videos.

Electronic transmission takes many forms, including: digital downloads – this allows the user to download music or a music video for later use, which can be permanent or conditional; non-interactive webcasting – this resembles a radio broadcast, where the user is provided with a pre-programmed or semi-random combination of tracks, e.g. Pandora or iHeartRadio; and on-demand streaming – which is an interactive service that allows the user to listen to any songs on the service’s database.

As streaming has become the standard way that music is consumed, a particular track can easily be forgotten or lost in ‘a sea of content’. A music video can give a new dimension to a track and serve to boost the artist’s visibility and exposure exponentially. From a marketing perspective, music videos are used to promote the sale of an artist’s work. By telling a story, a music video encourages the audience to listen and draws them in, persuading them to buy it. Creating a memorable visual experience increases a song’s value, by increasing its chance to be sold/streamed. Streaming services, like Spotify, have started incorporating and curating video content, making it available as part of their premium offerings. While the video might boost streams or downloads of the audio track, there is limited scope for the actual video to be sold, as fans are used to getting unlimited video content for free on YouTube.

One of the most significant hurdles that Caribbean music-makers face is distribution. Most Caribbean record labels or individual music-makers look to North American distributors or other companies offering mechanical royalty collection services, such as CDBaby, TuneCore and Audiam. The latest company ‘on the block’ is DistroKid, which puts subscribers’ music into a range of online stores and streaming services, notably Spotify, TikTok, Pandora, Amazon, Instagram, YouTube, Tidal, iHeartRadio and Deezer.

At a recent online forum held to commemorate Reggae Month in Jamaica, a participant commented, ‘Digital technology has really revolutionised the music industry. Today, record shops are few and far between… once your music is online, you can have customers from anywhere.’

4.8.2 COVID-19 challenges creativityWhen the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, concert venues and bars across the world were hastily closed. As tours, music festivals and other live events were cancelled, musicians and many other professionals in the music sector suddenly found themselves out of work and struggling to make ends meet.

For many musicians in the OECS, the challenge of island-wide lockdown was a big adjustment, but the hardest blow struck was when Carnival was cancelled in the respective islands. As an Antiguan musician and producer recollects, ‘When they



cancelled Carnival, it’s like we lost our motivation. So much of the music produced in the country revolves around Carnival.’

While many persons are still struggling, barely able to make a fraction of what they used to earn for live performance or studio sessions, some music-makers have pivoted by embracing ICTs and are learning streaming technology and holding private virtual concerts or parties. Other musicians are giving online music lessons, whereas artists with capital to invest have managed to use e-commerce to sell merchandise.

Some of these concerts or parties require patrons to pay to access the livestream, whereas others are free and serve as a way to keep artists connected to their fan base.

The sentiment that musicians are adapting to survive is embodied in a recent single, called ‘Home Again’ from Antigua and Barbuda:23

HOME AGAIN24

Ah jamming up in mi house againJamming inside mi home again…Ah zooming it up wid all mi friendsLike wi jamming inside a fete again

We insideBut we feting stillCause soca is lifeWe go virtual but wi still bring the vibe

If you want to see wi then go onlineLog on now, cause we streaming live.All when we lock down soca never back down…We jamming in wi house like we jamming on the road…

As a new wave of COVID-19 infection continues to spread across the region, in February 2021, Grenada announced that it would not be holding ‘Spicemas’ for the second consecutive year (The Gleaner 2021). Other OECS countries will soon have to communicate their decision regarding Carnival and/or their signature music festivals – will they cancel outright or move the activities online?

23 Music video available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhJnHiDNXE

24 Excerpts from ‘Home Again’ Copyright, 2021. Music, written and arranged by Gavin Christopher; Lyrics: Mervyn ‘Sleepy’ Edwards; Performers: Kenne Blessing, Mervyn ‘Sleepy’ Edwards, Claudette ‘CP’ Peters.

Music production and distribution – revenue streams from e-commerce:

• Virtual shows with an online payment solution, for example, PayPal, set up to accept ‘ticket sales’.

• YouTube Channel+Partner Program. YouTube channels can serve as extensions of virtual shows, as videos are online and available on demand. While YouTube content is primarily free, there is scope for artists to earn money through advertising.

• Physical merchandise sales.

• Crowdfunding (funding support from fans in the form of pre-selling music, merchandise and experiences).

• Royalties can be earned through several mechanisms, notably via streaming, digital performance, for mechanical rights and public performance, as well as for neighbouring rights. As artists find creative ways to get their songs on internet playlists and the radio and heard by the public, they will continue to earn royalties.

• Digital music sales (for example, downloads on iTunes).

• Endorsements (partnerships or other forms of collaboration with brands).

• Publisher advances, record label advances and record label support (for artists who are already signed or who are being courted by a record label).

• Synch licensing (use of an artist’s music in film, TV, commercials or video games).

• Composing commissions – creating new soundtracks for film, TV, etc.

• Grants (funding from the government, not-for-profits or charities that support music projects).

• Voice acting (for voice acting platforms, such as Audible).

• Virtual speaking or teaching (targeting companies or individuals who can afford to pay for a lecture or ongoing workshops).

• Producing (for record labels and other artists).



• Session musician fees (music production has not stopped and a lot of producers and artists need other artists to record tracks from home to add to their songs/compositions).

4.8.3 The potential of blockchain technology being a ‘gamechanger’ for the CCI

Blockchain technology is a type of distributed ledger or database that keeps records of digital transactions. However, rather than having a central administrator like a traditional database, a distributed ledger has a network of chronologically evolving replicated databases, synchronised using the internet and visible to anyone within the network.25

It is important to note that blockchain can only be updated by consensus between participants in the system, and once new data are entered, they can never be erased. It is a write-once, append-many technology, making it a verifiable and auditable record of every transaction. According to pundits, blockchain is a highly ‘disruptive technology’; that is, it’s not only shifting the way we use the internet, but it is also revolutionising the global economy.

25 When a digital transaction is carried out, it is grouped in a cryptographically protected block with other transactions that have occurred within a certain period (for example, with Bitcoin, this period is 10 minutes) and is sent out to the entire network. ‘Miners’ (members in the network with high levels of computing power) then compete to validate the transactions by solving complex coded problems. The first 16 miners to solve the problem and validate the block receive a reward (for example, in the Bitcoin blockchain network, a miner would receive bitcoins). The validated block of transactions is then time stamped and added to a chain in a linear, chronological order. New blocks of validated transactions are linked to older blocks, making a chain of blocks that show every transaction made in the history of that blockchain. The entire chain is continually updated, so that every ledger in the network is the same, giving each member the ability to prove who owns what at any given time. The distributed, open and cryptographic nature of blockchain allows people to trust each other and transact peer to peer, making the need for intermediaries obsolete. This also brings potential security benefits. Hacking attacks that commonly impact large centralised intermediaries like banks would be extremely unlikely to be successful on a blockchain. For example, if someone wanted to hack into a particular block in a blockchain, they would need to hack into that specific block as well as all of the proceeding blocks, going back the entire history of that blockchain. Further, they would need to do it on every ledger in the network, which could be millions, simultaneously. Blockchain is hence a highly disruptive technology. Advocates argue that it is the most important IT invention since the internet and that it could shape many industries (Thompson 2016).

By enabling the digitisation of assets, blockchain is driving a fundamental shift from the internet of information, where we can instantly view, exchange and communicate information, to the internet of value, where we can instantly exchange assets, and where trust is established not by central intermediaries but through consensus and complex computer code (The Economist 2015).

4.8.4 How blockchain works for the music industry

In a 2017 paper entitled ‘The Impact of Digital Innovation and Blockchain on the Music Industry,’ (De Leon et al. 2017),26 presents a thought-provoking analysis of the potential of blockchain to further disrupt the music industry:

The Internet has rearranged the music industry in a vertical structure that now reaches the lowest commercial levels of the music business. The reorganisation of the value chain, though marginal throughout the 20th Century, has accelerated up since the emergence of streaming services early in the 21th Century. The novel introduction of blockchain technology in the second half of the 2010s foretells an even more radical change to the industry structure based on the ability of the distributed ledgers to steer the industry toward a distributed model. The technology, though in its infancy, holds the potential to drastically alter the entire music supply chain. The technology presents interesting policy issues related to registering and monetising IP, policing piracy, and creating and executing more flexible contracts between and among members of the music supply chain, among others. (ibid.)

Figure 4.1 depicts a rudimentary schematic representation of how blockchain would work for music.

Given the ability of blockchain to bring all stakeholders to one platform to share data and execute smart contracts, De Leon et al (2017) suggest that the technology can be used to address some important issues in the music industry. For example:

1. Improving the prospect for price optimisation and increased transparency along the value chain.

26 See: https://publications.iadb.org/en/impact-digital-innovation-and-blockchain-music-industry



2. Flexible pricing and revenue optimisation: A more frequent user of a composition could be charged differently from a sparing user, in contrast with existing models, which do not allow for such dynamic pricing. Similarly, performance rights organisations (PROs) could charge end-users (e.g. hotels and restaurants) based on usage, as opposed to a fixed rate. On the other hand, consumers of music could be required to pay simply for the items they play, as opposed to for entire catalogues offered by PROs, as is currently practised.

3. Superior valuation: The dynamic assessment of music usage could allow for greater flexibility in IP valuation. This might contribute to boosting industry revenue. In fact, dynamic revaluation of a composition may be possible. In summary, the technology could allow the industry to capture a greater upside. This is undoubtedly good news for indigent and aspiring artists, who often sell themselves short because they lack negotiating power.

While smaller artists can use streaming services like Spotify to get exposure, they still rely on Spotify’s royalty rate, which is quite low. Blockchain could allow an artist to set their own rate or perhaps even set up superior price optimisation models through smart contracts. Smart contracts could involve provisions with options that should a specific musical item get greater market traction, then the royalty rate or enduser pricing could be automatically adjusted.

4. Speedier payments: Artists could be paid much quicker than they are with prevalent systems, which often have inordinate delays. While blockchain is unlikely to change the fact that artists are paid last, since all parties would share the same ledger, the time it takes for artists to get paid would likely decline drastically, alleviating some of their problems.

5. Development of new methods of promotion: Blockchain could also foster a generation of new music business models, wherein

Figure 4.1 Blockchain system for the music industry

Source: Replicated from De Leon et al. 2017.



consumers could also become promoters. This development would be a logical progression of many features made possible by Spotify, wherein users share their preferences with their friends. Conceivably, blockchain could offer monetary rewards (in the form of micropayments) to avid listeners who also zealously promote their favourite music.

The paper (ibid.) also outlines some of the limitations of blockchain technology, noting that it could have a downside for the music industry or some of its players. Chief among these considerations are the following:

1. Sharing revenue: It is unclear whether blockchain would significantly enrich the artists’ or authors’ share of revenue. It is important to remember that the technology creates one more intermediary: the blockchain platform. Hence this would impact the share of other members of the supply chain. However, would the share of other members decline in favour of artists and authors? To answer this question, the value proposition of the intermediaries needs to be revisited.

2. Transparency and negotiating power: While some pundits are of the view that greater transparency would bolster the negotiating powers of artists and consumers, others believe this is highly improbable. While transparency no doubt would reduce scope for wilful cheating by specific stakeholders, greater data sharing is unlikely to empower either single artists or individual consumers to become better negotiators. This does not mean the technology would not benefit consumers or artists, but such gains would come because of market forces – which smart contracts would be instrumental in unleashing.

3. Piracy: There is growing concern that blockchain could precipitate the ‘death of copyrights’ (Vogel 2015; Gabison 2016). The challenge is that it would be almost impossible to secure liability of infringement once there is a decentralised network to which a pirated version of a work can be uploaded. Despite the encryption capabilities of blockchain, it is unclear whether the technology could reduce piracy overall. While specific blockchain

platforms may truly be immune to piracy, a composition stolen through other means could still be amenable to quick replication and proliferation on the internet or through the underworld ‘dark web’. Thus, revenue lost through piracy is unlikely to decline substantially, unless there is concerted enforcement globally.

4.8.5 Policy issues related to blockchain use in the music industry

Smart contracts

Currently, there are many contracts between various parties: musician/publisher to label, PROs to end-users, PROs to musicians, etc. A smart contract could create a single algorithm governing the relationship among all parties. But these contracts will involve music creators and consumers in different jurisdictions, and the owner of the blockchain platform may have a role in denying certain provisions of the contract or be subject to its own laws in its jurisdiction. A smart contract is just an algorithm, which raises issues related to jurisdiction. It is unclear which jurisdiction will have authority to interpret and enforce the contract or prosecute its violation. Policy modernisation would require two areas of focus: one around smart contracts and whether they encourage provisions that fairly compensate all parties, especially authors; the second on how standing and culpability will be defined.

Intellectual property

Unlike patents, major disputes over music copyrights typically do not revolve around ownership (that is, some other artist claiming to be the rightful creator of a piece of art, or plagiarism), but around non-payment by consumers enjoying the music (through piracy). There are two key issues related to copyright: assignment27 and piracy. While the former was relatively untouched with the advent of the internet, the internet created substantial opportunities for rapid replication and piracy

27 A copyright assignment is when the copyright holder transfers ownership of the copyright to another person or organisation. The copyright holder is normally the person who created the work, but they may decide to sign the work over to a music publisher or record label. This occurs because publishers and record labels have more resources than an author to print copies of the work, develop it and distribute it to a broader audience.



of music, thus challenging existing institutions. Blockchain is expected to impact both aspects of copyrights.

How might this play out in the real world? A musician could self-certify on blockchain. A distributed ledger could then authenticate the author’s ownership. However, what if the creator of the register on the blockchain is not the rightful owner to begin with, perhaps having stolen it from the original creator? In this scenario, it is unclear whether blockchain registry would completely solve the issue of rightful ownership. It is likely that digital signatures could serve as complementary or supplementary evidence of rightful creatorship, with institutions currently involved in the verification process for IP needing to reform accordingly.

As De Leon et al (2017) conclude:

It is unclear if blockchain will really harmonise the fragmented music industry or add to the cacophony of issues… Despite the pervasive simplistic notion that technology liberates and empowers, not all technological change is necessarily benign or benefits artists. The advent of the internet generated optimism that the technology would emancipate artists from the middlemen and allow them to monetise their art unencumbered by traditional business models. While the industry no doubt morphed and obsolete players like retailers were thankfully removed from the value chain, the internet fell short of its promise of either expanding revenue or the artists’ share. In fact, by every estimate, the internet has exacerbated their situation.

[However] there is hope that blockchain would address numerous issues plaguing the industry. And, while the transformative nature of blockchain ought to be celebrated, it would be naïve to hope that absent good policies, the industry as a whole (principally artists) will be well served merely by technological advances fuelling novel business models.

Calling for policy-makers to be more proactive, De Leon et al (2017) state frankly that:

Blockchain will not be the panacea that some techno-optimists would have us believe. While clearly we do not advocate interventions by policymakers that distort markets or stymies the advance of technology, it is our earnest entreaty that [policymakers] begin the task of understanding the promise and perils of blockchain

not merely for sake of commerce of music, but to serve and protect the artist – the creator of music itself!

The integration of blockchain in the music industry will require radical rethinking of not just how the industry is run, but the reform of laws and policies that may have long outlived their utility and may in fact be hurdles to the progressive development of the music industry in the OECS, and the wider international sphere.

4.8.6 Conclusions on intellectual property within the e-commerce ecosystem

Technologies that underlie computers, robots and smart equipment are becoming increasingly more advanced and, in turn, are transforming organisations, sectors and countries all over the world. In the OECS, while we recognise that we must embrace new technology and innovation in order to progress, we are largely users of technology, not innovators.

As SIDS operating in an increasingly competitive digitised world, OECS states will only be able to gain a competitive advantage by being well-versed in digital innovation and transformation. As the IT and other STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths)-related industries are expected to continue growing exponentially worldwide, there is an urgent need to overhaul education systems within the subregion to prepare today’s students to become not only tech-savvy future employees, but innovative entrepreneurs who are able to envision and create new technologies.

4.8.7 RecommendationsThe following is a list of priority action items to be addressed by OECS states to develop regional capacity in the area of intellectual property:

i. That they conduct a comprehensive review of the IP framework: The IP framework in the OECS member states is largely outdated and does not correspond to many real needs, either in the present or for the future. While this report has primarily explored copyright issues that emerged from our focus on the CCI, and more particularly on the music industry, the authors of this report strongly recommend that the entire IP framework in each of the OECS member states – that



is, copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks, geographical indicators, etc. – be subjected to a comprehensive review. And further, that the laws be harmonised to promote and facilitate trade between OECS member states and the existence of a level regulatory playing field across the subregion.

ii. That they develop policies to complement IP legislation: In addition to the updating of IP legislation, we recommend that policies and other support mechanisms be developed to ensure that the legal system facilitates and keeps pace with the innovations of the ICT and related industries and with the dynamism of our creative and cultural industries.

4.9 Financial services in the OECS4.9.1 Brief overview

Continued innovation in financial technology is a major driver of a successful e-commerce ecosystem. The adoption of new financial technologies offers the prospect of more consumer choice, more secure payment systems and lower-cost e-commerce transactions. Because new FinTech products are not necessarily exclusively offered by dominant and well-established financial services providers, competition regulators must exercise effective monitoring of FinTech products and their geographical markets, to ensure that any instances of anti-competitive behaviour are effectively addressed.

The financial landscape in the OECS consists of banks, credit unions, building and friendly societies, money business services, insurance companies and FinTech entities. The financial sector is regulated by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB)28 and a legal framework is uniformly in place in all the OECS territories. The legal framework29 comprises an inter-governmental agreement, harmonised legislation,30 which has been implemented in each of the six states, and rules developed by the ECCB within the scope of its mandate:

28 The ECCB is the monetary authority for the six OECS states. The agreement establishing the ECCB was signed on 5 July 1983 in Trinidad and Tobago.

29 A presentation on the ECCU Payment System, ‘Development Initiatives’, at the 13th Regional Conference of the Central Bank Operations Managers in April 2018.

30 The various pieces of legislation implemented in each member state is based upon model laws drafted by the ECCB.

• The ECCB Agreement This inter-governmental agreement was signed in 1983 and established the ECCB as the monetary authority for the eight ECCB participating governments. The primary objective of the ECCB is to maintain the Eastern Caribbean (EC) dollar and the integrity of the banking system.

• The Banking Act This Act recognised the ECCB as the ECCU’s Central Bank, with primary responsibility for the supervision of domestic banks within the region. The ultimate authority for regulating the institutions covered by the Act is jointly vested in the ministers of finance of the member territories and the ECCB.

• The Payment System Act This Act was enacted in 2008 and allows for the settlement of financial transactions through the transfer of monetary value. The ECCB has the exclusive authority for the operation, administration and supervision of payments. A Payment Council was established in 2006 and reconstituted in 2018, to provide general oversight of the payment and settlement system of the ECCB. One of the major areas of focus is to provide advice for the drafting of regulations to accompany the Payment System Act.

• The Bills of Exchange Act This Act broadly refers to foreign exchange, including wire transfers, travellers’ cheques, letters of credit and drafts.

• The Money Services Act Under this Act, money service businesses (MSBs) are licensed for the transmission of money, encashment of cheques, currency exchange, redemption of money orders and micro lending. Each territory is responsible for licensing MSBs.

• The Eastern Caribbean Automated Clearing House (ECACH) Rules The clearing house was established as a cheque-imaging and electronic payment system, which is shared by all participating banks in the ECCU and the ECCB. Payment systems in the OECS are largely dominated by cash, card payments and cheques. The ECCB’s intention is to have a single financial space where financial transactions can occur seamlessly.



However, the geographic configuration of the islands continues to present challenges, as the territories have a level of autonomy in the implementation of their laws, rules and regulations.

The financial sector in the OECS is now increasingly driven by technology and collaboration/partnerships with FinTech firms. There has also been a decline in face-to-face business and some customers are seeking reliable digital services, with mobile payments and digital wallets beginning to enter the sphere of debit and credit cards.

4.9.2 Banks in the OECSThe banking sector can be described as one of the oldest industries in the world. Technology advancement has assisted in its functionality, by reducing the problem of long lines and waiting time as well as paperwork. Within recent times, technology has allowed for the introduction of online banking and other services. In order to understand the status of the banking sector in the OECS, a brief history is provided:31

Banks are licensed by the ECCB under the Banking Act of 2015. Part ll Licences, Clauses 3-19 of the Act states that:

The Central Bank has the authority under this Part to issue and revoke licences. The issuance of one licence will authorize a financial institution to operate within the territorial space of the Currency Union and all branches of a licensed financial institution across the Currency Union will be deemed to be one licensed financial institution.

Over the years, the ownership of banks in the ECCU has largely changed from British and Canadian parent companies to Caribbean-owned banks. Table 4.2 shows the breakdown of the banks in the six OECS territories. Recent changes have seen the sale of Scotia Bank branches in the OECS to the Republic Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, while Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) has agreed to sell all its Eastern Caribbean bank branches to a consortium of indigenous banks in the OECS. The sale of Royal Bank was due to be finalised shortly at the time of writing.

Appendix 7 of this report, statistics on selected commercial banks, reflects statistics from selected commercial banks in six territories of the OECS. However, it should be noted that the ECCB qualified its statistics by indicating that the data collected were from selected banks. Further research revealed that not all the banks submit data to the ECCB, because of the competitive nature of the

Table 4.2 Commercial banks in the OECS

Territories Number of banks

Indigenous banks31 & regional banks Foreign-owned banks

Antigua and Barbuda

5 Antigua Commercial Bank Eastern Caribbean Amalgamated Bank

CIBC First Caribbean Ltd Roya Bank of Canada North International Bank

Dominica 4 Dominica National Bank CIBC First Caribbean Ltd Standard Commercial Bank Royal Bank of Canada

Grenada 4 Grenada Cooperative Bank Republic Bank OF Grenada Ltd

CIBC First Caribbean Ltd Royal Bank of Canada

St Kitts and Nevis

5 Bank of Nevis Ltd St Kitts – Nevis- Anguilla Bank Ltd

CIBC First Caribbean Ltd Republic Bank of St Kitts Ltd Royal Bank of Canada

Saint Lucia 5 Bank of Saint Lucia Ltd 1st National Bank of Saint Lucia Republic Bank Ltd


St Vincent and the Grenadines

5 Bank of St Vincent & the Grenadines St Vincent & the Grenadines Co-operative Bank Republic Bank Ltd


Source: ECCB Statistics (www.eccb-centralbank.org).

31 It should be noted that Indigenous banks are those banks that are capitalised within the OECS region.


www.eccb-centralbank.org


business. Figures have been fluctuating during the period 2018–19, but the asset base of the banks continues to be significant.

Commercial banks in the OECS are rapidly changing in order to take advantage of the technological developments in the financial sector, especially with the introduction of FinTech entities. E-commerce and e-payments have dictated a new financial structure. This now allows commercial banks in the OECS to realise the following benefits:

• to market their products to their customers, as well as the opportunity to offer other products and services;

• to become more innovative with their services;

• to provide internet banking, which reduces costs, gives faster delivery to their customers, as well as a high level of convenience;

• gives banks the opportunity to restructure;

• means financial transactions can now be handled in a creative manner; and

• allows standardisation of hardware and operating systems, to facilitate increased connectivity among banks and other financial entities.

The commercial banks see the FinTech entities not as competition, but as an enhancement to their products and services. Technology has emboldened customers in the OECS to scrutinise traditional banking to a greater extent.

Digital banking services offer a creative way to serve the underbanked segment of the population and SMEs in the OECS. With the introduction of smartphones, there is a great opportunity for SMEs and individuals to access basic financial services by way of a wide range of technological applications. Some products/services mainly provided by the banks, include Point of Sale (POS), Mobile Point of Sale (MPOS), mobile banking, online banking, e-wallets and electronic funds transfer (EFT). The Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) was launched in early March 2021, as a pilot project in four OECS territories, namely, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St, Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia.

For banks to be able to meet the demands of OECS stakeholders for innovative and transformative financial services and products, it will therefore

be important for these entities to merge with FinTech firms or form partnerships with them. Banks are strategically placed to continue to play an important role in the financial structure that supports the e-commerce ecosystem, given their enduring brand recognition and pre-existing B2C relationships.

4.9.3 Credit unions

Credit unions are member-based financial institutions and play a critical role in the financial sector of the OECS. As defined by the Caribbean Confederation of Credit Unions (CCCU), a credit union is:

…a co-operative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members and operated for the purpose of promoting thrift, providing credit at reasonable rates and providing other financial services to its members and are based on seven co-operative principles.

Credit unions in the OECS are licensed by the relevant government ministry responsible for co-operatives and are supervised and monitored by the financial regulatory body in each territory.

Appendix 7 shows the number of credit unions, their membership, shares and savings, as well as total assets for the years 2018 and 2019. Credit union membership in the OECS is high and ranged from 27,562 for Grenada in 2018 to 76,130 for Dominica in the same year, with membership increasing to 28, 897 and 79,424 respectively in 2019.

Credit unions help to create wealth, grow the economy and build social capital. Membership continues to grow and, with FinTech partnerships, credit unions would be able to provide faster and more efficient services. Stakeholder consultations revealed that wire transfer services were reserved to commercial banks and that credit union members had limited access to expedited payment services.

Within recent times, the credit unions in the OECS have been embracing digitisation and are beginning to get involved in applications tailored to suit the needs of their members. Many credit unions are now providing online services, the increasing popularity of which has been enabled by the continued growth in smart phone use. Bearing in mind the large membership of the credit unions, FinTech firms see the possibility of gaining market share by harnessing credit union members. It



is imperative, therefore, for the credit unions in the OECS to develop strategic partnerships with FinTech firms to better serve their members’ needs.

With the significant development and growth in this sector over the years, the ECCB has been examining legislation to allow for harmonisation in the OECS. The ECCB is strongly of the view that such harmonisation would ensure improved prudential guidelines and governance standards. However, this legislation had not yet been adopted at the time of writing.

Several credit unions in the OECS now provide online and other innovative services to their customers,32 are continuing with developments in automation, and are using a shared services network to improve their delivery to members.

4.9.4 Money service businesses

Financial regulatory bodies of the OECS provide for the licensing and regulation of money service business (MSB) providers. These MSBs are licensed for the transmission of money, encashment of cheques, currency exchange, redemption of money orders and micro lending.33 MSBs are licensed and monitored by the financial service authorities in the different territories, as identified in Table 4.5 below. There are several recognised money services business providers in the OECs, including Western Union, Money Gram, Unicomer Ltd (Courts), Fast Cash and Axcel Finance.

4.9.5 FinTech

The FinTech Association of Trinidad and Tobago defines ‘FinTech’ in the following terms:

32 For example, Jannou Credit Union, formerly Saint Lucia Civil Service Credit Union Co-operative Ltd, one of the larger credit unions in Saint Lucia, has been aggressively advertising Digital ECCB DCash to its customers.

33 Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Saint Lucia.

Fintech is the shortened version of Financial Technology which describes the use of the internet, mobile services and software technology or cloud services to perform or connect with financial services.[34]

FinTech is used by a wide cross-section of the population, including individuals, businesses (SMEs and MSMEs) and government. FinTech firms usually target underbanked and unbanked customers, who otherwise would lack access to financial products. The ‘underbanked’ are persons who do not make full use of traditional financial services, including banks. The ‘unbanked’ refers to persons who do not use or have access to any financial services at all and, as of necessity, wholly engage in cash-based transactions. The World Bank has noted that access to efficient, accessible, and safe retail payment systems and services is necessary for the large number of people who are still unserved by regulated financial service providers to be able to get access to transaction accounts (World Bank 2017). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has noted that despite recent improvements, there is further room to improve financial development in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Using the measurement tool of the IMF’s financial development index,35 in 2019, only four Caribbean states, namely Barbados, The Bahamas, St Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago, were at or above the average in the Western Hemisphere for financial development.

All of the OECS states, with the exception of St Kitts and Nevis, were below the average in the Western Hemisphere, but there were noticeable and significant differences between where each fell on the index. Saint Lucia fell just below the line

34 See: https://fintechtt.com35 The Financial Development Index is a summary index

that covers depth, access and efficiency of both financial institutions and markets.

Table 4.3 Financial regulatory bodies in the OECS

Financial regulatory body Territories

Financial Services Regulatory Commission Antigua and Barbuda

Financial Services Unit of the Commonwealth of Dominica Dominica

Grenada Authority for the Regulation of Financial Institutions Grenada

Financial Services Regulatory Authority Saint Lucia

Financial Services Regulatory Commission St Kitts and Nevis

Financial Services Authority of St Vincent and the Grenadines St Vincent and the Grenadines



indicating the average for the Western Hemisphere, whereas St Vincent and the Grenadines was at the lowest level (Berkmen et al. 2019). This disparity between OECS countries points to significant challenges that will have to be overcome to develop e-payment solutions, which will in turn support the uniform growth of e-commerce across the region.

Available data suggest that approximately 65% of the Caribbean population is unbanked and that a further 20% is underbanked.36 With this gap in mind, FinTech companies in the OECS have developed services to complement the widely used traditional banking payment system. Developers are seeking to provide services that will overcome some of the restricted trade payment systems to gain market share. The marketing strategies of FinTech companies are that their firms can provide services on a more efficient and cost-effective basis, and they can do so often in real time through online and mobile platforms.

Table 4.4 indicates the FinTech companies operating in the OECS at the time of writing.

Wipay is currently operating in Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica and will soon be in Saint Lucia. As a result of Republic Bank Limited’s presence in the OECS, it is expected that its new digital payments system, End Cash, will also soon be introduced in that market.

36 Rea Yaw Ching, Executive Director of The Covela Foundation at the Caribbean Peering and Interconnection Forum (CarPIF).

DCash was launched in four OECS territories on 31 March 2021 by the ECCB. Research into this payment system commenced in 2019. It is a securely minted digital version of the EC dollar, which will offer a safer, faster and cheaper method for making payments and sending and receiving funds. DCash is transmitted via smart devices and distributed by financial institutions and approved services providers in the OECS. There are two options with DCash:37

1 Registered base: applicable to persons with a banking account; and

2 Value based: applicable to those persons who do not have an existing banking account with a financial institution; in this case, it will facilitate low-value transactions based on pre-set values.

In its Strategic Plan 2017–2021 (ECCB 2017), the ECCB supports and encourages innovation. The central bank believes that financial innovation is essential to the growth of the OECS and is a key ‘gamechanger’ as the region forges a path to socioeconomic transformation. During his presentation on 14 June 2019, entitled ‘Virtual Currency and Cybersecurity Striking a Balance between Boundaries and Security’, the Governor of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, Timothy Antoine, stated that there would be payments

37 Launch of ECCB DCash on 31 March 2021 – Sharmyn Powell of ECCB.

Table 4.4 FINTECH companies in the OECS

FinTech Country of origin Operational territories

CaribePay St Kitts and Nevis St Kitts

DCash ECCB (OECS) Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia

JadCash St Kitts and Nevis St Kitts and Nevis

Money Matrix European Union Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines

Mpay USA St Vincent and Grenadines

Neteller United Kingdom Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines

Payswif St Vincent and Grenadines St Vincent and the Grenadines

Penny Pinch Saint Lucia Saint Lucia

Squeeze Cash Saint Lucia Saint Lucia

Sure Pay Trinidad Trinidad and Tobago

TransferWise United Kingdom Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica



system shifts after a five-year mass deployment of DCash. Although unscientific, the ECCB governor predicted in 2019, within the OECS, the demand for cash and cheques would reduce by 50% and 80% respectively by the year 2025. He also predicted an increase in the use of credit cards by 50%, debit cards by 40% and electronic payments by 60% by 2025, as compared to 2019. These predictions were based on the forecast that consumers who used cash and cheques would move to using DCash. The ECCB is confident that there will be a high level of participation in DCash by consumers and merchants.

Capacity-building for FinTech firms

With the rapid growth in the technology-driven financial services sector, there is a need to build on capacity that will impact positively on the FinTech sector in the OECS. Building the capacity of the players in this sector will enable them to continue to provide innovative e-commerce-aligned financial services, which will especially be of benefit to SMEs. Key recommendations to build capacity in this sector include:

• FinTech units should be established in the OECS territories, dedicated to start-ups and staffed with relevant expertise. Staff in these units can act as a liaison between financial service providers and regulatory bodies. The units can be responsible for managing ‘sandboxes’ and implementing programmes to encourage FinTech innovation. These are tools to mitigate uncertainty in a controlled environment and can therefore provide a safe space for testing with temporary regulations for a set period of time. In designing modern legislative frameworks, OECS states can also benefit from examining international best practice on FinTech.

• A structured mentorship programme should be established for building FinTech talents, to be provided by skilled mentors who have demonstrated success in similar areas.

• OECS governments should work with educational entities in the region, to incorporate courses at the tertiary and secondary levels.

• Partnership linkages should be facilitated between FinTech firms and large companies that can allow for internships.

• Governments should assist FinTech firms by providing digital financial literacy programmes to consumers, in order to improve trust within the sector.

• Governments, as well as other ecosystem supporters, can incentivise FinTech firms to diversify their offerings to different segments that are currently not being served.

Building a regulatory framework supportive of the development of FinTech

As a result of the upsurge in the development of FinTech firms, it is imperative to develop legislation and regulations to ensure that consumers are adequately protected and to engender a sense of consumer trust. It would therefore be imperative that regulation of FinTech products focused on issues such as the use and retention of consumer financial information (data protection and privacy) and safeguarding of customer funds.38 In his June 2019 presentation, referred to above, the ECCB governor referred to two major outcomes for the regulation of FinTech firms, namely:

1 agreement among regulators in the OECS to adopt a regional approach to review and jointly develop an appropriate framework for FinTech regulation and supervision; and

2 recommendation to the Monetary Council of the ECCB that there be a moratorium on approvals of certain services, pending legislation and regulatory review and the introduction of a revamped framework.

With the introduction of new financial products, payment system legislation in the OECS is now considered to be outdated. The Banking Act of 2008 does not make provision for emerging non-bank payment and settlement services, which are being driven by financial technology. A World Bank-funded consultancy under the Caribbean Digital Transformation Project (CARDTP) was advertised for the purpose of drafting comprehensive, uniform

38 These regulatory imperatives have also been recognised by other CARICOM states. For example, the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago has indicated that the national system in that country needs to be upgraded ‘to treat with fintech and issues such as who can assess the system, consumer protection issues and mitigation of key risks such as cyber, AML and payments and settlement risks’. See: Trinidad Express, 23 March 2021.



payment system and services legislation. This new legislation will provide a uniform legislative framework for the payment system in the ECCU and a comprehensive oversight framework and implementation roadmap pertaining to payment service providers and payment system operators.

In the absence of a harmonised legislative framework, individual OECS states have been making their own forays into the regulatory arena. St Kitts and Nevis enacted its Virtual Assets Bill in January 2020, in order to keep up with innovations in the financial industry. The innovations which inspired the Act include the introduction of new technologies, products and services as alternative means of conducting business in the financial services sector. A Digital Assets Bill was enacted in Antigua and Barbuda in May 2020. The focus of this law is the regulation of digital asset businesses. Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines are yet to pass similar legislation.

Several other pieces of financial services/e-commerce legislation, including the Electronic Transactions Act and the Data Privacy Act, are also being worked on and revised under the Caribbean Digital Transformation Project, as regional projects.

A specific issue that OECS regulators may have to confront is that of determining how best to ensure that FinTech start-ups can compete with dominant incumbents in the OECS region, by being able to access data under the control of the established financial institutions. Other jurisdictions have tackled this issue through the concept of ‘open banking’.

The EU’s revised Payment Services Directive (PSD 2) contains important provisions to support open banking. Article 35(1) of the directive requires EU member states to ensure that the rules on access to payment systems are objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate, and do not inhibit access more than is necessary. This provision supports the interests of non-incumbent payment services providers, to establish infrastructure without onerous conditions of access. Article 36 requires member states to ensure that payment services providers have access to the payment account services of credit institutions on an objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate basis. This provision is aimed at removing the barriers that new payment services providers face with respect to accessing the existing infrastructure

of dominant market players. The directive further stipulates that credit institutions are required to provide the competent authorities with duly motivated reasons for rejecting applications to access their payment systems. Most likely, regulatory oversight extends to reviewing the appropriateness of the reasons for rejection that have been provided by the credit institutions.

In the absence of comprehensive FinTech-related legislation, one solution to the issue of lack of appropriate oversight is for OECS states to develop regulatory ‘sandboxes’.

Of consequence in this regard, is that Canada’s Competition Bureau (CCB) has conducted a market study related to FinTech and, arising from this, has made several recommendations that are useful for consideration in the OECS context. These recommendations and suggestions regarding how they can influence the development of legal frameworks in the OECS are set out in Table 4.5.

Challenges to the growth of FinTech in the OECS

One of the most predominant reasons for the differing rates of the growth of FinTech in developed versus developing countries, is the digital divide that exists between the two. The existence of well-developed broadband networks and fast mobile data services in developed countries is conductive to the adoption of FinTech, which to a great degree depends on the ability of users to conveniently access financial services through mobile devices. In contrast, the technology infrastructure that supports FinTech is often found wanting in developing countries. The successful growth of FinTech in the OECS will therefore depend on the extent to which the states can, through pioneering investment and appropriate government support, develop ICT infrastructure in the region.

IT developers in the OECS have been attempting to change the landscape of the financial sector, but have faced many challenges. These include:

• poor connectivity;

• an onerous regulatory environment;

• difficulty in leveraging existing financial infrastructure;

• lack of inclusiveness within the financial sector;



Tabl

e 4.

5 Re

com

men

dati

on

of C

anad

a’s

Co

mpe

titi

on

Bur

eau

(CC

B) o

n Fi

nTec

h re

gula

tio

n

CC

B re

com

men

dati

ons

OEC

S a

pplic

atio

n

Reg

ulat

ion

shou

ld b

e te

chno

logy

-neu

tral

and

dev

ice-

agno

stic

. R

ules

that

can

acc

om

mo

date

and

enc

our

age

new

and

yet

-to

-be

deve

lope

d te

chno

logi

es o

pen

the

doo

r to

mo

re in

nova

tive

off

ers

toda

y an

d do

wn

the

road

.

OEC

S re

gula

tors

mus

t est

ablis

h ru

les

whi

ch, i

n lig

ht o

f the

pro

spec

t of e

volv

ing

tech

nol-

ogy

, are

‘fut

ure

pro

of’.

In o

ther

wo

rds,

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

s sh

oul

d an

ticip

ate

tech

no-

logi

cal a

dvan

cem

ents

and

sho

uld

be c

apab

le o

f acc

om

mo

datin

g su

ch a

dvan

cem

ent.

To t

he e

xten

t po

ssib

le, r

egul

atio

n sh

ould

be

prin

cipl

es b

ased

. In

stea

d o

f pre

scrib

ing

exac

tly h

ow a

ser

vice

mus

t be

carr

ied

out

, a

prin

cipl

es-b

ased

app

roac

h w

ill al

low

regu

lato

rs to

be

mo

re fl

exib

le in

th

eir a

ppro

ach

to e

nfo

rcem

ent a

s te

chno

logy

cha

nges

.

OEC

S re

gula

tors

sho

uld

exam

ine

the

exte

nt to

whi

ch it

wo

uld

be a

ppro

pria

te to

co

n-st

ruct

regu

lato

ry s

yste

ms

on

a fr

amew

ork

of b

road

prin

cipl

es.

Reg

ulat

ion

shou

ld b

e ba

sed

on t

he fu

ncti

on a

n en

tity

car

ries

out

. T

his

will

ensu

re th

at a

ll ent

ities

that

per

form

the

sam

e fu

nctio

n ca

rry

the

sam

e re

gula

tory

bur

den,

and

that

co

nsum

ers

have

the

sam

e pr

o-

tect

ions

whe

n de

alin

g w

ith c

om

petin

g se

rvic

e pr

ovi

ders

.

OEC

S re

gula

tors

sho

uld

ensu

re th

at re

gula

tions

app

licab

le to

Fin

Tech

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

ar

e ne

utra

l in e

ffec

t and

are

no

t dis

crim

inat

ory

. The

focu

s o

f ‘fu

nctio

n-ba

sed’

regu

latio

n sh

oul

d be

to e

nsur

e th

at in

cum

bent

fina

ncia

l ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

and

sm

alle

r Fin

Tech

ser

-vi

ces

pro

vide

rs a

re re

gula

ted

in th

e sa

me

man

ner a

nd th

at, b

y vi

rtue

of a

n un

due

regu

la-

tory

bur

den,

nei

ther

type

of p

rovi

der i

s pl

aced

at a

co

mpe

titiv

e di

sadv

anta

ge. T

he

mai

nten

ance

of a

n eff

ectiv

e ba

lanc

e o

f co

mpe

titio

n w

ill be

to th

e be

nefit

of c

ons

umer

s.

Reg

ulat

ion

sho

uld

be p

ropo

rtio

nal t

o ri

sk. T

his

requ

ires

a tie

red

appr

oac

h. T

hose

func

tions

, the

failu

re o

f whi

ch p

ose

s lo

wer

risk

s to

th

e fin

anci

al s

yste

m, s

houl

d no

t nec

essa

rily

face

the

sam

e st

rict o

ver-

sigh

t as

tho

se fa

ilure

s th

at p

ose

hig

her r

isks

. Thi

s w

ill gi

ve s

mal

ler p

lay-

ers

a le

vel p

layi

ng fi

eld

to in

nova

te.

OEC

S re

gula

tors

sho

uld

ensu

re th

at re

gula

tory

fram

ewo

rks

are

not o

ppre

ssiv

e bu

t sh

oul

d be

pro

port

iona

l to

risk

. Thi

s co

uld

poss

ibly

mea

n, h

owev

er, t

hat n

ew u

ntes

ted

Fin-

Tech

ser

vice

s m

ight

face

str

icte

r reg

ulat

ions

to e

nsur

e ad

here

nce

to s

afeg

uard

ing

and

oth

er p

rude

ntia

l req

uire

men

ts. R

egul

ato

ry b

urde

ns s

houl

d, h

owev

er, b

e ea

sed

for F

in-

Tech

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

who

se a

ctiv

ities

do

no

t po

se a

leve

l of h

eigh

tene

d ris

k.

Polic

y-m

aker

s sh

ould

enc

oura

ge c

olla

bora

tion

thr

ough

out

the

sect

or. M

echa

nism

s fo

r do

ing

so in

clud

e th

e us

e o

f reg

ulat

ory

san

d-bo

xes

and

inno

vatio

n hu

bs. G

reat

er c

olla

bora

tion

will

enab

le a

cle

ar

and

unifi

ed a

ppro

ach

to ri

sk, i

nno

vatio

n an

d co

mpe

titio

n.

OEC

S p

olic

y-m

aker

s sh

oul

d en

cour

age

publ

ic–p

rivat

e pa

rtne

rshi

ps in

the

FinT

ech

field

an

d co

llabo

ratio

ns b

etw

een

finan

cial

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

. Co

llabo

rativ

e ac

tiviti

es s

houl

d be

focu

sed

on

wo

rkin

g to

det

erm

ine

the

appr

opr

iate

sco

pe o

f reg

ulat

ion

and

polic

y m

easu

res

to s

uppo

rt c

ont

inue

d in

nova

tion.



Reg

ulat

ors

shou

ld p

rom

ote

grea

ter a

cces

s to

cor

e in

fras

truc

ture

an

d se

rvic

es. T

his

incl

udes

acc

ess

to th

e pa

ymen

ts s

yste

m (u

nder

th

e ap

pro

pria

te ri

sk-m

anag

emen

t fra

mew

ork

) and

ban

king

ser

vice

s to

fa

cilit

ate

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f inn

ova

tive

new

Fin

Tech

ser

vice

s.

FinT

ech

serv

ices

pro

vide

rs th

at a

re M

SM

Es o

r sta

rt-u

ps w

ill lik

ely

face

cha

lleng

es in

ac

cess

ing

criti

cal n

etw

ork

infr

astr

uctu

re to

sup

port

thei

r act

iviti

es. O

ECS

regu

lato

rs

sho

uld

cons

ider

the

ado

ptio

n o

f rul

es s

imila

r to

Art

icle

36

of t

he E

U P

aym

ent S

ervi

ces

Dire

ctiv

e (P

SD

2),

whi

ch p

rom

ote

s ac

cess

for n

ew p

aym

ent s

ervi

ces

pro

vide

rs to

the

paym

ent s

yste

ms

of e

stab

lishe

d cr

edit

inst

itutio

ns.

Polic

y-m

aker

s sh

ould

em

brac

e br

oade

r ‘op

en’ a

cces

s to

sys

tem

s an

d da

ta t

hrou

gh a

pplic

atio

n pr

ogra

mm

ing

inte

rfac

es. W

ith b

ette

r ac

cess

to c

ons

umer

dat

a (o

btai

ned

thro

ugh

info

rmed

co

nsen

t), F

in-

Tech

can

hel

p C

anad

ians

ove

rco

me

thei

r ina

bilit

y o

r unw

illing

ness

to

sho

p ar

oun

d an

d sw

itch

betw

een

serv

ice

pro

vide

rs.

FinT

ech

serv

ices

pro

vide

rs th

at a

re M

SM

Es o

r sta

rt-u

ps w

ill lik

ely

face

cha

lleng

es in

ac

cess

ing

criti

cal n

etw

ork

infr

astr

uctu

re to

sup

port

thei

r act

iviti

es. O

ECS

regu

lato

rs

sho

uld

cons

ider

the

ado

ptio

n o

f rul

es s

imila

r to

Art

icle

36

of t

he E

U P

aym

ent S

ervi

ces

Dire

ctiv

e (P

SD

2),

whi

ch p

rom

ote

s ac

cess

for n

ew p

aym

ent s

ervi

ces

pro

vide

rs to

the

paym

ent s

yste

ms

of e

stab

lishe

d cr

edit

inst

itutio

ns.

Indu

stry

par

tici

pant

s an

d re

gula

tors

sho

uld

expl

ore

the

pote

ntia

l of

dig

ital

iden

tific

atio

n ve

rific

atio

n. T

his

wo

uld

redu

ce c

usto

mer

ac

quis

itio

n co

sts

for s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

and

ulti

mat

ely

redu

ce th

e co

sts

of s

witc

hing

for c

ons

umer

s, fa

cilit

atin

g re

gula

tory

co

mpl

ianc

e w

here

id

entit

y ve

rifica

tion

is n

eede

d.

Co

untr

ies

such

as

Indi

a ha

ve d

emo

nstr

ated

that

the

ado

ptio

n o

f nat

iona

l dig

ital id

entifi

-ca

tion

verifi

catio

n sy

stem

s ca

n su

ppo

rt a

n in

crea

se in

the

num

ber o

f fina

ncia

l ser

vice

s cu

sto

mer

s. A

key

co

mpo

nent

of I

ndia

’s ‘d

igita

l Ind

ia’ p

rogr

amm

e is

the

Aad

haar

sys

tem

, w

here

by e

very

citi

zen

can

be p

rovi

ded

with

a u

niqu

e id

entifi

catio

n nu

mbe

r. T

he g

ove

rn-

men

t has

no

ted

that

the

Aad

har s

yste

m c

an b

e us

ed a

s m

eans

of p

rom

otin

g fin

anci

al

incl

usio

n, g

iven

that

citi

zens

can

, am

ong

oth

er th

ings

, use

the

Aad

har n

umbe

r to

ope

n ba

nk a

cco

unts

and

acc

ess

oth

er fi

nanc

ial s

ervi

ces.

OEC

S s

tate

s an

d re

gio

nal r

egul

ato

ry

bodi

es s

houl

d be

gin

to e

xplo

re th

e fe

asib

ility

of t

he a

dopt

ion

of a

dig

ital id

entifi

catio

n sy

stem

for t

he s

ubre

gio

n. S

uch

a po

licy

sho

uld

be a

n im

port

ant p

illar o

f eff

ort

s to

pro

-m

ote

incr

ease

d le

vels

of d

igiti

satio

n in

the

OEC

S.

Sou

rce:

The

se re

com

men

dati

ons

can

be

foun

d in

Co

mpe

titi

on

Bur

eau

of C

anad

a (2

017)

.



• the cost of developing financial applications;

• costly payment transactions; and

• user literacy being at a low level, which leads to consumer mistrust.

Recommendations to address these challenges include:

• ensuring an enabling environment;

• encouraging public–private relationships, which will reduce costs in the sector;

• that OECS governments and the ECCB should push for privacy, data and online protection legislation;

• improving connectivity and increases in hotspots;

• providing greater support, including technical assistance from OECS governments to MSMEs and SMEs;

• the offering of low-cost mobile and internet packages; and

• adoption of local content in applications to better serve clients; in this respect, using the Creole language would be an advantage.

The way forward for FinTech firms in the OECS

Developments in the FinTech sector have been happening at ‘lightning speed’. The age of FinTech has changed the lives, habits and the ways in which consumers exchange money without the need for physical interaction. FinTech is now part of the OECS commercial banking sector value chain and, to survive, banks need FinTech firms and FinTech firms need the banks.

The way forward is for greater international collaboration and co-operation, as well as more cross-border sandboxes. A harmonised legal framework and a revamped legal architecture for FinTech entities in the OECS is a necessity. Consumers make up an important ingredient in the FinTech mix: there is a need to improve financial literacy for OECS consumers.

Trinidad and Tobago has been making inroads in the development of FinTech companies, with the central bank noting the possibilities that FinTech offers to improve the efficiency and security of financial transactions, as well as financial inclusion. The Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago is,

however, concerned about the risks that these new financial innovations pose to the financial system; hence, the bank’s position is ‘open but cautious.’ The OECS therefore has a roadmap which can be adopted by following the example of Trinidad and Tobago, so it should not try to ‘reinvent the wheel.’

ReferencesAntoine, T (2019), ‘Virtual Currency and Cybersecurity Striking a Balance between Boundaries and Security’, Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, available at: https://cab-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Gov.-Timothy-Antoine-ECCB-Virtual-Currency-and-Cyber-Security-CEO-Director-Forum.pdf

Association of Caribbean States (2015), ‘E-commerce Legislation Harmonisation in the Caribbean’, workshop held from 29 September to 2 October in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Baller, S, S Dutta and B Lanvin(eds.) (2016), Global Information Technology Report 2016, Innovating in the Global Economy, World Economic Forum/INSEAD, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf

Berkmen, P et al. (2019), ‘Fintech in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stocktaking’, IMF Working Paper WP/19/71, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

Burke, S et al. (2011), ‘Re-imagining. Re-fashioning. Re-building: Actions for our creative ecosystems 2010–2012’, OECS, St Lucia.

CARICOM Secretariat (2020), ‘ICT for Development’, available at: https://caricom.org/ict-for-development-overview/

Craigen, D, N Diakun-Thibault and R Purse (2014), ‘Defining Cybersecurity’, Technology Innovation Management Review, October, available at: http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835

Caribbean Telecommunication Union (CTU) Secretariat (2017), ‘Vision and Roadmap for a CARICOM Single ICT Space’, available at: https://caricom.org/wp-content/uploads/vision_and_roadmap_for_a_single_ict_space_-_final_version_updated.pdf

Competition Bureau of Canada (2017), Technology-Led Innovation in the Canadian Financial Services Sector: A Market Study, Competition Bureau of Canada, December 2017.


https://cab-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Gov.-Timothy-Antoine-ECCB-Virtual-Currency-and-Cyber-Security-CEO-Director-Forum.pdf




http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf


https://caricom.org/ict-for-development-overview/


http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835






De Leon, I et al. (2017), The Impact of Digital Innovation and Blockchain on the Music Industry’, IDB, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Impact-of-Digital-Innovation-and-Blockchain-on-the-Music-Industry.pdf

East Caribbean Central Bank (2017), ECCB Strategic Plan 2017–2021, available at: https://www.eccb-centralbank.org

The Economist (2015), ‘Blockchain: The next big thing, Or is it?’, Special Report, 7 May, available at: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2015/05/07/the-next-big-thing

Gabison, GA (2016), ‘Policy Considerations for the Blockchain Technology Public and Private Applications’, SMU Science & Technology Law Review, available at: http://works.bepress.com/garry_gabison/16/.

The Gleaner (2021), ‘Grenada Cancels Spicemas 2021’, 26 February, Jamaica, available at: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210226/grenada-cancels-spicemas-2021

Inter-American Development Bank and Organization of American States (2016), Cybersecurity: Are We Ready in Latin America and the Caribbean? Cybersecurity Report, IDB/OAS, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Cybersecurity-Are-We-Ready-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

Inter-American Development Bank and Organization of American States (2020), Cybersecurity: Are We Ready in Latin America and the Caribbean? Updated Cybersecurity Report, IDB/OAS, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/2020-Cybersecurity-Report-Risks-Progress-and-the-Way-Forward-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

International Telecommunications Union (2018), Powering the digital economy: Regulatory approaches to securing consumer privacy, trust and security, ITU Thematic Reports, Regulatory and market environment, ITU, Geneva.

James, V et al. (2007), The Economic Contribution of Copyright-Based Industries in Jamaica WIPO, Geneva.

James, V et al. (2012), The Economic Contribution of Copyright-Based Industries in Trinidad and Tobago, WIPO, Geneva.

Nurse, K (2005), ‘Festival Tourism in the Caribbean’, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

Nurse, K. et al. (2009). The Creative Sector in CARICOM: The Economic and Trade Policy Dimensions, UWI, Cave Hill.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016), ‘Consumer Protection in E-commerce: OECD Recommendation’, OECD Publishing, Paris, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (2011), Diagnostic Review and Analysis of OECS EDU clients in the Arts & Craft Sector, Country Reports for Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines, OECS, available: https://www.oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/business/creative-industries/a-diagnostic-review-of-the-oecs-edu-clients-in-arts-and-crafts-sector-st-vincent

Thompson, C (2016, updated 2018), ‘How does the Blockchain Work? (Part 1)’, The Blockchain Review, available at: https://medium.com/blockchain-review/how-does-the-blockchain-work-for-dummies-explained-simply-9f94d386e093

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2002), Electronic Commerce and Music Business Development in Jamaica: A Portal to the New Economy? UNCTAD, Geneva.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015), Cyberlaws and regulations for enhancing e-commerce: Case studies and lessons learned, UNCTAD, Geneva.

UNCTAD (2016), Data Protection Regulations and International Data Flows: Implications for Trade and Development, UNCTAD, Geneva, UNCTAD/IER/DTL/STICT/2016/1, available at: unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study

UNCTAD (2017), Towards E-commerce Legal Harmonization in the Caribbean, UNCTAD, Geneva, available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d9_en.pdf

UNCTAD (2019), ‘How the Creative Economy Can Help Power Development’, Note, available at: https://unctad.org/news/how-creative-economy-can-help-power-development

UNCTAD, ‘United Nations Guidelines on Consumer protection’, available at: https://unctad.org/topic/competition-and-consumer-protection/un-guidelines-on-consumer-protection#


https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Impact-of-Digital-Innovation-and-Blockchain-on-the-Music-Industry.pdf




https://www.eccb-centralbank.org


https://www.economist.com/special-report/2015/05/07/the-next-big-thing


http://works.bepress.com/garry_gabison/16/


http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210226/grenada-cancels-spicemas-2021



https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Cybersecurity-Are-We-Ready-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf




https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/2020-Cybersecurity-Report-Risks-Progress-and-the-Way-Forward-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf





http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en

https://www.oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/business/creative-industries/a-diagnostic-review-of-the-oecs-edu-clients-in-arts-and-crafts-sector-st-vincent




https://medium.com/blockchain-review/how-does-the-blockchain-work-for-dummies-explained-simply-9f94d386e093



unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study

unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study

https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d9_en.pdf


https://unctad.org/news/how-creative-economy-can-help-power-development


https://unctad.org/topic/competition-and-consumer-protection/un-guidelines-on-consumer-protection#




UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2018), ‘Reshaping Cultural Policies: Advancing Creativity for Development’, press pack for launch of the 2018 UNESCO Global Report. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/global_report_fact_sheet_en.pdf

Vogel, N (2015), ‘The Great Decentralization: How Web 3.0 Will Weaken Copyrights’, Review of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 15 No. 1, 137–49, available at: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=ripl

World Bank (2017), ‘Payment Aspects of Financial Inclusion’, Note, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/brief/pafi-task-force-and-report

World Intellectual Property Organization (1961), The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, WIPO, available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/rome/index.html

WIPO (2004) WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Geneva, available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=275&plang=EN

World Intellectual Property Organization (2007), ‘IP Infringement on the Internet – Some legal IP considerations’, WIPO, available at: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2007/01/article_0005.html

WIPO, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, available at: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/


https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/global_report_fact_sheet_en.pdf



http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=ripl


https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/brief/pafi-task-force-and-report



http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/rome/index.html


https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=275&plang=EN


https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2007/01/article_0005.html


https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/


5. Summary of E-Readiness Survey Results \ 63

5. Summary of E-Readiness Survey ResultsA key component of the project was to assess the perception that OECS e-commerce stakeholders have of the state of e-readiness in the subregion. The data gleaned from this exercise were important to facilitate the drafting of recommendations, which highlight the strategies that need to be pursued at various levels in order to develop the e-commerce ecosystem in the OECS.

Data gathering interactions with stakeholders took the form of the administration of an e-readiness questionnaire and virtual regional consultations conducted via Zoom. The purpose of the consultations was to validate the survey findings and gain further insight into the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the prioritisation of actions to address identified challenges. There were 124 respondents to the survey and each of the six OECS states was represented.

The survey specifically investigated several dimensions of e-commerce readiness. The UNCTAD framework was used to assess six (6) pillars of e-commerce readiness, as shown in Table 5.1.

5.1 A-Z Gap Index – AZGIThe A-Z Gap Index was calculated for each of the six (6) pillars of e-commerce readiness that were investigated in this project.

The A-Z Gap Index was used to determine the extent to which the various indicators, and by extension the six pillars, contributed to, or prevented, the attainment of full e-commerce readiness. As such, we could ascertain the degree to which the individual indicators and their constituent pillars needed to be improved in order to be less of a gap or less of an obstacle to e-commerce readiness in the OECS region. The index is the ratio of the number of responses that indicated a gap, or the absence of e-commerce readiness, divided by the number of respondents. The calculations were based on the Likert scale responses given during the survey.

The results indicate that the regional gap index for the six (6) OECS countries, across all six pillars, was

74%. This ranged from the lowest gap of 49% in the case of Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility, to the most severe gap, found in Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery, with an A-Z Gap Index of 86%.

An indication of the relatively commendable state of Pillar 1, the national ICT infrastructure and accessibility mechanisms in the region, was borne out by the fact that the second least restrictive gap, namely, Pillar 6 E-commerce policy and regulation, with an index of 75%, was as many as 26 percentage points greater than Pillar 1. The outlier status of Pillar 1 was further emphasised because it was the only pillar with a gap index below the regional index.

Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation, lay just above the Regional Index at 75%, followed by Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 4: on Business readiness for e-commerce at 78% and 79%, respectively. The second most severe gap was Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, with a very substantial gap index of 81%.

Pillar 1: National ICT Infrastructure and accessibility mechanisms, was the best prepared of the six pillars. This was followed by the prevailing deficiencies in the policy and regulatory framework, which were established as Pillar 6. The level of readiness of the citizens, explored in Pillar 3, was slightly more advanced than the preparedness of the business community, itemised in Pillar 4. The financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, examined in Pillar 5, continued to present major challenges to the development of e-commerce in the region, while the most significant gaps to e-commerce readiness were found in Pillar 2, which probed the logistics and delivery arrangements existing in the OECS region.

As demonstrated by Figure 5.1, most efforts at reducing the gaps identified during the survey need to be focused on Pillars 2, 5, 4 and 3. The pillars identified by the respondents as presenting the lowest level of hindrance were Pillar 6, covering e-commerce policy and regulation, and Pillar 1,



which focused on national ICT infrastructure and accessibility. The requisite effort will have to be expended within each pillar across all the OECS countries.

5.2 Assessment of individual pillarsTo get a better appreciation of the results, gap indices allocated to the indicators in each of the six (6) readiness pillars, across all six (6) islands combined, will be highlighted. This will give an idea of the area and the scope of intervention required, based on the identification and severity of the gaps of the individual indicators.

The indices within this pillar showed a wide range from 7% for smart phone penetration to an AZGI of 85% for payment methods for e-commerce, presenting the widest gap. Given this range, when the indices were separated into quartiles, all indicators fell within the four groupings, namely the First, Second, Third and Fourth Quartiles

The three indicators for which the least input is required to narrow the gaps are smart phone penetration; mobile wireless penetration nationwide; and access to internet in the country with indices of 7%, 10% and 16%, respectively.

On the opposite end of the Index, the respondents identified the following four indicators, all from the Fourth Quartile, as presenting the biggest challenges to attaining the e-commerce readiness as it relates to national information technology infrastructure and accessibility across the OECS region. First, the understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, and the public sector, with an index of 76%. This was followed by the legal framework and the existence of co-ordination among institutions, both with an index value of 79%. The indicator which presented the greatest challenge was identified as payment

Table 5.1 Pillars of e-commerce readiness

Pillar 1 National ICT infrastructure and acces-sibility

Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery

Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 5 Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce

Pillar 6 E-commerce policy and regulation

Figure 5.1. AZGI regional summary – by e-readiness pillars

49%

86%78% 79% 81% 75%

PILLAR 1 INDEX

PILLAR 2 INDEX

PILLAR 3 INDEX

PILLAR 4 INDEX

PILLAR 5 INDEX

PILLAR 6 INDEX

AZGI regional summary – by pillars

Table 5.2 Regional summary by pillar

Regional summary by pillar Index

Pillar 1 Index – National ICT Infra-structure and accessibility

49%

Pillar 6 Index – E-commerce policy and regulation

75%

Pillar 3 Index – Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

78%

Pillar 4 Index – Business readiness for e-commerce

79%

Pillar 5 Index – Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce

81%

Pillar 2 Index – Logistics and delivery 86%

Regional Index 74%



Table 5.3 Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility

Pillar 1 National ICT infrastructure and accessibility # Index

1-1: Smart phone penetration 9 7%

1-1: Mobile wireless penetration nationwide 12 10%

1-1: Access to internet in the country 20 16%

1-1: Broadband penetration nationwide 24 19%

1-1: Internet connectivity/penetration 32 26%

1-1: ADSL penetration nationwide 44 35%

1-1: Quality and speed of internet connectivity 44 35%

1-1: Computer penetration 48 39%

1-1: Presence of Mobile/ADSL/Broadband in the rural areas 58 47%

1-2: IT skills among entrepreneurs or availability of skilled contractors 75 60%

1-2: ICT infrastructure – internet connectivity, pricing and affordability 78 63%

1-2: Availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.)

79 64%

1-1: Penetration of access points for those without access at home, school or work

88 71%

1-2: Effective trade logistics and cross-border facilitation measures 91 73%

1-2: Understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, public sector

94 76%

1-2: Legal framework 98 79%

1-2: Co-ordination among institutions 98 79%

1-2: Payment methods for e-commerce 106 85%

Pillar 1 index 49%

Table 5.4 Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery

Pillar 2 Logistics and delivery # Index

2-2a: Availability of physical addresses 79 64%

2-3: The quality of government postal services for delivery of goods purchased online is excellent? Please rate on the following scale

90 73%

2-2b: De minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedures and no duty/tax for imports of low value shipments)

104 84%

2-2a: No or minimal risk of online fraud 105 85%

2-2b: Full electronic tracking of all shipments 112 90%

2-2b: Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory docu-ments at a single location and/or single entity)

111 90%

2-2b: Clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable 113 91%

2-2a: Efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations 117 94%

2-2a: Low shipping costs 116 94%

2-2a: Availability of online payment methods 120 97%

Pillar 2 index 86%



methods for e-commerce, with the highest AZGI for this pillar at 85%.

Pillar 2 was the pillar with the narrowest range between the lowest and highest AZGI individual indicators, respectively. When the indices were separated into quartiles, all indicators fell within two groupings, namely the Third and Fourth Quartiles.

All ten indicators presented an AZGI greater than 60%, ranging from a low of 64% for the availability of physical addresses to the highest of 97% in the case of the availability of online payment methods. It is noteworthy that a payment-related indicator presented the steepest hurdle to the attainment of an efficient logistics and delivery ecosystem for e-commerce activities in the OECS region. The interval of 33 percentage points between these two indicators, coupled with very high individual indices results in the logistics and delivery pillar, presented the highest index among the six pillars, with an AZGI of 86%.

Only two indicators presented indices that fell within the Third Quartile. In addition to the availability of physical addresses, the second indicator was the quality of government postal services for delivery of goods purchased online, with an AZGI of 73%.

All other indicators presented major gaps, since they fell within the Fourth Quartile; these need

to be addressed with a sense of urgency. They include: de minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedures and no duty/tax for imports of low value shipments); and no or minimal risk of online fraud, with indices of 84% and 85%, respectively. Two logistics and delivery levers presented challenges with gaps of 90%. These were: the full electronic tracking of all shipments, and the implementation of a Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory documents at a single location and/or single entity). The need for clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable followed closely with an AZGI of 91%.

The other two major impediments identified by respondents were the need for efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations, with a gap of 94%; and the desire for low shipping costs, which also presented the same AZGI of 94%.

The AZGI for the individual indicators of citizens’ readiness for e-commerce were included in three quartiles and the pillar presented an overall index of 78%.

The sole indicator in the Second Quartile was the level of computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions, with an AZGI of 44%. This relatively favourable positioning of an

Table 5.5 Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 3 Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce # Index

3.1: Computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions 54 44%

3.1: Computer penetration in secondary schools 69 56%

3.1: ICT for education strategy 74 60%

3.1: ICT integrated into the curricula, which are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels

79 64%

3.1: Computer penetration in primary schools 85 69%

3.1: Access to most recent technology and applications 91 73%

3.2a: Raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce

117 94%

3.2a: Raising consumer awareness about e-commerce 117 94%

3.2a: Integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities 116 94%

3.2b: Education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools

118 95%

3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries 119 96%

3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized busi-nesses (MSMEs)

121 98%

Pillar 3 index 78%



infrastructure-related component was consistent with the findings for other pillars of e-commerce readiness in the region.

Five other components associated with the readiness of citizens for e-commerce were found in the Third Quartile, with indices ranging from 56% to 73%. Most were related to hardware and skills training. These indicators, in ascending AZGI order, were: computer penetration in secondary schools; ICT for education strategy; ICT integrated into the curricula, which are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels; Computer penetration in primary schools; and the ease of access to most recent technology and applications.

There was a heavy concentration of large gaps within this pillar. Six of the 12 indicators presented gaps with AZGI ranging from 94% to 98%. These included the challenge of raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for MSMEs to engage in e-commerce; second, raising consumer awareness about e-commerce; and third, integrating the e-commerce dimension into existing trade promotion activities, all three with gaps of 94%. These were followed by education

on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools, with an AZGI of 95%. Next in severity was the need for capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries, with an index of 96%. The most substantial gap, presenting an index of 98%, was the need for capacity building on e-commerce for MSMEs.

With an index of 79%, business readiness for e-commerce was the pillar with the third most substantive gaps. The AZGI for the individual indicators ranged from 31% to a high of 98%. As such, the indicators were located in three quartiles, namely the Second, Third and Fourth Quartiles.

Two infrastructure-related indicators, namely, internet connectivity by business; and computers and network use by business, with an AZGI of 31% and 40%, respectively, presented the lowest indices, and were the only indicators located in the Second Quartile.

Based on their indices, another two of the fifteen (15) indicators were located in the Third Quartile, with indices of 60% and 69%. These were the use of websites for business; and the number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons, respectively.

Table 5.6 Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerce

Pillar 4 Business readiness for e-commerce # Index

4-1: Internet connectivity by business 38 31%

4-1: Computers and network use by business 49 40%

4-1: Use of websites for business 74 60%

4-1: Number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons 86 69%

4-1: Business-to-consumer electronic interaction 94 76%

4-1: Business-to-government electronic interaction 97 78%

4-1: Size of IT-enabled service business 100 81%

4-1: Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

104 84%

4-1: Policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises

106 85%

4-1: Foreign direct investment in ICT 111 90%

4.2: System reliability 120 97%

4.2: Online security 122 98%

4.2: Privacy and confidentiality of transactions 122 98%

4.2: Credit card fraud 122 98%

4.2: Data breaches 121 98%

Pillar 4 index 79%



Eleven (11) of the 15 indicators were in the Fourth Quartile, with indices ranging from 76% to 98%. Some of the important hindrances to the readiness of businesses for e-commerce in the OECS were found to be: business-to-government electronic interaction, with an AZGI of 78%; the size of IT-enabled service business, with an index of 81%; followed by the ability for the private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks

encountered, with an AZGI of 84%. The need for policy Initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises, at 85%, and foreign direct investment in the ICT sector, with 90%, also revealed very high gaps. These were followed by another critical gap, namely, system reliability, with an AZPI of 97%.

However, of greatest importance, with gap indices of 98%, were four indicators related to, first, online

Table 5.7 Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce

Pillar 5 Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce # Index

5-5: Unreliable ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply) 25 38%

5-5: Incomplete legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce 27 42%

5-5: Lack of e-commerce skills in my country 27 42%

5-5: No finance to develop online services 31 48%

5-5: Poor logistics/delivery solutions 33 51%

5-5: Lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in my country 34 52%

5-6: Access to finance to develop online services 45 69%

5-6: Legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce 45 69%

5-6: Access to ICT and e-commerce skills (manpower) 48 74%

5-6: ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply) 49 75%

5-6: Logistics solutions for e-commerce 50 77%

5-6: Access to e-payment and cashless solutions 54 83%

5-3a: Identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors

109 88%

5-3a: Awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem 110 89%

5-3b: Promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce

110 89%

5-1: Awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments

112 90%

5-1: Educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers

111 90%

5-3a: Awareness on different types and/or blends of financing 111 90%

5-3b: Enabling investment climate for e-commerce 111 90%

5-3b: Awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-com-merce solutions

111 90%

5-1: Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options 113 91%

5-3a: Availability of access-to-finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs 114 92%

5-3b: Identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures 114 92%

5-1: Regulations that allow for mobile payments 115 93%

5-1: Regulations that protect consumers online 116 94%

5-1: Regulations that allow for electronic payments 120 97%

Pillar 5 index 81%



security, second, the privacy and confidentiality of transactions, third, credit card fraud, and in fourth place, concerns related to data breaches. These were the four most substantial gaps identified by the respondents for the readiness of businesses in the OECS for e-commerce, as well as when all the six pillars were combined.

Pillar 5 included indicators from three main areas, namely, the payment aspects of e-commerce transactions in the region, the development of a financial and banking environment that is conducive to e-commerce; and third, the enabling factors for the decision to invest in e-commerce.

Very wide gaps existed with respect to the payment aspects of e-commerce transactions, and the creation of a conducive financial and banking eco-system. This was reflected by the following five (5) indicators, which all presented gap indices of 90%, namely: awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments; educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers; awareness on different types and/or blends of financing; an enabling investment climate for e-commerce; and finally, awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions.

The six (6) most severe gaps all presented A-Z Gap Indices ranging from 91% to 97%. Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options, with an index of 91%, was followed by the availability of access-to-finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs, and identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures, both with Indices of 92%. Regulations that allow for mobile payments presented an index of 93%, just below regulations that protect consumers online, with an index of 94%, leaving regulations that allow for electronic payments as the most severe gap, due to an extremely high index of 97%.

The enabling factors which impact on the investment decision were deemed to present narrower gaps, as reflected by the gap indices of some of the individual indicators. The least problematic indicators, with corresponding low indices were: unreliable ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply), 38%; incomplete legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce; and lack of e-commerce skills in the member country, both with indices of 42%; along with no finance

to develop online services, presenting an index of 48%.

A reason for this relatively wide disparity in the indices, within the same pillar, may be associated with the fact that the investment decision, directed to private sector respondents only, would have taken the existing circumstances into consideration, whereas, the assessment and expectation of a conducive eco-system may have been based on international best practices, and be somewhat aspirational in nature. Additionally, the payment component is highly specific, sensitive and narrower in scope, while the investment decision incorporates a broader array of components, including infrastructure and the availability of human resources.

The indicators for Pillar 6 consisted of two main elements. These were an assessment of the existing e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in the OECS, and, second, agreement with respect to the importance of government regulations in various areas in order to enhance trust in e-commerce.

The respondents reported a wide variability in their ratings of the existing e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in the region. Three of the indicators were identified as having the narrowest gaps for this pillar, and another three indicators were selected as presenting the widest gaps. The gap indices ranged from 41% to 88%. As such, there were indicators in three of the four quartiles. The indicators associated with agreement about the importance of government regulations in various areas in order to enhance trust in e-commerce showed a narrower gap interval, with indices ranging from 69% to 83%. Overall, the pillar index for e-commerce policy and regulation was 75%; this was the second narrowest gap which needs to be closed among the six pillars.

The two narrowest gaps, both below 50%, were the independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications, and the status of telecommunications liberalisation, with Indices of 41%, and 48%, respectively. The next hurdle in terms of the gap severity was the rating ascribed to the government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief information officer, with the relatively distant gap Index of 66%, when compared with the two aforementioned indicators. This was closely



followed by the policy related to the regulation of online content, with a gap of 69%.

The three widest gaps within the e-commerce policy and regulation pillar were the status of the administration champion for e-commerce, with an index of 86%, followed by the status of the online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism, with an AZGI of 87%, and the most severe hurdle, the extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions, presenting an index of 88%. These Indices pointed to the existence of substantial shortcomings when the respondents applied a rating to the existing e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in their countries, and by extension, the OECS region.

Most of the indicators, a total of 13, fell within the relatively narrow band, ranging from 73% to 83% AZGI. These included five indicators associated with the need for government regulations geared towards the enhancement of trust in e-commerce in specific

areas, such as, protection of data and privacy; cybercrime legislation; electronic transactions/e-signature; consumer protection online; and online intellectual property law. These all reported gaps of 81% to 83%. Another five indicators, aimed at assessing the e-commerce policy and regulatory framework, presented gaps ranging from 76% to 81%. Areas with notable gaps included: the status of the legal frameworks for e-commerce, online consumer protection law and data protection; and the need for a political champion for e-commerce; followed by the need for a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication.

In general, the respondents believed there was significant work to be done across the OECS region in order to create an appropriate e-commerce policy and regulation ecosystem, which would in turn facilitate the continued development of e-commerce activities in the countries of the OECS.

Table 5.8 Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation

Pillar 6 E-commerce policy and regulation # Index

6-1: Independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications 51 41%

6-1: Telecommunications liberalisation 60 48%

6-1: Government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief infor-mation officer

82 66%

6-2: Regulating online content 85 69%

6-1: Is there a national ICT strategy and policy in existence? 90 73%

6-1: Computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework 92 74%

6-2: Domain name and dispute resolutions 92 74%

6-1: E-commerce legal framework 94 76%

6-1: Status of online consumer protection law/legal framework 96 77%

6-1: Data protection legal framework 95 77%

6-1: Political champion for e- commerce 100 81%

6-1: Is there a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication? 101 81%

6-2: Protection of data and privacy 101 81%

6-2: Cybercrime legislation 101 81%

6-2: Consumer protection online 100 81%

6-2: Electronic transactions/e-signature 102 82%

6-2: Online intellectual property law 103 83%

6-1: Administration champion for e- commerce 107 86%

6-1: Status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism 108 87%

6-1: Extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions 109 88%

Pillar 6 index 75%



5.3 Regional A-Z Gap Index – by pillar and countryA compilation of the six (6) pillars was used to calculate the AZGI for each country and thereby the regional index for all countries combined. This provided the cumulative e-readiness gap in each of the six (6) countries, across all six (6) pillars, as indicated in Figure 5.2.

The readiness index on a country basis ranged from the lowest gap of 69% in Saint Kits and Nevis to the highest gap of 75% for St Vincent and the Grenadines. This meant that the AZGI presented a narrow interval, of only six percentage points, at the country level. The Regional Index was 74%. St Kitts and Nevis was the country which encountered the least severe gaps, whereas creating the conditions for e-commerce readiness was most challenging in St Vincent and The Grenadines. The other four countries reported Indices which are equal to or one percentage point below the Regional Index. As such, Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada, with a score of 74%, shared the same index value as the OECS region as a whole, while Dominica and Saint Lucia, at 73%, faced conditions that were one percentage point less severe than the Regional Index.

The Regional AZGI was disaggregated to highlight the country-level indices for each of the pillars. The summary, with all six pillars for each of the countries, is shown in Table 5.9.

The results for Pillar 1 through to Pillar 6 are outlined below.

5.3.1 Pillar 1: National ICT Infrastructure and accessibility

St Kitts and Nevis, with an index of 34%, was the best performing country as it related to Pillar 1. At the other end of the spectrum, with a country AZGI of 53%, the situation in St Vincent and the Grenadines presented the greatest challenges.

However, in general, with a regional gap index of 49%, the status of Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibility, across the region, was quite encouraging. Only St Vincent and the Grenadines presented a country index above the Regional Index; Grenada had the same index as all six countries combined, while Saint Lucia, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis faced less severe challenges than the combined OECS region. St Kitts and Nevis was particularly impressive as it related to the status of the indicators interrogated in Pillar 1.

Figure 5.2. Regional AZGI

74%73%74%

69%73%75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

An�gua and BarbudaDominicaGrenada

St Ki�s and NevisSt Lucia

St Vincent and The Grenadines

Regional AZGI

Table 5.9 A summary of the six gap indices for the six OECS countries

Antigua and Barbuda

Dominica Grenada St Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia


Pillar 1 44% 45% 49% 34% 47% 53%

Pillar 2 88% 89% 84% 81% 86% 89%

Pillar 3 76% 73% 77% 74% 88% 74%

Pillar 4 77% 80% 79% 74% 79% 85%

Pillar 5 85% 85% 81% 92% 72% 78%

Pillar 6 80% 73% 77% 69% 79% 77%



5.3.2 Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery

The overall index for logistics and delivery in the OECS was very high at 86%. The range across the six countries was 81% to 89%, a relatively narrow interval. St Vincent and Dominica were at the upper end of the spectrum, followed by Antigua, with a slightly lower severity of 88%. Saint Lucia had the same index score as the region, with Grenada doing slightly better at 84%. At 81%, St Kitts had the lowest AZGI, albeit, still at a very challenging level. This was the pillar with the most severe gaps across all the countries.

5.3.3 Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce

With a regional average of 78%, only one country, namely Saint Lucia, had a national AZGI above that of all the member states combined. This relative outlier stood in great contrast to the country indices of all the other countries, which a ranged from 73% to 77%, all below the regional average. This further cemented the apparent outlier status of Saint Lucia, which presented an index of 88%, a total of 15 percentage points above the country which faced the fewest challenges, namely Dominica, as it

Figure 5.3. AZGI by Country Pillar 1

44%45%

49%34%

47%53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

An�gua and Barbuda

Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia



76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia



76%

73%

77%

74%

88%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia




related to the readiness of the citizens of the OECS for e-commerce.

5.3.4 Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerce

The Regional Index for the readiness of businesses in the OECS to engage in e-commerce was 79%. At the country level, the range was 74% to 85%. St Vincent experienced the most severe gap at 85%, with St Kitts being the least constrained at 74%. Two countries, namely Saint Lucia and Grenada, shared the same index as the region, 79%. Two islands hovered around the average, Dominica at one percentage point above with 80%, and Antigua, at two percentage points below that of the region at 77%. This further accentuated the position of St Vincent as an outlier. For this pillar, St Kitts was again the best performing country, with an index as many as 15 percentage points below that of St Vincent, and six percentage points above the OECS countries combined.

5.3.5 Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce

With a Regional Index of 81%, Pillar 5 occupied the second highest position as it related to the severity of the gaps. Grenada had the same AZGI of 81% as the OECS region, when the status of the financial

and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce was assessed. Three islands faced challenges which were greater than those confronted by the region as a whole. Antigua and Dominica both experienced the same level of gap severity, at 85%. St Kitts and Nevis reported the widest gaps, at 92%. Two islands performed better than the Regional Index. They were St Vincent, at 78%, with Saint Lucia, presenting a relatively low Index of 72%.

It was noteworthy that, unlike with the other pillars, St Kitts was located at the unfavourable end of the widest interval between countries, within the individual pillars. The island was usually one of the better performers, reporting less gap intensity. However, in this instance, being the most challenged, St Kitts was party to the widest gap, up to 20 percentage points from the least constrained, Saint Lucia at 72%. This was the widest difference between two countries when all six pillars were compared.

5.3.6 Pillar 6: E-commerce policy and regulation

With a regional gap of 75%, the data showed that four countries experienced the gaps within Pillar 6 to a greater degree of intensity than the regional averages when all six states were combined.


77%80%

79%74%

79%85%

65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia



85%85%

81%92%

72%78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia




Antigua and Barbuda faced the greatest challenges, at 80% AZGI, being five percentage points above the regional average. Saint Lucia lay just below at 79%, and both St Vincent and Grenada were two percentage points above the regional average at 77%. Dominica presented an AZGI of 73%, while St Kitts showed a relatively low Index of 69%, and was the country in which these gaps for e-commerce policy and regulation were the least severe.

5.4 Distribution at country level

The Regional AZGI will now be disaggregated to highlight the country-level indices for each of the pillars.

5.4.1 Antigua and Barbuda

The country AZGI for Antigua and Barbuda was 74%, the same as the OECS Regional Index. This meant that the country faced the same intensity


80%73%

77%69%

79%77%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia


Table 5.10 Distribution at the country level

Regional Index

Countries No. of respondents Total Index

Antigua and Barbuda 12 1,140 74%

Dominica 34 3,230 73%

Grenada 16 1,508 74%

St Kitts and Nevis 20 1,852 69%

Saint Lucia 33 3,213 73%

St Vincent and The Grenadines 9 873 75%

Totals 124 11,816 74%

Figure 5.9. Regional AZGI

74%

73%

74%

69%

73%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Dominica

Grenada

St Ki�s and Nevis

St Lucia




of gaps in e-commerce readiness when compared with the level of intensity faced by the region as a whole.

The most severe gap was found for Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery, with an index of 88%. The least severe gap was Pillar 1: National ICT Infrastructure and accessibility, at a commendable 44%. The led to the widest interval between pillar gaps in Antigua of 44 percentage points.

The indices for the other four pillars were similar to each other, ranging from a low of 76% for Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, to a high of 85% for Pillar 5 covering the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce. This constituted an interval of only nine percentage points between these two pillars.

5.4.2 DominicaWith a country Index of 73%, Dominica faced gaps that were slightly less intense than the Regional Index of 74%. The widest gap in Dominica was 44

percentage points, representing the difference between the index of 45% for Pillar 1 on national ICT infrastructure and accessibility, and wide gap index of 89% recorded for Pillar 2 covering logistics and delivery. This was the same as the widest interval for Antigua and Barbuda and was between the same two pillars.

Dominica, with an index of 73%, was leading all countries in having the least exposure to gaps for Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce. This was closely followed jointly by Saint Kitts and Nevis together with St Vincent and the Grenadines, with an index of 74%. The country also scored well, by occupying the second position with an index of 73%, after the leader St Kitts and Nevis (with a 69% index) for Pillar 6 focused on e-commerce policy and regulation.

Three of the pillars recorded indices of 80% or more, including 85% for Pillar 5 on the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce. Two other pillars, namely, Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce and Pillar 6 on e-commerce policy

Figure 5.10. AZGI Antigua & Barbuda

44%

88%76% 77% 85% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PILLAR 1 PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 PILLAR 4 PILLAR 5 PILLAR 6

Figure 5.11. AZGI Dominica

45%

89%

73%80% 85%

73%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%




and regulation, both recorded indices of 73%, which were equal to the country index.

There was an interval of 12 percentage points between Pillar 3 covering citizens’ readiness for e-commerce or Pillar 6 focused on e-commerce policy and regulation, and the 85% index reported for the second most intense Pillar 5 on the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce.

5.4.3 Grenada

The country gap index was 74%, the same as the Regional Index. The widest gap between the six pillars is 35 percentage points. This was the difference between the 49% index for Pillar 1 on national ICT infrastructure and accessibility and the 84% AZGI for Pillar 2 on logistics and delivery.

The indices for the other pillars were quite close to each other. This ranged from a low of 77% for both Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce and Pillar 6 on e-commerce policy and regulation, to a high of 81% for Pillar 5 on the financial and banking

ecosystem to support e-commerce. This was an interval of only four percentage points between these four pillars.

The index levels were very similar, hence similar levels of effort will be required to improve the e-commerce ecosystem across the various readiness pillars, and thereby, reduce the recorded gaps.

5.4.4 St Kitts and Nevis

With a country AZGI of 69%, St Kitts was the best performing country in terms of e-commerce readiness, as assessed by the six pillars employed in the survey. This outcome was due to the leading positions that the country attained for four of the six pillars, in addition to the joint second least severe gap index for a fifth pillar, namely Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, with an index of 74%.

The four pillars for which St Kitts was identified as the country with the least intense gap indices were as follows: Pillar 1 on national ICT infrastructure and

Figure 5.12. AZGI Grenada

49%

84%77% 79% 81% 77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Figure 5.13. AZGI St Kitts & Nevis

34%

81%74% 74%

92%

69%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%




accessibility, with 34%; Pillar 2 focused on logistics and delivery, with 81%; Pillar 4 covering business readiness for e-commerce, with 74%; and Pillar 6 on e-commerce policy and regulation, with 69%.

Notwithstanding this commendable level of preparation for e-commerce, the country was identified as having the most intense gaps for Pillar 5, which covered the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, with a very high AZGI of 92%. This presented a glaring disparity and was the only index of 90% or more recorded when the indices were disaggregated at the level of pillar and country.

This glaring weakness with respect to Pillar 5 on the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, coupled with the outstanding performance in Pillar 1 covering national ICT infrastructure and accessibility, resulted in the widest gap interval within the same country, a huge 58 percentage points. This implied that the country needed to focus more directly on the weaker of the two pillars. The results could also be reflective of the order of priority in which the requirements for e-commerce readiness had been addressed by the stakeholders in St Kitts. Given the level at which the country had performed with the other pillars, it was expected that this disparity would be addressed in short order.

5.4.5 Saint LuciaThis was the third country, along with Dominica and St Kitts, with a country index that was better than the Regional Index. Saint Lucia, like

Dominica, presented a gap index of 73% – which was 1 percentage point less challenging than the Regional Index.

The country scored very well with Pillar 5 on the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, having been identified as the country with the fewest gaps and challenges associated with that pillar.

Pillar 3 covering citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, with an index of 88%, was the most severe gap that needed to be addressed. Along with St Kitts, this was the second country where Pillar 2 on logistics and delivery was not the most challenging gap. The least challenging gap was Pillar 1 on national ICT infrastructure and accessibility, with an index of 47%. The interval with Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, was a relatively large 41 percentage points

5.4.6 St Vincent and The GrenadinesWith an index of 75%, this was the only country with gaps more severe than the Regional Index of 74%, albeit by only one percentage point.

The country did not lead with any single pillar in terms of lowest gap severity but occupied the position of being exposed to the second least severe level of gaps with respect to two different pillars.

With an index of 74%, St Vincent, along with St Kitts and Nevis, occupied the joint-second position for least gap exposure for Pillar 3 on citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, which was led by Dominica with 73%. Additionally, with an index of 78%, the country

Figure 5.14. AZGI Saint Lucia

47%

86% 88%79%

72%79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




occupied the second position for Pillar 5 focused on the financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce, after Saint Lucia the leader for least severity with a 72% AZGI.

In St Vincent, the widest interval between gaps within the country was all of 36 percentage points between Pillar 1 on national ICT infrastructure and accessibility, with a comparatively wide gap index of 53%, and Pillar 2 covering logistics and delivery, with the very high index of 89%. The second most severe gap to increase e-commerce readiness was Pillar 4 on business readiness for e-commerce, with an index of 85%. This represented a severe gap, and resources must be allocated to reduce or eliminate the obstacles and challenges.

5.5 Groupings based on the rankings of individual indicators

Following the ranking of the indicators within each of the six pillars, all the individual indicators were ranked, across all of the six pillars. See Appendix 3 for the complete ranking.

The ten indicators with the lowest AZGI, and therefore those that presented the lowest gaps, are outlined in Table 5.11.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the ten indicators with the highest indices, and therefore those that presented the most severe gaps, are shown in Table 5.12.

Figure 5.15. AZGI St Vincent and The Grenadines

53%

89%

74%

85%78% 77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Table 5.11 Ranking of ten lowest A-Z Gap Indices

Ranking of ten lowest A-Z Gap Indices # Index













The 60 indicators in the last quartile were the most critical, and therefore those for which urgent and concerted action must be taken to reduce the severity of, or completely eliminate, the identified deficiencies or gaps in the e-commerce ecosystem in the OECS.

The indicators within this quartile were further divided into two groups to focus attention on the most severe gaps. Band A consists of the 35 indicators with the widest gaps, ranging from A-Z Gap Index 98% to 86%, in descending order. The second group, Band B consists of 25 indicators with gaps that were less severe, ranging from A-Z Gap Index 85% to 76%, in descending order.

In order to formulate appropriate intervention policies, the individual indicator gaps were condensed into strategy groups. This was done by placing similar indicators into distinct actionable groupings.

A total of ten strategy groups were identified from the indicators in Band A. These strategy groups were made up of a minimum of one to a maximum of seven individual indicators. The ten groups, with the constituent pillars and specific AZGI Scores, are detailed in Table 5.13.

A total of seven strategy groups were identified for Band B. These strategy groups consisted of a minimum of one to a maximum of eight individual indicators. The seven groups, with the constituent pillars and specific AZGI scores, are detailed in Table 5.14.

5.6 Strategy areas based on A-Z Gap Index (AZGI)The ten strategy areas for Band A, with their constituent pillars from a total of 35 indicators, are outlined in Table 5.15.

Likewise, the seven strategy areas for Band B, along with their corresponding pillars, are outlined in Table 5.16. These result from the amalgamation of 25 original indicators.

It should be noted that two of the strategy areas were new, namely Marketing Focus and Political Advocacy. This meant that the most severe indicator gaps for Marketing Focus and Political Advocacy did not fall within the 86% to 98% AZGI range, but emerged in this lower 76% to 85% AZGI range. The other five strategy groups are already represented in Band A by individual indicators, which were identified by the respondents as presenting much more severe gaps to e-commerce readiness in the OECS region. The continued presence of these five strategy groups in Band B was reflective of their pervasiveness as hindrances to e-commerce readiness, and further emphasised the importance of addressing the related gaps at the earliest opportunity.

The list of the 12 strategy areas that were formed from the 60 indicators in the Fourth Quartile of indicator rankings is outlined in Table 5.17.

Table 5.12 Ranking of ten highest A-Z Gap Indices

Ranking of top Ten A-Z Gap Indices # Index


118 95%






4.2: Privacy and confidentiality of transactions 122 98%



3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs)

121 98%



Table 5.13 Band A AZGI 86% to 98%

PILLAR Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity SCORE

4 4.2: Online security 0.98

4 4.2: Privacy and confidentiality of transactions 0.98

4 4.2: Credit card fraud 0.98

4 4.2: Data breaches 0.98

4 4.2: System reliability 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that protect consumers online 0.94

6 6-1: Status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism 0.87

Capacity-Building and Training

3 3.2: Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs)

0.98

3 3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries 0.96

3 3.2: Education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools

0.95

3 3.2: Raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce

0.94

3 3.2a: Raising consumer awareness about e-commerce 0.94

Payment Infrastucture and Solutions

2 2.2: Availability of online payment methods 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that allow for electronic payments 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that allow for mobile payments 0.93

5 5-1: Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options 0.91

5 5-1: Awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments

0.90

Transportation

2 2-2a: Low shipping costs 0.94

Trade Promotion

3 3.2a: Integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities

0.94

Stakeholder Engagement/Participation

2 2-2a: Efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations

0.94

5 5-3b: Awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions

0.90

5 5-1: Educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers

0.90

5 5-3b: Promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce

0.89

Financing Infrastucture and Solutions

5 5-3a: Availability of access-to-finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs

0.92

5 5-3b: Identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures 0.92

(Continued))



Twelve (12) STRATEGY AREAS based on gap index

Table 5.18 shows the comparison between the strategy areas in Band A and Band B, including the areas of overlap. These are the 12 strategy areas that will be used to inform the recommendations in the Strategic Plan.

The five strategy areas that need to be addressed in both Band A and Band B are: Data Protection, Consumer Protection, and Cybersecurity; Payment Infrastructure and Solutions; Stakeholder

Engagement/Participation; Trade Facilitation; and Investment Promotion.

The five strategy areas that need to be addressed only in Band A are: Capacity Building and Training; Transportation; Trade Promotion; Financing Infrastructure and Solutions; and Advocacy from Administrators.

The two new strategy areas that emerged from the less severe A-Z Gap Indices in Band B are: Marketing Focus; and Political Advocacy.

Table 5.13 Band A AZGI 86% to 98% (Continued)

PILLAR Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity SCORE

5 5-3a: Awareness on different types and/or blends of financing 0.90

5 5-3a: Identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors

0.88

Trade Facilitation

2 2-2b: Clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable 0.91

2 2-2b: Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory documents at a single location and/or single entity)

0.90

2 2-2b: Full electronic tracking of all shipments 0.90

Investment Promotion

4 4-1: Foreign direct investment in the ICT 0.90

5 5-3b: Enabling investment climate for e-commerce 0.90

5 5-3a: Awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem 0.89

6 6-1: Extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions

0.88

Advocacy –Administration

6 6-1: Administration champion for e- commerce 0.86

(Continued))

Table 5.14 Band B AZGI 76% to 85%

PILLAR AZGI

Payment Infrastructure and Solutions

1 1-2: Payment methods for e-commerce 0.85

5 5-6: Access to e-payment and cashless solutions 0.83

Data Protection, Consumer Protection, and Cybersecurity

2 2-2a: No or minimal risk of online fraud 0.85

6 6-1: Is there a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication? 0.81

6 6-2: Protection of data and privacy 0.81

6 6-2: Cybercrime legislation 0.81

6 6-2: Consumer protection online 0.81



Table 5.14 Band B AZGI 76% to 85% (Continued)

PILLAR AZGI

6 6-1: Computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework 0.79

6 6.1: Status of online consumer protection law/legal framework 0.77

6 6-1: Data protection legal framework 0.77


4 4-1: Policy Initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises

0.85

1 1-2: Co-ordination among institutions 0.79

4 4-1: Business-to-government electronic interaction 0.78

1 1-2: Understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, public sector

0.76

Trade Facilitation

2 2-2b: De minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedures and no duty/tax for imports of low-value shipments)

0.84

1 1-2: Legal framework for e-commerce development 0.79

1 1-2: Effective trade logistics and cross-border facilitation measures 0.77

5 5-6: Logistics solutions for e-commerce 0.77

Marketing Focus – New

4 4-1: Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and ser-vices online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

0.84

4 4-1: Size of IT-enabled service business 0.81

4 4-1: Business-to-consumer electronic interaction 0.76


6 6-2: Online intellectual property law 0.83

Advocacy – Political – New

6 6-1: Political champion for e- commerce 0.81

6 6-1: E-commerce legal framework 0.76

Table 5.15 Band A AZGI 86% to 98%

PILLAR Strategy Area

4,5,6 Data Protection, Consumer Protection, and Cybersecurity

3 Capacity Building and Training

2,5 Payment Infrastructure and Solutions

2 Transportation

3 Trade Promotion

2,5 Stakeholder Engagement/Participation

5 Financing Infrastructure and Solutions

2 Trade Facilitation

4,5,6 Investment Promotion

6 Advocacy – Administration



Table 5.16 Band B AZGI 76% to 85%



2,6 Data Protection, Consumer Protection, and Cybersecurity

1,4 Stakeholder Engagement/ Participation

1,2,5 Trade Facilitation

4 Marketing Focus – NEW

6 Investment Promotion

6 Advocacy – Political – NEW

Table 5.17 Bands A and B AZGI 76% to 98% – 60 indicators in both bands





2 Transportation

3 Trade Promotion






4 Marketing Focus

6 Advocacy – Political

Table 5.18 Bands A and B

PILLAR Strategy Area 98 to 86 85 to 76




2 Transportation

3 Trade Promotion






4 Marketing Focus

6 Advocacy – Political


84 \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member Statesof the (OECS)

6. OECS Treatment of E-Commerce-related Disciplines in Trade AgreementsOECS states are all members of the WTO and, on a bilateral level, pursue trade interests through various regional integration arrangements and preferential trade arrangements. The negotiating interests of the states span liberalisation commitments in trade in goods and services, and trade facilitation commitments which are supportive of national and regional development strategies.

To a great extent, the nature of a state’s international trade commitments in e-commerce-aligned goods and services sectors will be an important determinant of the extent to which that state can successfully engage in strategic positioning to take advantage of global e-commerce opportunities. There are pros and cons to both a high degree of liberalisation (openness) and a high degree of restrictiveness in a state’s trade policy relating to e-commerce.

A high degree of liberalisation signals an openness to embracing e-commerce opportunities, irrespective of the origin of the actors, and can stimulate inward flows of foreign direct investment. The local e-commerce landscape can thus be transformed by the influx of firms that have the capacity to engage in digital trade and create network linkages across the economy. These firms, especially when coming from developed or more advanced developing countries, can bring new technologies to the state, leading to a proliferation of technology-sharing agreements with local firms. This in turn broadens the technological base and capacity of the host state. Low barriers to trade, such as lower tariffs and more streamlined customs clearance procedures, can reduce transactional costs, leading to an increase in imports and the strengthening of value chains. The potential downside of this is that local firms may be at a competitive disadvantage and could be squeezed out of the e-commerce landscape, with the result that government policy to promote the development of opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises may be stymied.

Likewise, there are pros and cons to a state adopting a trade posture of significant restrictiveness in its commitments. Maintaining a closed economy might allow the state the policy room to foster the development of local firms, but if these firms do not have the capacity and technological capability to gain enough traction in the market, there may be no measurable increase in GDP.

The challenge then for developing countries, especially those that are small vulnerable economies, is to find an appropriate balance of both multilateral and bilateral trade commitments that will support economic growth through the lowering of barriers to trade and stimulating the entry of new investment, while at the same time preserving opportunities for local firms.

This part of the report examines those commitments of the OECS states in the WTO and in bilateral arrangements that are useful to support the development of a vibrant e-commerce ecosystem in the subregion. Recommendations are presented with a view to ensuring that through carefully calibrated trade commitments, OECS states will be able to interweave trade interests with wider strategic interests related to the development of e-commerce.

6.1 OECS liberalisation commitments in e-commerce-aligned services sectorsBeing WTO members, the OECS states may enter into trade-in-services commitments pursuant to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). GATS commitments in sectors that are linked to e-commerce include service sectors that may be deemed to be of direct relevance to supporting the development of e-commerce, such as:

• Computer and related services: Only one state, Antigua and Barbuda, has made


6. OECS Treatment of E-Commerce-related Disciplines in Trade Agreements \ 85

commitments in this sector. Antigua and Barbuda has assumed partial commitments in this respect.

• Communication services: Only two states (Dominica and Grenada) have assumed commitments in this sector.

• Telecommunications services: Two states, Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica, have assumed full commitments in this sector. Two states, Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis, have assumed partial commitments, while two states (Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines) have made no commitments.

• Financial services: OECS states have only assumed commitments in relation to “insurance and insurance-related services” and “other financial services.” Importantly, the banking and other financial services subsector has not been committed, signalling no market access or national treatment guarantees for foreign services suppliers in this sector. This points to the extreme sensitivity of this sector in all the OECS states. A reminder of the extent of this sensitivity comes with the concerns expressed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda with respect to Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) and Scotiabank announcing their intention to sell their local investments. In both cases, the government stipulated that the transactions could only proceed if the acquiring entities had substantial local participation.

• Transport services: OECS states have entered into commitments in respect of only maritime transport services and services auxiliary to all modes of transport. The lack of commitments in relation to road transportation suggests the existence of sensitivities with respect to the degree of foreign participation that should be allowed in this sector. Partial commitments in maritime transport services have been assumed by four states: Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. No commitments in this sector have been assumed by Dominica and Grenada. Auxiliary services are also highly sensitive for most of the states, as only two of them, Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines, have assumed partial commitments.

It is apparent from the foregoing that the OECS states have not assumed uniform commitments in these sectors. This lack of uniformity, while perhaps reflective of and conductive to the achievement of national interests (as they were deemed to exist at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1994.1 does not augur well for efforts to create a dynamic e-commerce framework at the regional level.

Notably, in the GATS, OECS states have not assumed commitments in relation to some services sectors that are also of direct relevance to supporting the growth of a vibrant e-commerce ecosystem: distribution services, audio-visual services, postal services, and air transport and logistics services. In addition to the high degree of sensitivity of some of these sectors, the lack of commitment can also be explained by the recognition that e-commerce was not on the radar of the global economy at the time of the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. It is possible, therefore, and indeed it is to be hoped, that OECS states may adopt different postures in relation to further GATS liberalisation.

6.2 Mapping the interest of OECS states in ongoing WTO e-commerce negotiationsThe origins of the current WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce lie in the Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce, adopted by the Ministerial Conference at its second session in May 1998.2 In the declaration, the Ministerial Conference mandated that the General Council should, by its next meeting in special session, establish a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade-related issues relating to global electronic commerce. Of importance to developing countries such as the OECS states, was the clear statement from the Ministerial Council that the work programme should take the economic, financial and development needs of these states into account. The work being undertaken in other international

1 The GATTs eighth round of trade negotiations known as the Uruguay Round, commenced in of Trade Negotiations was launched at Punta del Este, Uruguay in September 1986 and was concluded at Marrakesh, Morocco in March 1994.

2 Document WT/MIN(98)/DEC/2, adopted on 20 May 1998.



fora should also be recognised, thus signalling the need for synergies between WTO rules and other key regional, multilateral or plurilateral instruments.

The work programme established by the General Council on the 25 September 19983 mandates the examination of specific issues related to e-commerce by the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services, the Council for TRIPS and the Council for Trade and Development, thus underscoring the comprehensive approach which should be adopted in the development of e-commerce rules. Table 6.1 highlights the key issues of concern to developing countries, which the various WTO councils have been tasked to address within the scope of the E-Commerce Work Programme.

At the 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in 2017 (MC 11), a new e-commerce initiative was launched by WTO member states to give impetus to the E-commerce Work Programme. In the Joint Ministerial Statement, the participating member states expressed their intention to initiate exploratory work toward future WTO negotiations

on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce. This initiative would be open to all members of the WTO. Since MC 11, this exploratory work has morphed into full blown negotiations on an e-commerce text, under the umbrella of what has become known as the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on e-commerce.

The Joint Ministerial Statement is notably silent on the level of ambition to be expected from the negotiations, but does offer some clues as to their orientation. First, the statement gives explicit recognition to the ‘particular opportunities and challenges faced by developing countries, especially LDCs [least developed countries], as well as by micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, in relation to electronic commerce’. This sends a clear and powerful signal that the resulting outcome of any negotiations on e-commerce should reflect the asymmetries between developed and developing WTO members and should contain meaningful special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions. In this sense, the Joint Ministerial Statement has established an objective benchmark by which the outcome of the negotiations can be assessed.

Table 6.1 Issues of concern for developing countries in the WTO E-Commerce Work Programme

Council for Trade in Services

Council for Trade in Goods

Council for TRIPS

Council for Trade and Development

• Scope (including modes of supply)

• MFN [most favoured nation status/ treat-ment]

• Increasing participation of developing coun-tries

• Domestic regula-tion, standards and recognition

• Competition pro-tection of privacy and public morals and the preven-tion of fraud

• Market access for and access to products related to elec-tronic commerce

• Standards in relation to elec-tronic commerce

• Rules of origin issues

• Protection and enforce-ment of copyright and related rights

• Protection and enforcement of trademarks

• New tech-nologies and access to technology

• Effects of electronic commerce on the trade and economic prospects of developing countries, notably of their small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and means of maximising possible benefits accruing to them

• Challenges to and ways of enhancing the participation of developing coun-tries in electronic commerce

• Use of information technology in the integration of developing countries in the multilateral trading system

• Implications for developing countries of the possible impact of electronic commerce on the traditional means of distribution of physical goods

• Financial implications of electronic commerce for developing countries

3 Document WT/L/274, adopted September 1998.



Second, the Joint Ministerial Statement reiterates the ‘important role of the WTO in promoting open, transparent, non-discriminatory and predictable regulatory environments in facilitating electronic commerce’. This is a value-laden statement, which implies that the e-commerce disciplines to be negotiated should be aligned to core WTO values reflected in the normative framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the GATS. As such, one can expect prospective e-commerce negotiations to be highly normative in nature, and to contain commitments aimed at outlawing discriminatory practices at the national level and creating substantial market access opportunities for WTO members.

This is should be a ‘red flag’ for developing countries such as the OECS states, given their need to first develop national policy frameworks on e-commerce and to develop the requisite capacity to implement any new multilateral obligations.4

None of the OECS states are participants in the JSI process. These states have therefore not been making inputs in the process of developing what may very well become multilateral rules on e-commerce or, at a minimum, take the legal form of a significant plurilateral agreement. It is debatable whether this is a wise strategic outcome for the OECS states. UNCTAD has noted that the possible outcome of the JSI negotiations will likely affect the governance of various dimensions of e-commerce, with implications for all countries, whether they are party to these negotiations or not (Durant 2021). By choosing not to participate in the JSI process, OECS states may miss the opportunity to help craft rules that they may be constrained to later adopt, either because they will later become multilateralised, because of passive or active pressure from powerful developed countries, or because an ex-post analysis may reveal that the states will be excluded from membership in an exclusive club and membership in that club is essential in order to secure their strategic interests with respect to e-commerce.

It is also not sufficient for OECS states to assume that the other developing states in the JSI process will sufficiently advocate and advance positions of

interest to all developing states, thus obviating the need for their direct participation in the process. Developing countries do not necessarily have uniformity of interests with respect to e-commerce. China, for example, has strong offensive interests in this area, owing to the orientation of its economy, and thus can be expected to advocate for market opening and non-discrimination rules that ensure its stakeholders have equal access to global markets. Less advanced developing countries, which are still trying to build out their e-commerce infrastructure, establish a national e-commerce strategy and implement domestic regulatory frameworks, may be less interested in global market opening rules and may be more interested in receiving financial and technical support for the implementation of national strategies. For these states, the emerging recognition that these two things are interlinked may ultimately help to determine their posture with respect to global rules.

The latest version of the consolidated text on e-commerce emerging from the JSI process was released in December 2020. Still a work in progress, there are some issues that appear to be settled while others remain under active negotiation. These latter issues are the subject of various alternate proposals reflecting the particular interests and levels of ambition of the proponents.

The text is currently organised to effect a clustering of provisions relating to the following disciplines:

• facilitating electronic transactions, digital trade and logistics;

• promoting openness in electronic commerce;

• promoting trust in electronic commerce;

• cross-cutting issues with the GATS and other regulatory issues;

• telecommunications; and

• market access.

The language being utilised in the text suggests a proposed mix of binding and best endeavour obligations. For the OECS states and other developing countries, the immediate concern is that should the disciplines become multilateralised, they may be constrained to accept binding obligations that they neither have the capacity to implement nor the policy frameworks to support the implementation of these obligations. One specific commitment being proposed which would

4 With reference, for instance, to proposed rules on consumer protection within the framework of the JSI, UNCTAD ha s noted that a primary concern for develovping countries is that such regulations may restrict the policy options of member states, including potentially in relation to cross-border data flows. See: UNCTAD 2020b.



test the policy implementation capacity of some developing countries is Article 1 which would require members to maintain a legal framework governing electronic transactions consistent with the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. As noted previously, all OECS states have implemented legislation which to varying degrees is based on this model law. If adopted and if this provision becomes binding on OECS states, they would have to carefully examine their national legislation to ensure that there is continued consistency with the UNCITRAL Model Law. The requirement for consistency with the principles of the Model Law may also constrain states that would wish to establish e-commerce domestic legislation which are based not so much on international best practices but specific regional or national imperatives.

The negotiations require finding a delicate balance in reconciling different regulatory practices and priorities across countries with respect to such sensitive public policy areas as privacy, personal data protection, competition, consumer protection and cybersecurity, as well as industrialisation objectives for the digital economy.

In order to secure buy in from a large swath of the WTO membership, members will have to determine what negotiated outcome would allow developing countries – both participant and non-participant in the JSI process – to harness potential benefits of e-commerce for sustainable development.

Table A5 in Appendix 5 (Trade Strategy Assessment Matrix) presents an analysis of the provisions of the latest draft text, analyses their potential impact and present recommendations with respect the position that OECS states could adopt on these issues.

6.3 The emerging WTO landscape for market access commitments in e-commerceBased upon submissions received from members, the draft text on e-commerce identifies several services sectors which would become subject to deep liberalisation commitments. These sectors are outlined in Table 6.2.

The proposals that have been put forward would see WTO members either entering into full liberalisation commitments or significantly

improving upon GATS commitments in Modes 1 to 3, but remaining unbound in respect of Mode 4, subject to horizontal commitments.5 This demonstrates the continued sensitivity with Mode 4 liberalisation, even in relation to e-commerce-related services sectors. The sensitivities associated with Mode 4 in these sectors are somewhat at odds with the fairly liberal regime being proposed with respect to the movement of e-commerce-related personnel. It is being proposed that members should encourage the movement of such personnel and permit temporary entry into their territories of electronic commerce-related personnel associated with a commercial presence of any other member that has been or is being established within their territories. The e-commerce-related personnel that would fall within the scope of this provision include business visitors, intra-corporate transferees and contractual services suppliers.

Assuming that they may become bound to the emerging e-commerce framework, OECS countries would only benefit from this commitment if their stakeholders first succeeded in being able to take advantage of Mode 3 market access in key markets. Given the asymmetrical flow of investment from developed to developing countries, it is more likely, however, that developed countries will be the major winners from expanded Mode 4 liberalisation in relation to e-commerce-related personnel.

6.4 The treatment of digital trade and e-commerce in OECS bilateral agreementsOECS states are parties to six preferential trade agreements6 but only one, the CARIFORUM–EU Economic Partnership Agreement, contains commitments on trade in services. For the most part then, the OECS states’ bilateral interactions have not stimulated growth in or reform of OECS services markets, given that they do not implicate

5 Services are trade in four modes of supply: Mode 1 (cross-border supply); Mode 2 (consumption abroad); Mode 3 (commercial presence) and Mode 4 (temporary entry of natural persons).

6 As members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), OECS states are parties to the trade agreements that the community has concluded with Venezuela (1993), Columbia (1994), Cuba (2000), Dominican Republic (2001) and Costa Rica (2004). OECS states are also parties to the Economic Partnership agreement concluded between the CARIFORUM states and the European Union and its member states in 2008.



Tabl

e 6.

2 Ta

rget

sec

tors

for d

eep

liber

alis

atio

n co

mm

itm

ents

in J

SI E

-co

mm

erce

neg

otia

tio

n

Com

pute

r and

rela

ted

serv

ices

:

• C

ons

ulta

ncy

serv

ices

rela

ted

to th

e in

stal

latio

n o

f co

m-

pute

r har

dwar

e

• So

ftw

are

impl

emen

tatio

n

serv

ices

• D

ata

pro

cess

ing

serv

ices

• D

ata

base

ser

vic e

s

• O

ther

Adv

erti

sing

ser

vice

s

Tech

nica

l tes

ting

and

ana

lysi

s se

rvic

es

Cou

rier

Ser

vice

s

Dis

trib

u-ti

on s

ervi

ces

• C

om

mis

sio

n ag

ents

’ ser

-vi

ces

• W

hole

sale

tr

ade

serv

ices

• R

etai

ling

ser-

vice

s

Bank

ing

and

Oth

er

Fina

ncia

l Ser

vice

s (e

xclu

ding

insu

r-an

ce)

• A

ll pay

men

t and

m

one

y tr

ansm

is-

sio

n se

rvic

es,

incl

udin

g

• cr

edit,

cha

rge

and

debi

t car

ds,

• tr

avel

lers

che

ques

an

d ba

nker

s dr

afts

Tele

com

mun

icat

ion

serv

ices

Faci

litie

s-ba

sed:

• V

oic

e te

leph

one

ser

vice

s P

acke

t-sw

itche

d da

ta tr

ansm

is-

sio

n se

rvic

es

• C

ircui

t-sw

itche

d da

ta tr

ansm

is-

sio

n se

rvic

es

• T e

lex

serv

ices

• Te

legr

aph

serv

ices

• Fa

csim

ile s

ervi

ces

• P

rivat

e le

ased

circ

uit s

ervi

ces

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

ser

vice

s:

Res

ale

(no

n-fa

cilit

ies

base

d):

• V

oic

e te

leph

one

ser

vice

s

• P

acke

t-sw

itche

d da

ta tr

ans-

mis

sio

n se

rvic

es

• C

ircui

t-sw

itche

d da

ta tr

ans-

mis

sio

n se

rvic

es

• Te

lex

serv

ices

• T e

legr

aph

serv

ices

• Fa

csim

ile s

ervi

ces

• P

rivat

e le

ased

circ

uit S

ervi

ces

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

ser

vice

s:

Elec

tro

nic

mai

l

• V

oic

e m

ail

• O

n-lin

e in

f orm

atio

n an

d da

taba

se re

trie

val

• El

ectr

oni

c da

ta in

terc

hang

e

• En

hanc

ed/V

alue

-add

ed fa

csim

ile s

ervi

ces

• (in

clud

ing

sto

re a

nd fo

rwar

d, s

tore

an

d re

trie

ve)

• C

ode

and

pro

toco

l co

nver

sio

n

• O

n-lin

e in

form

atio

n an

d/o

r dat

a pr

oce

ssin

g (in

clud

ing

tran

sact

ion

pro

cess

ing)

Rail

Tran

spor

t Se

rvic

es

• Fr

eigh

t tra

ns-

port

atio

n

Road

Tra

nspo

rt

Serv

ices

• Fr

eigh

t tra

ns-

port

atio

n

Air

Tra

nspo

rt

Serv

ices

• M

aint

enan

ce a

nd

repa

ir o

f airc

raft

• Se

lling

and

mar

ketin

g o

f air

tran

spo

rt s

ervi

ces

• C

om

pute

r res

-er

vatio

n sy

stem

(C

RS

) ser

vice

s

Mar

itim

e Tr

ansp

ort S

ervi

ces

• Fr

eigh

t tra

nspo

rtat

ion

• (C

PC

721

2, le

ss c

abo

tage

tr

ansp

ort

ser

vice

s)

Serv

ices

aux

iliar

y to

all

mod

es

of tr

ansp

ort

• C

argo

-han

dlin

g se

rvic

es

• St

ora

ge a

nd w

areh

ous

e

• Fr

eigh

t tra

nspo

rt a

genc

y se

r-vi

ces

• O

ther

Sou

rce:

WT

O E

lect

roni

c C

om

mer

ce N

ego

tiat

ions

, Co

nso

lidat

ed N

ego

tiat

ing

Text

- D

ecem

ber 2

020

Rev

isio

n7

7 IN

F/EC

OM

/62

/Rev

.1



either the assumption of obligations to liberalise services markets or market access opportunities for OECS services providers in the markets of the bilateral partners. These agreements may be of some utility in supporting the growth of e-commerce in the OECS, in that goods imported from the OECS by consumers in the partner states may be exempt from customs duties. However, in the absence of trade-in-services commitments that could expand Mode 1 opportunities in key areas, it is doubtful that these opportunities can be fully realised.

The CARIFORUM–EU EPA addresses the issue of e-commerce. This is in keeping with the growing trend of regional trade agreements containing various species of commitments in this area. A 2017 WTO Working Paper noted that, at that time, there had been 75 notified regional trade agreements which contained provisions addressing e-commerce. The paper noted that these agreements addressed various issues, ranging from customs duties and non-discriminatory treatment to the domestic regulatory framework, electronic signatures, consumer protection, data protection, paperless trading, and unsolicited or undesired electronic messages (Monteiro and Teh 2017).

There are only two substantive provisions on e-commerce in the CARIFORUM–EU EPA, which in and of themselves fall along the weaker end of the spectrum of trade commitments in this area. Article 120(3) provides that the parties agree that deliveries by electronic means shall be considered as the provision of services as defined in the agreement and cannot be subject to customs duties. This effectively enshrines as between the parties, the WTO moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. The use of the language ‘deliveries by electronic means’ as opposed to the WTO language of ‘electronic transmissions’ has the added benefit of avoiding the debate that exists among WTO members about whether it is the transmission, as well as the delivery, which is subject to the moratorium or whether it is merely the electronic transmission.

Article 121 commits the parties to maintaining a dialogue on regulatory issues raised by electronic commerce. This dialogue is potentially of a wide scope, but specific issues to be addressed are:

1. the recognition of certificates of electronic signatures issued to the public and the facilitation of cross-border certification services;

2. the liability of intermediary service providers with respect to the transmission, or storage of information;

3. the treatment of unsolicited electronic commercial communications;

the protection of consumers in the ambit of electronic commerce; and

any other issue relevant for the development of electronic commerce.

It is notable that although Article 121(1) is not cast in the language of a development-oriented co-operation provision, Article 121(2) places it beyond doubt that it is. This provides that the ‘cooperation’ referred to in Article 121(1) can take the form of exchange of information on the respective legislation of the parties and the signatory CARIFORUM states on the regulatory issues mentioned in Article121(1), as well as on the implementation of such legislation. This means that on the basis of this provision, OECS states may be able to secure financial and non-financial support from the EU to assist with the implementation of legislative and policy frameworks that are required to support the development of a vibrant e-commerce ecosystem within the subregion.

In Article 119(2), the parties agree that the development of electronic commerce must be fully compatible with the highest international standards of data protection, in order to ensure the confidence of users of electronic commerce. Given the recognition that a majority of the OECS states do not have data protection legislation, data protection should be a priority for co-operation between the OECS and the EU within the framework of the CARIFORUM–EU EPA.

In the 2008 CARIFORUM–EU EPA, the OECS states commit to establishing a dialogue on e-commerce, reflecting a higher level of ambition in the bilateral context than the 1994 WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments taken in services sectors of direct relevance to the e-commerce ecosystem. CARIFORUM services commitments were scheduled using the positive list modality, in keeping with the GATS model. Full liberalisation is therefore denoted by a state having scheduled a specific sector and not having listed any reservations for either market access or national treatment in respect of that sector. Where a sector has been scheduled and either market access or national treatment reservations have been scheduled, this signals partial liberalisation.



Tabl

e 6.

3 O

ECS

EPA

co

mm

itm

ents

in k

ey e

-co

mm

erce

-alig

ned

serv

ices

sec

tors

SEC

TOR

/SU

BS

ECTO

RA

ntig

ua a

nd

Bar

buda

Dom

inic

aG

rena

daSt

Kit

ts a

nd

Nev

isS

aint

Luc

iaSt

Vin

cent

and

th

e G

rena

dine

s

Fina

ncia

l ser

vice

s

Lend

ing

and

cred

it se

rvic

esX

M3

(MA

/NT

)X

XX

X

Pay

men

t and

mo

ney

tran

smis

sio

n se

rvic

esM

3X

XX

M1.

M3

M1,

M3

Pro

visi

on

and

tran

sfer

of fi

nanc

ial in

form

atio

n an

d fin

an-

cial

dat

a pr

oce

ssin

g an

d re

late

d so

ftw

are

by p

rovi

ders

of

oth

er fi

nanc

ial s

ervi

ces

(CP

C 8

131)

XM

3X

XX

X

Com

pute

r and

rela

ted

serv

ices

Co

nsul

tanc

y se

rvic

es re

late

d to

the

inst

alla

tion

of c

om

-pu

ter h

ardw

are

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1F M

3PM

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3

Dat

a pr

oce

ssin

g se

rvic

esM

1 M

3M

1 M

3M

1 M

3M

1 M

3M

1 M

3M

1 M

3

Dat

abas

e se

rvic

esM

1M

1M

1M

1M

1M

1

Co

urie

r ser

vice

sM

1,M

1, M

3M

1M

1, M

3M

1M

1, M

3

Aud

io-v

isua

l ser

vice

sX

XX

XX

X

Po

stal

ser

vice

sX

XX

XX

X

Tele

com

mun

icat

ion

serv

ices

Pac

ket s

witc

hed

data

, circ

uit s

witc

hed

data

tran

smis

-si

on,

priv

ate

leas

ed c

ircui

t ser

vice

sM

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3

Onl

ine

info

rmat

ion

and

data

base

retr

ieva

l, o

nlin

e in

for-

mat

ion

and/

or d

ata

pro

cess

ing

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3 (C

ontin

ued)



Tabl

e 6.

3 O

ECS

EPA

co

mm

itm

ents

in k

ey e

-co

mm

erce

-alig

ned

serv

ices

sec

tors

(Con

tinu

ed)

SEC

TOR

/SU

BS

ECTO

RA

ntig

ua a

nd

Bar

buda

Dom

inic

aG

rena

daSt

Kit

ts a

nd

Nev

isS

aint

Luc

iaSt

Vin

cent

and

th

e G

rena

dine

s

Inte

rnet

and

inte

rnet

acc

ess

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

Mo

bile

dat

a se

rvic

esX

XX

M1,

M3

XX

Mo

bile

ser

vice

sM

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3

Inte

rnat

iona

l vo

ice,

dat

a an

d vi

deo

tran

smis

sio

n se

r-vi

ces

supp

lied

to fi

rms

invo

lved

in in

form

atio

n pr

oce

ss-

ing

loca

ted

with

in fr

ee z

one

s

XX

XM

1, M

3X

X

Dis

trib

utio

n se

rvic

esX

XX

XX

X

Mar

itim

e tr

ansp

ort

Frei

ght

tran

spor

tati

on (l

ess

cabo

tage

)M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3

Air

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

(fre

ight

):M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3M

1, M

3

Roa

d tr

ansp

ort

(Fre

ight

)X

XX

XX

X

Ser

vice

s au

xilia

ry to

all

mod

es o

f tra

nspo

rt

Car

go h

andl

ing

serv

ices

XX

XX

M1,

M3

M1,

M3

Sto

rage

and

war

eho

use

serv

ices

M3

M3

M3

M3

M1,

M3

Frei

ght t

rans

port

age

ncy

serv

ices

XM

1, M

3X

XX

X

Oth

er s

uppo

rtin

g an

d au

xilia

ry tr

ansp

ort

atio

n se

rvic

esX

M*

XX

XX

Lege

nd: X

= N

o c

om

mit

men

t, M

1 =

Mo

de 1

, M3

= M

ode

3.

Not

e: *

Do

min

ica’

s lib

eral

isat

ion

com

mit

men

ts w

ill b

e tr

igge

red

in 2

022.



Table 6.3 highlights the commitments of each OECS state in key e-commerce-aligned services sectors. For the purpose of the assessment, only Mode 1 and Mode 3 commitments have been examined, given the cross-border nature of e-commerce and the importance of the states being able to attract e-commerce-related investments. In the table, no distinction has been made between full and partial liberalisation commitments, given the focus on presenting an overall assessment of the sectors in which the OECS states have indicated some degree of openness, as opposed to those in respect of which a high degree of sensitivity has been observed.

The data reveal that the most sensitive sectors for the OECS states are: financial services, audio-visual services, postal services, distribution services, road transport (freight), freight transport agency services, and other supporting and auxiliary transportation services. In respect of each of these sectors/ subsectors, either none of the states assumed liberalisation commitments or only one did so. For the most part, there is a great degree of symmetry between the commitments of the states in relation to these most sensitive sectors. This suggests a high level of intra-regional co-ordination (explicit or tacit) in developing an OECS position based upon the common interests of the states. The least sensitive and most liberalised sectors were computer and related services and telecommunications services.

Specific trends are readily ascribable to specific OECS strategic interests. For example, all OECS states have assumed some form of liberalisation commitment in the maritime transport subsector of freight transportation (less cabotage) in both Modes 1 and 3, given the need that the states have for international freight connections and the lack of capacity in this sector in the subregion. It is surprising, however, that only St Kitts and Nevis has entered into commitments in relation to mobile data services, given the need in the region for more investment in mobile data infrastructure.

Presumably, the demonstrated sensitivities of the OECS states relate to the small size of their markets or the inadequate policy framework in the subregion at the time of the conclusion of the EPA. OECS states are encouraged to review these positions, to ensure that their EPA trade commitments are fully attuned to the potential to secure increased trade

and investment from the EU in key e-commerce-aligned sectors.

6.5 The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and its relationship to e-commerce and digital trade in the OECS

When the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) entered into force on 22 February 2017, it established binding rules on all WTO members to follow a prescribed set of measures to ensure transparent, predictable rules for moving goods across borders expeditiously. Implementation of these provisions is linked to the capacity of countries to undertake the measures outlined in the agreement and, further, to a pledge from development partners, who agreed to providing the capacity-building support required by WTO developing country members.8 The 37 measures that underpin the agreement are ultimately expected to reduce the time and costs of border transactions, by cutting red tape, improving efficiency and promoting transparency. The WTO estimates that TFA implementation could reduce trade costs by up to 14.3% (WTO 2015) in WTO member countries, with the most savings accruing to developing and least developed countries. With the burden of compliance much more costly for SMES, the expectation is that small firms, such as those in the OECS, will benefit the most from trade efficiency gains. The World Economic Forum9 estimates that SMEs in some economies could see an increase their cross-border sales by 60% to 80%.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of full implementation of the TFA provisions to speed up trade operations became apparent. Measures that were scheduled for later implementation had to be put into effect straight away by some countries, to ensure that trade and transport facilitation could proceed uninterrupted with the minimal contact between customs, essential port (air and sea) operators, and

8 Category A commitments were implemented by members on entry into force of the agreement. Category B commitments include measures that members have agreed to implement after a transitional period, following entry into force of the agreement, while Category C commitments involve measures that are contingent on technical assistance and capacity building and are therefore allowed an extended timeframe before multilateral obligations are questioned.

9 Website available at: www.wefforum.org.



designated traders and logistics service providers. As noted in the Trading Across Borders analysis in Chapter 2 of this report, all OECS member states have implemented provisions supporting the free movement of goods within the customs territory. However, the TFA articles most cited by the World Bank (Mugica et al. 2018) for having the biggest impact on reducing time and cost of trade procedures, as measured by the Doing Business Report, (that is, the introduction of electronic data Interchanges and Single Electronic Windows) are not widely implemented at present across the OECS.

Chapter 2 of this report also provides detailed analysis of the provisions directly related to e-commerce and digital trade, and the gaps where reforms are required in each country to support e-commerce and digital trade.

6.5.1 Implementation of the TFA – progress to date by OECS members

A total of 133 Category A measures have been implemented by the OECS to date (CARICOM Secretariat Office of Trade Negotiations 2019), with 108 earmarked for future commitments. This includes 35 that are being implemented following the TFA transition period and 75 measures that require technical assistance and support for capacity building. Based on notifications to the WTO, St Kitts and Nevis has implemented the most commitments (57), followed by St Vincent and the Grenadines (42), and Antigua and Barbuda (41). By contrast, countries with the lowest implementation

are Dominica, Grenada, and Saint Lucia with 36 commitments each.

All OECS members have indicated their Category C requests for support, with each member state requiring varying levels of assistance – as shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2. In keeping with the need to ensure the smooth flow of goods within the common customs territory, all six member states have requested support to meet four common provisions in their Category C requests: Article 3 – Advanced Rulings; Article 6.1 – General Disciplines on Fees and Charges imposed on or in connection with importation and exportation; Article 6.2 – Specific Disciplines on Fees and Charges imposed on or in connection with importation and exportation; and Article 10.4 – Single Window. These four, along with Article 7.6 – Establishment and Publication of Average Release Times, are critical to trade facilitation competitiveness but as well to supporting the OECS’ ecommerce ambitions.

6.5.2 Trade facilitation and risk management – current protocols for importing into the OECS Customs Union

The OECS applies a Risk Management Programme to enable the free circulation of goods within the Customs Union (see Figure 6.2). The programme includes:

1. Common Risk Classification

2. Common Risk Procedures

Figure 6.1. Time reduction in trade facilitation due to different TFA-related reforms recorded by Doing Business in 2016/2017

Source: World Bank.



3. Common Inspection Procedures

4. Common Pest and Disease List

5. Common Pesticide List

6. Common List of Prohibited Products

7. Common List of Restricted Products

The free circulation of goods within the Customs Union means that goods, including cross-border consignments, are not subjected to any import formalities, such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, upon arrival in the receiving member state (Figure 6.2). Import formalities are limited to three factors:

1. Fiscal requirements: customs duties; other duties and charges; inspection fees.

2. Physical requirements: multiple agency approvals, multiple documentary checks; physical inspections of goods.

3. Technical requirements: licences and permits; technical regulation and standards.

The OECS has established import procedures workflow, which interfaces with the ASYCUDA World Customs Management System by allowing traders to lodge documents directly via the OECS Trade Facilitation Portal. There, import permits are approved, conformity assessments are done, and data lodged to ASYCUDA World before approval are granted to the importer. Real-time data exchange means that the transaction data are relayed to

relevant entities and stakeholders at the same time (Figure 6.3).

The OECS Commission has a regime for trade in goods and defined protocols for external border management, which includes:

• application of a common customs tariff;

• harmonised import formalities across member states;

• integrated risk management for security and compliance across the OECS;

• national and cross-border interconnectivity of border control agencies;

• harmonised port standard operating procedures (SOPs) for handling, storage and delivery of goods entering or leaving the Economic Union.

The commission has identified several inefficiencies in the legal framework and regulatory framework that impede the efficient flow of goods. Proposals on how to address these have been outlined by the OECS Commission.

6.5.3 OECS – fees and charges regime

Data on the OECS’ position with respect to fees and charges for cross-border e-commerce consignments is limited. Information10 available for

Figure 6.2. Schematic for OECS risk management systems governing the circulation of goods

Source: OECS Commission.

10 Source: Trade Policy Unit, Economic Affairs Division, OECS Commission.



St Kitts and Nevis indicate that authorities do not have di minimis thresholds in relation to customs duty, VAT or commercial samples. Under current practice, informally there is a minimum value for which customs duty and taxes would not be collected in most instances. However, this practice is not official and is carried out at the discretion of the customs officer.

Reports suggest that in St Kitts and Nevis, there is somewhat of a de minimis threshold in relation to ‘gift packages’, i.e., shipments of foodstuff imported into the Federation. Consignments of less than 45kgs or 100lbs are exempted from customs duty and taxes.

Setting transparent de minimis thresholds is a concern of customs administrations world-wide. A survey commissioned by the World Customs Organization (2017) illustrates the range of fees charged and the guidelines and national considerations that govern those charges (see Appendix 4). For example, the Dominican Republic (the only Caribbean country to participate in the survey), has a standard threshold US$200 for customs duty, taxes, gifts and commercial samples with an FOB (‘free on board’) value of US$200 to US$2000 for simplified declarations. Restricted goods are exempt from di minimis thresholds. A de minimis threshold is useful in promoting e-commerce, as it establishes a clear and transparent taxes, fees and charges regime for e-commerce players.

6.5.4 Aligning TFA implementation to e-commerce in the WTO

The WTO currently defines its Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ‘to mean the production, distribution, marketing, sale or delivery of goods and services by electronic means’ (WTO 1998). The work caried out in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), one of the four committees examining the subject is most relevant to a discussion on the relationship between trade facilitation and e-commerce. The issues earmarked for discussions by the CTD include examining:

• the effects of electronic commerce on the trade and economic prospects of developing countries, notably of their small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and means of maximising possible benefits accruing to them;

• challenges to and ways of enhancing the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce, in particular as exporters of electronically delivered products: the role of improved access to infrastructure and transfer of technology, and of movement of natural persons;

• use of information technology in the integration of developing countries in the multilateral trading system;

• implications for developing countries of the possible impact of electronic commerce

Figure 6.3. Procedures for managing risk in the goods-importing process in the OECS

Source: OECS Commission.



on the traditional means of distribution of physical goods; and

• financial implications of electronic commerce for developing countries.

The latest draft of the Electronic Commerce Negotiating Text (WTO 2020a) reflects progress so far in the WTO with proposed provisions, which will have direct bearing on, and which will reinforce several measures in, the Trade Facilitation Agreement. These are:

Section A.

A.2. Digital trade facilitation and logistics

• Paperless trading

• Electronic transferable records

• De minimis

• Customs procedures

a. Single Window data exchange and system interoperability

b. Logistics services

c. Enhanced trade facilitation

d. Use of technology for the release and clearance of goods

e. Provision of trade facilitating and supportive services

Section B. Openness and electronic commerce

B.3. Customs duties on electronic transmissions

Section D: Cross-cutting issues

D (2) Electronic availability of trade-related information

6.5.5 The relationship between the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the WTO e-commerce negotiations

In the aftermath of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, WTO members (WTO 2020b) have sought to expedite specific obligations of the TFA that are considered critical to ‘jumpstarting’ the world economy. This initiative constitutes an important pillar of the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The TFA obligations that are now priority in the WTO, and which are the focus for priority technical assistance and capacity building, are:

Considering this development, member countries are readjusting their Category C implementation proposals, to ensure that they reflect the revised focus of the membership. An indicative table illustrating the TFA obligations that will support eventual ‘TFA-friendly’ e-commerce commitments is set out in Table 6.5.

6.5.6 Implications for OECS member states for managing their TFA obligations alongside their e-commerce discussions in the WTO

OECS member states should consider aligning their e-commerce negotiating proposals alongside a parallel track with their TFA implementation obligations, to ensure that outcomes at the level of the WTO e-commerce negotiations reflect and enhance the objectives of their national competitiveness agenda and reinforce strategic priorities, including those set out in the CARICOM Regional Trade Facilitation Strategy (CARICOM Secretariat 2017). For example, whereas CARICOM trade and customs officials have established a hierarchy of TFA provisions, the Accelerated Implementation TFA under discussion at present in the WTO excludes some of the measures deemed critical for CARICOM and OECS countries, such as the five provisions below:

Article 6.1 General Disciplines on Fees and Charges for Customs Processing Imposed on or in Connection with Importation and Exportation (Publi-cation Aspects)

Article 7.6 Establishment and Publication of Average Release Times (Publication Aspects)

Article 7.4 Risk Management

Article 7.5 Post-clearance Audit

Article 5.3 Test Procedures

Article 1.1 Publication

Article 7.1 Pre-arrival processing

Article 7.3 Separation of Release from Final Determination of Customs Duties, Taxes and Charges

Article 7.8 Expedited Shipments

Article 8 Border Agency Coordination

Article 10.1 Formalities and Documentation Requirements

Article 10.2Acceptance of Copies

Article 10.4 Single Window



6.5.7 E-commerce and digital trade in the OECS – the role of the World Customs Organization

The growing trade in cross-border electronic commerce (e-commerce) has generated enormous opportunities for the global economy, developing new trade modes, driving new consumption

trends and creating new jobs, according to the World Customs Organization (WCO 2018). This unprecedented growth has revolutionised the way businesses and consumers market, sell and purchase goods, providing wider choices, advance shipping, payment and delivery options. At the same time, e-commerce, in particular business-to-consumer (B2C) and consumer- to-consumer

Table 6.4 Indicative framework for OECS discussions on e-commerce in the WTO using the accelerated implementation of the TFA

TFA articles TFA-relevant measures in the WTO E-commerce Negotiating Text

Article 1.1 Publication

Article 7.1 Pre-arrival process-ing Article

Article 7.3 Separation of Release from Final Determination of Cus-toms Duties, Taxes and Charges Article

Article 7.8 Expedited Ship-ments Article

Article 8 Border Agency Coordina-tion Article

Article 10.1 Formalities and Docu-mentation Requirements Article

Article 10.2 Acceptance of Cop-ies Article


Article 10.1 Formalities and Docu-mentation Requirements

Article 7.8 Expedited Shipments

Article 8 Border Agency Coordina-tion Article



• Paperless trading

• Electronic transferable records

Section D: Cross-cutting issues

• Electronic availability of trade-related information


• Customs procedures

• Use of technology for the release and clearance of goods.

• Single Window data exchange and system interoperability

• De minimis

Section B. Openness and electronic commerceA.2. Digital trade facilitation and logistics

• Provision of trade facilitating and supportive services

B.3. Customs duties on electronic transmissions


Customs procedures

De minimis

Single Window data exchange and system interoperability

Logistics services

Enhanced trade facilitation

Use of technology for the release and clearance of goods

A.2 Digital trade facilitation and logistics

a. Customs procedures

Single Window data exchange and system interoperability

b. Logistics services

Enhanced trade facilitation

Use of technology for the release and clearance of goods



(C2C) transactions, presents several new challenges for governments, customs departments and businesses.

The main challenges to customs include balancing trade facilitation and security, including determining how to manage: (a) cross-border e-commerce consignments, including managing the security risks and generating accurate and good quality data; (b) the fair and efficient collection of duties and taxes, including setting de minimis thresholds; and (c) security protection from criminals who exploit e-commerce for nefarious reasons, such as illicit trade and smuggling.

The WCO has developed new guidance to deal with cross-border e-commerce, including guidance on how to manage increasing volume of low-value consignments while attending to potential risks. The WCO Cross-Border E-Commerce Framework of Standards (2018) builds on the WCO SAFE Framework, to provide eight guiding principles for customs authorities, other related border agencies and e-commerce stakeholders:

1. Advance Electronic Data and Risk Management

2. Facilitation and Simplification of Procedures

3. Safety and Security

4. Revenue Collection

5. Measurement and Analysis

6. Partnerships

7. Public Awareness, Outreach and Capacity Building

8. Legislative Frameworks

In addition to the eight principles, the framework provides global standards to support cross-border e-commerce that will contribute to national and global economic development, while at the same time ensuring appropriate controls to protect economies, societies and environments that include natural and production areas in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. It provides guidance on how border agencies should deal with high-risk consignments while expediting the clearance and release of low-risk goods, thus improving efficiency and predictability of the e-commerce supply chain for traders and consumers and ensuring optimal utilisation of resources.

The WCO’s legal and regulatory frameworks provide guidance to administrations on how to enhance facilitation, safety and security, and control of physical (tangible) goods through the provision of advance data across various business models; how to define the legal status and respective roles and responsibilities of the economic stakeholders involved in cross-border e-commerce; how to observe privacy and anti-trust laws and protect the personal information of consumers; how to take care of the interests of e-vendors and e-platforms, intermediaries and customers; and how to facilitate safe and secure cross-border e-commerce in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. Governments are encouraged to leverage existing WCO conventions, and tools and relevant WTO agreements, in particular in the TFA.

6.5.8 Risk controls in dealing with cross-border e-commerce consignments

Customs authorities and border agencies have three major areas of concern in dealing with physical e-commerce: developing a system that can manage the data for cross-border e-commerce consignments; keeping track of the new actors introduced in the e-commerce chain; and new data sources. A framework developed by the OECS is suggested in Figure 6.4. Some WTO members, like Thailand, have moved a step further by adopting specific risk management tools for express e-commerce consignments (Figure 6.5).

6.5.9 Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the key provisions of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) that underpin customs and fulfilment requirements for physical e-commerce and has highlighted the TFA implementation provisions related to e-commerce and digital trade. The three (3) provisions that should be prioritised by OECS countries for implementation are: Article 10.1 – Streamlining formalities and documentation requirements; Article 10.2 – Government departments accepting paper or electronic copies instead of original documents; and Article 10.4- – Implementation of Single Windows to allow the sharing of information between parties in a trade transaction using a single platform.



Advance electronic data are essential for effective risk management and the treatment of cross-border e-commerce consignments. Risks are reduced where declaration data are streamlined and the introduction of a simplified declaration and clearance process for goods below the de minimis value is recommended. Customs agencies within the OECS would be best placed to specify the data needed, the method for collecting data and which

parties should submit documentation. E-commerce platform providers and logistics provides are also well placed to provide the data required.

6.5.10 Recommendations

• Establish new rules and regulations for the OECS that are tailored to cross-border e-commerce consignments (CBEC) and the industry players.

Figure 6.4. Addressing cross-border electronic consignments data for goods – trade facilitation and risk management

Figure 6.5. Risk management model for express e-commerce consignments

Source: Jonathan Koh, CAREC Webinar on E-Commerce & Paperless Trade, 3 Sept 2020.



• Review the de minimis threshold and consider raising it to promote CBEC and reduce logistical burdens,

• Re-examine existing risk management for CBEC consignments.

ReferencesCaribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat (2017), Implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Strategy – CARICOM Regional Priorities and Strategies, November, Georgetown.

CARICOM Secretariat Office of Trade Negotiations (2019), Consolidated TFA Implementation Schedule for CARICOM countries as of November 2019.

Durant, I (2021), ‘Developing countries and trade negotiations on e-commerce’, Acting Secretary-General of UNCTAD, 19 February, available at: https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-and-trade-negotiations-e-commerce

Monteiro, J-AR Teh (2017), ‘Provisions on Electronic Commerce in Regional Trade Agreements’, WTO Working Paper ERSD-2017-11, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201711_e.pdf

Mugica, IZ, M Youbi and C Ferro (2018), ‘WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement and Doing Business Reforms: Are they related and how?’, World Bank, Washington, DC.

UNCTAD (2020b), ‘What is at stake for developing countries in trade negotiations on e-commerce? The case of the Joint Statement Initiative’, UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2020/5, UNCTAD, Geneva.

World Customs Organization (2017), WCO Study Report on Cross-Border E-Commerce, WCO, Brussels.

World Customs Organization (2018), Cross-border E-Commerce Framework of Standards, WCO, Brussels.

World Trade Organization (1998), ‘Committee on Trade and Development: Development Implications of Electronic Commerce’, Note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/W/51/23), November.

World Trade Organization (2015), World Trade Report 2015, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr15_e.htm

WTO (2020a), ‘Electronic Commerce Negotiations – Consolidated Negotiating Text’, (INF/ECOM/62/REV 1), December.

WTO (2020b), ‘Supporting the timely and efficient release of global goods through the accelerated implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement’, proposal from the USA, European Union, Australia, Colombia, Iceland Japan, Norway, Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan and Brazil, G/TFA/W/25/Rev.2.


https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-and-trade-negotiations-e-commerce


https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201711_e.pdf


https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr15_e.htm



7. Conclusions and RecommendationsAddressing gaps identified in the OECS’ enabling environment for e-commerce

There was significant coherence between the findings of the literature review and of the survey responses, with the literature review effectively providing useful contexts to the responses, by indicator, to the e-readiness survey. Gaps were identified in OECS e-readiness in all e-readiness pillars. The preceding chapters have identified areas for enhanced e-commerce in several areas, including the following:

• Trade Facilitation

• Transportation and Logistics

• Legal and Regulatory Strengthening

{ International Maritime Legislation

{ Consumer Protection

{ Cybersecurity

{ Financial technologies and payment solutions

{ Intellectual Property

• Policy and Strategy Development

• Harmonisation of Policy and Legal Framework for E-commerce

• Institutional Strengthening

• Public Education and Awareness Building

• Capacity Building and Training for Stakeholder Readiness

• Cost of Doing Business

• Connectivity and Access to Information and Communication Technology

The following conclusions and recommendations have been identified based on the analysis of the previous chapters.

7.1 Conclusions and recommendationsA key objective of this assignment was to define the critical issues posed by rapid expansion of e-commerce in the OECS, accompanied by a

clear set of recommendations to ensure that e-commerce is facilitated and not stymied in the member states and across the wider region.

However, rather than viewing this as a definitive exercise, the OECS member states should see this as a first step in a more extensive process of continuous assessment, to ensure that their legal and regulatory frameworks keep pace with the changes that are coming so quickly.

7.1.1 Transport and logistics

Despite the dearth of OECS-specific data on the transportation and logistics requirements for e-commerce and digital trade, the consultation with project stakeholders has to a large extent confirmed the potential priority areas for OECS members states and stakeholders. The need to improve market access for cargo and passengers is a first priority.

As with other regions of the world, the OECS should consider using the lessons from the pandemic as a guide on how to build transportation and logistics resilience for the future. This includes further strengthening co-operation between OECS countries and the wider CARICOM, to resolve the problems impeding cross-border trade and to collectively design solutions that can be deployed as expeditiously as possible.

Alongside this recommendation, is the need for: developing logistics and transportation linkages between the OECS states and United States territories in order to obtain on-ramp access into the US postal system; harmonising regional regulations and incorporating international maritime legislation in domestic law, as well as investing in the skills and personnel needed to foster modern port infrastructure development that will support physical e-commerce; developing guidelines to eliminate supply-chain barriers and facilitate logistics chain development; and digitalising maritime trade and port logistics.

Further recommendations in this area are the importance of:

• developing a regional Air Transport Authority that would be responsible for a single


7. Conclusions and Recommendations \ 103

Caribbean space, with its related common laws and regulations.

• adopting and fast-tracking automation of customs and border clearance procedures, including updated versions and modules of ASYCUDA that include risk management tools to facilitate the fast clearance of traditional exports and cross-border e-commerce consignments at air and seaports; and

• reducing taxes, fees and charges as a way to establish commercially sustainable routes, as advised by IATA, whose studies have shown that the Caribbean is considered highly taxed in both inter- and extra-regional markets, with taxes, fees and charges some 10% higher for intra-regional flights.

7.1.2 Cybersecurity in the OECS

While legislative reform is essential to address cybersecurity, governments must also make practical efforts to address cyberthreats. These include: requiring all government agencies to implement training or specific types of security policies and practices and improving incidence response and preparedness; creating taskforces, councils or commissions to study/ advise on cybersecurity issues; and supporting programmes or incentives for cybersecurity training and education.

Further, governments must work together with the private sector and civil society organisations, recognising that cybersecurity is a shared responsibility. Companies in the OECS, especially those engaged in e-commerce, need to adopt policies to keep information secure, put in place technical safeguards, and develop response plans for data security incidents, as well as to avoid fraudulent, deceptive and unfair practices.

Additionally, internet service providers (ISPs) may need to take extra measures to educate users on how to recognise and protect themselves from fraud.

Public education or awareness raising is another vital tool to change cybersecurity behaviour but should be implemented in conjunction with other influencing strategies. It is very important for OECS member states to promote positive information security behaviours among stakeholders at every level. These practices, supported by user-friendly security technologies, will help to provide a solid foundation for a cyber-resilient society.

Stakeholders report that there are still issues with trust (of technology, institutions, doing business online), and limited capacity to transition to doing business online, especially among certain groups like the elderly and disabled. Even among groups like the youth, where there is high use of the internet and adoption of online services, there is urgent need to conduct sensitisation, especially around cybersecurity – as this segment of the population can be somewhat naïve about the risks and the dark side of the internet.

Ongoing legislative reform is essential to address cybersecurity, but governments must also make practical efforts to address cyberthreats. These should include requiring all government agencies to implement training or specific types of security policies and practices and improving incidence-response and preparedness.

Other measures may include creating taskforces, councils or commissions to study/advise on cybersecurity issues; and supporting programmes or incentives for cybersecurity training and education. Efforts must be implemented to facilitate the raising of cybersecurity awareness at multiple levels.

7.1.3 The regulatory environmentIncluded in the list of priority action items that need to be addressed by OECS states in order for the regulatory environment supportive of e-commerce to be improved, is the completion of legislative reform. Given the risks outlined in this report, there is increased urgency for legislators in the OECS member states to prioritise legislative reform, and to ensure that these laws are passed within the next year.

There is also an urgent need for policies to be developed to govern the day-to-day application of legislation, having regard to the idiosyncrasies of each OECS member, but also to ensure that these policies support the increasing development of intra-regional and international trade.

Overall, the Global Information Technology Report (Baller et al. 2016) indicates that common successful elements that provide for effective e-government and improving economies are political support from the highest levels of authority, knowledgeable and well-placed human capital (individuals who not only understand the field, but who can connect with the right authorities and effectively communicate needs), and financial



resources, as well as the willingness to specifically devote those resources to ICT development.

Consumer protection is lagging behind in some OECS member states and the expansion of e-commerce in the OECS has exacerbated the risks to consumers; therefore, there is the need for protection for both domestic and cross-border purchases. Currently, only Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia have consumer protection legislation. Therefore, legislation is required in Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. The cross-border enforcement of consumer protection is also a major challenge, requiring effective co-operation between national enforcement agencies.

7.1.4 Intellectual property within the e-commerce ecosystem

Technologies that underlie computers, robots and smart equipment are becoming increasingly more advanced and, in turn, are transforming organisations, sectors and countries all over the world. In the OECS, while we recognise that we must embrace new technology and innovation in order to progress, we are largely users of technology, not innovators.

As small island developing states (SIDS) operating in an increasingly competitive digitised world, OECS states will only be able to gain a competitive advantage by being well-versed in digital innovation and transformation.

As the IT and other STEM-related industries are expected to continue growing exponentially worldwide, there is an urgent need to overhaul education systems within the subregion to prepare today’s students to become not only tech-savvy future employees, but innovative entrepreneurs who are able to envision and create new technologies.

In order to develop OECS’ regional capacity in the area of intellectual property, the authorities should conduct a comprehensive review of the intellectual property framework. The intellectual property framework in the OECS member states is largely outdated and does not correspond to many real needs, either in the present or for the future.

While this report has primarily explored copyright issues that emerged from our focus on the cultural and creative industries (CCIs), and more particularly on the music industry, the authors of this report strongly recommend that the entire intellectual

property framework in each of the OECS member states, that is, copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks, geographical indicators, etc., be subjected to a comprehensive review.

And further, that the laws be harmonised to promote and facilitate trade between OECS member states, and the existence of a level regulatory playing field across the subregion.

In addition to the updating of IP legislation, we recommend that policies and other support mechanisms should be developed to ensure that the legal system facilitates and keeps pace with the innovations of the ICT and related industries, and with the dynamism of our CCI industries.

7.1.5 Financial services in the OECSWith the rapid growth in the technology-driven financial services sector, there is a need to build on capacity that will impact positively on the FinTech sector in the OECS. Building the capacity of the players in this sector will enable them to continue to provide innovative e-commerce-aligned financial services, that will especially be of benefit to SMEs.

Initiatives could include the establishment of a structured mentorship programme for building FinTech talents, to be provided by skilled mentors who have demonstrated success in similar areas. Stakeholders should work with educational entities in the OECS, to incorporate courses at the tertiary and secondary levels.

In addition, partnership linkages should be facilitated between FinTech firms and large companies that can allow for internships.

Governments should assist FinTech firms by providing digital financial literacy programmes to consumers, in order to improve the trust within the sector. In addition, the government, as well as other ecosystem supporters, can incentivise FinTech firms to diversify their offerings to different segments that are currently not being served.

As a result of the upsurge in the development of FinTech firms, it is imperative to develop legislation and regulations to ensure that consumers are adequately protected and in order to engender a sense of consumer trust. It would therefore be imperative that regulation of FinTech products focuses on issues such as the use and retention of consumer financial information (data protection and privacy) and safeguarding of customer funds.



In the absence of comprehensive FinTech-related legislation, one solution to the issue of lack of appropriate oversight is for OECS states to develop regulatory sandboxes. These are tools to mitigate uncertainty in a controlled environment and can therefore provide a safe space for testing with temporary regulations for a set period. In designing modern legislative frameworks, OECS states can also benefit from examining international best practice on FinTech.

FinTech units should be established in the OECS territories, dedicated to start-ups and staffed with relevant expertise. Staff in these units can act as liaison between financial service providers and regulatory bodies. The units can be responsible for managing the sandboxes and implementing programmes to encourage FinTech innovation.

One of the most predominant reasons for the differing rates of the growth of FinTech in developed versus developing countries, is the digital divide that exists between the two. The successful growth of FinTech in the OECS will therefore depend on the extent to which the states can, through pioneering investment and appropriate government support, develop ICT infrastructure in the region.

IT developers in the OECS have been attempting to change the landscape of the financial sector, but have faced many challenges. Recommendations to address these challenges may include ensuring an enabling environment; and encouraging public–private relationships that will reduce costs in the sector.

Additionally, OECS governments and the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB) should push for: privacy, data and online protection legislation; improved connectivity and increases in hotspots; and greater support, including technical assistance, from OECS governments to MSMEs and SMEs.

Measures could also include the offering of low-cost mobile and internet packages; and the adoption of local content in applications to better serve clients. Using the Creole language will be an advantage.

The way forward is for greater international collaboration and co-operation, as well as more cross-border sandboxes. A harmonised legal framework and a revamped legal architecture for FinTech entities in the OECS is a necessity. Consumers form an important ingredient in the FinTech mix and there is a need to improve financial literacy for OECS consumers.

Trinidad and Tobago has been making inroads in the development of FinTech companies and the central bank has noted the possibilities that FinTech offers for improving the efficiency and security of financial transactions, as well as financial inclusion. The Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago is, however, concerned about the risks that these new financial innovations pose to the financial system – so the bank’s position is ‘open but cautious’. The OECS therefore has a roadmap that can be adopted by following the example of Trinidad and Tobago; states should not try to ‘reinvent the wheel’.

7.1.6 Capacity building and trainingTo ensure that the importance of e-commerce is appreciated by all stakeholders, first, efforts must be made to communicate the key issues to a wide cross-section of stakeholders, and second, groups of stakeholders must be trained on how to benefit from e-commerce and the dynamic digital environment that facilitates it.

Stakeholders have identified that there is a critical need for public awareness and digital literacy programmes in all the member states. So, it is important to conduct public awareness and digital literacy/education programmes.

The current assignment incorporates the development of a capacity building train the trainers programme fashioned to effectively meet the needs of the e-commerce sector. This should include the cultivation of deeper knowledge about the key legal issues related to e-commerce. The proposed objective of the training is to increase understanding of the importance of e-commerce laws at the national level and across the OECS, while highlighting their potential impact on areas such as: increased participation in regional/global markets and supply chains; e-government strategy; mobile commerce; and e-payment systems.

7.2 Elements of an OECS Strategy on Digital Trade and E-Commerce and related roadmap and approaches to developing e-commerce in the OECS subregionThis section delineates the gap areas in the readiness indicators along thematic lines, taking into consideration the findings on gaps in the OECS e-commerce framework, the literature



review and stakeholder consultation, which have informed the development of a strategic framework for supporting OECS countries’ e-commerce development. This Strategic Framework on E-Commerce is recommended as the tool for scheduling, monitoring and evaluating interventions in favour of e-commerce development in the OECS.

7.2.1 The OECS Strategy on E-Commerce

The OECS Strategy on E-Commerce takes into account the fundamental features of an effective digital ecosystem today and in the foreseeable future, giving due regard to the dynamism and high rate of change of digital business models. The analysis of gaps in the OECS relative to that fundamental estimation of e-readiness is based on analysis of the findings of the e-readiness survey tool; the literature review; as well as stakeholder consultation at the OECS-subregional and wider CARIFORUM levels.

The AZGI captures the extent to which respondents perceived a disparity in the optimal position for a readiness indicator when compared with what existed; for example, excellent and non-existent, and strongly agree and disagree. Table 7.1 outlines high-priority e-readiness gaps in the OECS and reflects the areas in which the gaps perceived by respondents were most severe and warrant the greatest attention. The selected gaps have been grouped in two bands of severity, with Band A scoring from 85% to 98% on the AZGI and being considered, based on respondent perception, to be the most demanding areas of attention within the e-readiness framework. Band B reflects indicators

scoring 76% to 84% on the AZGI and being considered, based on respondent perception, to be less demanding than Band A. Within each thematic category, the table lists the discrete e-readiness indicator in order of the AZGI score.

Notwithstanding the scores, policy-makers would be obliged to assess the logical sequence of remedial interventions in programmes for the enhancement of e-readiness. Thematic areas appear in both Band A and Band B, and this coincidence would also be an area of consideration in the sequencing of activities targeting the same issue. Some indicators may be addressed as standalone issues, such as shipping costs, which fall under the pillar focusing on logistics and delivery, which itself is directly assigned to the Trade Facilitation Agenda and Doing Business Index on Trading Across Borders. However, for focus and efficiency, some indicators appear to be more logically grouped together to achieve solutions; for example, data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity. Based on the survey responses, the highest priority e-readiness gaps in the OECS are listed in Tables 7.2 and 7.3; these are the areas that were perceived as having a shortfall of more than 75% from the ideal position for the indicator.

Tables 7.2 and 7.3 list the corresponding pillar for each indicator listed under the strategic thematic headings. The ten most severe gaps in the region are associated with Pillar 2: Logistics and delivery; Pillar 3; Citizens’ readiness for e-commerce, Pillar 4; Business readiness for e-commerce, and Pillar 5: Financial and banking ecosystem to support e-commerce. All ten indicators present very wide gaps, ranging from 95% to 98%. These gaps in

Table 7.1. High-priority e-readiness gaps in the OECS

Band A Priority Areas (Azgi 86–98%) Band B Priority Areas (Azgi 76%–85%)

• Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity • Marketing Focus

• Capacity Building and Training • Online Security

• Payment Infrastructure and Solutions • Payments Infrastructure and Solutions

• Transportation (subset: Logistics & Delivery) • Financing

• Finance, Infrastructure and Solutions • Advocacy – Political

• Trade Promotion • Trade Facilitation

• Investment Promotion • Advocacy – Stakeholder

• Industry Best Practices • Stakeholder Engagement

• Stakeholder Engagement

• Advocacy

• Trade Facilitation



Table 7.2. BAND A: AZGI 86% to 98%

PILLAR Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity Score

4 4.2 Online security 0.98

4 4.2 Privacy and confidentiality of transactions 0.98

4 4.2 Credit card fraud 0.98

4 4.2 Data breaches 0.98

4 4.2 System reliability 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that protect consumers online 0.94

6 6-1: Status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism 0.87

Capacity-building and Training

3 3.2 Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized busi-nesses (MSMEs)

0.98

3 3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries 0.96

3 3.2 Education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools

0.95

3 3.2 Raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce

0.94

3 3.2a: Raising consumer awareness about e-commerce 0.94


2 2.2 Availability of online payment methods 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that allow for electronic payments 0.97

5 5-1: Regulations that allow for mobile payments 0.93

5 5-1: Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options 0.91

5 5-1: Awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments

0.90

Transportation

2 2-2a: Low shipping costs 0.94

Trade Promotion

3 3.2a: Integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities 0.94


2 2-2a: Efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations 0.94

5 5-3b: Awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions

0.90

5 5-1: Educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers

0.90

5 5-3b: Promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce

0.89

Financing Infrastucture and Solutions

5 5-3a: Availability of access-to-finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs 0.92

5 5-3b: Identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures 0.92

5 5-3a: Awareness on different types and/or blends of financing 0.90

(Continued)



ascending order of gap severity, are: (1) education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions, and high schools; (2) capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries; (3) regulations that allow for electronic mobile payments; (4) system reliability; (5) availability of online payment methods; (6) online security; (7) privacy and confidentiality of transactions; (8) credit card fraud; (9) data breaches; and (10) capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs).

Being perceived as the areas with the greatest shortcomings in terms of e-readiness, the areas reflected in the table inform the recommended strategic framework and roadmap for advancing OECS e-readiness. These were considered alongside those specific gaps identified in the literature review and could be used by OECS stakeholders and development partners in programming activities. The strategic framework includes an indicative logical framework matrix covering 12 strategic areas. For each key strategy area based upon the Gap Index and Desk Research, key Recommendation(s), descriptions, strategic interventions, timeframes, strategic actors, complementary activities (ongoing and concluded), have been identified.

The AZGI ranking allows for movement away from broad e-readiness pillars to more specific thematic areas and related indicators across pillars. At the

level of each thematic strategy area, as reflected in the tables below, the clustering of gap areas at high scores on the AZGI make it challenging to identify priority and sequencing for programming interventions. Thematic strategy areas span multiple indicators in different pillars. The repetition of thematic strategy areas in Band A and Band B, coalesce around 12 gap areas with an AZGI score of 76% to 98%. Marketing Focus and Political Advocacy appear in Band B, without an equivalent thematic area in Band A; thereby increasing the high gap areas to 12. Otherwise, the Band B listings are the same for specific issues that would fall under the broader thematic areas scoring highest on the AZGI in Band A. For example, Advocacy as a general area appears in Band A, while Band B priorities distinguish between indicators of Political Advocacy and Stakeholder Advocacy, with the Political Advocacy scoring a little higher than Stakeholder Advocacy. For Finance, Infrastructure and Solutions, Band A gaps relate to access to finance for MSMEs, identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures, and awareness of different types and blends of financing; meanwhile in Band B, the priority gap area relates to identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors. Payments, Infrastructure and Solutions, Trade Facilitation and Stakeholder Engagement are also priorities in both bands. The clustering in two bands affirms that there is a wide area of gaps to be addressed. The working-level

Table 7.2. BAND A: AZGI 86% to 98% (Continued)

PILLAR Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity Score

5 5-3a: Identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors

0.88

Trade Facilitation

2 2-2b: Clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable 0.91

2 2-2b: Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory docu-ments at a single location and/or single entity)

0.90

2 2-2b: Full electronic tracking of all shipments 0.90


4 4-1: Foreign direct investment in the ICT 0.90

5 5-3b: Enabling investment climate for e-commerce 0.90

5 5-3a: Awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem 0.89

6 6-1: Extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions 0.88

Advocacy – Administration

6 6-1: Administration champion for e-commerce 0.86



Table 7.3. BAND B: AZGI 76% to 85%

PILLAR AZGI


1 1-2: Payment methods for e-commerce 0.85

5 5-6: Access to e-payment and cashless solutions 0.83

Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity

2 2-2a: No or minimal risk of online fraud 0.85

6 6-1: Is there a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication? 0.81

6 6-2: Protection of data and privacy 0.81

6 6-2: Cybercrime legislation 0.81

6 6-2: Consumer protection online 0.81

6 6-1: Computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework 0.79

6 6.1: Status of online consumer protection law/legal framework 0.77

6 6-1: Data protection legal framework 0.77


4 4-1: Policy Initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises

0.85

1 1-2: Co-ordination among institutions 0.79

4 4-1: Business-to-government electronic interaction 0.78

1 1-2: Understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, public sector

0.76

Trade Facilitation

4 4-1: Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

0.84

2 2-2b: De minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedures and no duty/tax for imports of low-value shipments)

0.84

1 1-2: Legal framework for e-commerce development 0.79

1 1-2: Effective trade logistics and cross-border facilitation measures 0.77

5 5-6: Logistics solutions for e-commerce 0.77

Marketing Focus – New

4 4-1: Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

0.84

4 4-1: Size of IT-enabled service business 0.81

4 4-1: Business-to-consumer electronic interaction 0.76


6 6-2: Online intellectual property law 0.83

Advocacy – Political – New

6 6-1: Political champion for e-commerce 0.81

6 6-1: E-commerce legal framework 0.76



stakeholder consultations, held on 8 June 2021 provided guidance on the relative priorities for support to OECS e-commerce development, and the desired sequencing of interventions by indicator and thematic areas, with reference to the situation of each OECS state.

7.3 Strategic Framework and Roadmap for Developing E-Commerce in the OECS subregion

Table 7.4 reflects recent, ongoing and planned initiatives for the development of digital trade and e-commerce in the OECS. Given the level of engagement of international partners in this

thematic programming area, there is scope for experience sharing and increased co-ordination among supportive entities through resource pooling, timing and sequencing of support. Given the variance in geographic coverage of donor interventions, partnerships could usefully support a harmonised approach to programming in the OECS subregion.

Going forward, programming for the OECS should also include coverage of intellectual property rights regulation and institutional strengthening, including in industrial design and patents.

The E-Readiness Strategic Framework for Monitoring and Evaluation accompanying this report includes recommendations on priority interventions, sequencing and possible support

Table 7.4. Relevant initiatives on e-commerce in the OECS

Project Scope Funding Entity

OECS Digital Transformation Regulations Digital skills assessment (other components)

World Bank

Digital Transformation CARICOM Secretariat

E-payments and FinTech – Digital Payment Solution

• E-commerce transformation in relation to digital payment solutions in the region

• Onboarding of digital financial services (providers)

• Virtual Forum on 30 March 2021

Compete Caribbean/ Caribbean Development

Trade Facilitation – Trade Information Portal

• Processes and procedures for import and export, payments

• Facilitates some transactions (not a Single Window)

International Trade Centre (ITC)

Services Trade Information Portal

• Lists regulations on trade in services 11th EDF

Procurement and Installation of Online Company Registration

• Establishing an online company registration system

• Links to wider CARICOM company registration initiative

OECS Export Portal Showcases OECS goods products and services

Data Protection Training on European Union Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)

Caribbean Export Development Agency – GIZ

E-Payments E-Payment Solutions for the Caribbean Caribbean Export Development Agency

Digital Connectivity Agenda Road Map and Action Plan Commonwealth Secretariat



entities, based on the respective experience of support entities in the OECS or in specific subject areas. The recommendations are subject to endorsement by stakeholders of priority areas identified for support, and to actual applications to support entities for the initiation of co-operation programmes.

ReferenceBaller, S, S Dutta and B Lanvin (eds.) (2016), Global Information Technology Report 2016, Innovating in the Global Economy, World Economic Forum/ INSEAD, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf





ReferenceAlleyne, D, M Hendrickson, S McLean, M Oyolola, M Pantin, N Skerrette and H Tokuda (2020), ‘Preliminary overview of the economies of the Caribbean 2019–2020’ – Studies and Perspectives, Series 92, ECLAC Sub-Regional Headquarters for the Caribbean, available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45729/1/S2000292_en.pdf

Antoine, TNJ (2020), ‘Presentation at National Emergency Operations Centre: COVID-19 Daily Briefing’, 2 May, available at: https://www.eccb-centralbank.org/files/PRESENTATION%20AT%20COVID%2019%20DAILY%20BRIEFING.pdf

Araujo, Medinacelli, RV (ed.) (2017), An Overview of FinTech: Their benefits and risks, Association of Supervisors of Banks in the Americas, Mexico City.

Association of Caribbean States (2015), ‘E-commerce Legislation Harmonisation in the Caribbean’, workshop held from 29 September to 2 October in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Baller, S, S Dutta and B Lanvin (eds.) (2016), Global Information Technology Report 2016, Innovating in the Global Economy, World Economic Forum/ INSEAD, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf

Berkmen, P et al. (2019), ‘Fintech in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stocktaking’, IMF Working Paper WP/19/71, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

Boffa, M. et al. (2020), UPU Development Report 2020, Universal Postal Union https://www.upu.int/UPU/media/upu/publications/2020-Postal-Development-Report.pdf

Burke, S et al. (2011), ‘Re-imagining. Re-fashioning. Re-building: Actions for our creative ecosystems 2010–2012’, OECS, available at: https://www.oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/business/creative-industries/actions-for-the-creative-ecosystems-2010-2012

Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat (2017), Implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Strategy – CARICOM Regional Priorities and Strategies, November, CARICOM Secretariat (2020),

‘ICT for Development’, available at: https://caricom.org/ict-for-development-overview/

CARICOM Secretariat Office of Trade Negotiations (2019), Consolidated TFA Implementation Schedule for CARICOM countries as of November 2019.

Caribbean Telecommunication Union (CTU) Secretariat (2017), ‘Vision and Roadmap for a CARICOM Single ICT Space’, available at: https://caricom.org/wp-content/uploads/vision_and_roadmap_for_a_single_ict_space_-_final_version_updated.pdf

Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, available at: https://www.central-bank.org.tt

Competition Bureau of Canada (2017), Technology-Led Innovation in the Canadian Financial Services Sector: A Market Study, Competition Bureau of Canada, December 2017.

Craigen, D, N Diakun-Thibault and R Purse (2014), ‘Defining Cybersecurity’, Technology Innovation Management Review, October, available at: http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835

De Leon, I et al. (2017), The Impact of Digital Innovation and Blockchain on the Music Industry’, IDB, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Impact-of-Digital-Innovation-and-Blockchain-on-the-Music-Industry.pdf

Durant, I (2021), ‘Developing countries and trade negotiations on e-commerce’, Acting Secretary-General of UNCTAD, 19 February, available at: https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-and-trade-negotiations-e-commerce

East Caribbean Central Bank (2017), ECCB Strategic Plan 2017–2021, available at: https://www.eccb-centralbank.org

E-commerce Readiness Assessment Report, Sri Lanka, March 2020. Published by the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The Economist (2015), ‘Blockchain: The next big thing, Or is it?’, Special Report, 7 May, available at: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2015/05/07/the-next-big-thing













https://www.oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/business/creative-industries/actions-for-the-creative-ecosystems-2010-2012









https://www.central-bank.org.tt













Reference \ 195

Gabison, GA (2016), ‘Policy Considerations for the Blockchain Technology Public and Private Applications’, SMU Science & Technology Law Review, available at: http://works.bepress.com/garry_gabison/16/.

The Gleaner (2021), ‘Grenada Cancels Spicemas 2021’, 26 February, Jamaica, available at: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210226/grenada-cancels-spicemas-2021

Gonzalez Moncada, V (2020), Impact of COVID-19 on transport and logistics connectivity in the Caribbean, UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), Santiago.

Hoekman, B and A Nicita (2011), ‘Trade Policy, Trade Costs, and Developing Country Trade’, World Development, Vol. 39 No. 12, 2069–79.

Huria, A (2019), Facilitating Trade and Logistics for E-commerce: Building Blocks, Challenges and Ways Forward, December, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Inter-American Development Bank and Organization of American States (2016), Cybersecurity: Are We Ready in Latin America and the Caribbean? Cybersecurity Report, IDB/OAS, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Cybersecurity-Are-We-Ready-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

Inter-American Development Bank and Organization of American States (2020), Cybersecurity: Are We Ready in Latin America and the Caribbean? Updated Cybersecurity Report, IDB/OAS, Washington, DC, available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/2020-Cybersecurity-Report-Risks-Progress-and-the-Way-Forward-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf

International Labour Organization (2018), Gender at Work in the Caribbean: Country Report for Saint Lucia, ILO, Geneva, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/---sro-port_of_spain/documents/publication/wcms_651949.pdf

International Telecommunications Union (2018), Powering the digital economy: Regulatory approaches to securing consumer privacy, trust and security,

ITU Thematic Reports, Regulatory and market environment, ITU Geneva, available at: https://www.itu.int/pub/D-PREF-BB.POW_ECO-2018

International Telecommunications Union (2019), Global and Regional ICT Data, available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx

James, V et al. (2007), The Economic Contribution of Copyright-Based Industries in Jamaica WIPO, available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/econ_contribution_cr_ja.pdf

James, V et al. (2012), The Economic Contribution of Copyright-Based Industries in Trinidad and Tobago, WIPO, available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/econ_contribution_cr_tt.pdf

Monteiro, J-A and R The (2017), ‘Provisions on Electronic Commerce in Regional Trade Agreements’, WTO Working Paper ERSD-2017-11, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201711_e.pdf

Mugica, IZ, M Youbi and C Ferro (2018), ‘WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement and Doing Business Reforms: Are they related and how?’, World Bank, Washington, DC.

National E-commerce Strategy for Cameroon, 2019

Nurse, K (2005), ‘Festival Tourism in the Caribbean’, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

Nurse, K. et al. (2009). The Creative Sector in CARICOM: The Economic and Trade Policy Dimensions, UWI, Cave Hill

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016), ‘Consumer Protection in E-commerce: OECD Recommendation’, OECD Publishing, Paris, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en

OECD (no date), ‘Making Trade Work For All’, available at: http://www.oecd.org/trade/understanding-the-global-trading-system/making-trade-work-for-all/

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (2011), Diagnostic Review and Analysis of OECS EDU clients in the Arts & Craft Sector, Country Reports for Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines,




















https://www.itu.int/pub/D-PREF-BB.POW_ECO-2018

https://www.itu.int/pub/D-PREF-BB.POW_ECO-2018




https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/econ_contribution_cr_ja.pdf



https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/econ_contribution_cr_tt.pdf





http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en





OECS, available at: https://oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/research-and-publications/st-lucia-arts-crafts-sector-diagnostic-review and https://www.oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/business/creative-industries/a-diagnostic-review-of-the-oecs-edu-clients-in-arts-and-crafts-sector-st-vincent

OECS Member Country’s E-readiness Questionnaire. Internal Memo Commonwealth Secretariat 2020

Thompson, C (2016, updated 2018), ‘How does the Blockchain Work? (Part 1)’, The Blockchain Review, available at: https://medium.com/blockchain-review/how-does-the-blockchain-work-for-dummies-explained-simply-9f94d386e093

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2002), Electronic Commerce and Music Business Development in Jamaica: A Portal to the New Economy? UNCTAD, Geneva.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2008

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015), Cyberlaws and regulations for enhancing e-commerce: Case studies and lessons learned, UNCTAD, Geneva.

UNCTAD (2016), Data Protection Regulations and International Data Flows: Implications for Trade and Development, UNCTAD, Geneva, UNCTAD/IER/DTL/STICT/2016/1, available at: unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study

UNCTAD (2017), Towards E-commerce Legal Harmonization in the Caribbean, UNCTAD, Geneva, available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d9_en.pdf

UNCTAD (2019), ‘How the Creative Economy Can Help Power Development’, Note, available at: https://unctad.org/news/how-creative-economy-can-help-power-development

UNCTAD (2020a), ‘The UNCTAD B2C E-commerce Index 2020 Spotlight on Latin America and the Caribbean’, UNCTAD Technical Notes on ICT for Development No 17, available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d17_en.pdf

UNCTAD (2020b), ‘What is at stake for developing countries in trade negotiations on e-commerce? The case of the Joint Statement Initiative’, UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2020/5, UNCTAD, Geneva.

UNCTAD (2021), ‘Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce (JSI): Economic and Fiscal Implications for the South’, UNCTAD Research Paper No. 58 UNCTAD/SER.RP/2021/1.

UNCTAD (no date a), ‘Summary of Adoption of E-commerce Legislation Worldwide’, available at: https://unctad.org/topic/e-commerce-and-digital-economy/e-commerce-law-reform/summary-adoption-e-commerce-legislation-worldwide

UNCTAD (no date b), ‘United Nations Guidelines on Consumer protection’, available at: https://unctad.org/topic/competition-and-consumer-protection/un-guidelines-on-consumer-protection#

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2018), ‘Reshaping Cultural Policies: Advancing Creativity for Development’, press pack for launch of the 2018 Global Report UNESCO.

Vogel, N (2015), ‘The Great Decentralization: How Web 3.0 Will Weaken Copyrights’, Review of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 15 No. 1, 137–49, available at: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=ripl

World Bank (2017), ‘Payment Aspects of Financial Inclusion’, Note, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/brief/pafi-task-force-and-report

World Bank (2020a), Doing Business Report, available at: www.doingbusiness.org

The World Bank (2020b), International Development Association Project Appraisal Document Caribbean Digital Transformation Project (‘Digital Caribbean’), available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/848701593136915061/pdf/Dominica-Grenada-St-Lucia-St-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines-and-the-Organization-of-Eastern-Caribbean-States-Caribbean-Digital-Transformation-Project-Digital-Caribbean.pdf

World Customs Organization (2017), WCO Study Report on Cross-Border E-Commerce, WCO, Brussels.

World Customs Organization (2018), Cross-border E-commerce Framework of Standards, WCO, Brussels.

World Intellectual Property Organization (1961), The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, WIPO, available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/rome/index.html


https://oecs.org/en/our-work/knowledge/library/research-and-publications/st-lucia-arts-crafts-sector-diagnostic-review










https://unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study

https://unctad.org/Data-Protection-Study








https://unctad.org/topic/e-commerce-and-digital-economy/e-commerce-law-reform/summary-adoption-e-commerce-legislation-worldwide












http://www.doingbusiness.org

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/848701593136915061/pdf/Dominica-Grenada-St-Lucia-St-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines-and-the-Organization-of-Eastern-Caribbean-States-Caribbean-Digital-Transformation-Project-Digital-Caribbean.pdf








Reference \ 197

WIPO (2004) WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Geneva, available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=275&plang=EN

World Intellectual Property Organization (2007), ‘IP Infringement on the Internet – Some legal IP considerations’, WIPO, available at: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2007/01/article_0005.html

WIPO (no date), The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, available at: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

World Trade Organization (1998), ‘Committee on Trade and Development: Development Implications of Electronic Commerce’, Note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/W/51/23), November.

World Trade Organization (2015), World Trade Report 2015, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr15_e.htm

WTO (2020a), ‘Electronic Commerce Negotiations – Consolidated Negotiating Text’, (INF/ECOM/62/REV 1), December.

WTO (2020b), ‘Supporting the timely and efficient release of global goods through the accelerated implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement’, proposal from the USA, European Union, Australia, Colombia, Iceland Japan, Norway, Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan and Brazil, G/TFA/W/25/Rev.2.

Organisations/websites

Caribbean Confederation of Credit Unions, available at: https://caribccu.coop

Cybersecurity Observatory in Latin America and the Caribbean, available at: https://cybersecurityobservatory.org/

Eastern Caribbean Central Bank website, available at: https://www.eccb-centralbank.org/

FinTech Association of Trinidad and Tobago, available at: https://fintechtt.com

Financial Services Regulatory Commission of Antigua & Barbuda, available at: https://www.fsra.gov.ag

Financial Services Unit of Dominica, available at: https://fsu.gov.dm

Financial Services Regulatory Commission of St Kitts & Nevis, available at: https://www.fsra.kn

Financial Services Regulatory Authority of St Lucia, available at: https://fsrastlucia.org

Grenada Authority for the Regulation of Financial Institutions, available at: https://garfin.gd

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), A collection of information resources on WIPO’s work as relates to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), available at: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/index.html

WIPO, Copyright laws and treaties, available at: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/index.html












AppendicesAppendix 1: Summary of OECS e-commerce legislation

Table A1. Summary of e-commerce legislation in the OECS – adapted from the UNCTAD Global Cyberlaw Tracker1

COUNTRY E-commerce Legislation

Electronic transactions

Consumer protection

Privacy & data protection

Cybercrime

Antigua and Barbuda

Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act, 2016

Consumer Protection and Safety Act 1988, Cap. 97

Consumer Protection and Safety Act 1988, Cap. 97

Computer Misuse Act, 2006 Electronic Crimes Act No. 14 of 2013

Dominica Electronic Transactions Act, Act 19/2013

No legislation Bill – Data Protection

Computer and Computer Related Crime Act, 2005 Electronic Funds Transfer Act No. 17 of 2013

Grenada Electronic Transactions Act, 2008

No legislation Bill – Data Protection

Electronic Crimes Act No. 14/2013

St Kitts and Nevis

Electronic Transactions Act 2011

Being revised Data Protection Act, 2018

Data Protection Act, 2018

Saint Lucia Electronic Transactions Act, No. 16 of 2011

Consumer Protection Act, 2016

Data Protection Act, 2011

Criminal Code, Act 9 of 2004


Electronic Transactions Act 2007

No legislation Bill – Data Protection – OECS model

Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) from 2007 Bill – Electronic Crimes

1 TheUNCTADGlobalCyberlawTrackeristhefirsteverglobalmappingofcyberlaws.Ittracksthestateofe-commercelegislationinthefieldofe-transactions,consumerprotection,dataprotection/privacyandcybercrimeadoptioninthe194UNCTADmemberstates.Itindicateswhetherornotagivencountryhasadoptedlegislation,orhasadraftlawpendingadoption.Insomeinstanceswhereinformationaboutacountry’slegislationadoptionwasnotreadilyavailable,‘nodata’isindicated.

Book_5136_A001.indd 112Book_5136_A001.indd 112 11-10-2021 16:38:3411-10-2021 16:38:34

Appendices \ 113

Appendix 2: E-readiness survey data summary[124 respondents]

1. My Organization is located in?24 responses

Antigua and Barbuda 12

Dominica 34

Grenada 16

St Kitts and Nevis 20

Saint Lucia 33

St Vincent and The Grenadines 9

2. If you are from a PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATION please select the type below:

[63 responses]

[63 responses]

Government ministry 29

Government agency 17

Sub-regional organisation 2

Regional organisation 4

Statutory body 2

Government created by statute 1

Consultancy firm 1

NGO 1

Non-profit 1

Private sector 1

n/a 1

Statutory 1

Regulatory body 1

Financial 1

3. If you are a PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS, please indicate the type from the options below:

65 responses

[65 responses]

Payments provider (indicate type in question 3a)

4

Trader (indicate type in question 3b) 23

Telecommunications service provider 1

Business support organisation 33

Digital payments provider (indicate type in question 3a)

4

3a. If your private sector entity is a PAYMENTS PROVIDER which of the following categories applies to you

15 responses

[15 responses]

Credit union/local bank 6

Sub-regional/regional bank 3

International bank 0

FinTech company 4

Government 1

Loan guarantee facility 1



3b. If your private sector entity is a TRADER which of the following categories applies to you

37 responses

Manufacturer with electronic storefront 4

Service provider with electronic storefront 9

Bricks and mortar retailer with electronic storefront

8

Full e-commerce operation 7

Service provider 1

Manufacturer and distributor 1

I’m a service provider with electronic store front, and I also have a full e-commerce operation

1

None 1

Government 1

Business support organisation 1

Manufacturer entrepreneur 1

Service provider without electronic store-front

1

Cottage industry 1

4. Gender:120 responses

Male 56

Female 62

Prefer not to say 2

5. Position in organisation

[124 responses]

Level Position Respondents

Directors chief executive officer; managing director, owner, executive director, principal, founder, permanent secre-tary; postmaster general, senior attorney, country manager, general manager, customs comptroller, vice president, registrar

69

Managers business manager, IT manager, project manager, senior investment man-ager, client manager, operations man-ager, chief of tech-nology, co-ordinator, executive secretary, ICT consultant, sys-tems manager, chief financial officer

35

Technical officers

network engineer, audit engineer, sys-tem analyst, mer-chant officer, trade policy officer, e-commerce super-visor, communica-tions officer, standards develop-ment officer, busi-ness innovation officer, project spe-cialist, information specialist

20

Total 124

Director level: 56% of respondents; management level: 28%; technical 16%.


Appendices \ 115

Pillar 1: National ICT infrastructure and accessibilityQuestion 1-1: Rate the following items relating to ICT infrastructure and penetration in your country by using the following options? [123 responses]

Non- existent Limited Adequate Excellent I don’t know

Mobile wireless penetration nationwide is:

1 7 59 51 5

ADSL penetration nationwide is: 2 21 66 12 21

Broadband penetration nationwide is: 0 20 74 23 5

Access to internet in the country is: 0 21 71 30 1

Presence of mobile/ADSL/broad-band in the rural areas is:

1 46 53 10 13

Internet connectivity/penetration is: 0 30 63 26 4

Quality and speed of internet connectivity is:

4 39 64 16 0

Smart phone penetration is: 0 8 56 56 3

Penetration of access points for those without access at home, school or work is:

4 75 31 5 8

Computer penetration is: 1 44 52 19 7

In general, respondents were of the view that the ICT infrastructure and level of penetration within the islands of the subregion was adequate. Of the ten (10) indicators which were assessed, ‘Adequate’ was the most frequently selected option for eight (8) indicators, with ‘Limited’ being the top option for only one (1) indicator. The tenth indicator, namely, smart phone penetration, was jointly adjudged to be ‘Excellent’ and ‘Adequate’ by 46% of the respondents, respectively. The level of mobile wireless penetration nationwide, was also rated as ‘Excellent’ by 41% of the respondents, thus occupying a close second place to the 46% of the respondents who rated this indicator as ‘Adequate’. Access to the internet in the country, and internet connectivity/penetration were also rated as ‘Excellent’ by 24%, and 21%, of the respondents, respectively.

Penetration of access points for those without access at home, school or work was the sole indicator of the ICT infrastructure, which the greatest number of respondents deemed to be ‘Limited’, with 61% expressing this view. This

was followed by the presence of mobile/ADSL/broadband in the rural areas; the level of computer penetration; quality and speed of internet connectivity; and internet connectivity/penetration, which were categorised as ‘Limited’ by 37%, 36%, 32% and 24% of respondents, respectively. The findings pointed to the need for particular attention to be placed in these areas.

Most of the other components were graded in a favourable manner, with broadband penetration nationwide; access to internet in the country; ADSL penetration nationwide; quality and speed of internet connectivity; and internet connectivity/penetration being categorised as ‘Adequate’ by 60%, 58%, 54%, 52%, 51% of respondents, respectively.

Likewise, ‘Adequate’ was the dominating option for three other indicators, namely, mobile wireless penetration nationwide; presence of mobile/ADSL/broadband in the rural areas; and the level of computer penetration within the region, with frequencies of 6%, 43% and 42%, respectively.



When the frequencies of the ‘Excellent’ rating for each of these parameters was taken into account, the overall favourable assessment of ICT

infrastructure and penetration in the countries of the OECS became even more apparent.

Question 1-2: Rate the following items on their level of maturity in terms of e-commerce development in your countrya? [123 responses]

Limited Adequate Neutral Excellent I don’t know

Availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.)

48 36 30 9 0

IT skills among entrepreneurs or availability of skilled contractors

49 37 19 12 6

Payment methods for e-commerce 85 19 16 0 3

Legal framework 57 27 16 4 16

Effective trade logistics and cross-border facilitation measures

60 28 10 6 17

ICT infrastructure – internet connectivity, pricing and affordability

56 38 14 11 4

Understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associa-tions, public sector

73 28 14 3 4

Co-ordination among institutions 79 26 8 2 8

When asked to rate eight (8) items on their level of maturity in terms of e-commerce development in their respective countries, three indicators were deemed to be ‘Limited’ by at least half of the respondents. Of significance, for all eight items, the option ‘Limited’ was selected with the highest frequency.

This was most pronounced in the case of payment methods for e-commerce, where 69% of the sample indicated that the payment arrangements to support e-commerce in the member states were immature. This was followed by the degree of co-ordination among institutions, with a frequency of 64%; and in third place, the understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, public sector, with a frequency of 59%.

The other three items that were assigned the rating of ‘Limited’ by most of the respondents were the existence of effective trade logistics and cross-border facilitation measures, with a frequency of

49%; followed by the status of the existing legal framework; and ICT infrastructure – internet connectivity, pricing and affordability, both with frequencies of 46%.

The availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.), with a frequency of 39%, and IT skills among entrepreneurs or availability of skilled contractors registered at 40%, registered the two lowest frequencies in the category of ‘Limited’. At the same time, these two indicators were selected by the second highest number of respondents as being ‘Adequate’, with frequencies of 29% each.

It is noteworthy that no individual item was deemed to be ‘Adequate’ by more than 33% of the respondents. ICT infrastructure – internet connectivity, pricing and affordability received the highest rating, with 30%, and payment methods for e-commerce received the lowest count 15%, in the category of ‘Adequate’. This, when coupled with the first-place rating for ‘Limited’, highlighted the


Appendices \ 117

gap that needs to be filled with respect to payment systems and procedures, as the region continues its quest to develop e-commerce.

When the ratings of ‘Adequate’ and ‘Excellent’ are combined, none of the individual items surpass the 50% threshold. Under this scenario, the three most highly rated items with respect to their level of maturity were: IT skills among entrepreneurs or the availability of skilled contractors; the ICT infrastructure – internet connectivity, pricing and affordability; and in third place, the availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.).

In general, the rating of ‘Excellent’ was selected at a very low frequency by the respondents. The two items that received the lowest rating were the payment methods for e-commerce, which

was not selected by any respondents, and the co-ordination among institution, selected by only two respondents.

Similarly, there was no rating of ‘I don’t know’ for one of the eight items, namely, the availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.), with three respondents selecting this option for the payment methods for e-commerce. This suggests that respondents are quite definitive with respect to their opinion on the level of maturity of these two items, as they relate to e-commerce development in the subregion.

Payment methods for e-commerce continues to be the recurring item. This further solidifies the notion of the relatively fledgling status that respondents ascribe to payment mechanisms for e-commerce transactions in the region.

Question 1-3: Please select the actions from the list below that you believe could grow/enhance e-commerce in your country. Select as many as you believe to be relevant. [123 responses]

Value Count

Develop a national strategy or development plan for e-commerce development 106

Establish a taskforce or committee on e-commerce with relevant government stakeholders 75

Carry out a regulatory gap analysis on e-commerce 100

Increase confidence of merchants to accept electronic payments 90

Ensure larger segments of rural population have access to fast, reliable mobile phone internet 80

Assess current e-commerce and ICT skill gaps & enhance dialogue with leading domestic and foreign stakeholders

92

Support development of a physical address and postal code system to increase ‘findability’ 64

Develop postal services to support small parcels for cross-border e-commerce 78

Accelerate deployment of electronic document management system by ministries and government agencies

86

Accelerate plans to enable interbank money transfers and payments, both at national and international levels

100



Question 1-4: Are there any actions that you believe could grow/enhance e-commerce in your country which are not listed above? [58 responses]

• No.

• e-Payment systems should not be left to the banks. Enable FinTech companies and non-traditional payment platforms including digital currency to take on that responsibility.

• Regulation and the will to swiftly evolve legislation must become the norm if the sector is to stay relevant – laws need to be enacted as quickly as the technology and behaviours evolve.

• Cybersecurity and its enforcement/compliance should become part of the state. responsibility to provide confidence and protection for both consumer and merchant.

• Clear ownership of e-commerce activities.

• Offer incentives (grants, subsidisation, tax breaks)/assistance (lobbying visa, help navigating the regulatory mess) for the development of local payment processing offerings that feature quick onboarding, low fees (0.5%–3% max), next day settlement and local processing in XCD. These incentives can be targeted at existing financial institutions or geared at the formation of new payment processors. Neither my company nor the 70+ entities we work with are interested in high-level, multi-year govt ‘consultations’, we simply need equivalent payment rails to those available to European/First World merchants. Companies like MINE headquartered in London would employ Stripe Connect from day 1, IN MY COUNTRY, 1 year off we are still building things from scratch and battling with the hostile local financial sector.

• Enhancing postal services for inter-country small-package delivery; promotion & encouragement of use of banking services by SMEs, particularly the unbanked and the informal business sector; affordability of banking services and regulation/control of banking fees, particularly as it would relate to transaction costs for e-commerce.

• Development of a trade facilitation platform and ensure there is a strong legal and regulatory environment to support.

• Work directly with FinTechs for providing infrastructure.

• Legislation: An e-commerce and data protection act must be implemented.

• Nil.

• Put in place the necessary legislation so that transactions are secure.

• No.

• More advocacy with local banks and correspondent banks on recognition of the region for doing business, cost of e-commerce and tariffs are too high.

• Support local ITC professional and prioritise work being allocated to them and pay them like a foreign service provider would be paid for the same work.

• Enhanced co-ordination among stakeholders.

• Create more awareness to consumers re benefits of e-commerce.

• Co-operation/proactiveness of the banking sector in facilitating e-commerce.

• Update of current legislation which will facilitate and not serve as barriers and deterrents to business.

• Educate population on the need for e-commerce and how to utilise it. Teach how to utilise as well in both English and Creole.

• Access to capital and digital ID.

• Too much red tape to get paid via e-commerce for local ICT skill sets.

• Public education to increase awareness of opportunities, build consumer trust and simplified processes.

• Beyond electronic document management and inter-agency sharing of already-known already-submitted information, require gov’t agencies to deliver ’Single Window’ service for typical transactions with citizens to catalyse further streamlined e-commerce services.

• More affordable solutions for SMEs from banks within the country – one bank charges US$900 a year with a US$750 set up fee for access to their e-commerce API for integration within a website. This is not affordable.


Appendices \ 119

• Use of social media for increased marketing – Instagram, Facebook.

• Better support for small business in regards sourcing parts and equipment and other resources to boost their business.

• Reduce cost of telecom service and improve quality of service.

• First and foremost, an electronic payment method such as cash app or zelle. Public education in e-commerce. Training to upgrade businesses and put them online. I can go on…

• Development of national data policy and management legislation to address short falls in current legislation.

• Training and sensitisation of youth.

• Enhance MSME capability, increase broadband access to some communities on the east coast in MY COUNTRY, make access to internet more affordable, encourage small IT business support development.

• Accessible, reliable, affordable broadband; robust cybersecurity protocols to build credibility and avoid successful cyberattacks; regional approach to avoid duplication and for economies of scale; building technology capacity across all sectors of the economy; seamless supply chain to transport products across international borders; reduce import duties and taxes on technology software and hardware; increasing advertising and promotion to build a viable international market.

• Country awareness and sensitivity.

• Less cash transactions and more electronic payment since it is safer.

• Reduce costs.

• Enhance financial literacy and effective record-keeping among MSMEs.

• Providing support for making electronic payments more accessible and cheaper as well. Also, by providing support to existing small business already doing to work to promote business development and trade and provide them with the support to go forward to e-commerce.

• Less transactions where your commercial bank should be the only merchant the transaction goes through as international transaction like PayPal etc then to your bank. It can be very costly for small manufactures looking to explore the region and international export markets.

• Ability for acceptance of PayPal payments (as a trusted payment gateway) in order to be competitive, more favourable export shipping rates, package tracking via post office, a registry of small exporters who can get amenities based on export capability.

• Digital currency.

• Only involve government minimally, as their involvement leads to roadblocks. Handle e-development privately to maximise financial and all other [issues] efficiency.

• Provide specific funding for small business owners who would like to integrate into the e-commerce space but cannot afford to do so.

• Making the access to gateways easier.

• None that I can think of.

• Low cost.

• Increase confidence in general population (consumers/citizens) to accept digital systems, including digital banking and payment platforms; address & resolve the fears/concerns that online activity will contribute to increased government surveillance and monitoring (particularly earnings levels for small business operators).

• Having a local e-payment system that can be integrated on websites that allows for electronic payment without the use of PayPal.

• Not at this time.

• Investment funding/increased access to monies – not a ‘loan fund’ like the government PROGRAM IN MY COUNTRY, which basically tries to operate like or worse than a bank – entrepreneurs need access to risk finance that is willing to grow with the idea or existing businesses – it’s critical to the developing the ecosystem.

• Community outreach and engagement.



• Increase the capability to make online payments.

• Educate the population on the benefits of e-commerce trading.

• Establish support programmes for micro, small and medium enterprises.

• Provide investment opportunities and financial support to start-ups. Too much money is borrowed, putting pressure on cash flow for start-ups. Tech start-ups generally

need 3–5 years of investments before they provide returns.

• N/A

• Customs charges are too exorbitant. It limits ability to ship items and same for the import of raw materials.

• More affordable shipping rates, better banking options, access to PayPal, not requiring a third-party payment processor to get online.

Pillar 2: Logistics and deliveryQuestion 2-1: Which of the following types of service providers do you use to ship products? [123 responses]

Value Count

Local sea shipping company or broker (such as Geest, Tropical Shipping) 73

Express delivery services such as DHL, FedEx, UPS 102

Local shipping online delivery service 55

Post office 51

N/A 1

West Tech, Swift Pac, etc. 1

N/A 1

Ferry services to neighbouring French DOMs 1

Post office is currently in flux because of COVID-19 pandemic 1

Face-to-face and via internet 1

None. Purely digital operation 1

Question 2-2a: Which trade facilitation/trade logistics areas are important for e-commerce development in the country? [121 responses]

Not important Important Neutral Very important

Efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations

1 35 6 79

Availability of online payment methods 0 19 6 98


Appendices \ 121

Not important Important Neutral Very important

No or minimal risk of online fraud 1 18 14 87

Low shipping costs 0 23 8 92

Availability of physical addresses 7 45 32 35

The three most important trade facilitation/trade logistics areas for e-commerce development in the OECS region, based on the frequency at which the respondents selected the option ‘Very important’, were first, the availability of online payment methods at 81%; in second place, low shipping costs, with 76%; and in third place, no or minimal risk of online fraud, with a frequency of 72% .

The next five indicators which presented ‘Very important’ as the option with the highest frequency of occurrence were all above the majority threshold of 50%. In descending order, they were as follows: full electronic tracking of all shipments, with the fourth highest overall frequency of 68%; efficient co-ordination between ministries, customs, business associations at 65%; de minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedure and no duty/tax for imports of low value shipments) at 64%; the establishment of a Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory documents at a single location and/or single entity) at 64%; and finally, clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable, with a frequency of 52%.

The functional area which ranked the lowest for the option ‘Very important’ was the availability of physical addresses of persons who wished to engage in e-commerce, with a frequency of 29%. Concomitantly, this was one of the two trade facilitation areas for which ‘Important’ was selected as the joint highest option, with a frequency of 37%. The other indicator was clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable. The fact that this was the same facilitation area that was ranked the

lowest for ‘Very important’ shows the relatively diminished value that respondents ascribed to the availability of physical addresses when conducting e-commerce in the region.

Availability of physical address and having clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable, both with frequencies of 37%, were the two indicators that were assigned the highest frequency for the option ‘Important’, across all indicators. However, in the case of clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable, this frequency was lower than that of ‘Very Important’. This therefore left availability of physical addresses as the only one out of the nine indicators for which ‘Important’, instead of ‘Very important’, was the most widely chosen option.

When ‘Important’ and ‘Very important’ were added, all nine (9) functional areas, except the availability of physical addresses, showed very high combined frequencies of occurrence. They could therefore be deemed to be critical prerequisites for the successful development of e-commerce in the OECS.

The ‘Not important’ option was rarely used. When employed, the frequencies were very low. This could be assumed to be because of the ready acceptance of the desirability of the various indicators within the trade facilitation arena. Hence, the widespread non-selection of that option could be interpreted as sending a clear message. The highest frequency at which ‘Not important’ was selected, 6%, was recorded in the case of the availability of physical addresses.



It was noteworthy that none of the respondents categorised the availability of online payment methods, nor the existence of low shipping costs, as ‘Not important’. This provided further evidence

of how critical the respondents saw the role of these two trade facilitation instruments to be in the development of e-commerce in the region.

Question 2-2b: Which trade facilitation/trade logistics areas are important for e-commerce development in the country? [121 responses]

Not important

Important Neutral Very important

Clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable

2 45 10 63

Full electronic tracking of all shipments 2 29 8 82

De minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedure and no duty/tax for imports of low value shipments)

2 28 14 78

Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory documents at a single location and/or single entity)

2 28 15 78

Question 2-3: The quality of government postal services for delivery of goods purchased online is excellent? [121 responses]

Count

Strongly agree 7

Agree 21

Neutral 41

Disagree 27

Strongly disagree 27


Appendices \ 123

Pillar 3: Citizens’ readiness for e-commerceQuestion 3-1: Rate the following items relating to readiness of citizens in your country for e-commerce by using the following options [123 responses]

Limited Adequate Excellent I don’t know

ICT for education strategy 54 43 4 15

Computer penetration in primary schools 68 31 6 13

Computer penetration in secondary schools 57 42 14 9

Computer penetration in higher education and ter-tiary institutions

41 52 17 12

ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels

59 34 8 18

Access to most recent technology and applications 67 27 5 17

The readiness of citizens for e-commerce was measured in the countries of the OECS by using six indicators. The five (5) options used to rate each indicator were: ‘Non-existent’; ‘Limited’; ‘Adequate’, ‘Excellent’; and ‘I don’t know’.

The dominating option across the six (6) indicators was that the readiness of citizens was ‘Limited’.

This was the case for five (5) of the six (6) indicators, first, computer penetration in primary schools; second, access to most recent technology and applications; and third, ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels, with the three highest frequencies of 55%, 54% and 48%, respectively.

These indicators were followed by computer penetration in secondary schools, with the frequency of 46%, and ICT for education strategy, with a frequency of 44%

The lowest recorded incidence for ‘Limited’ was computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions, with a frequency of 33%. This indicator also recorded the highest frequency for ‘Adequate’, with a frequency of 42%, and was the only indicator for which ‘Limited’ was not the single most frequently chosen option.

The rating of the other indicators, in descending order of frequency for ‘Adequate’, was as follows: ICT for education strategy, with 35%; computer penetration in secondary schools, with 34%; ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels, with 28%; and computer penetration in primary schools, with 25%. The lowest indicator rated as ‘Adequate’ was access to most recent technology and applications, categorised as such by 22% of the respondents.

It must be noted that, for each of the six indicators, some respondents also expressed the view, albeit at very low frequency levels of less than 6%, that the state of readiness of the citizens for e-commerce was ‘Non-existent’.

The highest rating of ‘Excellent’ was for computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions; followed by computer penetration in secondary schools, and ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels, with frequencies of 14%, 11% and 6%, respectively. There was a notable inverse relationship with the ranking for ‘Limited’.



The number of respondents who thought that the level of preparedness of their citizens for e-commerce was appropriate, when measured by the six indicators, was low. The situation was clearer when the categories of ‘Adequate’ and ‘Excellent’ were combined. In this scenario, most respondents thought that the readiness of citizens was ‘Limited’ with respect to all indicators, except for computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions.

The results suggested that respondents were of the opinion that in relation to these five

indicators – namely, ICT for education strategy; computer penetration in primary schools; computer penetration in secondary schools; ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels; and finally, access to most recent technology and applications – the readiness level of citizens for e-commerce in the member states was ‘Limited’.

Therefore, measures need to be put in place to improve the situation, in order to better prepare the citizens of the OECS to engage in e-commerce.

Question 3-2a: Which are the key skills development areas to be addressed vis-a-vis e-commerce in your country? [123 responses]

Not important


Raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce

2 33 4 84

Raising consumer awareness about e-commerce 0 32 7 83

Integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities

1 26 4 90

Question 3-2b: Which are the key skills development areas to be addressed vis-a-vis e-commerce in your country? [123 responses]

Not important


Education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools

1 35 6 81

Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs)

0 24 3 96

Capacity building on e-commerce for public serv-ants in relevant ministries

1 35 4 82


Appendices \ 125

Based on their selection of the option ‘Very important’, respondents were overwhelmingly of the view that all six skills development areas needed to be addressed in order to increase the readiness of OECS citizens for e-commerce.

This was particularly so in the case of capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs), with a frequency of 78%; and integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities, with 73%.

The other four indicators of skills development were also strongly supported. In third place, raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce, presented a frequency of 68%. This was followed by two indicators, both with frequencies of 67%, namely, raising consumer awareness about e-commerce, and capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries.

Additionally, as many as 66% of the respondents expressed the view that it was ‘Very important’ to increase the level of skills in education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools,

No respondents thought that addressing the areas of raising consumer awareness about e-commerce, and capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs) were ‘Not important’.

Additionally, only one or two respondents, in each instance, thought that it was ‘Not important’ to increase the level of skills in raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce; integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities; education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools; and capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries.

The second most frequently selected option was ‘Important’. The suggested priority in which the skills development areas should be addressed, in decreasing order of frequency, was as follows: education on ICT and e-commerce in universities, TVET institutions and high schools, with 28%; capacity building on e-commerce for public servants in relevant ministries, with 28%; raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce, with 27%; raising consumer awareness about e-commerce, with 26%; integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities, with 21%; and finally, capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs), with 19%.

When ‘Very important’ and ‘Important’ were combined, the respondents sent a clear message that training in all six areas identified needed to be addressed.



Question 3-3a: How would you rate the gender ratio of the following? [111 responses]

Mostly men

More men

Equal More women

Mostly women

Men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business

11 49 39 13 1

Men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association

19 60 27 3 2

Men/women entrepreneurs having received training

5 35 52 16 2

Question 3-3b: How would you rate the gender ratio of the following? [111 responses]

Mostly men More men Equal More women Mostly women

Men/women officials partici-pating actively in e-commerce

6 39 44 18 4

Men/women targeting exports using e-commerce

6 36 49 16 3

Men/women shopping online 1 2 33 63 17

Men/women formally regis-tered e-commerce business

3 47 40 16 1

This section gave an indication of the relative participation of the number of men, when compared with the number of women, across seven different e-commerce-related business activities.

The scenarios were:

1. Men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business

2. Men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association

3. Men/women entrepreneurs having received training

4. Men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce

5. Men/women targeting exports using e-commerce

6. Men/women shopping online

7. Men/women formally registered e-commerce business


Appendices \ 127

The respondents thought that the gender ratio was skewed toward ‘More men’ for three of the seven activities, namely, men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business, with a frequency of 43%; men/women formally registered e-commerce business, at a rate of 44%; with the third being the ratio of men/women’s ownership of business members of an ICT trade association, with a frequency of 54%. The latter meant that a clear majority of the respondents thought that ownership of a business and membership of an ICT trade association were dominated by males.

The gender ratio was deemed to be ‘Equal’ by the largest block of respondents for three of the seven indicators, namely, men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce, at 40%; men/women targeting exports using e-commerce, with a frequency of 45%; and, third, men/women entrepreneurs having received training, with a frequency of 47%. There was no clear majority opinion, since the 50% threshold was not surpassed.

The respondents were of the view that the gender ratio was skewed toward ‘More women’ for only one of the seven indicators, namely, men/women shopping online, at the frequency of 54%. Therefore, a clear majority of respondents believed online shopping was practised mainly by women.

Both ‘More men’ and ‘Mostly men’ presented their highest frequency of occurrence in the case of men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association, with 54% and 17%, respectively. When both categories were combined, there was a vast imbalance in favour of men, a frequency of 71% as it related to the ownership of businesses and being members of an ICT trade association.

The next three highest frequencies for which ‘More men’ was selected as the option were represented by the following indicators, namely: men/women formally registered e-commerce business, with 44%; men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business, with a frequency of 43%; and men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce, with a 35% frequency. At the other extreme, only two respondents selected this option for the indicator men/women shopping online.

Likewise, the next three highest frequencies for ‘Mostly men’ were: men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business, with 10%; second, men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce; and, finally, men/women targeting exports using e-commerce, with 5% each, respectively.

The highest frequency for gender balance was reported for men/women entrepreneurs having received training, with 47%. This indicator was followed by men/women targeting exports using e-commerce, at 45%; men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce, at 40%; men/women formally registered e-commerce business, with a frequency of 37%; along with men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business, at 35%.

The indicators presenting the two lowest frequency levels were men/women shopping online, at 28%; and men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association, with a frequency of 24%.

‘Mostly women’ was selected as an option by more than two respondents for only three activities, namely, men/women targeting exports using e-commerce, at 3%; men/women officials



participating actively in e-commerce, at 4%; and men/women shopping online. The highest frequency, although relatively low, was 15% for online shopping. This was also the activity with the highest frequency for ‘More women’, with 54%. This indicator, along with men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association, also with a frequency of 54%, were the only two activities in which there was a clear majority for any of the five gender ratio options.

The next five highest frequencies for ‘More women’ were: men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce, with 16%; followed by three indicators, each with a frequency of 15%, namely, men/women entrepreneurs having received training; men/women targeting exports using e-commerce; along with men/women formally registered e-commerce business; and, finally, men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business, at 12%.

The lowest representation for the option ‘More women’ was in men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association, with a frequency of a paltry 3%. Not surprisingly, this was also the scenario in which men were perceived to be most prevalent.

When the options ‘More women’ and ‘Mostly women’ were combined, the frequency of 69% suggested that there was a vast imbalance in favour of women as it related to shopping online. ‘Mostly men’ and ‘More men’ were assigned their lowest frequencies for this same indicator, a mere 3%, when combined.

‘Mostly women’ was selected by only one or two respondents for four activities, namely, men/women entrepreneurs having developed an e-commerce business; men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association; men/women entrepreneurs having received training; and men/women formally registered e-commerce business. This option was selected by 3% and 4% of respondents for two other indicators, namely, men/women targeting exports using e-commerce, and men/women officials participating actively in e-commerce, respectively.

In comparison, ‘Mostly men’ was chosen as an option by between 5% and 10% of the respondents in relation to four activities. For the other two indicators, only one or three persons selected this option, namely, men/women shopping online, and men/women formally registered e-commerce business, respectively.

For these two options, the highest reported frequencies were 17% of ‘Mostly men’, with respect to men/women ownership of business members of an ICT trade association; and 15% of ‘Mostly women’ for men/women shopping online.

It was noteworthy than neither of the two most extreme gender ratios, ‘Mostly men’ and ‘Mostly women’, was selected as the predominant option for any of the seven (7) different e-commerce scenarios. This spoke to the absence of the perception of the existence of any overwhelming gender imbalances in the minds of the respondents, as it related to the seven e-commerce readiness indicators that were investigated.

Pillar 4: Business readiness for e-commerceQuestion 4-1: Rate the following items relating to business readiness for e-commerce in your country by using the following options [122 responses]

Non-existent


Number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons

1 49 34 5 31

Policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium and large enterprises

12 65 20 0 26

Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, chal-lenges or bottlenecks encountered

10 73 21 3 14

Computers and network use by business 1 34 59 16 13

Internet connectivity by business 0 23 66 22 12


Appendices \ 129

Non-existent


Use of websites for business 5 63 37 8 10

Business-to-government electronic interaction

11 78 20 2 12

Business-to-consumer electronic interaction

7 72 24 6 12

Size of IT-enabled service business 4 71 21 4 22

Foreign direct investment in ICT 14 58 13 3 33

When ten (10) components were used to assess the business readiness for e-commerce in the region, two aspects stood out: first, the prevalence of the ‘Limited’ option, and second, the rarity by which any of the indicators were classified as ‘Excellent’. The broad conclusion, therefore, was that the respondents were of the view that based on the indicators used, the business environment for e-commerce in the region was not appropriate.

A total of eight out of the ten indicators were categorised as ‘Limited’, when assessed from the perspective of their contribution to a dynamic an enabling environment for companies in the member states to engage in e-commerce activities. For these eight indicators, the respondents selected ‘Limited’ as the most fitting option. The top-six indicators that were identified as the most important constraints, all with majority frequencies, were business-to-government electronic interaction; the ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered; business-to-consumer electronic interaction; the size of IT-enabled service business; policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises; and use of websites for business, with frequencies of 64%, 60%, 59%, 58%, 53% and 52%, respectively.

The other two indicators were: foreign direct investment in ICT, with 47%; while the indicator with the lowest frequency was the number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons, with 40%.

The results showed that only two indicators, namely, internet connectivity by business, with 47%, and

computers and network use by business, with 44%, were classified as ‘Adequate’, with respect to their impact on business readiness for e-commerce in the region.

Other than ‘Limited’ and ‘Adequate’, no other options were assigned the highest frequency for any of the ten business readiness indicators measured.

Some respondents categorised nine of the ten indicators as ‘Non-existent’. However, the frequency of occurrence for the top-five indicators to which this option was assigned, in each instance, was relatively low, with foreign direct investment in ICT at 11%; policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises at 10%; business-to-government electronic interaction at 9%; the ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered at 8%; and business-to-consumer electronic interaction at 6%.

In the case of another four indicators, the rating of ‘Non-existent’ was assigned to the number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons; computers and network use by business; the size of IT-enabled service business; and the use of websites for business, by one, one, four and five respondents, respectively. This option was not assigned to internet connectivity by business by any of the respondents.

The constraining effect that most indicators exert on the e-commerce readiness of businesses in the OECS members is further emphasised when



the option ‘I don’t know’ is considered. This is particularly so with respect to four indicators, namely, foreign direct investment in the ICT, with a frequency of 27%; number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons at 25%; policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises, with a frequency of 21%; and, finally, the size of IT-enabled service business, with a frequency of 18%.

The reason for this lack of knowledge, or commitment, was not investigated. However, the selection of this option may have been associated with the fact that the impact of these specific indicators of business readiness for e-commerce was not being felt.

Very few respondents allocated the rating of ‘Excellent’ to the ten indicators. No respondents rated policy initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises as being ‘Excellent’. Between two and five respondents allotted the said rating to the following five indicators, namely: number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons; the ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks

encountered; business-to-government electronic interaction; the size of IT-enabled service business; and, finally, any foreign direct investment in ICT.

Likewise, this option was assigned to business-to-consumer electronic interaction, and the use of websites for business by 5% and 7% of respondents, respectively.

The indicators with the two highest frequencies for ‘Excellent’ were internet connectivity by business, with a frequency of 18%, and computers and network use by business, with 13%. These were the same two components with the highest frequencies for ‘Adequate’. The results clearly classify these two components, namely, computers and network use by business, and internet connectivity by business, as the two most highly rated indicators within the environment for business readiness for e-commerce in the six countries.

The evidence that respondents rated the vast majority of the ten indicators poorly was very revealing. Recommendations will be made to improve the business readiness for e-commerce in the member states.

Question 4-2: Please RANK the following areas according to their relative importance, as it relates to your concerns about the risks and possible fraud associated with the use of e-commerce platforms [123 responses]

Not important Neutral Important Very important

Online Security 0 1 15 107

Privacy and confidentiality of transactions 0 1 17 105

Credit card fraud 0 1 18 104

Data breaches 0 1 18 103

System reliability 1 0 23 98


Appendices \ 131

The respondents assigned a very high level of importance to the safety and security of the environment within which they had to conduct e-commerce, and expressed great concern about the risks and possible fraud associated with the use of e-commerce platforms.

Respondents overwhelmingly rated the five (5) areas under evaluation as ‘Very important’, in the following descending order: online security; privacy and confidentiality of transactions; credit card fraud; data breaches; and, finally, system reliability, with frequencies of 87%, 85%, 85%, 84% and 80%, respectively.

The only other option that was selected to any discernible extent by respondents was ‘Important’. The order of priority was the reverse to the order in which ‘Very Important’ was allocated. The descending order of selection of the five indicators, with their corresponding frequencies, was as follows: in first place, system reliability at 19%; data breaches at 15%; credit card fraud at 14%; privacy and confidentiality of transactions at 14%; and finally, online security at 12%. When the two frequencies for each of these individual indicators were combined, it showed that the other two options, namely ‘Neutral’ and ‘Not important’, were hardly even considered.

The fact that the frequency of respondents categorising these five areas as ‘Not important’ or ‘Neutral’ was very low or absent, was compelling. This was testament to the level of conviction of the respondents as it related to the critical importance of their concerns about the risks and possible fraud associated with the use of e-commerce platforms

Question 4-3: Please give a short description of the extent that micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises are connected to the internet (for example, percentage), and the type of internet connectivity used. [73 responses]

• 20%.

• I don’t know.

• Currently I can only count four businesses that are really utilising e-commerce. Therefore, the percentage is quite low in comparison to the number of bricks-and-mortar stores available on the island.

• Mostly all are connected to the internet – via DSL connection. Email is their primary use, followed by sourcing and research and

marketing and advertising. Tourism-related businesses (accommodation) are probably most advanced in using e-commerce from platforms like Airbnb and Expedia etc.

• 50% using broadband.

• Many small businesses do have social media pages and some large enterprises do have functional websites with third party cart.

• Almost all businesses we’ve encountered have been comfortable using the internet, the exception being those run by people 50+ in age. The others almost all use Facebook or/and WhatsApp. Many have fb business pages.

• Estimated to be at least 60–75%, maybe even greater, as internet connectivity is now considered a basic business service. Most connections are basic broadband (cable internet, with a few legacy ADSLs still remaining).

• Most are in the capital and use wired broadband of some sort.

• Basic internet service, which is limited in use for extensive e-commerce transactions.

• I am not aware.

• Maybe 75%, mainly through mobile.

• Not sure.

• Many micro and small businesses don’t have any online presence or may be limited.

• Don’t have the stats.

• 50%.

• Heaping together all sectors makes the figure distorted. Micro 1% or less. Small less than 3%; medium, less than 10%; large less than 15%. During this pandemic I cannot pay my Car license fee online in MY COUNTRY to the government of MY COUNTRY; this is a standard fee. I must take a line at the GOVERNMENT OFFICE.

• This should be obtained from ISPs.

• Unsure.

• 75% connectivity. Since Hurricane Maria, there are locations needing internet connection.

• 85%.

• 95%.



• Generally, businesses do have internet access either as a business or through the proprietor, in the case of sole proprietorships and micro businesses. Most persons do own a smartphone or have access to them and will use if and when absolutely required.

• I am not too sure, but I believe in the range of 25 to 30%. It is a mix of ADSL and broadband.

• Not sure.

• DSL connection probably 30%.

• There is limited use of internet enablement, primarily built on access to online banking facilities and e-mails.

• In terms of web presence, many local businesses have Facebook pages/profiles. A smaller number have Instagram profiles. Very few have websites. Many of those with social media profiles are not regularly updated though. And many of those with websites aren’t updated regularly either. They are used simply for basic informational purposes. As such, few businesses engage in regular e-commerce activity.

• 55%. Paid connectivity, 90% WIFI.

• MY COUNTRY has a 76% internet use rate of penetration. Main type of internet connectivity – Broadband, Wireless.

• I do not have the statistics compiled to answer adequately.

• 80 connectivity. Main national service provider.

• Broadly unknown and assumed adequate (using standard available service).

• I don’t know this information. I suspect most would be connected using broadband/cable internet provided by Flow.

• My estimates are 15% landline broadband, 60% mobile data, 25% not using the internet.

• Over 80%.

• 30 to 40% limited productive relevant use. Most persons in offices use internet for personal shopping and watching videos on company time.

• 70%.

• Most businesses are connected but connectivity not reliable.

• I do not know.

• Mobile data is used for internet connectivity.

• Broadband internet services via fibre and other means are available to and at the majority of MSMEs. In terms of percentages, while I do not have available data, I would say the penetration rate would be about 85–90% of businesses.

• It is estimated that about 15% of businesses are connected to the internet using broadband connection.

• Roughly 50%.

• 40%.

• According to the 2020 UN eGovernment Survey for the large OECS countries – internet usage is approximately 60% among individuals and probably the same for businesses; fixed broadband is 17% and mobile broadband is 57%.

• ADSL and cable broadband at 50-50%.

• 80% use the internet, but I don’t know which type of connectivity they use.

• 60% are connected to wireless internet and 30% to network internet.

• At least 50% of services to micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises have access to the internet. There are basically two service providers.

• I do not have the specific figures, but I believe that less than 50% of the MSMEs are either not connected to the internet or have limited internet connectivity.

• Small and micro enterprises in MY COUNTRY in my view and experience have minimal interaction with ICT, with the exception of Point of Sales systems and some transactions in retail businesses that must be carried out online, for example…selling airtime.

• Many persons use their phones and social media to generate business, especially women-owned businesses. However, many do not have websites that would enable them to seamlessly accept payments, track inventory etc.

• High speed internet 60%.


Appendices \ 133

• Mobile connectivity seems [to be] 80%.

• Out of all business in MY COUNTRY, about 60% has internet access.

• Most SMEs have at least basic (asynchronous) broadband connectivity, which is usually just adequate for online activities (browsing, etc), but not necessarily sufficient for hosted services. However, they generally do not have sufficient infrastructure to support online-hosted services in any case.

• Majority MSMEs are connected to the internet, particularly those headed by young people. We have broadband and wireless connectivity available IN MY COUNTRY that offers affordable tiered plans to fit individual budgets.

• Maybe 30% are connected using normal landline connections.

• MSMEs are very aware of the internet and use it via data on their smartphone – however, as much as 80% of them lack the funds or capacity to set up a digital presence (others have gone the way of social or mobile media channels like Facebook or WhatsApp et al.), but many others, even large established businesses, still don’t have a website in 2021.

• Many have an online presence. More mobile apps are being used.

• Improving.

• 65% …..

• Roughly 85% of MSMEs are connected to the internet, but majority don’t have high speed.

• <30%, mostly using ADSL.

• 60%.

• N/A

• Micro businesses – 40% connectivity. Small businesses – perhaps 60% connectivity. Large businesses – approximately 100% connectivity.

• This sector is less capitalised, and additionally because of their relative smaller size, have a lesser capacity to achieve internet connectivity.

• Small businesses here in MY COUNTRY conduct a significant amount of business via social media, whether via mobile device or computer. They are connected to the internet

via either one of two service providers, Flow and Digicel. I am sure 100% of business are connected to the internet in some manner, whether directly (their device) or indirectly (using a relative’s device or going to an internet café.

Question 4-4: Please give a short description of the initiatives underway, particularly with regard to MSMEs and those operating in niche areas such as tourism, agriculture, etc., to assist them to build a culture of ICT use to increase productivity, efficiency and competitiveness [67 responses]

• I am not aware of any current ongoing initiative that would facilitate the process.

• There are many initiatives for portals or platforms for farmers, tourism service providers to enable a one-stop-shop (Single Window) shopping experience for their customers. Most are powered by international providers selling software as a service or providing the platform at a fee on a commission basis.

• Nothing that I know of.

• Not available.

• No knowledge of specific official initiatives. However, ICT practitioners tend to push their clients (or employers) towards usage of internet services as far as it may benefit their business. It may be of value to develop a series of initiatives, such as workshops targeting MSMEs (maybe in separate categories) to boost their understanding of the capabilities and opportunities that internet broadband and ICTs can offer to their business operations.

• There are many capacity-building initiatives launched by government and statutory bodies that garner the interest of developers. Just the business environment for these needs to be enhanced.

• Ongoing training, education and sensitisation.

• I not aware of any specific initiatives now; however, the government of MY COUNTRY approved the Mid Term Development Strategy in 2020, which focuses on several sectors of the economy.

• Unaware.

• There are no initiatives underway.



• Not aware of any initiatives at the domestic level. However, there have been several online programmes by external agencies, such as Caribbean Export.

• There are none.

• There are various webinars and online meetings taking place held by CEDA, OECS, Export Saint Lucia, SBDC, etc. speaking to various aspects of e-commerce and getting business selling online. There are also loans available IN MY COUNTRY for getting your business automated. CEDA provided grants, which included automation as a qualifying reason.

• There is currently the World Bank digitisation project, which will support the improvement of the areas aforementioned.

• Work needs to be done or continue with Farmers/Micro Manufacturers to fully embrace ICT use for tracking their productivity and at the same time, they services.

• Not aware of any significant initiative that will have a drastic impact on output and productivity. This must be a multisector approach in order to achieve the desired objectives. However, there is a need for involvement of all stakeholders and a reduction in nepotism, along with sectors which can build sustainability that will redound to resilience in each sector and hence the national economy.

• Not too sure.

• Not sure.

• Availability of funding through multiple agencies.

• Unsure.

• The government recently set up a minister responsible for ‘Digital Economy’ and facilitated a programme to develop a group of freelancers who could offer services digitally (via marketplaces such as Upwork, Elance, etc.).

• The Connect Antigua and Barbuda Initiative, GATE Initiative, ICT in Education Policy, E-business workshops, Open Data Readiness Assessment Project, Antigua and Barbuda’s Customs and Excise Division currently utilises the ASYCUDA World system, which has a live access portal.

• Not aware of any strategic initiatives.

• The BSOs such as DAIC and DYBT have been providing training to respond to the need.

• Unknown.

• Don’t know of any.

• Not aware of any at the moment.

• Support and education provided by the ICT department.

• SBDC [St Kitts Business Development Centre] conducts a number of trainings in this regard. The government, through its various ministries, re retooling its stakeholders in ICT to use in their businesses.

• Not aware of any.

• I do not know.

• There is a growing number of entrepreneurs using Facebook and WhatsApp to market themselves. There is a shift from website.

• The National Digital Transformation makes provision for and will impact on all sectors and advances are being made in that regard, though not at the pace required yet.

• The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Consumer Affairs, along with key stakeholders, is currently developing a plan for the implementation of the MSME Policy and Strategy, which has as one of its objectives the increased leverage of ICT, cyber marketing, production and other technologies, across the MSME sector in order to drive increased sales and business efficiencies, and generally growing the digital economy. Sustained efforts will be made through awareness, training and facilitation to promote ICT penetration among MSMEs. Critical to this is a recommended review of the government’s Incentive Regime to include concessions to MSMES on the purchase of ICT infrastructure for business use. Additionally, the ministry is collaborating with an ICT service provider in the development of an application which will create a platform to support online advertising and sales.

• Most MSMEs have a website and utilise social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter, to promote their businesses. There is always room for improvement to allow for a wider penetration. Many small businesses have still not adopted


Appendices \ 135

electronic card payment machines and solely rely on cash.

• Training.

• SEDU provides training to small business enterprises, mostly every quarter. Sometimes twice in a quarter they give small businesses the chance to get training.

• Occasional training workshops are advertised and conducted, and participants are urged to take advantage of any training available. Some training workshops are also conducted by regional agencies such as the OECS and Caribbean Export.

• Launch of D-Cash as another payment option.

• I don’t know.

• None that I know of.

• SLHTA has a programme that assists with giving farmer’s data to hotels and restaurants for purchase. There should be a constant collection of data on local farming crops to come and maybe government should then have that data to decide what tariff or taxes should be imposed on imported agricultural products that would compete with farmers during their planting cycle. But ITC would be used to gain data and map rainfall, crop yield during particular times of year and location to see what crop is best, when and where. It is also important that all farmers don’t grow the same crop at the same time, so the farmers should be able to plug in their suggested crop for a suggested period and see if it makes sense against the other farmers’ data etc.

• There is a national ICT project that has helped persons develop skills; however, many businesspersons are unaware of how to accept payments electronically and still have paper operations. Most of the businesses with access to e-commerce have access to a higher level of investment. Many MSMEs have little access to financing specifically geared towards ICT creating greater efficiency in their businesses. Because of the pandemic and now volcanic eruptions in St Vincent, it is more crucial than ever for businesses to tap into external markets through e-commerce, as local consumer spending could be severely affected.

• There [has been] an E- Commerce Integration project proposal sent to planning for approval.

• A MSMEs Policy is being developed, which should help address these concerns.

• Innovation Hub to provide support to entrepreneurs.

• Seamless integration and accessibility between government and private sectors.

• Workshops offered by BSOs.

• This is very limited in the realms of agriculture, since government does not see the high revenues earning in that department, unlike other businesses such as tourism, which are making steps towards ICT.

• Within the ICT sector, practitioners encourage, advocate and promote the use of broadband connectivity and digital services. Unfortunately, limited EDI and electronic B2B/B2G/B2C limits that uptake by the companies, except when driven by pressure from competitors.

• I am not certain of any such initiative from government level. However, in the private sector a service provider has taken on the task of pushing a cashless society through implementation of mobile payment options.

• I do’t know.

• PRYME Initiative: The programme contributes to the empowerment of young people, alleviation of poverty, enablement of entrepreneurship and the creation of new businesses. Financial resources and managerial support services will be provided to promising microenterprises and start-ups.

• None that I am aware of.

• There are citizen-driven programmes like Startup Huddle and some start-ups like The Local App working to educate and empower MSMEs to build a culture in the ICT sector. With support, that they could grow even faster and reach more.

• This is the future.

• Not aware of any.

• The E-futures programme by UNDP Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, along with Boost in Saint Lucia, is helping to build ICT culture.



• Customers now are able to directly purchase produce from farms using cards, digital cash and have purchases delivered directly.

• Using ICT as a means to collect data in order to facilitate better products and services for clients’ satisfaction.

• Plenty of small projects, but little coherence and impact assessment over a wider scale.

• N/A

• Introduction of electronic marketing platform in agriculture.

• I am not aware of any.

• There is a digital transformation initiative, but it is in the early stages and maybe too soon to tell. The government has launched two work online programmes encouraging young people to train for and find remote jobs. Overall, there needs to be an attitude shift among business. Consumers have been crying [out] for online payment etc. for years, but businesses are afraid to venture into that area, despite the potential benefits for their bottom line and productivity.

Question 4-5: In case you need technical assistance to start developing e-commerce solutions, to which of the following are you likely to turn to for help? [58 responses]

Highly likely Likely Unlikely Very unlikely

A private service provider 43 15 0 4

A government ministry 3 7 20 27

A bank 8 23 14 13

A business association/chamber of commerce 8 27 16 7

A UN agency 8 8 23 18

A development partner 11 28 15 3

Respondents expressed clear choices with respect to who they would turn to for help in case they needed technical assistance to start developing e-commerce solutions.

A private sector provider was the single most likely supplier that clients would approach for help to initiate the development of new e-commerce solutions. As expressed by 69% of respondents,


Appendices \ 137

this was the option with the highest frequency of ‘Highly likely’ among all six sources of assistance, and the only potential partner for which ‘Highly likely’ was the top choice. This probable outcome was further reinforced by the fact that another 24% of the respondents indicated that they were ‘Likely’ to select a private sector provider, with no one stating that this prospect was ‘Unlikely’. This led to a combined 93% of respondents. Six percent (6%) of respondents pointed out that it was ‘Very unlikely’ that they would use a private service provider.

In contrast, a government ministry was the single potential partner that businesspersons were ‘Very unlikely’ to approach for assistance in their quest to start developing e-commerce solutions. With a frequency level of 47%, a government ministry was the option with the highest rate of ‘Very unlikely’ among all six sources of assistance, and the only potential partner for which ‘Very unlikely’ was the top choice. With another 35% of respondents also stating that it was ‘Unlikely’ that they would approach a government ministry for technical assistance to start developing e-commerce solutions, a clear message was being sent , by 82% of the respondents, to the effect that the state was not considered to be a suitable partner in this regard.

Likewise, a UN agency was the option with the highest frequency for ‘Unlikely’ among all six sources of assistance, with a frequency of 40%. This was the only potential partner for which ‘Unlikely’ was the top choice. At 32%, the

number of respondents who selected the ‘Very unlikely’ option was also quite high. Hence, it was apparent that 72% of respondents did not view a UN agency as the foremost source of technical assistance if they needed to start developing e-commerce solutions.

A development partner, a business association/chamber of commerce, and a bank, in descending order, each had ‘Likely’ as the option with the highest frequency, with relatively moderate, but broadly similar rates of, 49%, 46% and 40%, respectively. These three sources of assistance also attracted other options in notable frequencies.

Respondents were ‘Unlikely’ to select a development partner, a business association/chamber of commerce, or a bank, at frequency rates of 26%, 28% and 24%, respectively. In addition, respondents were ‘Very unlikely’ to select a development partner, a business association/chamber of commerce, or a bank, at frequency rates of 5%, 12% and 22%, respectively.

When ‘Very unlikely’ and ‘Unlikely’ were combined, the implication was that 68% of the respondents may select a development partner, and 60% of the respondents may select a business association/chamber of commerce, as potential partners. However, when these two options were added together, the inference was that a reduced majority of the respondents, 54%, might turn to a bank in case they need technical assistance to start developing e-commerce solutions.

Question 4-6 What motivated you to sell goods/services online? [59 responses]

Value Count

I wanted to attract more domestic customers 30

I wanted to attract more international customers 39

My competitor(s) moved sales online 10

Because I saw it as a competitive advantage 44

My business model only involves selling goods/services online 13

Lower my cost of deliver – longer term 1

Also attracting regional customers (distinct from international customers) 1

To create a marketplace to get other businesses selling online 1

Disaster risk reduction 1

I don’t currently sell online 1

My customer is a niche customer that exists regionally and internationally 1

Opportunity for efficiency in handling customers’ needs and service delivery 1



Question 4-7: What type of e-commerce platforms do you utilise? Select all that apply [59 responses]

Value Count

Website to purely advertise/promote our products and services 30

No e-commerce platform utilised currently 16

Website+payment options for domestic and cross-border sales 25

Website+payment options for domestic sales 11

Third-party website+payment in person 9

Dedicated mobile app 1

Online service platforms, with manual payment handling 1

In the process of setting up an e-commerce website via a third-party payment processor and a distribution centre in Miami

1

Question 4-8: For which of the following do you use mobile internet? Select all that apply [62 responses]

Value Count

Shopping 41

Email 58

Video calling 46

Facebook 54

Games 16

Messaging/chatting 53

Browsing/surfing/information 54

Practising a foreign language 16

MP3/video/picture download 29

Other social media 42

Maps & business details (location, info – phone number, operating hours) 1

Management of business assets 1

All 1

As a backup for wired service 1


Appendices \ 139

Value Count

Education and training, meetings 1

Online training courses/webinars 1

None 1

Sales 1

Business services – product research; job/task submission forms; pro-forma/invoice generation & submission; online banking (balance checking/funds transfers)

1


Question 5-1: Rate the following items as they relate to the payment aspects of e-commerce transactions in your country [122 responses]

Not important


Regulations that allow for mobile payments 0 33 11 78

Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options

0 33 11 77

Awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments

4 34 9 74

Regulations that protect consumers online 3 20 6 93

Educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers

4 25 12 81

Regulations that allow for electronic payments 3 22 4 93



All six items were deemed to be essential for the efficient functioning of the payment aspects of e-commerce transactions in member states. For all payment features, the most frequently selected option is ‘Very important’.

The order of importance, based on reducing frequency, and by extension, reduced prominence was: regulations that allow for electronic payments, with 76%; regulations that protect consumers online, with 76%; educational initiatives on security and trust building, e.g., for policy-makers, banks, merchants and consumers, with 66%; better compatibility of online and mobile payment options, with 64%; regulations that allow for mobile payments, with 64%; and, in sixth place, awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments, with 61%.

Respondents categorised the payment aspects as ‘Important’, with frequencies ranging from a high of 28% in the case of awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments, to regulations that protect consumers online, with a low of 16%.

The four indicators selected between these two extremes, in descending order, were: regulations that allow for mobile payments, with 27%; better compatibility of online and mobile payment options, with 27%; educational initiatives on security and trust building, e.g., for policymakers, banks, merchants and consumers, with 20%; and regulations that allow for electronic payments, with 18%.

The options ‘Neutral’ and ‘Not important’ were also assigned to each of the payment aspects, but with very low frequencies of occurrence. Frequencies for the ‘Neutral’ option ranged from 3% to 10% across all six indicators. By comparison, none of the respondents categorised two indicators as being ‘Not important’, namely, regulations that allow

for mobile payment, and better compatibility of online and mobile payment options. The other four indicators were categorised in a similar manner by 2% and 3% of the respondents.

When the ‘Very important’ and ‘Important’ options were combined, it could be concluded that the respondents sent a clear message that all factors examined were indispensable as they relate to the payment aspects of e-commerce transactions in the OECS countries.

Question 5-2: What is the current form of payment system that you offer to your customers? [111 responses]

Value Count

Cash on delivery 84

Online – Mastercard/Visa 50

Mobile money options 21

PayPal 29

Cheques 2

N/A 2

Bank transfers 2

Wire transfers 1

Payment by cheque; payment on account

1

DCash – The digital EC dollar; Penny Pinch

1

Via government 1

Check 1

Direct online banking payment 1

Cheque deposit 1

Bank transfer 1

Use of a third-party (bank) portal/app

1

Physical credit card machine, with cardholder not present option

1


Appendices \ 141

Value Count

Payswif 1

PayKN 1

Wire transfers 1

N/A – we do not process any pay-ments

1

Wire transfer 1

Lack of e-commerce payment sup-port has delayed the launching on my online retail store.

1

DCASH 1

Viator 1

Value Count

Direct bank deposits 1

Wire transfer 1

Electronic funds transfer 1

Bank deposits or xfers and Payswif 1

Post-service payments (by cheque); cash deposits/downpayments

1

Electronic wire transfers and POS debit and credit cards

1

Nil 1

Working on setting up third-party payment processor

1



Question 5-3a: Please RANK the following areas according to their relative importance to create an environment that is conducive to e-commerce [119 responses]

Not important

Neutral Important Very important

Availability of access-to-finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs

2 3 36 78

Awareness on different types and/or blends of financing

3 6 39 71

Awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem

4 5 30 80

Identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors

3 9 26 81

Question 5-3b: Please RANK the following areas according to their relative importance to create an environment that is conducive to e-commerce [117 responses]

Not important


Enabling investment climate for e-commerce 2 6 31 79

Identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures

2 1 33 81

Awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions

2 3 29 83

Promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce

2 7 45 63


Appendices \ 143

For each of the eight (8) payment indicators, the single highest option selected was ‘Very important’. Given the high frequency levels at which respondents selected this option, all eight indicators were judged to be vital to creating an environment that is conducive to e-commerce readiness in the OECS region.

The area selected with the highest frequency of 71% was awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions. The lowest was promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce, with a notably lower frequency of 54%. Therefore, all eight indicators were selected as ‘Very important’ by an absolute majority of the respondents.

The decreasing order of importance for the other six indicators was as follows: identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures; identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors; awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem; enabling investment climate for e-commerce; availability of access to finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs, and, in seventh place, awareness on different types and/or blends of financing, with corresponding frequencies of 69%, 68%, 67%, 67%, 66% and 60%, respectively.

The option ‘Important’ was selected by a fairly representative proportion of the sample, in all eight (8) payment areas. The ranking order for the four highest frequencies was: first, promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financing for e-commerce, with 38%; followed by awareness on different types and/or blends of financing, with 33%, and availability of access to finance instruments specifically designed for MSMEs, with 30% each. Identifying barriers and bottlenecks to financing of e-commerce ventures occupied the fourth place, with a frequency of 28%.

Enabling investment climate for e-commerce was selected in fifth place by 26% of the respondents. This was followed by awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem, and the awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-commerce solutions,

both with frequencies of 25%, and, finally, identifying potential sources of financing and investment across the full value chain of investors at 22%.

The options ‘Neutral’ and ‘Not important’ were also selected for each of the payment aspects, but at very low levels of frequency. The option ‘Neutral’ was assigned to the eight indicators by between 1% and 8% of respondents, while between 2% and 3% of respondents deemed the indicators to be ‘Not important’.

When the options ‘Very important’ and ‘Important’ were combined, it could be deduced that all eight indicators identified were necessary for the establishment and maintenance of an environment that is conducive to e-commerce in the OECS region.

Question 5-4: In the last 12 months, have you used a mobile banking account? [111 responses]

[111 responses]

Yes, to send and receive 51

Yes, to receive only 3

Yes, to send only 5

Transferring from one of your accounts to another

20

Checking balance 32

The next set of questions are for PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES only. If you work for a Public Sector Organization please skip to the next section. [124 responses]



Question 5-5: If you have decided NOT to invest in e-commerce solutions, how important have been the following factors in your decision? [44 responses]

Not important


I don’t know

Lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in my country

2 5 9 24 4

Unreliable ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply)

6 10 11 15 2

Incomplete legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce

4 8 10 16 4

No finance to develop online services 2 10 16 14 3

Poor logistics/delivery solutions 0 10 13 20 2

Lack of e-commerce skills in my country 2 14 12 14 2

The responses highlighted the critical role of the payment component as it related to the investment decision in e-commerce solutions. Most respondents, 55%, thought that the lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in their country was ‘Very important’ in the decision not to invest in e-commerce solutions. This was also the single most widely used option for four other indicators, namely, poor logistics/delivery solutions, at 44%; incomplete legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce, at 38%; unreliable ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply), at 34%; and, finally, lack of e-commerce skills in the countries of the OECS, with a frequency of 32%.

The same number of respondents, 32%, also assigned the ‘Neutral’ option to the lack of e-commerce skills in the countries of the OECS. As such, this indicator shared ‘Very important’ and ‘Neutral’ as the two most frequently used options. For the other five indicators, this option was used by between a low of 11% and a high of 23% of respondents.

‘Important’ was the single highest option chosen for the indicator no finance to develop online services, at a frequency of 36%. This was also the indicator that the lowest number of respondents deemed to be ‘Very important’, at a rate of 31%. The frequency at which the respondents deemed the other five indicators to be ‘Important’ ranged from

20% in the case of lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in my country, to 29% for poor logistics/delivery solutions.

It was noteworthy that the six indicators shared three options as the topmost frequently used option, namely ‘Very important’, ‘Important’ and ‘Neutral’. In addition, the options of ‘Not important’, and ‘I don’t know’ were not widely used by the respondents.

As stated earlier, the preponderance of the ‘Very Important’ option suggested that two indicators, namely, lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in my country, at 55%, and, poor logistics/delivery solutions, at a rate of 44%, were critical considerations in instances where respondents decided not to invest in e-commerce solutions. The four other indicators were ascribed a narrower range of levels of importance across the various options. Therefore, for each of these indicators, it was useful to assess the combined effect of the options ‘Important’ and ‘Very Important’.

Notwithstanding the application by the respondents of five options to the six (6) probable reasons to defer investments in e-commerce solutions, when the frequencies of the ‘Important’ and ‘Very Important’ options were combined, the results suggested that all six (6) factors contributed to the non-investment decision.


Appendices \ 145

Question 5-6: How important have been the following enabling factors in your decision to invest in e-commerce solutions? [57 responses]

Not important


I don’t know

Access to finance to develop online services 6 7 15 29 0

Legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce

3 9 16 27 2

Logistics solutions for e-commerce 2 3 20 30 1

Access to ICT and e-commerce skills (manpower)

3 5 12 35 2

ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply)

2 5 17 31 2

Access to e-payment and cashless solutions 0 2 10 43 2

The situation was much clearer with the enabling factors in the decision to invest in e-commerce solutions in the OECS region.

Each of the six (6) enabling factors was assessed to be ‘Very important’ with respect to the investment decision. This was the single most frequently used option for all the six indicators. Five of these were majority positions for ‘Very Important’.

The descending order in which the enabling factors in the decision to invest in e-commerce solutions was chosen by the respondents as follows: access to e-payment and cashless solutions, at 75%; access to ICT and e-commerce skills (manpower), at 61%; third, ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply), at 54%; logistics solutions for e-commerce, also at 54 %; followed by access to finance to develop online services, at 51%; and, finally, legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce, with the lowest frequency of 42%.

The choice of these enablers was strengthened further when the frequency of the use of the option ‘Important’ was taken into consideration. These frequencies ranged from a low of 18% in the case of access to e-payment and cashless solutions, to a high of 36% for logistics solutions for e-commerce. The combination of these two options served to further consolidate the selection of all six (6)

factors as enablers of the decision to invest in e-commerce solutions. For all indicators, the combined frequencies ranged from a low of 75% for legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce, to a high of 93% for access to e-payment and cashless solutions.

The incidence of ‘Not important’ was very low, ranging from no respondents in the case of access to e-payment and cashless solutions, to the highest frequency within this option of 11%, for access to finance to develop online services, which also received the second lowest frequency for ‘Very important’.

It is noteworthy that this factor related to financing. The findings might suggest that adequate provision of the other five factors were stronger motivators of the decision to invest in e-commerce solutions than access to finance. It could be surmised that most potential investors would have secured the required funding but remained dependent on the provision of the broader enabling environment in order to implement their investment decision, as represented by access to ICT and e-commerce skills (manpower), ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply), legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce, and, finally, logistics solutions for e-commerce.



Pillar 6: e-commerce Policy and RegulationQuestion 6-1: Rate the following items relating to the e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in your country by using the following options [119 responses]

Non-existent


Telecommunications liberalisation 7 26 44 19 22

Independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications

7 23 49 19 21

E-commerce legal framework 23 41 25 2 28

Status of online consumer protection law/legal framework

24 43 21 2 28

Status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism

30 33 13 2 39

Computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework

19 46 25 6 23

Data protection legal framework 19 41 24 5 30

Political champion for e-commerce 31 36 15 6 31

Administration champion for e- commerce 28 43 8 8 32

Government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief information officer

9 40 35 10 23

Is there a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication?

25 30 12 9 42

Is there a national ICT strategy and policy in existence?

17 35 24 5 37

Extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions

26 31 10 4 48

In order to the assess the e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in the region, respondents were asked to use five (5) options to rate the 13 ndicators that were used to define the construct.

The option ‘Limited’ predominated in seven (7) of the indicators. These were: first, computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework, with a frequency of 39%; followed by status of online consumer protection law/legal framework, with 36%; third, administration champion for e- commerce, also with 36%; in fourth place, e-commerce legal framework, with 35%; data protection legal framework, with 35%; followed by government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief information officer, with 34%, in sixth place; and, finally, political champion for e- commerce, with a frequency of 30%.

The second most prevalent viewpoint was ‘I don’t know’. For four (4) of the indicators, this was the single most frequently selected option. These were: in first place, the extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions, with 40%; second, the existence of a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication, with 36%; and in third place, the status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism, with a frequency of 33%; followed by whether there is a national ICT strategy and policy, with a frequency of 31%.

Respondents selected the option ‘I don’t know’ quite often for all the indicators. This option appeared at frequency rates of between 18% and 27% for each of the nine remaining e-commerce policy and regulatory framework indicators


Appendices \ 147

Another option, ‘Adequate’, led as the single most common choice for the other two indicators: in the first place, the independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications, with a frequency rate of 41%, and, second, telecommunications liberalisation, with a frequency of 37%.

The third-highest frequency rate at which respondents selected the option ‘Adequate’ was for the indicator government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief information officer, with 30%. This was followed by the status of an e-commerce legal framework, with 21%, and the computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework, also with a rate of 21%. The other three notable indicators for this option were data protection legal framework, with a frequency of 20%; whether there is a national ICT strategy and policy, also with a frequency of 20%; and the status of online consumer protection law/legal framework, at 18%.

Respondents also used the option ‘Non-existent’ for all 13 indicators, although its usage was not enough to make it the sole leading option for any of the individual indicators. This was the second leading option applied to political champion for e- commerce, and the status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism, both with frequencies of 26%. Four other indicators were rated as ‘Non-existent’ by at least 20% of the respondents. These were: administration champion for e-commerce, with 24%; the extent of taxation and fiscal regimes with respect to taxing digital transactions, at 22%; the existence of a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication, with 21%; and the status of online consumer protection law/legal framework, with a frequency of 20%.

The other four indicators with notable frequencies for ‘Excellent’ were e-commerce legal framework, at 19%; followed by computer crime and cybersecurity

legal framework, along with data protection legal framework, both with frequencies of 16%; and whether there is a national ICT strategy and policy in existence, with 14%. The other three of the 13 indicators were at frequencies of less than 10% each.

The five highest frequencies for ‘Excellent’ related to the independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications, and telecommunications liberalisation, both with frequencies of 16%; followed by the government organisation responsible for ICT and/or office of the chief information officer, along with the existence of a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication, both with 8%. The other indicator was an administration champion for e-commerce, with 7%. The other eight indicators received lower frequencies, ranging from 2% to 5% of the respondents.

For eleven (11) of the thirteen (13) indicators, the combination of ‘Limited’ and ‘Non-existent’ options outweighed the total frequency when ‘Adequate’ and ‘Excellent’ were combined.

The two (2) indicators for which the cumulative frequencies of the ‘Adequate’ and ‘Excellent’ options were higher than the total for the ‘Limited’ and ‘Non-existent’ options were, first, telecommunications liberalisation, at 53%, and second, the independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications, with an aggregate of 57%.

The combination of the ‘Limited’, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘Non-existent’ options exposed the lack of readily available information, coupled with the existence of a deficient e-commerce policy and regulatory framework in the member states. These pointed to the existence of serious insufficiencies within the existing ecosystem for e-commerce readiness in the OECS countries, which needs to be addressed.

Question 6-2: Do you agree that government regulations in the following areas are important to enhance trust in e-commerce? [119 responses]

(Strongly disagree)

(Disagree) (Neutral) (Agree) (Strongly agree)

(I don’t know)

Electronic transactions/ e-signature

5 3 9 25 72 5

Protection of data and privacy 6 3 6 14 85 5

Cybercrime legislation 6 1 8 15 84 5

Consumer protection online 6 1 9 15 83 5

Regulating online content 6 10 18 17 62 6



(Strongly disagree)

(Disagree) (Neutral) (Agree) (Strongly agree)

(I don’t know)

Domain name and dispute resolutions

5 2 16 24 64 8

Online intellectual property law 6 1 8 26 73 5

When asked whether they agreed with the viewpoint that government regulations in seven areas were important to enhance trust in e-commerce, the respondents to the survey overwhelmingly selected the option ‘Strongly agree’.

This was particularly so for five types of government regulations, where more than 60% of the respondents were in strong agreement. These were, first, protection of data and privacy, at 71%; the other indicator was cybercrime legislation, also at 71%, closely followed by consumer protection online, at 70%. The next two positions were occupied by electronic transactions/e-signature, and online intellectual property law, both at a frequency of 61%.

The other two regulations being assessed were domain name and dispute resolutions, at 54%, and regulating online content, being the lowest at 52%. It was important to note that an absolute majority of respondents ‘Strongly agreed’ that government regulations in all seven areas were important to enhance trust in e-commerce.

The next most frequently chosen option was ‘Agree’. Respondents applied this option to all seven regulations, at frequency rates ranging from 12% with respect to protection of data and privacy, up to 22% in the case of online intellectual property law. The option for ‘Neutral’ was also chosen relatively widely. The range was from the lowest frequency of 5% for protection of data and privacy, to the highest of 15% in the case of regulating online content.

Likewise, the highest frequency for the ‘Disagree’ option was 8% for the indicator regulating online content. For this option, the other six indicators presented frequencies ranging from 1% to 3%. The other two options, namely, ‘Strongly disagree’ and ‘I don’t know’, were also used by few respondents. Across the seven indicators, between 4% and 7% selected ‘I don’t know’, while between 4% and 5% were in strong disagreement.

Respondents chose all six options for each area of regulations. The results showed that for each indicator, the combination of ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly

agree’, ranging from 66% to 84%, emphatically demonstrated concurrence that government regulations in all seven areas were important to enhance trust in e-commerce activities in the OECS countries.

The remaining question are for PUBLIC SECTOR RESPONDENTS ONLY. If you work for a Private Sector Entity you may submit now. [124 responses]

Proceed(Public Sector) 58

Submit (Private Sector) 66

Question 6-3: Please give a short description on the extent to which the telecommunications sector has been liberalised and how it is regulated [31 responses]

• There are several telecommunication providers in MY COUNTRY. There is also number portability. However, competition has not driven the cost down.

• Regional (OECS) liberalisation that my country is part.

• The telecommunication sector is liberalised; however, the legislation needs to be amended.

• The National Telecommunication Regulatory Commission is directed by legislation as it pertains to the regulation of the telecommunications sector. See website WWW. NTRCSLU.LC

• The only issues I may see [are] spectrum restrictions for mobile; other than that, there are no barriers.

• Fairly, can’t provide details.


WWW.

Appendices \ 149

• Open Competition Telecommunications Regulatory Commission.

• National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) regulates as far as I know, which uses the Telecommunications Act of 2000.

• Three competing providers with a relatively even playing field. Legislation being enacted to ensure the environment remains fair and equitably regulated.

• Regulated through the Department of Telecommunications within the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, Telecommunications and Information Technology.

• n/a

• http://i-tip.wto.org/services/SearchResultGats.aspx The national ICT regulatory body is the Ministry of Telecommunications, Science and Technology, which is responsible for the sector’s policy and legislation, although it is not autonomous in its decision-making, and the entirety of its budget stems from government appropriation. Telecommunications Bill, which aims to restructure the telecommunications industry, moving the sector towards liberalisation, bringing the regulation up to date, including measures on consumer protection. Efforts are being made by the government to further develop the nation’s telecommunications sector by partnering with the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL), with a principal objective of increasing liberalisation.

• The NTRC (National Telecommunication Regulatory Commission) regulates the Telecoms sector in MY COUNTRY; the market is open to telecom providers.

• Barely.

• The telecommunications sector has been liberalised. The sector is regulated jointly by the Telecommunications Act, Chapter 45:05 (Act No. 8 of 2000). The Act gives force of law to the subregional body ECTEL, the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority. ECTEL was established by the treaty establishing the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority 2000. The Act also provides for the roles of the

National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission and the minister responsible for telecommunications in the regulatory regime.

• Sector is fully liberalised. Governance structures are in place through the ministry with responsibility for telecommunications. There is also an effective National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) and affiliations with ECTEL.

• Up until about 2005, the telecommunication sector was characterised by pure monopoly under which one service provider was licenced to provide virtually all domestic and international fixed and mobile service and value added. In 2005, the sector was opened as part of a regional initiative and there was vibrant competition, particularly in the cellular mobile and internet markets. Around 2009/2010, Columbus Communications (FLOW) launched its fixed voice service, which added the provision of fixed voice to its existing suite of cable TV and internet access services. This addition meant that there was an alternative to the incumbent (Cable and Wireless) in all major telecommunications markets in MY COUNTRY. While fixed and mobile phone service continues to be provided largely by two (2) major service providers, there are other small businesses which provide internet and value-added services. The National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) was established under the Telecommunications Act 31 of 2000 to regulate the telecommunications sector. The main aim of the NTRC is to regulate the liberalised telecommunications sector, to ensure fair competitive practices by telecommunications service providers and to promote and maintain high-quality telecommunications services at fair and competitive prices. In addition to the Act, there have been passed by way of statutory orders, a number of legislative instruments which support the overall development of the sector. The NTRC works in close collaboration with the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL), thus the legislative instruments referenced above ensure that policies and practices in relation to the management of telecommunications are in harmony with those of ECTEL.


http://i-tip.wto.org/services/SearchResultGats.aspx

http://i-tip.wto.org/services/SearchResultGats.aspx


• The mobile penetration is above 80% in MY COUNTRY. It is regulated by the telecom body ECTEL.

• National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission governs all telecommunications (broadcasting radio or TV, internet, and mobile broadcasting).

• I am not sure how the telecommunications sector has been regulated.

• To my knowledge, it is not being regulated properly at all.

• A number of Bills will be introduced to address the lack of regulations.

• Not quite liberalised. Need new competitors in the market.

• The telecommunications sector has been fully liberalised since 2001 and is regulated by the National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission.

• I don’t know.

• Not liberalised at all. Regulation requires improvement.

• Well regulated.

• Establishment of ECTEL.

• Telecommunication has been liberalised for more than ten years. Uncertain about regulatory framework.

• There are two main service providers here, Flow and Digicel. Customers have options as to which of the two they want their service with, but there is not much flexibility re their offers. There is the NTRC here in MY COUNTRY, which is the regulating body. However, though they engage in public awareness campaigns, many customers do not use their office for redress. So, it may seem that customers are happy with the service provided by these two companies when really that is not the case.

Question 6-4: Please provide a short description on the e-commerce legal framework and the extent this reflects international work undertaken by the Commonwealth, EU, UNCTAD/WTO/UNCITRAL [26 responses]

• None.

• As part of the implementation of the DigiGov project, several pieces of legislation will be

amended; e.g., ETA, data protection and new ones will be implemented, digital government, e-ID.

• I am not sure. However, the general sensitisation is inadequate.

• Unsure.

• Don’t know.

• Some aspects of the UNCITRAL have been included and covered in our Electronic Transactions Act, along with other support legislation governing operations in a cyber environment.

• N/A

• MY COUNTRY has benefitted from regional initiatives under both CARICOM and the OECS. MY COUNTRY’s legal framework includes ICT-related legislation, which addresses areas of cybersecurity, data protection, electronic transactions and others. Among such existing legislation includes • Consumer Protection & Safety Act 1988 • Computer Misuse Act 2006 • Data Protection Act 2013 • Electronic Transactions Act 2013 (Amended in 2016) • Electronic Crimes Act 2013 (Amended in 2018) • Electronic Evidence Act 2013 • Telecommunications Bill 2016 • Digital Assets Business Act, 2020 • The Electronic Transactions Act, 2006. Many of the above-mentioned laws reflects international work being undertaken in e-commerce.

• Not aware of any legal framework for e-commerce.

• The extent of the e-commerce legal framework is as is reflected in the Electronic Transactions Act, Chapter 45:08 (Act No. 13 of 2013). The draft is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and was driven by the HIPCAR project, which sought to assist MY COUNTRY and other countries in the region to put laws in place concerning information and communication technology.

• I have no response.

• The Government/Customs Division has invested in an online software program (ASYCUDA World) from UNCTAD, which supports online payments for clearance of goods. The Customs Act supports electronic submission of documents.


Appendices \ 151

• In 2013, MY COUNTRY passed a series of legislation which will facilitate e-commerce; among them: 1. Electronic Filing Act No. 12/2013, which enables information and files to be filed electronically with public authorities and for related matters; 2. Electronic Transaction Act No. 21 of 2013, which gives legal effect to electronic documents, records and signatures; 3. Electronic Crimes Act No. 23/2013, which provides for the prevention of and punishment for electronic crimes and for related matters; 4. The Consumer Protection Act No 2/2018, which includes a section on Distance Selling. The items of legislation listed above, along with the telecommunications legislative framework, align with work undertaken by international agencies listed, particularly as it relates to electronic transactions, data protection consumer protection.

• Covered by legislation for MY COUNTRY.

• We reference professional and international standards provided by the EU and also the WTO.

• This e-commerce framework is poorly lacking the right policies and regulations to meet international work.

• Not available.

• Cannot say for sure. I think it is being worked on at the moment.

• I do’t know.

• I don’t know.

• Does that framework exist?

• Reasonable.

• I am not sure.

• As MY COUNTRY is signatory to international trade agreements, we would fall under the remit of such and obligated to follow whatever rules and regulations apply.

Question 6-5: Please give a short description of the person or organisation responsible for the political championing of e-commerce, and the extent to which this is successful [25 responses]

• The Cabinet of Ministers and a ministry was established to deal with Digital Economy.

• Department of Commerce.

• There is none. I am not sure of political agendas.

• Minister of Commerce IN MY COUNTRY. Not sure to what extent.

• Unsure.

• Director, e-Government Solutions and both the Ministers of Information and Trade.

• The government will kill the e-commerce of this nation because it is not benefiting their local pockets. Too many taxes for low-value personal items.

• Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, Telecommunications, Science and Technology. The level of success to date can be reported as moderate.

• In countries like MY COUNTRY, there is an attempt to create a political champion.

• The National IT Centre [and] the Chambers of the Attorney General [are] pushing for legal reform, along with physical restructuring and rebuilding to implement an overall e-government system…Currently in progress.

• Minister responsible for the line Ministry for ICT.

• Although there is a ministry responsible for the digital economy, I have not been able to identify a clear political champion of e-commerce.

• The ministry with responsibility for Digital Transformation, in collaboration with the ministry responsible for Trade and for MSMEs.

• The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Consumer Affairs is the lead policy adviser to government on trade and micro, small and medium enterprise development. The ministry has responsibility for the formulation and implementation of policies for the promotion, growth and development of domestic and international trade and industry. E-commerce thus falls within the purview of the Ministry of Trade with the Minister for Trade being the political champion. The ministry has not in the past made any conscious, concerted effort to champion e-commerce and there is no stated position on championing e-commerce. However, having seen the adverse effects that COVID-19 has had on businesses, particularly



the MSME sector, the ministry is ever more mindful of the importance of e-commerce to sustaining business operations in the face of some crises. Initiatives are now being undertaken to support and promote e-commerce, especially among MSMEs.

• ICT Office/IT Offices within government.

• Minister ….…in MY COUNTRY has allowed for free accessible internet available in all community centres countrywide.

• Minister of Agriculture and Digital Economy in MY COUNTRY.

• Ministry of Public Works and the Digital Economy; no success to date work in progress.

• I don’t know.

• It does not exist.

• There is no one as far as I am aware.

• Don’t know.

• Industry and commerce.

• Uncertain.

• Former Minister of Tourism in MY COUNTRY is a champion of e-commerce; here he is Co-ordinator of the Digital Economy Initiative. Not sure of success, as it is in the early stages. I am also impressed with current Cabinet Secretary in MY COUNTRY.

Question 6-6: Short description on the main government organisation responsible for ICT in terms of competencies, skills, etc. [27 responses]

• Ministries responsible for the Digital Economy and Telecommunication.

• Department of the Public Service – Division of Public Sector Modernisation.

• Government has an ICT department that falls under the Office of the Prime Minister.

• Department of Public Sector Modernisation.

• Ministry of ICT.

• Department of the Public Service – Public Sector Modernisation.

• Ministry of ICT.

• Department of e-Government.

• Ministry of Information and Technology; efforts for e-commerce for the local ICT professionals are null and void. The minister is only interested in buying software from overseas companies rather than using the local talent of ICT professionals. Proposals by local ICT professionals are always down bid, but the minister is always willing to spend millions purchasing, rather than put confidence in the local ICT professionals.

• Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, Telecommunications, Science and Technology.

• Not sure.

• Most, if not all, have a first degree and certifications in this area.

• Ministry of ICT [is] the main ministry responsible for ICT.

• The Ministry responsible for the Digital Economy.

• The mandate for digital economy was recently assigned to Public Works and the Digital Economy. However, the ministry inherited a small cadre of staff with good competencies in ICT. The staff will be augmented under the project.

• The Ministry of National Security, Public Administration, Youth Development, Home Affairs, ICT and Disaster Management is responsible for managing government’s ICT Programme. The Division of ICT is a small unit which comprises eight (8) staff members, as follows: a permanent secretary as the chief accounting officer, a chief information officer who is the chief technical officer within the ministry and leads on ICT policy development. The CIO also co-ordinates the work of ICT officers throughout the Public Service. There is an IT engineer who manages the WAN and all issues related to its proper functioning, a web master who manages the government websites, the government’s e-mail system and the procurement, storage, recording and deployment of IT equipment and supplies. There is an operations officer who manages operations, so as to provide the enabling environment for enhancing the e-readiness status of all government ministries and departments, as well as the


Appendices \ 153

design, development and maintenance of existing websites for government and statutory bodies, where required. Four IT technicians who handle the repair, installation, maintenance, management and upgrade of hardware and software, and provide technical support to staff and other stakeholders. The Division boasts a robust ICT infrastructure; however, there is need to develop the competencies of the staff, especially in the area of Service Management.

• IT Department or ICT office.

• Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology.

• ICT Department – ICT Implementation Unit.

• Ministry of Public Works and the Digital Economy.

• Quite competent.

• Department of Information & Technology.

• Limited institutional capacity. Low maturity level.

• Government owned and managed. Improved over recent years but room for improvement.

• Neutral.

• Uncertain.

• There is an ICT department located within the government headquarters. They manage many of government websites… some of which are outdated. This may be an underutilised office in that govt ministries and agencies do not reach out to get updates done.

Question 6-7: Short description of the extent to which unsolicited electronic commercial messages (including unsolicited e-mail/internet messages) (SPAM) is an issue/problem in your country and existence of legal or regulatory frameworks to regulate same [27 responses]

• No regulatory framework existing.

• The Electronic Crimes and Data Protection Acts provides some protection; however, they are both going to be reviewed in the upcoming months.

• It is a global problem and with more data mining and legal selling of information it will reach epic proportions.

• HIGH. Has no defined regulatory framework.

• Major issue but not sure.

• Unsure of its effect.

• The magnitude is not known but it is a problem and there aren’t specific legislative or regulatory frameworks governing same.

• N/A

• Existing legal or regulatory framework associated with Unsolicited Electronic Commercial Messages. Telecommunications Bill 2016.

• The issue of unsolicited electronic commercial messages is highly prevalent, especially considering that many stakeholders do not have comprehensive cybersecurity measures in place. There is no clear legislative/regulatory framework in place to provide guidance and recourse in the event of breaches.

• Not sure

• Cannot speak for the regulatory framework in this regard; SPAM however continues to be an issue here.

• Unsolicited e-mail/internet messages are increasingly becoming more of a problem. There is no legal or other regulatory framework concerning this issue.

• While it is a problem for most persons, there are no regulations in place so people generally live with it.

• Spam and Phishing are major issues which plague consumers. For the most part, a reactionary approach to address same has been adopted. The Ministry of ICT now has in place a draft Cyber Security Policy, which is now being reviewed by stakeholders.

• Uncertain if there is a policy for SPAM. This issue can be addressed.

• Minimal. Framework non-existent

• Not really an issue.

• A big problem; however, there is insufficient regulatory framework to address this.



• I am not sure.

• There is none.

• SPAM is handled as per the organisation being affected. There is no regulatory framework currently to regulate the same.

• None that I am aware of.

• Minor.

• Legal framework is virtually non-existent.

• Uncertain.

• Don’t really have that issue here.


Appendices \ 155

Appendix 3: Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table

Table A2. Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table

Ranking of all indicators based on 124 responses # Index











4-1: Computers and network use by business 49 40%

6-1: Independence of the competent authority responsible for telecommunications 51 41%

5-5: Incomplete legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce 27 42%

5-5: Lack of e-commerce skills in my country 27 42%

3.1: Computer penetration in higher education and tertiary institutions 54 44%

1-1: Presence of mobile/ADSL/broadband in the rural areas 58 47%

5-5: Nofinancetodeveloponlineservices 31 48%

6-1: Telecommunications liberalisation 60 48%

5-5: Poor logistics/delivery solutions 33 51%

5-5: Lack of e-payment and cashless solutions in my country 34 52%

3.1: Computer penetration in secondary schools 69 56%

4-1: Use of websites for business 74 60%

3.1: ICT for education strategy 74 60%

1-2: IT skills among entrepreneurs or availability of skilled contractors 75 60%

1-2: ICTinfrastructure–internetconnectivity,pricingandaffordability 78 63%

3.1: ICT integrated into the curricula, are used in the classroom and are essential to the learning process, at all levels

79 64%

2-2a: Availability of physical addresses 79 64%

1-2: Availability of support service providers (website development, online marketing etc.)

79 64%

6-1: GovernmentorganisationresponsibleforICTand/orofficeofthechiefinformationofficer

82 66%

5-6: Accesstofinancetodeveloponlineservices 45 69%

5-6: Legal and regulatory framework for e-commerce 45 69%

6-2: Regulating online content 85 69%

4-1: Number of ICT graduates and technical ICT persons 86 69%

(Continued)



Table A2. Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table (Continued)


3.1: Computer penetration in primary schools 85 69%

1-1: Penetration of access points for those without access at home, school or work 88 71%

6-1: Is there a national ICT strategy and policy in existence? 90 73%

3.1: Access to most recent technology and applications 91 73%

2-3: The quality of government postal services for delivery of goods purchased online is excellent? Please rate on the following scale

90 73%

1-2: Effectivetradelogisticsandcross-borderfacilitationmeasures 91 73%

5-6: Access to ICT and e-commerce skills (manpower) 48 74%

6-1: Computer crime and cybersecurity legal framework 92 74%

6-2: Domain name and dispute resolutions 92 74%

5-6: ICT infrastructure (internet access, power supply) 49 75%

6-1: E-commerce legal framework 94 76%

4-1: Business-to-consumer electronic interaction 94 76%

1-2: Understanding of e-commerce in general across entrepreneurs, sector associations, public sector

94 76%

5-6: Logistics solutions for e-commerce 50 77%

6-1: Status of online consumer protection law/legal framework 96 77%

6-1: Data protection legal framework 95 77%

4-1: Business-to-government electronic interaction 97 78%

1-2: Legal framework 98 79%

1-2: Co-ordination among institutions 98 79%

6-1: Political champion for e- commerce 100 81%

6-1: Is there a legal framework on e-signatures or e-authentication? 101 81%

6-2: Protection of data and privacy 101 81%

6-2: Cybercrime legislation 101 81%

6-2: Consumer protection online 100 81%

4-1: Size of IT-enabled service business 100 81%

6-2: Electronic transactions/e-signature 102 82%

5-6: Access to e-payment and cashless solutions 54 83%

6-2: Online intellectual property law 103 83%

4-1: Ability for private sector (including MSMEs) to sell their products and services online, challenges or bottlenecks encountered

104 84%

2-2b: De minimis customs regime (minimal clearance procedure and no duty/tax for imports of low-value shipments)

104 84%

4-1: Policy Initiatives to promulgate ICT among micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises

106 85%

2-2a: No or minimal risk of online fraud 105 85%

1-2: Payment methods for e-commerce 106 85%

6-1: Administration champion for e-commerce 107 86%

6-1: Status of online dispute resolution scheme/consumer redress mechanism 108 87%

(Continued)


Appendices \ 157

Table A2. Ranking all indicators from six pillars in a single table (Continued)


5-3a: Identifyingpotentialsourcesoffinancingandinvestmentacrossthefullvalue-chain of investors

109 88%

6-1: Extentoftaxationandfiscalregimeswithrespecttotaxingdigitaltransactions 109 88%

5-3a: Awareness on investment opportunities in the e-commerce ecosystem 110 89%

5-3b: Promoting peer-learning/experience sharing on issues related to access to financingfore-commerce

110 89%

5-1: Awareness of international good practices in the area of electronic and mobile payments

112 90%

5-1: Educational initiatives on security and trust building, for example, for policy- makers, banks, merchants and consumers

111 90%

5-3a: Awarenessondifferenttypesand/orblendsoffinancing 111 90%

5-3b: Enabling investment climate for e-commerce 111 90%

5-3b: Awareness of banks on the particularities of SMEs seeking to integrate e-com-merce solutions

111 90%

4-1: Foreign direct investment in the ICT 111 90%

2-2b: Full electronic tracking of all shipments 112 90%

2-2b: Single Window (to enable cross-border traders to submit regulatory documents at a single location and/or single entity)

111 90%

5-1: Better compatibility of online and mobile payment options 113 91%

2-2b: Clear information about VAT and other taxes applicable 113 91%

5-3a: Availabilityofaccess-to-financeinstrumentsspecificallydesignedforMSMEs 114 92%

5-3b: Identifyingbarriersandbottleneckstofinancingofe-commerceventures 114 92%

5-1: Regulations that allow for mobile payments 115 93%

5-1: Regulations that protect consumers online 116 94%

3.2a: Raising awareness and knowledge about existing opportunities for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to engage in e-commerce

117 94%

3.2a: Raising consumer awareness about e-commerce 117 94%

3.2a: Integrating the e-commerce dimension in existing trade promotion activities 116 94%

2-2a: Efficientco-ordinationbetweenministries,customs,businessassociations 117 94%

2-2a: Low shipping costs 116 94%


118 95%






4.2: Privacyandconfidentialityoftransactions 122 98%



3.2b: Capacity building on e-commerce for micro, small and medium-sized businesses MSMEs

121 98%


158 \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS) A

ppen

dix

4: D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s

Tabl

e A

3. D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Aus

tral

ia$1

,000

$1,0

00$1

,000

$1,0

00B

elow

$1,

000,

SA

CEx

cise

go

ods

Bhu

tan

$100

Sal

es ta

x le

vied

on

FOB

$100

Cur

rent

law

is s

ilent

o

n co

mm

erci

al

sam

ples

Dec

lara

tion

is th

e sa

me

as fo

r any

oth

er

norm

al im

port

and

ex

port

pro

cedu

res

Gift

s o

nly

twic

e a

year

Bul

gari

a15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Can

ada

$20

$20

$60

$1$2

,500

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Chi

leN

o d

e m

inim

is v

alue

No

de

min

imis

val

ueN

o d

e m

inim

is v

alue

No

de

min

imis

val

ueN

/AN

o d

e m

inim

is v

alue

Chi

naN

o c

usto

ms

duty

will

be c

olle

cted

for

impo

rt g

oo

ds th

at fa

ll in

to th

e ca

tego

ry o

f ‘c

ross

-bo

rder

e-

co

mm

erce

reta

il go

ods

’*

For i

mpo

rt g

oo

ds th

at

fall i

nto

the

cate

gory

o

f cro

ss-b

ord

er

e- c

om

mer

ce re

tail

goo

ds, V

AT a

nd G

ST w

ill be

co

llect

ed w

ith a

low

er

rate

Cro

ss-b

ord

er

e-co

mm

erce

reta

il go

ods

do

no

t in

clud

e gi

fts

Cro

ss-b

ord

er

e- c

om

mer

ce re

tail

goo

ds d

on’

t inc

lude

co

mm

erci

al s

ampl

es

Man

ifest

cle

aran

ceN

/A

Col

ombi

aN

/A**

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cro

atia

150

EUR

/ 45

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

N/A

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Den

mar

k15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

$200

$200

$200

$200

FOB

val

ue o

f US

$200

to

200

0R

estr

icte

d go

ods

Fiji

Fisc

al d

uty

rate

: 32%

or

15%

or 5

% a

nd 0

% o

r sp

ecifi

c ra

te o

f dut

y.

Impo

rt e

xcis

e du

ty

15%

or 1

0% o

r 5%

9%$4

00 F

JD$5

00 F

JDFa

cilit

ate

the

clea

ranc

e o

f pe

rso

nal a

nd s

mal

l co

nsig

nmen

ts

> $1

000

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 159

Tabl

e A

3. D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s (C

onti

nued

)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Finl

and

150

EUR

/ 10

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

/ 5

EUR

45 E

UR

No

spe

cific

rule

s /

norm

al re

venu

e co

llect

ion

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Fran

ce15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Ger

man

y15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Hon

g K

ong,

C

hina

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hun

gary

150

EUR

/ 45

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

N/A

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Indi

aR

s1,0

00R

s1,0

00R

s20,

000

for

impo

rts

whi

ch a

re

not s

ubje

ct to

any

pr

ohi

bitio

n o

r re

stric

tion,

and

w

hich

do

no

t in

volv

e tr

ansf

er o

f fo

reig

n ex

chan

ge

Rs1

0,00

0 fo

r im

port

s w

hich

are

no

t sub

ject

to a

ny

pro

hibi

tion

or

rest

rictio

n, a

nd

whi

ch d

oes

no

t in

volv

e tr

ansf

er o

f fo

reig

n ex

chan

ge

N/A

-

Indo

nesi

aC

usto

ms

offi

cers

set

th

e ta

riff a

t the

hi

ghes

t lev

el if

the

cons

ignm

ent g

oo

ds

cons

ist o

f mo

re th

an

3 ty

pes

of i

tem

10%

$50

$50

For c

ons

ignm

ents

se

nt v

ia e

xpre

ss

carr

ier c

om

pany

and

/o

r po

st o

ffice

, the

si

mpl

ified

dec

lara

tion

cann

ot b

e us

ed

The

exe

mpt

ion

fro

m

impo

rt d

utie

s an

d ta

xes

is

base

d o

n th

e va

lue

of t

he

cons

ign-

men

t, n

ot t

he

quan

tity

of g

oo

ds

Irel

and

150

EUR

/ 45

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

N/A

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Isla

mic

R

epub

lic o

f Ira

nN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

(Con

tinue

d)


160 \ Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the (OECS) Ta

ble

A3.

De

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

(Con

tinu

ed)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Ital

y15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Japa

n10

,000

JP

Y10

,000

JP

Y10

,000

JP

YS

ampl

es im

port

ed

for s

olic

iting

ord

ers

will

be e

xem

pted

fr

om

cus

tom

s du

ty

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Bee

t sug

ar, r

ice,

can

e,

etc.

Latv

ia15

0 EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

N/A

N/A

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Lith

uani

a15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

150–

700

EUR

Abo

ve 7

00 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RC

oun

cil R

egul

atio

n N

o. 1

186/

2009

–

exem

pt fr

om

dut

y.

Art

icle

40

of t

he

Rep

ublic

of L

ithu-

ania

’s L

aw o

n V

AT –

ex

empt

fro

m V

AT.

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Luxe

mbo

urg

150

EUR

/ 45

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

N/A

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

de

min

imis

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Mal

dive

sD

e m

inim

is v

alue

do

es

not a

pply

to M

aldi

ves,

as

the

legi

slat

ion

pro

vide

s th

at a

ny

amo

unt d

ue a

s du

ty

need

s to

be

colle

cted

by

cus

tom

s. H

owev

er,

for c

our

ier a

nd

expr

ess

cons

ign-

men

ts im

port

ed fo

r ow

n us

e, th

e P

resi

dent

’s D

ecre

e al

low

s fo

r dut

y ex

empt

ion

up to

6

000

MV

R.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mal

ta15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Mau

riti

us2,

000

MU

R2,

000

MU

R2,

000

MU

R2,

000

MU

R3,

000

MU

RN

/A

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 161

Tabl

e A

3. D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s (C

onti

nued

)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Mex

ico

For c

our

ier

ope

ratio

ns: $

287.

10Fo

r pos

tal o

pera

tion

s:

No

taxe

s o

n go

ods

va

lued

up

to U

S$3

00.

Tax

rate

of 1

6% o

n go

ods

val

ued

up to

U

S$1

,000

, exc

ludi

ng

alco

holic

bev

erag

es

and

toba

cco

.For

cou

rier

ope

ra-

tion

s: If

the

valu

e o

f the

go

ods

do

es n

ot e

xcee

d U

S$5

0, th

ey a

re

excl

uded

fro

m p

aym

ent

of t

he G

ener

al Im

port

Ta

x (IG

I) an

d V

AT, p

ro-

vide

d th

at th

e go

ods

are

no

t sub

ject

to n

on-

tariff

re

stric

tions

and

regu

la-

tions

and

that

the

cus-

tom

s pr

oce

ssin

g fe

es

(DTA

, to

use

the

Spa

nish

ac

rony

m) a

re p

aid.

N/A

Sam

ples

are

no

t co

nsid

ered

as

goo

ds, a

nd th

ere-

fore

wo

n’t b

e ta

xed.

T

hey

need

to b

e id

entifi

able

as

sam

-pl

es

in th

e cu

sto

ms

dec-

lara

tion.

A s

ampl

e’s

valu

e m

ay n

ot e

xcee

d U

S$1

.

In th

e ca

se o

f sam

-pl

es o

f toy

s, th

e un

it va

lue

can

be u

p to

U

S$5

0, a

nd u

p to

tw

o s

ampl

es o

f the

sa

me

mo

del o

f toy

m

ay b

e im

port

ed.

Co

nsig

nmen

ts b

elow

U

S$3

,000

.G

oo

ds s

ubje

ct to

tariff

re

gula

tions

and

rest

ric-

tions

. Als

o, n

ew o

r use

d pr

odu

cts

for p

erso

nal

use,

whi

ch a

s a

resu

lt o

f th

eir n

atur

e an

d qu

antit

y ca

n be

sub

ject

to tr

ade

.Als

o, g

oo

ds w

hich

are

di

fficu

lt to

iden

tify

beca

use

of t

heir

pres

en-

tatio

n in

pow

der o

r liq

uid

form

, or a

s ph

arm

a-ce

u-tic

als,

suc

h as

pills

etc

., th

at re

quire

phy

sica

l and

/o

r che

mic

al a

naly

sis

to

know

thei

r co

mpo

sitio

n,

natu

re, o

rigin

and

, hen

ce,

thei

r tar

iff c

lass

ifica

tion.

Go

ods

pro

hibi

ted

by

inte

rnat

iona

l agr

eem

ents

o

n po

stal

mat

ters

.

Mon

tene

gro

150

EUR

150

EUR

45 E

UR

2 00

0 EU

R30

00 E

UR

N/A

Net

herl

ands

150

EUR

/ 45

EU

RA

bove

22

EUR

45 E

UR

Defi

ned

by re

gula

-tio

n as

neg

ligib

le

valu

e.

No

t in

use

N/A

(Con

tinue

d)



ble

A3.

De

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

(Con

tinu

ed)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

New

Zea

land

$60

$60

$110

(exc

ept

toba

cco

pro

duct

s)N

o th

resh

old

. Dut

y an

d ta

x fr

ee if

tem

-po

raril

y im

port

ed.

<$10

0Ex

cise

go

ods

Nor

way

No

rway

cha

rges

du

ties

on

som

e ag

ri-cu

ltura

l go

ods

(fo

r te

xtile

s, th

e ra

te o

f du

ty is

fro

m 5

.6%

to

10.7

%).

VAT

rate

of 2

5%, w

ith

the

exce

ptio

n o

f fo

od

whi

ch h

as V

AT ra

te o

f 15

%.

1000

NO

KS

ampl

es m

ay b

e im

port

ed fr

ee o

f du

ty a

nd V

AT if

the

goo

ds a

re o

f ins

ig-

nific

ant v

alue

.

Und

er c

erta

in s

tric

t co

nditi

ons

, the

de

clar

ant m

ay a

pply

fo

r a p

relim

inar

y de

clar

atio

n.

Sim

plifi

ed d

ecla

ratio

n w

ill o

nly

be g

rant

ed in

ca

ses

whe

re th

ere

is

a qu

estio

n o

f life

and

he

alth

or w

here

ther

e ar

e m

ajo

r eco

nom

ic

cons

eque

nces

. A

com

plet

e cu

sto

ms

decl

arat

ion

mus

t be

pres

ente

d w

ithin

10

day

s.

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Peru

0%, 4

%, 6

% a

nd 1

1%18

%C

ateg

ory

1 an

d 2:

0%

fro

m U

S$0

.00

to U

S$2

00.0

0

Cat

egor

y 3:

4%

+18%

fro

m U

S$

201.

00 to

U

S$2

000.

00

Cat

egor

y 4:

0%

, 6%

or

11%

+18%

+ISC

ac

cord

ingl

y, fr

om

US$

2001

.00

upw

ards

, and

for

othe

r cas

es s

uch

as

rest

ricte

d go

ods.

Cat

egor

y 1

and

2:

0% fr

om

US

$0.0

0 to

U

S$2

00.0

0

Cat

egor

y 3:

4%

+18%

fro

m

US

$201

.00

to

US

$200

0.00

Cat

egor

y 4:

0%

, 6%

o

r 11%

+18%

+IS

C

acco

rdin

gly,

fro

m

US

$200

1.00

up

war

ds, a

nd fo

r o

ther

cas

es s

uch

as

rest

ricte

d go

ods

.

Cat

egor

y 1

and

2:

0% fr

om

US

$0.0

0 to

U

S$2

00.0

0

Cat

egor

y 3:

4%

+18%

fro

m

US

$201

.00

to

US

$200

0.00

Cat

egor

y 4:

0%

, 6%

o

r 11%

+18%

+IS

C

acco

rdin

gly,

fro

m

US

$200

1.00

upw

ards

an

d fo

r oth

er c

ases

su

ch a

s re

stric

ted

goo

ds.

Cat

egor

y 3:

4%

+18%

fr

om

US

$201

.00

to

US

$200

0.00

Cat

egor

y 4:

0%

, 6%

or

11%

+18%

+IS

C a

cco

rd-

ingl

y, fr

om

US

$200

1.00

up

war

ds a

nd fo

r oth

er

case

s su

ch a

s re

stric

ted

goo

ds.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 163

Tabl

e A

3. D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s (C

onti

nued

)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Pola

nd15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Rus

sian

Fed

-er

atio

n20

0 EU

R F

or p

erso

nal

use:

100

0 EU

R in

one

ca

lend

ar m

ont

h to

o

ne c

ons

igne

e, to

tal

wei

ght n

ot e

xcee

ding

31

kg.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Slo

veni

a15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Sri L

anka

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Suda

nN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

Swed

en15

0 EU

R /

45 E

UR

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R45

EU

RN

/AC

ons

ignm

ents

bel

ow

de m

inim

isEx

cise

go

ods

Swit

zerl

and

5 C

HF

5 C

HF

100

CH

F10

0 C

HF

<= 1

000

CH

F an

d<=

1000

kg

Go

ods

bro

ught

in b

y to

uris

ts

Tha

iland

1,50

0 ba

ht1,

500

baht

1,50

0 ba

ht1,

500

baht

No

spe

cific

pro

ce-

dure

No

spe

cific

pro

cedu

re

The

For

mer

Yu

gosl

av

Rep

ublic

of

Mac

edon

ia

Whe

n th

e co

nsig

n-m

ent i

s se

nt fr

om

an

indi

vidu

al to

ano

ther

in

divi

dual

, the

tariff

ra

te is

15%

. Fo

r co

n-si

gnm

ents

sen

t fro

m

an in

divi

dual

to a

lega

l en

tity,

the

tariff

rate

is

calc

ulat

ed a

cco

rdin

g to

the

Law

on

Cus

-to

ms

Tariff

.

Abo

ve 2

2 EU

R. I

f the

va

lue

of g

oo

ds is

fro

m

22 to

45

EUR

, the

y ar

e ex

empt

fro

m c

usto

ms

dutie

s bu

t the

per

son

is

obl

iged

to p

ay V

AT.

Go

ods

who

se v

alue

ex

ceed

s 45

EU

R a

re

subj

ect t

o p

aym

ent o

f im

port

dut

ies

and

VAT

(r

ate

of V

AT is

18%

).

45 E

UR

Sam

ples

of g

oo

ds

are

exem

pt fr

om

im

port

dut

ies

and

VAT

No

t pra

ctis

edEx

cise

go

ods

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

3. D

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

s (C

onti

nued

)

Cou

ntry

/de

min

imis

Cus

tom

s du

tyTa

xes

(VAT

/GST

)G

iftC

omm

erci

al s

ampl

esSi

mpl

ified

de

clar

atio

nsG

oods

exe

mpt

ed fr

om d

e m

inim

is th

resh

old

Tim

or-L

este

1010

10N

/AEx

cise

go

ods

Turk

eyIm

port

ed g

oo

ds

valu

ed b

elow

75

EUR

ar

e ex

empt

fro

m a

ll cu

sto

ms

dutie

s as

w

ell a

s fr

om

VAT

Impo

rted

go

ods

for p

er-

sona

l use

val

ued

abo

ve

75 E

UR

but

no

t abo

ve

1500

EU

R a

nd w

eigh

ing

unde

r 30

kg a

re s

ubje

ct

to a

fixe

d ra

te d

uty,

ba

sed

on

cust

om

s va

lue,

o

f 18%

for g

oo

ds o

rigi-

natin

g an

d de

part

ing

fro

m a

n EU

mem

ber

stat

e, a

nd 2

0% fo

r all

oth

er g

oo

ds.

The

re is

no

spe

cific

ex

empt

ion

fro

m

cust

om

s du

ties

and

taxe

s fo

r gift

s. G

ifts

are

eval

uate

d in

the

sam

e w

ay a

s o

ther

go

ods

.

Co

mm

erci

al s

am-

ples

are

exe

mpt

fr

om

Cus

tom

s du

ties

and

taxe

s,

rega

rdle

ss o

f the

ir va

lue

N/A

Exci

se g

oo

ds

Uni

ted

Stat

es

of A

mer

ica

De

min

imis

$80

0 (s

et

in th

e U

S T

rade

En

forc

emen

t and

Tr

ade

Faci

litat

ion

Act

o

f 201

5)

N/A

$100

or $

200

if fr

om

insu

lar

poss

essi

on

N/A

N/A

Alc

oho

lic b

ever

ages

, pe

rfum

es th

at c

ont

ain

alco

hol,

ciga

rs, c

igar

ette

s,

goo

ds s

ubje

ct to

US

P

artn

er G

ove

rnm

ent

Age

ncy

(i.e.

US

Go

vern

-m

ent A

genc

ies

for w

hich

U

S C

usto

ms

and

Bo

rder

P

rote

ctio

n im

plem

ents

la

ws

and

regu

latio

ns a

t th

e bo

rder

) req

uire

men

ts

Uru

guay

Expr

ess

mai

l co

nsig

n-m

ents

: US

4200

. No

n-ex

pres

s m

ail

cons

ignm

ents

: US

$50

Po

stal

co

nsig

nmen

ts:

US

$200

The

pre

vio

usly

m

entio

ned

cust

om

s pr

oce

-du

res

are

appl

ied

US

$50

No

t in

use

N/A

Not

es: *

‘Cro

ss-b

ord

er e

-co

mm

erce

reta

il go

ods

’ sho

uld

be n

o m

ore

than

2,0

00

RM

B p

er p

erso

n ea

ch ti

me

and

no m

ore

than

20

,00

0 R

MB

per

per

son

each

yea

r.**

No

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e.S

ourc

e: W

CO

Stu

dy R

epo

rt o

n C

ross

-Bo

rder

on

E-co

mm

erce

(201

7).


Appendices \ 165A

ppen

dix

5: T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

Elec

tron

ic tr

ansa

ctio

ns fr

amew

orks

A k

ey p

ropo

sal t

hat h

as n

ow b

een

sett

led,

is th

at

the

part

ies

wo

uld

be o

blig

ated

to m

aint

ain

lega

l fr

amew

ork

s o

n e-

com

mer

ce w

hich

are

co

nsis

t-en

t with

the

UN

CIT

RA

L M

ode

l Law

on

Elec

tro

nic

Co

mm

erce

. Pro

posa

ls s

till u

nder

neg

otia

tion

wo

uld

impo

se th

e o

blig

atio

n o

n th

e pa

rtie

s to

re

frai

n fr

om

sub

ject

ing

e-co

mm

erce

to e

xces

-si

ve/u

nnec

essa

ry re

gula

tory

bur

dens

and

allo

w

stak

eho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

desi

gn o

f e-

com

mer

ce le

gisl

ativ

e fr

amew

ork

s.

The

pro

posa

ls p

oin

t to

an

inhe

rent

reco

gniti

on

that

the

UN

CIT

RA

L M

ode

l La

w re

pres

ents

a b

est p

ract

ice

lega

l fra

mew

ork

for e

lect

roni

c tr

ansa

c-tio

ns. T

he w

ide

ado

ptio

n by

WTO

mem

bers

of e

-co

mm

erce

-rel

ated

legi

s-la

tion

that

is b

ased

on

the

UN

CIT

RA

L M

ode

l Law

wo

uld

ther

efo

re

pro

mo

te c

ons

iste

ncy

acro

ss th

e le

gisl

ativ

e re

gim

es o

f WTO

mem

bers

, th

ereb

y re

duci

ng th

e re

gula

tory

bur

dens

for p

rovi

ders

of e

-co

mm

erce

-re

late

d se

rvic

es. P

osi

tive

trad

e eff

ects

wo

uld

resu

lt fr

om

this

redu

ctio

n in

re

gula

tory

bur

dens

.

All O

ECS

sta

tes

have

ena

cted

legi

slat

ion

base

d o

n th

e U

NC

ITR

AL

Mo

del L

aw. A

s su

ch, O

ECS

sta

tes

will

not fi

nd th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of t

his

obl

igat

ion

burd

enso

me.

OEC

S s

tate

s sh

oul

d al

so b

e w

illing

to

com

mit

to n

ot s

ubje

ctin

g e-

com

mer

ce to

unn

ec-

essa

ry re

gula

tory

bur

dens

.

Elec

tron

ic a

uthe

ntic

atio

n an

d el

ectr

onic

sig

natu

res

The

pro

pose

d ru

les

call f

or t

he p

artie

s to

giv

e fu

ll re

cogn

itio

n an

d le

gal e

ffec

t to

ele

ctro

nic

sign

a-tu

res.

Par

ties

wo

uld

ther

efo

re n

ot b

e al

low

ed to

de

ny le

gal e

ffec

t or p

recl

ude

the

adm

issi

bilit

y in

ev

iden

ce o

f ele

ctro

nic

sign

atur

es.

Furt

herm

ore

, the

par

ties

wo

uld

be o

blig

ed to

re

spec

t the

cho

ice

of p

artie

s to

a c

ont

ract

with

re

spec

t to

the

use

of e

lect

roni

c au

then

ticat

ion,

sa

ve a

nd e

xcep

t tha

t spe

cific

requ

irem

ents

co

uld

be im

plem

ente

d in

nat

iona

l law

with

re

spec

t to

spe

cific

type

s o

f tra

nsac

tions

.

Elec

tron

ic c

ontr

acts

:

The

pro

pose

d ru

les

call f

or t

he re

cogn

itio

n o

f el

ectr

oni

c co

ntra

cts

and

obl

ige

the

part

ies

to

give

due

eff

ect t

o s

uch

cont

ract

s. T

he ru

les

wo

uld

requ

ire c

erta

in c

ont

ract

s re

latin

g to

cer

-ta

in ty

pes

of s

ensi

tive

activ

ities

to b

e in

a n

on-

elec

tro

nic

form

at.

Elec

tron

ic in

voic

es:

The

pro

pose

d ru

les

call f

or e

lect

roni

c in

voic

es to

ha

ve s

ame

effec

t as

pape

r inv

oic

es. T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d be

requ

ired

to ta

ke s

teps

to e

nsur

e cr

oss

-bo

rder

inte

rope

rabi

lity.

Mea

sure

s im

plem

ente

d by

the

part

ies

can

be b

ased

on

inte

rnat

iona

l gu

idel

ines

whe

re th

ey e

xist

.

Rul

es w

hich

sup

port

the

conc

lusi

on

of c

ont

ract

s by

ele

ctro

nic

mea

ns

faci

litat

e th

e gr

owth

of c

ross

-bo

rder

e-c

om

mer

ce tr

ansa

ctio

ns. W

hen

part

ies

to a

co

ntra

ct a

re lo

cate

d in

diff

eren

t ter

rito

ries

or e

ven

in d

iffer

ent

plac

es w

ithin

the

sam

e te

rrito

ry, t

he a

bilit

y to

co

nclu

de c

ont

ract

s by

dig

ital

mea

ns o

ffer

s a

prac

tical

and

tim

ely

mea

ns o

f co

nclu

ding

lega

l arr

ange

-m

ents

. The

pro

posa

ls w

hich

cal

l upo

n th

e pa

rtie

s to

giv

e fu

ll rec

ogn

itio

n an

d eff

ect t

o e

lect

roni

c si

gnat

ures

ens

ures

that

nat

iona

l lega

l fra

mew

ork

s w

oul

d be

ade

quat

e to

dea

l with

the

real

ities

of c

om

mer

cial

tran

sact

ions

in

a di

gita

l env

ironm

ent.

The

Ele

ctro

nic

Tran

sact

ions

Act

s in

the

OEC

S

stat

es a

lread

y pr

ovi

de fo

r the

acc

epta

nce

of e

lec-

tro

nic

sign

atur

es. F

or e

xam

ple,

sec

tion

23 o

f the

El

ectr

oni

c Tr

ansa

ctio

ns A

ct o

f Ant

igua

and

Bar

-bu

da s

tate

s th

at: ‘

Unl

ess

othe

rwis

e pr

ovid

ed b

y la

w,

the

part

ies

to a

n el

ectr

onic

tran

sact

ion

may

agr

ee to

th

e us

e of

a p

artic

ular

met

hod

or fo

rm o

f ele

ctro

nic

sign

atur

e or

sec

urity

pro

cedu

re.’

The

var

ious

pie

ces

of l

egis

latio

n al

so p

rovi

de fo

r the

form

atio

n o

f co

n-tr

acts

by

elec

tro

nic

mea

ns a

nd th

e ac

cept

ance

of

thes

e co

ntra

cts.

The

legi

slat

ions

do

no

t exp

ress

ly a

ddre

ss th

e is

sue

of e

lect

roni

c in

voic

es. E

xist

ing

pro

visi

ons

co

uld

how

ever

be

cons

true

d as

add

ress

ing

this

issu

e.

Sect

ion

7 o

f the

Ele

ctro

nic

Tran

sact

ions

Act

of S

t V

ince

nt a

nd th

e G

rena

dine

s st

ates

for e

xam

ple

that

: ‘In

form

atio

n an

d tr

ansa

ctio

ns s

hall n

ot b

e de

nied

lega

l eff

ect,

valid

ity o

r enf

orce

men

t sol

ely

on

the

grou

nd th

at th

ey a

re re

pres

ente

d in

ele

ctro

nic

form

, pro

vide

d th

e re

quire

men

ts e

stab

lishe

d in

this

A

ct a

re m

et.’

The

impl

emen

tatio

n o

f thi

s o

blig

atio

n w

oul

d no

t pr

ove

one

rous

for O

ECS

sta

tes

nor w

oul

d it

pro

ve

prej

udic

ial t

o th

eir i

nter

ests

.

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Elec

tron

ic p

aym

ents

The

pro

pose

d ru

les

wo

uld

resu

lt in

the

follo

win

g:

• T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d be

requ

ired

to a

llow

par

ties

to a

n e-

com

mer

ce tr

ansa

ctio

n to

hav

e th

e o

ptio

n o

f acc

eptin

g el

ectr

oni

c pa

ymen

ts a

nd

shal

l no

t pro

hibi

t tra

nsac

tions

on

the

basi

s th

at p

aym

ents

will

be in

ele

ctro

nic

form

.

• T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d be

requ

ired

to p

rovi

de

natio

nal t

reat

men

t and

Mo

de 3

mar

ket a

cces

s fo

r ele

ctro

nic

paym

ent s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

.

• El

ectr

oni

c pa

ymen

t ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs a

re to

be

allo

wed

acc

ess

to p

aym

ent a

nd c

lear

ing

syst

ems

ope

rate

d by

pub

lic e

ntiti

es a

nd to

o

ffici

al fu

ndin

g an

d re

finan

cing

faci

litie

s.

• Li

cens

ing

requ

irem

ents

for f

ore

ign

paym

ent

serv

ices

sup

plie

rs a

re to

be

adm

inis

tere

d in

a

non-

disc

rimin

ato

ry m

anne

r.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

co

nsul

t with

pa

ymen

t ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs e

stab

lishe

d in

thei

r te

rrito

ry, w

ith re

spec

t to

dev

elo

pmen

t of p

oli-

cies

and

regu

lato

ry s

yste

ms

and

stan

dard

s.

The

obj

ectiv

e o

f the

se p

ropo

sals

is to

faci

litat

e th

e co

ntin

ued

glo

bal

grow

th o

f e-c

om

mer

ce th

roug

h th

e in

crea

sed

avai

labi

lity

of e

lect

roni

c pa

ymen

t sys

tem

s. T

here

is a

lso

a ta

rget

ed M

ode

3 tr

ade

impa

ct, i

n th

at

part

ies

wo

uld

be o

blig

ed to

ope

n th

eir m

arke

ts a

nd g

rant

nat

iona

l tre

at-

men

t to

ele

ctro

nic

paym

ent s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

. Thi

s su

gges

ts th

at W

TO

mem

bers

wo

uld

have

to e

nter

into

mo

re lib

eral

co

mm

itmen

ts w

ith

resp

ect t

o fi

nanc

ial s

ervi

ces.

A n

ota

ble

aspe

ct o

f the

pro

posa

ls th

at w

oul

d si

gnifi

cant

ly im

pact

the

leg-

isla

tive

desi

gn o

f WTO

mem

bers

in re

latio

n to

Fin

Tech

, is

the

requ

irem

ent

for e

lect

roni

c pa

ymen

t ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs to

be

allo

wed

acc

ess

to p

ay-

men

t and

cle

arin

g sy

stem

s o

pera

ted

by p

ublic

ent

ities

and

to o

ffici

al fu

nd-

ing

and

refin

anci

ng fa

cilit

ies.

Thi

s pr

opo

sal is

bas

ed o

n th

e re

cogn

itio

n th

at

paym

ent a

nd c

lear

ing

syst

ems

ope

rate

d by

est

ablis

hed

finan

cial

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

may

be

deem

ed to

be

esse

ntia

l fac

ilitie

s an

d th

at F

inTe

ch s

er-

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

may

nec

essa

rily

requ

ire a

cces

s to

thes

e fa

cilit

ies

in o

rder

to

est

ablis

h m

arke

t ent

ry. S

imila

r pro

visi

ons

are

foun

d in

the

EU’s

Pay

men

t Se

rvic

es D

irect

ive,

with

the

resu

lt th

at th

e co

ncep

t of ‘

ope

n fin

anci

al s

er-

vice

s’ m

ight

beg

in to

find

so

me

leve

l of m

ultil

ater

al a

ccep

tanc

e.

WTO

mem

bers

wo

uld

also

be

expe

cted

to a

ssum

e an

obl

igat

ion,

whe

reby

th

ey w

oul

d co

nsul

t with

pay

men

t ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

that

are

est

ablis

hed

in

thei

r ter

rito

ries

on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f reg

ulat

ory

sys

tem

s an

d st

anda

rds.

T

his

obl

igat

ion

wo

uld

furt

her t

he le

gitim

ate

inte

rest

s o

f pay

men

t ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs in

hav

ing

inpu

t in

the

desi

gn o

f reg

ulat

ions

to w

hich

they

may

be

com

e su

bjec

t.

OEC

S s

tate

s sh

oul

d ex

pres

s in

tere

st in

thes

e pr

o-

posa

ls, g

iven

thei

r po

tent

ial t

o fa

cilit

ate

the

furt

her

use

and

deve

lopm

ent o

f Fin

Tech

. Fro

m th

e pe

r-sp

ectiv

e o

f off

ensi

ve tr

ade

inte

rest

s, it

wo

uld

be

bene

ficia

l to

OEC

S s

tate

s to

hav

e m

ultil

ater

al

adhe

renc

e to

rule

s w

hich

pro

hibi

t dis

crim

inat

ion

agai

nst O

ECS

fina

ncia

l ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs in

inte

r-na

tiona

l mar

kets

.

Fro

m th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

e o

f def

ensi

ve tr

ade

inte

rest

s,

OEC

S s

tate

s m

ay w

ish

to e

xerc

ise

caut

ion

with

re

spec

t to

ope

ning

up

dom

estic

mar

kets

to fi

nan-

cial

ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs th

at h

ave

muc

h gr

eate

r ca

paci

ty th

an d

om

estic

or r

egio

nal p

rovi

ders

of

thes

e se

rvic

es. O

ECS

sta

tes

sho

uld

also

exe

rcis

e ca

utio

n in

as

muc

h as

thes

e di

scip

lines

co

uld

rest

rict t

heir

polic

y au

tono

my

to d

evel

op

FinT

ech

regu

lato

ry s

yste

ms.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 167

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Dig

ital t

rade

faci

litat

ion

and

logi

stic

sW

ith re

spec

t to

this

are

a, th

e pr

opo

sed

rule

s w

oul

d ad

dres

s th

e fo

llow

ing:

Pape

rless

trad

ing:

Trad

e ad

min

istr

atio

n do

cum

ents

to b

e m

ade

avai

labl

e in

pub

lic fo

rm. T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d al

so

be re

quire

d to

acc

ept d

ocu

men

ts s

ubm

itted

el

ectr

oni

cally

exc

ept w

here

inte

r alia

, the

pro

per

adm

inis

trat

ion

of c

usto

ms

pro

cedu

res

wo

uld

be im

pact

ed.

De

min

imis

:T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d be

requ

ired

to e

stab

lish

de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

appl

icab

le to

impo

rts

with

lo

w v

alue

s.

Cus

tom

s pr

oced

ures

:T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d be

requ

ired

to c

om

ply

with

ru

les

to im

pro

ve c

usto

ms

clea

ranc

e pr

oce

dure

s.Im

prov

emen

t to

trad

e po

licie

s:T

he p

artie

s w

oul

d en

deav

our

to a

djus

t tra

de

polic

ies

in o

rder

to a

dapt

to n

ew tr

ade

deve

lopm

ents

. Thi

s m

eans

that

the

part

ies

sho

uld

spec

ify th

e ta

riff a

nd n

on-

tariff

mea

sure

s w

hich

app

ly to

e-c

om

mer

ce.

Sing

le W

indo

w d

ata

exch

ange

and

sy

stem

inop

erab

ility:

Logi

stic

s se

rvic

es:

The

par

ties’

GAT

S c

om

mitm

ents

on

logi

stic

s se

rvic

es w

oul

d be

am

plifi

ed. L

icen

sing

pr

oce

dure

s re

late

d to

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

in

logi

stic

s se

rvic

es w

oul

d be

str

eam

lined

.

Enha

nced

trad

e fa

cilit

atio

nU

se o

f tec

hnol

ogy

for t

he re

leas

e an

d cl

eara

nce

of g

oods

Prov

isio

n of

trad

e fa

cilit

atin

g an

d su

ppor

tive

serv

ices

:P

artie

s ar

e re

quire

d to

ado

pt o

r mai

ntai

n si

mpl

ified

cus

tom

s pr

oce

dure

s to

str

eam

line

and

spee

d up

the

cust

om

s pr

oce

dure

s o

f go

ods

tr

ansa

cted

by

elec

tro

nic

com

mer

ce. T

hey

wo

uld

also

be

requ

ired

to e

nsur

e th

at c

usto

ms

pro

cedu

res

and

prac

tices

are

pre

dict

able

, co

nsis

tent

, tra

nspa

rent

and

effi

cien

t.

The

pro

pose

d e-

com

mer

ce d

isci

plin

es a

im to

str

engt

hen

and

esta

blis

h sy

mm

etry

with

tho

se p

rovi

sio

ns o

f the

WTO

Tra

de F

acilit

atio

n A

gree

men

t re

late

d to

est

ablis

hmen

t of a

Sin

gle

Win

dow

. Art

icle

10.

4 o

f the

TFA

re

quire

s m

embe

rs to

end

eavo

ur to

est

ablis

h a

Sin

gle

Win

dow

, whi

ch w

ill en

able

trad

ers

to s

ubm

it do

cum

enta

tion

and/

or d

ata

requ

irem

ents

for

impo

rtat

ion,

exp

ort

atio

n o

r tra

nsit

of g

oo

ds th

roug

h a

sing

le-e

ntry

po

int

to p

artic

ipat

ing

auth

orit

ies

or a

genc

ies.

The

dra

ft e

-co

mm

erce

text

wo

uld

inte

r alia

requ

ire m

embe

rs to

pro

vide

, to

th

e ex

tent

pra

ctic

able

, ele

ctro

nic

inte

rfac

es fo

r the

exc

hang

e o

f dat

a.

Dat

a to

be

exch

ange

d w

oul

d in

clud

e el

ectr

oni

c tr

ade

adm

inis

trat

ion

doc-

umen

ts w

ith tr

ader

s, in

tern

atio

nal t

rade

logi

stic

ser

vice

pro

vide

rs, g

ove

rn-

men

tal a

genc

ies

and

oth

er re

leva

nt s

take

hold

ers.

The

rule

s w

oul

d al

so

enco

urag

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of i

nter

ope

rabi

lity

solu

tions

for t

he p

arty

’s

Sin

gle

Win

dow

sys

tem

s in

ord

er to

faci

litat

e th

e ex

chan

ge o

f dat

a, in

clud

-in

g el

ectr

oni

c tr

ade

adm

inis

trat

ion

docu

men

ts, w

ith th

e S

ingl

e W

indo

ws

of o

ther

WTO

mem

bers

, with

the

purp

ose

of e

xped

iting

the

clea

ranc

e an

d re

leas

e o

f go

ods

and

impl

emen

ting

co-o

pera

tion

arra

ngem

ents

bet

wee

n cu

sto

ms

and

betw

een

oth

er b

ord

er a

genc

ies.

An

issu

e w

ith s

igni

fican

t dev

elo

pmen

t im

plic

atio

ns th

at is

bei

ng e

xplo

red

in th

e dr

aft t

ext i

s th

at o

f de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

for e

-co

mm

erce

. De

min

i-m

is th

resh

old

s ar

e th

e va

lues

und

er w

hich

no

cus

tom

s du

ties

or t

axes

are

ap

plie

d to

go

ods

that

are

impo

rted

. Hig

h de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

redu

ce

the

tran

sact

iona

l co

sts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith e

-co

mm

erce

, suc

h as

the

need

to

pay

cust

om

s du

ties

on

ship

men

ts, t

hus

ensu

ring

fast

er p

roce

ssin

g o

f tr

ansa

ctio

ns. T

his

in tu

rn s

uppo

rts

the

grow

th o

f e-c

om

mer

ce. E

ach

coun

try

esta

blis

hes

its o

wn

de m

inim

is th

resh

old

s, a

s cu

rren

tly th

ere

is n

o

mul

tilat

eral

dis

cipl

ine

on

this

issu

e.1

Bo

th o

f the

two

alte

rnat

e pr

opo

sals

on

de m

inim

is th

resh

old

s w

oul

d se

e W

TO m

embe

rs a

ssum

ing

a be

st e

ndea

vour

obl

igat

ion

to e

stab

lish

de

min

imis

val

ues,

bel

ow w

hich

no

cus

tom

s du

ties

wo

uld

be c

olle

cted

. B

eyo

nd th

is, t

here

are

no

tabl

e di

ffer

ence

s in

the

pro

posa

ls. O

ne p

ropo

sal

wo

uld

resu

lt in

de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

bein

g ap

plic

able

onl

y to

shi

pmen

ts

of g

oo

ds fo

r per

sona

l use

, whi

le th

e o

ther

has

no

suc

h re

stric

tion.

Thi

s la

tter

ver

sio

n o

f the

pro

posa

l wo

uld

be m

ore

sup

port

ive

of e

-co

mm

erce

pr

ovi

ders

that

hav

e th

e ca

paci

ty to

pro

vide

a ra

nge

of g

oo

ds.

All o

f the

OEC

S s

tate

s ha

ve s

ubm

itted

a C

ateg

ory

C

no

tifica

tion

with

resp

ect t

o th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of A

rtic

le 1

0.4

of t

he T

FA. T

his

mea

ns th

at

they

hav

e in

dica

ted

that

they

requ

ire te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce a

nd s

uppo

rt fo

r cap

acity

bui

ldin

g, in

o

rder

to im

plem

ent t

he o

blig

atio

n af

ter a

tran

sitio

n pe

riod.

It w

oul

d be

inim

ical

to th

e in

tere

sts

of t

he

OEC

S s

tate

s to

ass

ume

the

pro

pose

d e-

com

-m

erce

obl

igat

ion

until

they

hav

e fir

st s

ucce

eded

in

com

plyi

ng w

ith A

rtic

le 1

0.4

of t

he T

FA. T

he

e-co

mm

erce

text

als

o im

plic

ates

oth

er a

spec

ts o

f th

e T

FA re

late

d to

enh

ance

d tr

ade

faci

litat

ion

and

logi

stic

s. O

ECS

sta

tes

wo

uld

likel

y ne

ed s

uppo

rt in

im

plem

entin

g th

ese

obl

igat

ions

, eve

n th

oug

h th

ey

are

also

add

ress

ed in

the

TFA

.

Alth

oug

h de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

are

goo

d fo

r the

pr

om

otio

n o

f e-c

om

mer

ce, t

he c

onc

ern

is th

at

deve

lopi

ng c

oun

trie

s su

ch a

s th

e O

ECS

sta

tes,

w

hich

are

to v

aryi

ng e

xten

ts, c

usto

ms

reve

nue

depe

nden

t, w

oul

d lo

se a

sig

nific

ant a

mo

unt o

f cu

sto

ms

reve

nue

if re

quire

d to

impl

emen

t suc

h a

com

mitm

ent.

Thi

s lo

ss o

f cus

tom

s re

venu

e w

oul

d in

turn

hav

e de

lete

rious

eff

ects

on

the

abilit

y o

f the

st

ates

to fu

nd c

ritic

al s

ecto

rs a

nd d

evel

op

infr

a-st

ruct

ure.

One

so

lutio

n co

uld

be fo

r OEC

S s

tate

s to

tie

the

assu

mpt

ion

of c

om

mitm

ents

in th

is a

rea

to tr

ansi

tiona

l per

iods

and

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

to

dete

rmin

e m

echa

nism

s by

whi

ch re

venu

e sh

ort

-fa

lls c

an b

e ad

dres

sed

or f

or t

he c

om

mitm

ent t

o

be c

ast i

n be

st e

ndea

vour

lang

uage

.

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Non

-dis

crim

inat

ion

agai

nst d

igita

l pro

duct

s

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be p

rohi

bite

d fr

om

trea

ting

digi

tal p

rodu

cts

crea

ted

or p

rodu

ced

etc.

in th

e te

rrito

ry o

f ano

ther

par

ty in

a m

anne

r tha

t is

less

fa

vour

able

than

the

trea

tmen

t it a

cco

rds

to

oth

er lik

e di

gita

l pro

duct

s.

The

pro

hibi

tion

agai

nst t

he p

artie

s su

bjec

ting

digi

tal p

rodu

cts

of a

noth

er

part

y to

dis

crim

inat

ory

trea

tmen

t is

aim

ed a

t ens

urin

g th

at im

port

ed

pro

duct

s ar

e no

t pla

ced

at a

co

mpe

titiv

e di

sadv

anta

ge. T

he p

ropo

sal is

th

eref

ore

in lin

e w

ith th

e na

tiona

l tre

atm

ent o

blig

atio

n se

t out

in A

rtic

le II

I o

f the

GAT

T 1

994.

Rul

es w

hich

pro

hibi

t dis

crim

inat

ion

may

co

nstr

ain

deve

lopm

ent p

olic

y if

a st

ate

has

a do

mes

tic

indu

stry

that

co

uld

be n

egat

ivel

y aff

ecte

d by

im

port

co

mpe

titio

n. O

ECS

sta

tes

sho

uld

ther

efo

re

be a

war

e o

f the

impl

icat

ions

of t

his

pro

visi

on

fro

m

the

pers

pect

ive

of t

heir

defe

nsiv

e in

tere

sts.

The

ru

les

wo

uld,

how

ever

, be

bene

ficia

l to

OEC

S s

tate

s fr

om

the

pers

pect

ive

of t

heir

off

ensi

ve in

tere

sts

in

ensu

ring

that

dig

ital p

rodu

cts

of O

ECS

orig

in a

re

not d

iscr

imin

ated

aga

inst

in fo

reig

n m

arke

ts.

Cro

ss-b

orde

r dat

a flo

ws

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be p

rohi

bite

d fr

om

rest

rictin

g cr

oss

-bo

rder

info

rmat

ion

flow

s, if

this

is re

quire

d fo

r bus

ines

s ac

tiviti

es re

late

d to

e-c

om

mer

ce.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

not b

e ab

le to

mai

ntai

n re

quire

men

ts th

at c

om

putin

g fa

cilit

ies

be

loca

ted

in th

eir t

errit

orie

s. P

artie

s ca

n, h

owev

er,

mai

ntai

n m

easu

res

for l

egiti

mat

e pu

blic

po

licy

exce

ptio

ns, b

ut th

ese

mus

t be

mai

ntai

ned

in a

no

n-di

scrim

inat

ory

man

ner.

The

requ

irem

ent t

hat c

ross

-bo

rder

dat

a flo

ws

sho

uld

not b

e o

bstr

ucte

d fo

llow

s na

tura

lly fr

om

the

reco

gniti

on

that

a v

ibra

nt e

-co

mm

erce

/dig

ital

trad

e ec

osy

stem

is b

ased

upo

n th

e fr

ee fl

ow o

f co

nsum

er d

ata.

The

obl

igat

ion

for t

he p

artie

s to

no

t req

uire

that

co

mpu

ting

faci

litie

s m

ust

be lo

cate

d in

thei

r ter

rito

ries

is to

ens

ure

that

to th

e gr

eate

st e

xten

t, th

eir

regu

latio

ns w

ill ha

ve a

neu

tral

eff

ect o

n in

vest

men

t dec

isio

ns o

f e-c

om

-m

erce

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

.

The

se p

ropo

sals

are

no

t ini

mic

al to

the

inte

rest

s o

f O

ECS

sta

tes,

giv

en th

e na

tura

l co

nnec

tion

betw

een

cro

ss-b

ord

er d

ata

flow

s an

d th

e gr

owth

o

f e-c

om

mer

ce. H

owev

er, i

n o

rder

to m

anag

e ris

ks

to d

ata

subj

ects

suc

h as

loss

of p

rivac

y an

d cy

ber-

crim

e, O

ECS

sta

tes

sho

uld

onl

y co

nsid

er th

is o

bli-

gatio

n if

exis

ting

legi

slat

ive

fram

ewo

rks

on

data

pr

ote

ctio

n an

d pr

ivac

y an

d cy

berc

rime

are

alre

ady

in p

lace

or a

re in

the

pro

cess

of b

eing

dev

elo

ped.

Loca

tion

of fi

nanc

ial in

form

atio

n

A b

road

defi

nitio

n o

f fina

ncia

l ser

vice

s to

incl

ude

bank

ing

and

insu

ranc

e-re

late

d se

rvic

es w

oul

d be

ado

pted

.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

not b

e ab

le to

requ

ire th

at

finan

cial

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

hav

e to

sto

re o

r pro

-ce

ss in

form

atio

n in

thei

r ter

rito

ries

as a

co

ndi-

tion

of b

eing

allo

wed

to d

o b

usin

ess

in th

eir

terr

itorie

s. A

n al

tern

ate

vers

ion

of t

his

pro

posa

l w

oul

d m

ake

this

sub

ject

to th

e un

ders

tand

ing

that

for r

egul

ato

ry p

urpo

ses,

the

part

ies

can

have

acc

ess

to th

e in

form

atio

n o

n de

man

d.

The

pro

hibi

tion

on

the

part

ies

not b

eing

allo

wed

to re

quire

fina

ncia

l ser

-vi

ces

pro

vide

rs to

sto

re o

r pro

cess

info

rmat

ion

in th

eir t

errit

orie

s as

a c

on-

ditio

n o

f bei

ng a

llow

ed to

do

bus

ines

s in

thei

r ter

rito

ries,

wo

uld

ensu

re th

at

to th

e gr

eate

st e

xten

t, th

e pa

rtie

s’ re

gula

tions

will

have

a n

eutr

al e

ffec

t on

the

inve

stm

ent d

ecis

ions

of e

-co

mm

erce

ser

vice

s pr

ovi

ders

. It a

lso

sup

-po

rts

the

inte

rest

of d

evel

opi

ng c

oun

trie

s in

att

ract

ing

inve

stm

ent o

n th

e ba

sis

of t

heir

com

para

tive

adva

ntag

e in

low

er-c

ost

labo

ur in

the

info

rma-

tion

tech

nolo

gy s

ecto

r.

Pro

vide

d th

at p

rope

r pru

dent

ial m

easu

res

can

be

mai

ntai

ned

in re

spec

t of f

ore

ign

serv

ices

sup

plie

rs,

this

pro

posa

l is n

ot i

nim

ical

to th

e in

tere

sts

of

OEC

S s

tate

s. O

n th

e co

ntra

ry, a

s ne

t im

port

ers

of

inve

stm

ent,

it is

in th

e st

rate

gic

inte

rest

s o

f OEC

S

stat

es n

ot t

o m

aint

ain

mea

sure

s re

latin

g to

inve

st-

men

t, w

hich

may

act

as

disi

ncen

tives

to in

vest

-m

ent w

here

suc

h m

easu

res

are

not i

ndis

pens

able

to

a le

gitim

ate

polic

y o

bjec

tive

– su

ch a

s th

e eff

ec-

tive

regu

latio

n o

f a s

peci

fic s

ecto

r.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 169

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Cus

tom

s du

ties

on e

lect

roni

c tr

ansm

issi

ons

The

WTO

Mo

rato

rium

on

the

impo

sitio

n o

f cus

-to

ms

dutie

s o

n el

ectr

oni

c tr

ansm

issi

ons

will

be

mad

e pe

rman

ent.

One

of t

he p

ropo

sals

on

this

issu

e w

oul

d co

mpl

etel

y o

utla

w th

e im

posi

-tio

n o

f cus

tom

s du

ties,

and

po

ssib

ly fe

es a

nd c

harg

es, o

n el

ectr

oni

c tr

ansm

issi

ons

. Alte

rnat

e ve

rsio

ns o

f the

pro

posa

l wo

uld

com

mit

mem

bers

to

adh

erin

g to

the

curr

ent p

ract

ice

of n

ot i

mpo

sing

cus

tom

s du

ties

on

elec

tro

nic

tran

smis

sio

ns in

acc

ord

ance

with

par

agra

ph 3

of t

he W

TO M

in-

iste

rial D

ecis

ion

of 1

3 D

ecem

ber 2

017

(WT

/MIN

(17)

/65)

and

any

furt

her

WTO

Min

iste

rial D

ecis

ions

in re

latio

n to

the

Wo

rk P

rogr

amm

e o

n El

ec-

tro

nic

Co

mm

erce

.

UN

CTA

D (2

019,

202

0) h

as e

stim

ated

that

the

non-

impo

sitio

n o

f cus

tom

s du

ties

on

elec

tro

nic

tran

smis

sio

ns c

an le

ad to

dev

elo

ping

co

untr

ies

sus-

tain

ing

subs

tant

ial t

ariff

reve

nue

loss

. Thi

s po

tent

ial t

ariff

reve

nue

loss

has

be

en e

stim

ated

at a

roun

d U

S$1

0 bi

llion

per a

nnum

, but

co

uld

rise

con-

tinuo

usly

as

mo

re a

nd m

ore

pro

duct

s ar

e di

gita

lised

.2

OEC

S s

tate

s w

oul

d ha

ve to

car

eful

ly c

ons

ider

thei

r po

sitio

ns o

n th

is m

atte

r, gi

ven

the

pote

ntia

l loss

of

tariff

reve

nue

they

wo

uld

face

as

trad

e be

com

es

mo

re d

igiti

sed.

One

so

lutio

n co

uld

be fo

r OEC

S

stat

es to

tie

the

assu

mpt

ion

of c

om

mitm

ents

in

this

are

a to

tran

sitio

nal p

erio

ds a

nd te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce to

det

erm

ine

mec

hani

sms

by w

hich

re

venu

e sh

ort

falls

can

be

addr

esse

d o

r fo

r the

co

mm

itmen

t to

be

cast

in b

est e

ndea

vour

lan-

guag

e.

Acc

ess

to in

tern

et a

nd d

ata

Ope

n go

vern

men

t dat

a:

The

par

ties

wo

uld

ende

avo

ur to

pub

lish

gove

rn-

men

t dat

a an

d fa

cilit

ate

publ

ic a

cces

s an

d us

e.

Whe

re d

ata

are

mad

e av

aila

ble,

the

part

ies

wo

uld

have

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ey a

re a

vaila

ble

in

mac

hine

-rea

dabl

e fo

rmat

.

The

und

erly

ing

cont

ext f

or t

he o

blig

atio

n is

the

reco

gniti

on

that

faci

litat

ing

publ

ic a

cces

s to

and

use

of g

ove

rnm

ent-

colle

cted

dat

a ca

n fo

ster

eco

-no

mic

and

so

cial

dev

elo

pmen

t, c

om

petit

iven

ess

and

inno

vatio

n. F

urth

er-

mo

re, t

he p

ropo

sals

reco

gnis

e th

at c

ons

umer

and

fina

ncia

l dat

a in

the

poss

essi

on

of o

r und

er th

e co

ntro

l of g

ove

rnm

ents

can

be

a vi

tal r

eso

urce

fo

r e-c

om

mer

ce s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

.

The

obl

igat

ion

wo

uld

not a

dver

sely

aff

ect t

he

esse

ntia

l inte

rest

s o

f the

OEC

S s

tate

s, u

nles

s se

n-si

tive

gove

rnm

ent d

ata

are

impl

icat

ed. I

n su

ch

case

, app

ropr

iate

exc

eptio

ns s

houl

d be

neg

oti-

ated

. The

obl

igat

ion

wo

uld

also

sup

port

the

inte

r-es

ts o

f OEC

S fi

nanc

ial s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

in fo

reig

n m

arke

ts. O

ECS

sta

tes

coul

d su

ppo

rt th

is o

blig

a-tio

n, if

ade

quat

e m

easu

res

wer

e in

pla

ce to

add

ress

an

y ca

paci

ty is

sues

.

Ope

n in

tern

et a

cces

s

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be o

blig

ed to

take

mea

sure

s to

ens

ure

that

co

nsum

ers

have

acc

ess

to a

nd

are

able

to u

se in

tern

et-b

ased

app

licat

ions

of

thei

r cho

ice

Thi

s pr

ovi

sio

n is

likel

y ai

med

at p

reve

ntin

g la

rge

tech

nolo

gy c

om

pani

es

fro

m b

eing

abl

e to

abu

se th

eir d

om

inan

t po

sitio

ns th

roug

h lo

ckin

g in

co

n-su

mer

s to

spe

cific

inte

rnet

-bas

ed a

pplic

atio

ns. O

ne e

ffec

t of t

he p

ro-

posa

l co

uld

be th

at d

om

inan

t tec

hno

logy

co

mpa

nies

wo

uld

have

the

obl

igat

ion

to u

nbun

dle

inte

rnet

app

licat

ions

fro

m th

eir o

pera

ting

syst

ems

and

allo

w in

tero

pera

bilit

y o

f the

ir o

pera

ting

syst

ems

with

inte

rnet

app

lica-

tions

fro

m th

eir c

om

petit

ors

. The

pro

posa

l the

refo

re a

ims

to s

uppo

rt

mo

re c

om

petit

ive

mar

kets

in re

latio

n to

inte

rnet

-bas

ed a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd

pro

mo

tes

cons

umer

wel

fare

.

It is

in th

e st

rate

gic

inte

rest

s o

f OEC

S s

tate

s to

su

ppo

rt ru

les

whi

ch w

ill en

sure

that

mar

kets

rela

t-in

g to

inte

rnet

tech

nolo

gies

are

free

of c

om

petit

ive

dist

ort

ions

. OEC

S s

tate

s co

uld

ther

efo

re s

uppo

rt

this

pro

visi

on.

Com

petit

ion

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

dev

elo

p ad

e-qu

ate

appr

oac

hes

to a

ddre

ss c

om

petit

ion

issu

es in

the

digi

tal m

arke

t. T

hey

wo

uld

also

ha

ve to

str

engt

hen

co-o

pera

tion

in th

e id

entifi

-ca

tion

and

miti

gatio

n o

f mar

ket d

isto

rtio

ns a

ris-

ing

fro

m a

buse

of d

om

inan

ce

Inhe

rent

in th

e pr

opo

sal is

the

reco

gniti

on

that

ther

e ar

e is

sues

pec

ulia

r to

di

gita

l tra

de th

at m

ay c

reat

e co

mpe

titio

n co

ncer

ns. A

s no

ted

in th

e pr

o-

posa

l, th

ese

issu

es in

clud

e pl

atfo

rm-b

ased

bus

ines

s m

ode

ls, m

ulti-

side

d m

arke

ts, n

etw

ork

eff

ects

and

eco

nom

ies

of s

cale

, whi

ch m

ay p

ose

add

i-tio

nal c

halle

nges

for c

om

petit

ion

polic

y.C

o-o

pera

tion

and

co-o

rdin

atio

n be

twee

n W

TO m

embe

rs o

n th

e cr

eatio

n o

f bes

t pra

ctic

e fr

amew

ork

s to

ad

dres

s th

ese

com

petit

ion

issu

es w

oul

d su

ppo

rt th

e in

tere

st o

f all m

em-

bers

in e

ffec

tivel

y ad

dres

sing

ant

i-co

mpe

titiv

e pr

actic

es.

It is

in th

e st

rate

gic

inte

rest

s o

f OEC

S s

tate

s to

su

ppo

rt ru

les

whi

ch w

ill en

sure

that

mar

kets

rela

t-in

g to

inte

rnet

tech

nolo

gies

are

free

of c

om

petit

ive

dist

ort

ions

. OEC

S s

tate

s co

uld

ther

efo

re s

uppo

rt

this

pro

visi

on.

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Con

sum

er p

rote

ctio

n

The

par

ties

wo

uld

have

to a

dopt

or m

aint

ain

mea

sure

s to

pro

tect

co

nsum

ers

fro

m h

arm

ful

prac

tices

, whi

ch m

ay b

e fr

audu

lent

, mis

lead

ing

or d

ecep

tive

in n

atur

e.

The

rule

s w

oul

d pr

om

ote

co

-ope

ratio

n be

twee

n th

e pa

rtie

s w

ith re

spec

t to

co

nsum

er p

rote

c-tio

n. T

his

co-o

pera

tion

may

incl

ude

exch

angi

ng

info

rmat

ion

or e

xper

ienc

e.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

also

be

requ

ired

to p

rom

ote

co

nsum

er e

duca

tion

and

pro

vide

for r

edre

ss

mec

hani

sms.

Co

nsum

er p

rote

ctio

n ru

les

supp

ort

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f e-c

om

mer

ce

eco

syst

ems,

thro

ugh

ensu

ring

that

the

inte

rest

s o

f co

nsum

ers

are

safe

-gu

arde

d. T

his

in tu

rn in

crea

ses

the

leve

l of c

ons

umer

trus

t and

pro

mo

tes

incr

ease

d us

age

of e

-co

mm

erce

ser

vice

s. A

har

mo

nise

d ap

pro

ach

to th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of c

ons

umer

pro

tect

ion

rule

s re

duce

s th

e re

gula

tory

bur

-de

n fo

r e-c

om

mer

ce p

rovi

ders

eng

aged

in c

ross

-bo

rder

tran

sact

ions

.

It is

in th

e st

rate

gic

inte

rest

s o

f OEC

S s

tate

s to

su

ppo

rt c

ons

umer

pro

tect

ion

rule

s, a

s th

ese

rule

s he

lp to

impr

ove

co

nsum

er c

onfi

denc

e in

e-c

om

-m

erce

. Im

pro

ved

cons

umer

co

nfide

nce

will

sup-

port

the

grow

th o

f e-c

om

mer

ce w

ithin

the

OEC

S

subr

egio

n. O

ECS

sta

tes

wo

uld

also

ben

efit f

rom

co

-ope

ratio

n o

n co

nsum

er p

rote

ctio

n w

ith m

em-

bers

with

mo

re a

dvan

ced

legi

slat

ive

fram

ewo

rks

and

grea

ter e

nfo

rcem

ent c

apac

ity.

OEC

S s

tate

s ha

ve e

ither

impl

emen

ted

cons

umer

pr

ote

ctio

n le

gisl

atio

n, a

re in

the

pro

cess

of i

mpl

e-m

entin

g su

ch le

gisl

atio

n, o

r hav

e in

dica

ted

plan

s to

do

so

. Fur

ther

mo

re, t

he e

lect

roni

c tr

ansa

ctio

ns

legi

slat

ion

in th

e st

ates

co

ntai

n co

nsum

er p

rote

c-tio

n pr

ovi

sio

ns. O

ECS

sta

tes

wo

uld

ther

efo

re n

ot

nece

ssar

ily fi

nd th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of t

his

com

-m

itmen

t bur

dens

om

e.

Uns

olic

ited

com

mer

cial

ele

ctro

nic

mes

sage

s

The

par

ties

wo

uld

ende

avo

ur to

impl

emen

t m

easu

res

to e

nsur

e th

at c

ons

umer

s ca

n av

oid

un

solic

ited

mes

sage

s o

r hav

e to

giv

e co

nsen

t to

re

ceiv

e th

e sa

me.

Rel

evan

t co

mm

erci

al m

es-

sage

s w

oul

d ha

ve to

be

clea

rly id

entifi

able

.

Som

e W

TO m

embe

rs h

ave

alre

ady

impl

emen

ted

legi

slat

ion

to re

gula

te

unso

licite

d co

mm

erci

al e

lect

roni

c m

essa

ges,

als

o k

now

n as

SP

AM

. The

se

type

s o

f reg

ulat

ions

hel

p to

saf

egua

rd c

ons

umer

priv

acy

and

rein

forc

e th

e pr

inci

ple

that

co

nsum

ers

sho

uld

give

info

rmed

co

nsen

t fo

r the

rece

ipt o

f el

ectr

oni

c co

mm

erci

al m

essa

ges.

The

ext

ent t

o w

hich

suc

h le

gisl

atio

n is

dee

med

nec

essa

ry w

ill be

a re

flec-

tion

of t

he p

erce

ived

mat

urity

of t

he d

igita

l land

scap

e in

eac

h co

untr

y.

Such

legi

slat

ion

may

ther

efo

re n

ot b

e de

emed

a p

riorit

y by

dev

elo

ping

co

untr

ies

whe

re th

e pr

obl

em o

f SP

AM

has

no

t yet

bec

om

e m

anife

st,

owin

g to

nas

cent

e-c

om

mer

ce a

nd d

ata-

harv

estin

g ac

tiviti

es. F

urth

er-

mo

re, t

he im

plem

enta

tion

of t

his

type

of l

egis

latio

n by

dev

elo

ping

co

un-

trie

s m

ay th

eref

ore

hav

e to

be

tied

to tr

ansi

tion

perio

ds a

nd te

chni

cal

supp

ort

for d

evel

opi

ng c

oun

trie

s.

No

ne o

f the

OEC

S s

tate

s cu

rren

tly h

ave

anti-

SP

AM

legi

slat

ion

and

ther

e is

no

indi

catio

n th

at

regi

ona

l or n

atio

nal la

ws

are

curr

ently

bei

ng d

evel

-o

ped

on

this

issu

e. A

cco

rdin

gly,

whi

le O

ECS

sta

tes

coul

d su

ppo

rt th

is is

sue

in p

rinci

ple,

a c

om

mitm

ent

to im

plem

entin

g th

is o

blig

atio

n w

oul

d ha

ve to

be

tied

to a

dequ

ate

tran

sitio

n pe

riods

and

tech

nica

l as

sist

ance

, as

nece

ssar

y.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 171

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Dat

a pr

otec

tion

and

priv

acy

The

follo

win

g ru

les

are

bein

g pr

opo

sed

in re

la-

tion

to th

is is

sue:

a.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

ado

pt

mea

sure

s to

ens

ure

the

pro

tect

ion

of

pers

ona

l dat

a an

d pr

ivac

y. M

easu

res

wo

uld

addr

ess

cro

ss-b

ord

er d

ata

tran

sfer

s an

d th

e pr

oce

ssin

g o

f per

sona

l dat

a.

b.

Lega

l fra

mew

ork

s w

oul

d be

info

rmed

by

inte

rnat

iona

l sta

ndar

ds o

r gui

delin

es (O

ECD

R

eco

mm

enda

tion

of t

he C

oun

cil c

onc

erni

ng

Gui

delin

es G

ove

rnin

g th

e P

rote

ctio

n o

f Pri-

vacy

and

Tra

nsbo

rder

Flo

ws

of P

erso

nal D

ata

[201

3]).

c.

Mea

sure

s ar

e to

be

non-

disc

rimin

ato

ry in

th

eir a

pplic

atio

n.

d.

Do

mes

tic fr

amew

ork

s sh

oul

d en

sure

that

co

nsen

t of d

ata

subj

ects

is s

ecur

ed fo

r cr

oss

-bo

rder

tran

sfer

s.

e.

Rec

ogn

itio

n th

at p

artie

s ca

n ta

ke d

iffer

ent

appr

oac

hes

to p

rote

ctin

g pe

rso

nal in

form

a-tio

n. P

artie

s to

enc

our

age

inte

rope

rabi

lity

of

thes

e sy

stem

s.

Reg

ulat

ions

whi

ch a

ddre

ss d

ata

pro

tect

ion

and

priv

acy

are

esse

ntia

l to

sa

fegu

ard

the

inte

rest

s o

f co

nsum

ers.

The

se ru

les

ensu

re, i

nter

alia

, tha

t pe

rso

nal d

ata

can

be p

roce

ssed

onl

y w

ith th

e co

nsen

t of d

ata

subj

ects

an

d th

at s

afeg

uard

s m

ust b

e in

pla

ce to

faci

litat

e cr

oss

-bo

rder

tran

sfer

of

pers

ona

l dat

a. T

he re

quire

men

ts fo

r leg

al fr

amew

ork

s to

be

info

rmed

by

inte

rnat

iona

l sta

ndar

ds o

r gui

delin

es a

ims

to e

nsur

e co

nsis

tenc

y ac

ross

th

e W

TO m

embe

rshi

p w

ith re

spec

t to

the

sco

pe a

nd e

ffec

t of t

he re

gula

-to

ry m

easu

res.

All O

ECS

sta

tes

curr

ently

hav

e le

gisl

atio

n ad

dres

s-in

g da

ta p

rote

ctio

n an

d pr

ivac

y. O

ECS

sta

tes

coul

d th

eref

ore

sup

port

this

obl

igat

ion,

as

it w

oul

d be

in

line

with

nat

iona

l fra

mew

ork

s.

Busi

ness

trus

t – s

ourc

e co

de

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be p

rohi

bite

d fr

om

requ

iring

th

e tr

ansf

er o

f, o

r acc

ess

to, t

he s

our

ce c

ode

of

soft

war

e o

r alg

orit

hm o

wne

d by

a p

erso

n o

f an

oth

er p

arty

, as

a co

nditi

on

of t

he im

port

, dis

-tr

ibut

ion,

sal

e o

r use

of t

hat s

oft

war

e, o

r of

pro

duct

s co

ntai

ning

that

so

ftw

are,

in it

s te

rri-

tory

.

The

sec

urity

exc

eptio

n an

d po

ssib

ly th

e ex

cep-

tions

men

tione

d in

par

agra

ph 2

of t

he G

ATS

A

nnex

on

Fina

ncia

l Ser

vice

s w

oul

d ap

ply.

No

t-w

ithst

andi

ng th

e co

re o

blig

atio

n, d

iscl

osu

re m

ay

be o

rder

ed in

the

cont

ext o

f jud

icia

l enf

orc

e-m

ent a

ctio

ns o

r act

ions

to e

nfo

rce

com

petit

ion

law

or i

ntel

lect

ual p

rope

rty

right

s.

Thi

s pr

ovi

sio

n w

oul

d o

blig

e m

embe

rs to

resp

ect t

he in

telle

ctua

l pro

pert

y rig

hts

of e

-co

mm

erce

ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs th

at a

re e

stab

lishe

d o

r are

see

k-in

g to

est

ablis

h in

thei

r ter

rito

ries.

Ong

oin

g te

nsio

ns b

etw

een

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es a

nd C

hina

, ove

r the

latt

er’s

alle

ged

dem

and

that

US

firm

s di

sclo

se

inte

llect

ual p

rope

rty

as a

co

nditi

on

of m

arke

t ent

ry, u

nder

sco

re th

e ne

ed

for a

mul

tilat

eral

app

roac

h to

add

ress

this

issu

e.

The

legi

timat

e in

tere

sts

of m

embe

rs in

ens

urin

g th

at d

iscl

osu

re re

quire

-m

ents

can

be

enfo

rced

in th

e in

tere

st o

f the

sta

te’s

ess

entia

l sec

urity

and

re

gula

tory

inte

rest

s w

oul

d be

pre

serv

ed.

OEC

S s

tate

s ha

ve im

plem

ente

d in

telle

ctua

l pro

p-er

ty le

gisl

atio

n. T

his

sign

als

thei

r int

entio

n to

re

spec

t and

enf

orc

e in

telle

ctua

l pro

pert

y rig

hts.

O

ECS

sta

tes

coul

d th

eref

ore

exp

ress

sup

port

for

this

prin

cipl

e, a

s it

does

no

t im

pair

thei

r ess

entia

l in

tere

sts.

Leg

itim

ate

conc

erns

abo

ut n

atio

nal

secu

rity

coul

d be

add

ress

ed b

y w

ay o

f the

sec

urity

ex

cept

ions

.

(Con

tinue

d)



ble

A4.

Tra

de S

trat

egy

Ass

essm

ent M

atri

x (C

onti

nued

)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Cro

ss c

uttin

g is

sues

: tra

nspa

renc

y, d

omes

tic re

g-ul

atio

n an

d co

-ope

ratio

nTra

nspa

renc

y:

Par

ties

to p

ublis

h o

r oth

erw

ise

mak

e pu

blic

ly

avai

labl

e al

l mea

sure

s o

f gen

eral

app

licat

ion

affec

ting

digi

tal t

rade

/e-c

om

mer

ce

Elec

tron

ic a

vaila

bilit

y of

trad

e-re

late

d in

form

atio

n:

Mem

bers

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

mak

e tr

ade

info

r-m

atio

n pu

blic

ly a

vaila

ble

ove

r the

inte

rnet

. The

o

blig

atio

n w

oul

d ex

tend

to in

form

atio

n co

vere

d by

Art

icle

1.1

of t

he T

FA. I

t wo

uld

also

incl

ude

info

rmat

ion

on

impo

rt m

easu

res

and

requ

irem

ents

.Dom

estic

regu

latio

n:

Do

mes

tic re

gula

tions

aff

ectin

g e-

com

mer

ce a

re

to b

e ad

min

iste

red

in a

tran

spar

ent,

obj

ectiv

e,

reas

ona

ble

and

impa

rtia

l man

ner.

The

tran

spar

ency

and

do

mes

tic re

gula

tion

rule

s th

at a

re b

eing

pro

pose

d,

are

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

ose

whi

ch a

ppea

r in

the

GAT

S. T

rans

pare

ncy

rule

s su

ppo

rt th

e cr

oss

-bo

rder

trad

e by

allo

win

g se

rvic

es s

uppl

iers

to b

eco

me

fam

iliar w

ith th

e re

gula

tory

land

scap

e in

a ta

rget

mar

ket p

rior t

o m

akin

g st

rate

gic

deci

sio

ns o

n fo

reig

n m

arke

t ent

ry.

The

pre

serv

atio

n o

f the

righ

t of m

embe

r sta

tes

to a

pply

do

mes

tic re

gula

-tio

ns to

e-c

om

mer

ce-r

elat

ed a

ctiv

ities

, is

impo

rtan

t to

sec

ure

the

buy-

in

of a

ll mem

bers

and

esp

ecia

lly th

ose

dev

elo

ping

co

untr

ies

whi

ch a

re s

till

deve

lopi

ng s

ecto

ral p

olic

ies.

Req

uirin

g do

mes

tic re

gula

tions

to b

e ad

min

-is

tere

d in

a tr

ansp

aren

t, o

bjec

tive,

reas

ona

ble

and

impa

rtia

l man

ner,

ensu

res

that

suc

h m

easu

res

will

not b

eco

me

disg

uise

d re

stric

tions

to

trad

e.

OEC

S s

tate

s co

uld

acce

pt th

e pr

opo

sed

disc

iplin

es

on

the

basi

s th

at th

ey a

re c

ons

iste

nt w

ith e

xist

ing

GAT

S c

om

mitm

ents

.

Co-

oper

atio

n

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

wo

rk to

geth

er

to fa

cilit

ate

the

part

icip

atio

n o

f SM

Es in

e-c

om

-m

erce

and

to e

xcha

nge

info

rmat

ion

and

shar

e ex

perie

nces

on

regu

latio

ns a

nd p

olic

ies

rega

rd-

ing

e-co

mm

erce

.

The

pro

pose

d m

echa

nism

of c

o-o

pera

tion

wo

uld

call f

or t

he p

artie

s to

est

ablis

h en

quiry

po

ints

to, i

nter

alia

, ans

wer

reas

ona

ble

quer

ies

of

oth

er p

artie

s w

ith re

spec

t to

mat

ters

co

vere

d by

th

e ag

reem

ent a

nd fa

cilit

ate

com

mun

icat

ions

be

twee

n th

em w

ith re

spec

t to

any

mat

ter c

ov-

ered

by

the

agre

emen

t.

The

pro

pose

d co

-ope

ratio

n fr

amew

ork

wo

uld

supp

ort

the

abilit

y o

f mem

-be

rs to

eng

age

in c

olla

bora

tive

activ

ities

to s

uppo

rt c

ont

inue

d gr

owth

in

e-co

mm

erce

eco

syst

ems.

Mo

dalit

ies

for c

o-o

pera

tion

are

in k

eepi

ng w

ith

tho

se th

at e

xist

in th

e G

ATS

.

The

focu

s o

n fa

cilit

atin

g th

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of S

MEs

in e

-co

mm

erce

is o

f st

rate

gic

inte

rest

to d

evel

opi

ng c

oun

trie

s. U

NC

TAD

has

no

ted

that

e-

com

mer

ce is

a s

igni

fican

t to

ol in

unl

ock

ing

job

crea

tion

and

inno

vatio

n fo

r sm

all a

nd m

ediu

m-s

ized

ent

erpr

ises

(SM

Es) i

n de

velo

ping

co

untr

ies.

The

focu

s o

n su

ppo

rtin

g th

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of

MS

MEs

in e

-co

mm

erce

is o

f str

ateg

ic in

tere

st to

th

e O

ECS

sta

tes.

OEC

S s

tate

s co

uld

also

util

ise

exis

ting

GAT

S e

nqui

ry p

oin

ts in

ord

er to

less

en a

ny

impl

emen

tatio

n bu

rden

s as

soci

ated

with

this

co

mm

itmen

t.

Cyb

erse

curit

y

The

par

ties

wo

uld

unde

rtak

e to

end

eavo

ur to

bu

ild c

apac

ity to

resp

ond

to c

yber

secu

rity

inci

-de

nts.

In d

oin

g so

, the

y w

oul

d be

gui

ded

by ri

sk-

base

d ap

pro

ache

s an

d th

e ne

ed to

avo

id tr

ade

rest

rictiv

e an

d tr

ade

dist

ort

ive

out

com

es.

The

pro

posa

l do

es n

ot c

reat

e an

obl

igat

ion

to im

plem

ent c

yber

secu

rity

legi

slat

ion,

but

rath

er to

bui

ld n

atio

nal c

apac

ity in

ord

er to

add

ress

cyb

er-

secu

rity

issu

es. T

he im

plem

enta

tion

of t

his

obl

igat

ion

by d

evel

opi

ng

coun

trie

s co

uld

be ti

ed to

the

pro

visi

on

of t

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce.

OEC

S s

tate

s re

cogn

ise

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f im

ple-

men

ting

legi

slat

ive

fram

ewo

rks

to a

ddre

ss c

yber

-se

curit

y is

sues

and

so

me

stat

es h

ave

alre

ady

done

so

. It i

s cl

ear,

how

ever

, tha

t all o

f the

sta

tes

wo

uld

requ

ire a

ssis

tanc

e in

bui

ldin

g ca

paci

ty to

eff

ectiv

ely

resp

ond

to c

yber

secu

rity

issu

es. F

or t

his

reas

on,

O

ECS

sta

tes

sho

uld

tie th

e as

sum

ptio

n o

f obl

iga-

tions

in th

is a

rea

to th

eir r

ecei

pt o

f tec

hnic

al a

ssis

-ta

nce.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 173

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g

Upo

n th

e re

ques

t of a

dev

elo

ping

or l

east

dev

el-

ope

d co

untr

y pa

rty,

dev

elo

ped

or o

ther

dev

el-

opi

ng c

oun

try

mem

bers

that

are

in a

po

sitio

n to

do

so

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

pro

vide

targ

eted

te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e an

d ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

sup-

port

.

The

reco

gniti

on

of t

he d

evel

opm

ent a

sym

met

ries

betw

een

deve

lope

d an

d de

velo

ping

mem

bers

has

nec

essi

tate

d th

e in

clus

ion

of S

peci

al a

nd

Diff

eren

tial T

reat

men

t (S

DT

) in

the

text

. In

sum

mar

y, th

e S

DT

rule

s be

ing

pro

pose

d ar

e th

e fo

llow

ing:

1.

Upo

n re

ques

t of a

dev

elo

ping

co

untr

y, d

evel

ope

d an

d de

velo

ping

m

embe

rs th

at a

re in

a p

osi

tion

to d

o s

o s

hall p

rovi

de ta

rget

ed te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce a

nd c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

on

mut

ually

agr

eed

term

s an

d co

ndi-

tions

to d

evel

opi

ng m

embe

rs, i

n pa

rtic

ular

LD

Cs.

Thi

s su

ppo

rt w

ill be

ta

rget

ed a

t im

pro

ving

, pro

mo

ting

and

pro

tect

ing

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f el

ectr

oni

c co

mm

erce

and

allo

win

g th

e de

velo

ping

co

untr

y m

embe

r to

im

plem

ent W

TO ru

les

on

elec

tro

nic

com

mer

ce.

2.

WTO

mem

bers

sho

uld

expl

ore

the

way

to e

stab

lish

an E

lect

roni

c C

om

mer

ce fo

r Dev

elo

pmen

t Pro

gram

me

unde

r the

WTO

fram

ewo

rk.

Thi

s o

bjec

tive

of t

his

pro

gram

me

wo

uld

be to

enc

our

age,

man

age

and

co-o

rdin

ate

the

cont

ribut

ions

that

mem

bers

vo

lunt

arily

pro

vide

, with

th

e ai

m o

f ass

istin

g de

velo

ping

co

untr

y m

embe

rs, e

spec

ially

LD

Cs,

to

impr

ove

dev

elo

pmen

t of e

lect

roni

c co

mm

erce

and

impl

emen

t WTO

ru

les

on

elec

tro

nic

com

mer

ce.

3.

WTO

mem

bers

wo

uld

be e

nco

urag

ed to

ado

pt re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd

prac

tical

mea

sure

s th

at c

ont

ribut

e to

impr

ovi

ng th

e el

ectr

oni

c co

m-

mer

ce in

fras

truc

ture

and

tech

nica

l co

nditi

ons

of d

evel

opi

ng m

embe

rs,

to h

elp

ente

rpris

es a

nd c

itize

ns re

alis

e di

gita

l tra

nsiti

on.

The

se m

eas-

ures

wo

uld

aim

to b

ridge

the

digi

tal d

ivid

e be

twee

n de

velo

ped

and

deve

lopi

ng W

TO m

embe

rs.

4.

WTO

mem

bers

wo

uld

be e

nco

urag

ed to

co

nduc

t inf

orm

atio

n ex

chan

ge, j

oin

t stu

dy a

nd c

o-o

pera

tive

trai

ning

, sha

re b

est p

ract

ices

o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce d

evel

opm

ent,

and

impl

emen

t cap

acity

bui

ld-

ing

amo

ng m

embe

rs a

nd in

tern

atio

nal o

rgan

isat

ions

, to

pro

mo

te th

e co

mm

on

deve

lopm

ent o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce.

5.

The

dra

ft e

-co

mm

erce

text

reco

gnis

es th

at th

e ab

ility

of d

evel

opi

ng

and

leas

t dev

elo

ped

coun

trie

s to

impl

emen

t the

pro

visi

ons

of t

he

e-co

mm

erce

agr

eem

ent m

ay b

e tie

d to

the

pro

visi

on

of t

arge

ted

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

and

capa

city

bui

ldin

g su

ppo

rt to

thes

e st

ates

. The

te

xt p

ropo

ses

that

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

and

capa

city

bui

ldin

g su

ppo

rt

wo

uld

onl

y be

pro

vide

d to

dev

elo

ping

co

untr

y m

embe

rs u

pon

thei

r re

ques

t.

If th

e di

scip

lines

bec

om

e bi

ndin

g o

n th

em, a

nd

assu

min

g th

at th

is p

rese

nt c

ons

truc

t of t

he p

rovi

-si

on

rem

ains

unc

hang

ed, O

ECS

sta

tes

wo

uld

have

to

car

ry o

ut a

det

aile

d as

sess

men

t of t

heir

abilit

y to

impl

emen

t the

pro

visi

ons

, in

ord

er to

pre

sent

ta

rget

ed re

ques

ts fo

r ass

ista

nce.

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

est

ablis

h sa

fe-

guar

ds to

pre

vent

maj

or s

uppl

iers

of t

elec

om

-m

unic

atio

ns s

ervi

ces

fro

m b

ehav

ing

in a

n an

ti-co

mpe

titiv

e m

anne

r. T

hey

wo

uld

also

hav

e to

ens

ure

that

tele

com

s se

rvic

es p

rovi

ders

can

ca

rry

out

inte

rco

nnec

tion

with

maj

or s

uppl

iers

o

n no

n-di

scrim

inat

ory

term

s an

d in

a ti

mel

y m

anne

r. P

roce

dure

s fo

r int

erco

nnec

tion

wo

uld

have

to b

e m

ade

publ

icly

ava

ilabl

e.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

dete

rmin

e fo

r the

mse

lves

the

type

of u

nive

rsal

ser

vice

obl

igat

ions

they

wis

h to

pur

sue.

Uni

vers

al s

ervi

ce o

blig

atio

ns w

oul

d ha

ve to

be

pres

crib

ed a

nd a

dmin

iste

red

in a

tran

spar

ent,

o

bjec

tive,

no

n-di

scrim

inat

ory

and

co

mpe

titiv

e ne

utra

l man

ner.

Aut

horis

atio

n to

pro

vide

tele

com

s se

rvic

es

sho

uld

in p

rinci

ple

be g

rant

ed w

itho

ut a

form

al

licen

sing

pro

cedu

re. I

f lic

ence

s ar

e re

quire

d, p

ar-

ties

wo

uld

have

a d

uty

to p

ublis

h sp

ecifi

c in

for-

mat

ion,

incl

udin

g th

e ty

pes

of n

etw

ork

s o

r se

rvic

es th

at re

quire

a lic

ence

and

the

licen

s-in

g cr

iteria

.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

est

ablis

h a

tel-

eco

mm

unic

atio

ns re

gula

tory

aut

horit

y th

at is

in

depe

nden

t of t

elec

om

s se

rvic

es p

rovi

ders

. R

egul

ato

ry a

utho

ritie

s w

oul

d be

ves

ted

with

en

forc

emen

t pow

ers.

Pro

cedu

res

for t

he a

lloca

tion

of s

carc

e re

sour

ces,

incl

udin

g fr

eque

ncie

s, w

oul

d ha

ve to

be

car

ried

out

in a

n o

bjec

tive,

tim

ely,

tran

spar

ent

and

non-

disc

rimin

ato

ry m

anne

r.

The

dis

cipl

ines

pro

pose

d ar

e a

reite

ratio

n o

f the

prin

cipl

es o

utlin

ed in

the

WTO

Tel

eco

mm

unic

atio

ns R

efer

ence

Pap

er. T

here

is th

eref

ore

alre

ady

som

e de

gree

of m

ultil

ater

al e

ndo

rsem

ent o

f the

prin

cipl

es.

The

pro

posa

l tha

t giv

es a

utho

risat

ion

to p

rovi

de te

leco

ms

serv

ices

sho

uld

be g

rant

ed w

itho

ut a

form

al lic

ensi

ng p

roce

dure

, but

is n

ot c

urre

ntly

co

v-er

ed b

y G

ATS

rule

s. T

he a

dopt

ion

of t

his

pro

posa

l co

uld

resu

lt in

WTO

m

embe

rs lo

sing

the

abilit

y to

det

erm

ine

the

cond

itio

ns o

f ord

erly

ent

ry

into

nat

iona

l tel

eco

ms

mar

kets

.

The

dev

elo

pmen

t of a

vib

rant

e-c

om

mer

ce e

cosy

stem

dep

ends

sig

nifi-

cant

ly o

n th

e av

aila

bilit

y o

f low

-co

st te

leco

ms

and

tele

com

s-re

late

d se

r-vi

ces.

In th

is re

gard

, ano

ther

pro

posa

l whi

ch h

as s

igni

fican

t po

licy

impl

icat

ions

for O

ECS

sta

tes

is th

at re

late

d to

the

clas

sific

atio

n o

f and

du

ties

of e

ssen

tial f

acilit

ies.

It is

bei

ng p

ropo

sed

that

a m

ajo

r sup

plie

r of

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

ser

vice

s w

oul

d ha

ve a

n o

blig

atio

n to

mak

e its

ess

en-

tial f

acilit

ies

avai

labl

e to

sup

plie

rs o

f pub

lic te

leco

mm

unic

atio

ns n

etw

ork

s o

r ser

vice

s o

n re

aso

nabl

e, tr

ansp

aren

t and

no

n-di

scrim

inat

ory

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons

, fo

r the

pur

pose

of p

rovi

ding

pub

lic te

leco

mm

unic

atio

ns s

er-

vice

s. T

his

obl

igat

ion

wo

uld

onl

y be

trig

gere

d w

hen

circ

umst

ance

s su

g-ge

st th

at d

oin

g so

wo

uld

be n

eces

sary

to a

chie

ve e

ffec

tive

com

petit

ion.

T

his

pro

posa

l rel

ates

to th

e co

mpe

titio

n la

w/a

nti-

trus

t ess

entia

l fac

ilitie

s do

ctrin

e re

cogn

ised

in U

S a

nti-

trus

t and

EU

co

mpe

titio

n la

w.3 S

om

e EU

ca

ses

sugg

est t

hat t

hat a

n es

sent

ial f

acilit

y no

t onl

y ha

s a

duty

to p

rote

ct

com

petit

ion

but a

lso

to p

rom

ote

it.

Of t

he s

ix O

ECS

sta

tes,

onl

y A

ntig

ua a

nd B

arbu

da,

Do

min

ica,

and

Gre

nada

hav

e ad

opt

ed th

e Te

le-

com

mun

icat

ions

Ref

eren

ce P

aper

. The

se s

tate

s co

uld

ther

efo

re s

uppo

rt th

ose

pro

visi

ons

that

are

in

eff

ect a

reite

ratio

n o

f the

prin

cipl

es o

utlin

ed in

th

e R

efer

ence

Pap

er. S

t Kitt

s an

d N

evis

, Sai

nt

Luci

a, a

nd S

t Vin

cent

and

the

Gre

nadi

nes

wo

uld

have

to m

ake

a po

licy

deci

sio

n in

light

of t

heir

rea-

sons

for n

ot s

igni

ng o

n to

the

Ref

eren

ce P

aper

, or

they

co

uld

supp

ort

the

sam

e pr

inci

ples

in th

e co

n-te

xt o

f the

pro

pose

d e-

com

mer

ce a

gree

men

t. It

is

note

d th

at th

e st

atus

quo

with

resp

ect t

o te

leco

m-

mun

icat

ions

liber

alis

atio

n in

the

OEC

S h

as

chan

ged

sinc

e th

e co

nclu

sio

n o

f the

Ref

eren

ce

Pap

er a

nd th

at n

ew e

lect

roni

c co

mm

unic

atio

ns

legi

slat

ion

is b

eing

ado

pted

that

add

ress

es m

ost

if

not a

ll of t

he is

sues

co

vere

d in

the

Ref

eren

ce

Pap

er. O

ECS

sta

tes

sho

uld

take

thes

e fa

cto

rs in

to

acco

unt i

n de

cidi

ng w

heth

er th

ey c

oul

d su

ppo

rt

the

pro

pose

d di

scip

lines

.

If ad

opt

ed b

y th

e O

ECS

sta

tes,

the

rule

s re

latin

g to

es

sent

ial f

acilit

ies

may

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

on

thei

r nat

iona

l and

sub

regi

ona

l po

licie

s th

at re

late

to

ong

oin

g lib

eral

isat

ion

of t

he te

leco

ms

sect

or.

Alth

oug

h O

ECS

sta

tes

are

far a

long

in th

is p

roce

ss,

the

obl

igat

ion

for a

do

min

ant t

elec

om

s su

pplie

r to

m

ake

its fa

cilit

ies

avai

labl

e to

oth

er s

uppl

iers

, in

ord

er to

faci

litat

e th

e gr

owth

of e

-co

mm

erce

tel-

eco

ms

infr

astr

uctu

re, m

ay d

icta

te th

e sc

ope

and

pa

ce o

f nat

iona

l po

licy

rela

ted

to te

leco

ms

regu

la-

tion

in th

e O

ECS

. No

tew

ort

hy in

this

rega

rd is

the

pro

pose

d pr

ovi

sio

n th

at w

oul

d re

quire

the

part

ies

to e

mpo

wer

tele

com

s re

gula

tory

aut

horit

ies,

suc

h as

EC

TEL

, to

exe

rcis

e re

gula

tory

aut

horit

y in

ord

er

to e

nsur

e th

at o

wne

rs o

f ess

entia

l fac

ilitie

s co

mpl

y w

ith th

eir r

egul

ato

ry o

blig

atio

ns.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 175

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

ens

ure

that

the

assi

gnm

ent o

f fre

quen

cy b

ands

for p

ublic

tel-

eco

mm

unic

atio

n se

rvic

es ta

kes

plac

e by

way

of

an o

pen

pro

cess

that

take

s in

to a

cco

unt t

he

ove

rall p

ublic

inte

rest

, inc

ludi

ng th

e pr

om

otio

n o

f co

mpe

titio

n. S

uch

assi

gnm

ent s

houl

d, in

prin

-ci

ple,

be

carr

ied

out

usi

ng m

arke

t-ba

sed

appr

oac

hes,

incl

udin

g th

roug

h m

echa

nism

s su

ch a

s au

ctio

ns.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

have

to e

nsur

e th

at m

ajo

r su

pplie

rs m

ake

thei

r ess

entia

l fac

ilitie

s av

aila

ble

to s

uppl

iers

of p

ublic

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

net

-w

ork

s o

r ser

vice

s o

n re

aso

nabl

e, tr

ansp

aren

t an

d no

n-di

scrim

inat

ory

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons

fo

r the

pur

pose

of p

rovi

ding

pub

lic te

leco

mm

u-ni

catio

ns s

ervi

ces,

whe

n ne

cess

ary,

to a

chie

ve

effec

tive

com

petit

ion.

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

aut

horit

ies

wo

uld

be

empo

wer

ed to

impl

emen

t rul

es o

n es

sen-

tial f

acilit

ies.

Mea

sure

s re

latin

g to

pub

lic c

om

mun

icat

ions

ne

two

rks

wo

uld

be p

ublic

ly a

vaila

ble

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Net

wor

k eq

uipm

ent a

nd p

rodu

cts

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

gra

nt n

atio

nal

trea

tmen

t with

resp

ect t

o m

easu

res

affec

ting

the

pro

duct

ion,

sup

ply,

rent

al, s

ale,

exp

ort

and

im

port

of e

lect

roni

c co

mm

erce

-rel

ated

net

wo

rk

equi

pmen

t and

pro

duct

s.

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be p

recl

uded

fro

m e

xclu

ding

o

r lim

iting

the

supp

ly o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce-

rela

ted

netw

ork

equ

ipm

ent a

nd p

rodu

cts,

or

oth

er n

orm

al b

usin

ess

ope

ratio

ns o

f ent

er-

pris

es, f

rom

any

oth

er p

arty

.

No

par

ty w

oul

d be

abl

e to

pre

vent

pub

lic te

l-ec

om

mun

icat

ions

net

wo

rks

or t

heir

serv

ices

su

pplie

rs, i

nclu

ding

val

ue-a

dded

ser

vice

s, fr

om

ch

oo

sing

the

supp

ort

ing

tech

nolo

gies

for t

heir

netw

ork

s an

d se

rvic

es.

No

par

ty w

oul

d be

abl

e to

blo

ck th

e su

pply

ch

ains

of e

lect

roni

c co

mm

erce

-rel

ated

net

wo

rk

equi

pmen

t and

pro

duct

s.

Thi

s pr

ovi

sio

n ai

ms

to p

rote

ct th

e co

mpe

titiv

e ad

vant

age

that

WTO

m

embe

rs m

ay h

ave

in re

latio

n to

the

trad

e in

net

wo

rk e

quip

men

t and

pr

odu

cts.

The

se p

rodu

cts

are

impo

rtan

t res

our

ces

with

in th

e e-

com

-m

erce

eco

syst

em. T

he o

blig

atio

n w

oul

d be

for m

embe

rs to

acc

ord

na

tiona

l tre

atm

ent w

ith re

spec

t to

mea

sure

s aff

ectin

g, in

ter a

lia, t

he

impo

rt, e

xpo

rt, s

ale

and

pro

duct

ion

of t

hese

pro

duct

s. T

he p

rovi

sio

n w

oul

d su

ppo

rt th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he tr

ade

in n

etw

ork

equ

ipm

ent a

nd

pro

duct

s, b

y en

surin

g th

at m

embe

rs d

o n

ot t

ake

mea

sure

s de

sign

ed to

pr

ote

ct d

om

estic

pro

duct

ion.

It is

likel

y th

at c

oun

trie

s th

at a

re s

igni

fican

t m

anuf

actu

rers

of t

hese

pro

duct

s w

oul

d be

the

bigg

est w

inne

rs fr

om

this

pr

ovi

sio

n, a

s it

furt

hers

the

inte

rest

s o

f the

ir st

akeh

old

ers

in b

eing

pro

-te

cted

fro

m d

iscr

imin

atio

n in

fore

ign

mar

kets

.

OEC

S s

tate

s ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

impo

rter

s o

f net

-w

ork

equ

ipm

ent a

nd p

rodu

cts

than

exp

ort

ers.

The

ab

senc

e o

f cur

rent

do

mes

tic p

rodu

ctio

n co

uld

lead

OEC

S s

tate

s to

sup

port

this

pro

visi

on.

How

-ev

er, f

rom

a lo

ng-t

erm

per

spec

tive,

if th

e st

ates

w

ish

to a

ttra

ct in

vest

men

t in

this

are

a, th

ey w

oul

d be

adv

ised

to c

ons

ider

how

acc

epta

nce

of t

his

pro

visi

on

coul

d aff

ect t

heir

abilit

y to

off

er in

cen-

tives

to n

ew in

vest

ors

.

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 177

Tabl

e A

4. T

rade

Str

ateg

y A

sses

smen

t Mat

rix

(Con

tinu

ed)

E-C

omm

erce

Tex

t Pro

posa

lC

omm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tio

n

Tem

pora

ry e

ntry

of e

-com

mer

ce-r

elat

ed p

erso

n-ne

l

The

par

ties

wo

uld

be re

quire

d to

enc

our

age

the

mo

vem

ent o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce-r

elat

ed

pers

onn

el a

nd p

erm

it th

e te

mpo

rary

ent

ry in

to

thei

r ter

rito

ry o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce-r

elat

ed

pers

onn

el a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith a

co

mm

erci

al p

res-

ence

of a

ny o

ther

par

ty th

at h

as b

een

or i

s be

ing

esta

blis

hed

with

in th

eir t

errit

ory

. The

se p

erso

n-ne

l incl

ude

busi

ness

vis

itors

, int

ra-c

orp

ora

te

tran

sfer

ees

and

cont

ract

ual s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

.

Furt

herm

ore

, the

par

ties

wo

uld

have

to o

bser

ve

spec

ific

pro

cedu

ral a

nd tr

ansp

aren

cy-r

elat

ed

com

mitm

ents

in re

latio

n to

tem

pora

ry e

ntry

. T

hese

are

:

• th

e o

blig

atio

n to

pro

mpt

ly p

ublis

h in

form

atio

n re

late

d to

tem

pora

ry e

ntry

aut

horis

atio

n;

• th

e o

blig

atio

n to

pro

cess

app

licat

ions

for

auth

oris

atio

n w

ithin

a re

aso

nabl

e pe

riod

of

time;

and

• th

e o

blig

atio

n to

ens

ure

that

fees

and

cha

rges

re

latin

g to

the

appl

icat

ion

for t

empo

rary

ent

ry

are

reas

ona

ble

and

do n

ot i

n th

emse

lves

co

nstit

ute

unre

aso

nabl

e ba

rrie

rs to

the

mo

vem

ent o

f ele

ctro

nic

com

mer

ce-r

elat

ed

pers

onn

el o

f oth

er p

artie

s.

Mo

de 4

is th

e le

ast c

om

mitt

ed s

ecto

r in

the

GAT

S, o

win

g to

the

sens

itivi

-tie

s th

at s

tate

s ha

ve re

late

d to

the

tem

pora

ry e

ntry

of n

on-

natio

nals

for

eco

nom

ic p

urpo

ses.

The

se a

ckno

wle

dged

sen

sitiv

ities

are

evi

dent

with

re

spec

t to

the

sco

pe o

f the

obl

igat

ion

bein

g pr

opo

sed.

Bin

ding

mar

ket a

cces

s co

mm

itmen

ts in

rela

tion

to M

ode

4 a

re n

ot b

eing

pr

opo

sed.

Rat

her,

the

sco

pe o

f the

obl

igat

ion

is fo

r the

par

ties

to e

nco

ur-

age

the

tem

pora

ry e

ntry

of e

-co

mm

erce

-rel

ated

per

sona

l, w

ho a

re

atta

ched

to a

co

mm

erci

al p

rese

nce

whi

ch h

as b

een

esta

blis

hed

in th

eir

terr

itorie

s.

OEC

S s

tate

s ha

ve s

tro

ng o

ffen

sive

inte

rest

s in

M

ode

4. A

s su

ch, t

hey

wo

uld

bene

fit fr

om

WTO

m

embe

rs e

nter

ing

into

furt

her M

ode

4 lib

eral

isa-

tion

com

mitm

ents

. OEC

S s

tate

s do

hav

e so

me

degr

ee o

f sen

sitiv

ity, h

owev

er, w

ith re

spec

t to

the

inw

ard

mo

vem

ent o

f ser

vice

s su

pplie

rs u

nder

M

ode

4, o

win

g to

the

need

to p

rese

rve

opp

ort

uni-

ties

for l

oca

l sup

plie

rs. I

t is

conc

eiva

ble

that

OEC

S

stat

es c

oul

d de

mo

nstr

ate

flexi

bilit

y w

ith re

spec

t to

bu

sine

ss v

isito

rs a

nd in

tra-

corp

ora

te tr

ansf

eree

s bu

t dem

ons

trat

e le

ss fl

exib

ility

with

resp

ect t

o

cont

ract

ual s

ervi

ces

supp

liers

.

1 T

he U

nite

d S

tate

s ha

s o

ne o

f the

hig

hest

de

min

imis

thre

sho

lds

in th

e w

orl

d. In

201

6, i

t was

incr

ease

d fr

om

US

$20

0 to

$8

00

.2

Join

t Sta

tem

ent I

niti

ativ

e o

n E-

com

mer

ce (J

SI):

Eco

nom

ic a

nd F

isca

l Im

plic

atio

ns fo

r the

So

uth,

UN

CTA

D R

esea

rch

Pap

er N

o. 5

8 U

NC

TAD

/SE

R.R

P/20

21/1

.3

See

, fo

r exa

mp

le, S

ea C

ont

aine

rs v

Ste

na S

ealin

k (O

J L

15/8

(199

3)).

The

co

mm

issi

on

rule

d th

at a

n un

dert

akin

g th

at o

ccup

ies

a do

min

ant p

osi

tio

n in

the

pro

visi

on

of a

n es

sent

ial f

acili

ty a

nd it

self

uses

that

faci

lity

(i.e.

, a fa

cilit

y o

r inf

rast

ruct

ure,

wit

hout

acc

ess

to w

hich

co

mpe

tito

rs c

anno

t pro

vide

ser

vice

s to

thei

r cus

tom

ers)

, and

whi

ch re

fuse

s o

ther

co

mpa

nies

acc

ess

to th

at fa

cilit

y w

itho

ut o

bjec

tive

just

ifica

tio

n o

r gra

nts

acce

ss to

co

mpe

tito

rs o

nly

on

term

s le

ss fa

vour

able

than

tho

se w

hich

it g

ives

to it

s o

wn

serv

ices

, inf

ring

es A

rtic

le 8

6 if

the

oth

er c

ond

itio

ns o

f tha

t Art

icle

ar

e m

et.



Appendix 6: Summary of stakeholder feedback from the OECS–Commonwealth Secretariat Stakeholder Consultation on Electronic Commerce ReadinessThis appendix presents the unadjusted feedback of OECS member state breakout groups at the OECS–Commonwealth Secretariat Stakeholder Consultation on Electronic Commerce Readiness, held via Zoom on 8 June 2021. The feedback of stakeholders was invited in relation to the priority gap areas derived from the A-Z Gap Index (AZGI) and informs the Strategic Framework Matrix for Enhancing OECS E-Commerce Readiness and Development.

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDACapacity building/training & stakeholder engagement

Status:

• Capacity building, training and stakeholder engagement have not been prioritised by the government, there is no structured programme targeting business community.

• 76% of AB population are internet users but more awareness is needed to promote uptake of e-commerce.

Recommendation:

• Increased effort to build citizen-readiness in schools via curriculum, bridging digital divide – reduced tax/duties for importation of ICT equipment;

• Awareness-building to promote uptake of e-commerce.

• Private sector drives economy, so it would be helpful to have more discussion with the government about what the private sector needs.

Transportation & Logistics

Status:

• Imposition of Covid-19 as lockdown/curfew has precipitated greater development of in-bound courier services, online ordering of goods (food, household items), services (messengers/facilitating timely delivery, and improving logistics of Antigua and Barbuda to the OECS.

• There has been significant increase in cost of shipping costs regionally and international.

Recommendations:

• Need climate friendly options/new solutions.

• Transportation of goods/people between Antigua and Barbuda and between AB and the wider OECS is a serious challenge; Antigua was an air hub for the OECS, but since C19 pandemic, LIAT bankruptcy/restructuring, flights have been severely reduced, and there are fewer transport options by air and sea.

Payments Infrastructure

Status:

• Payments Infrastructure (PI) – national level (critical) – C19 has clearly illustrated that the various OECS countries have different needs/responses vis a vis facilitating business/e-commerce, while Antigua and Barbuda is open to regional solutions, the country needs support in the development of indigenous payments infrastructure that will facilitate financial inclusion. Concern: because of C19 lockdown/challenges, many persons are being pushed to the fringes/becoming unbanked.

• As more payment options evolve because of digital transformation we need to ensure that the PI is user-friendly, accessible and relevant.

Recommendations:

• Existing Payments Infrastructure (online banking) ecosystem needs to be more responsive.

• Government urgently needs support to develop/employ Payments Infrastructure to improve service delivery. While some govt agencies/depts are using online platforms provided by local banks, others depts are barely online (at ground zero). In finding solutions, we must consider how best to deal with conflicting priorities and competing needs. (Analogy of building a house, laying the foundation the same time while trying to build the rest of the house). A&B needs a comprehensive e-government strategy and action plan.

• Government and private sector need dialogue/exchange – to address specific issues regarding payments infrastructure that are affecting private sector – payments


Appendices \ 179

infrastructure, cybersecurity, data management, high cost for ICT services.

• Need more public awareness, targeted engagement/dialogue with stakeholders – e.g., private sector, (finance, tourism, logistics, SMEs), youth/education sector, law enforcement/justice sector, older citizens.

DOMINICACapacity Building and Training

Status:

• Policy makers have an inadequate understanding of the linkages between the different components of the e-commerce ecosystem and the different legislative packets which are required to fully enable this system. As a result, attention has not been paid to the development of laws in relation to computer related crime and data protection.

• Consumer and other stakeholders have inadequate knowledge about the role of the Ministry with responsibility for the digital economy and the policies and programmes in place to support e-commerce.

Recommendations:

• Build legislative capacity in relation to all components of the enabling legislative environment for e-commerce.

• Implement training programmes to enhance consumer knowledge of e-commerce regulatory systems, technological requirements and business support services.

Transportation and Logistics

Status:

• Dominica has significant challenges relating to transportation and logistics owing to limited capability of the local postal service and the high fees associated with the use of international courier services such as FedEx and DHL. Efforts to facilitate enhanced customs clearance services have not yet materialized.

• Import taxes and import costs are generally too high

Recommendations:

• Develop logistics /transportation linkages between the OECS States and the US territories

in order to obtain on-ramp into the US postal system.

• Supported by international and regional partners, the Government of Dominica should strengthen its efforts to implement the commitments in the TFA.

Financial Infrastructure and Solutions

Status:

• There is sufficient infrastructure within the local banking system but payment solutions have not been sufficiently tailored to the needs of SMEs.

Recommendations:

• Fintech solutions targeted at SMEs need to be promoted.

• Based upon an appropriate risk assessment, regulatory systems and private financial networks need to adopt regulatory models that appropriately differentiate the specific circumstances of SMEs in Dominica from other larger entities.

Trade Promotion

Status:

• Some SMEs are not fully aware of the opportunities available to them in ecommerce. Other SMEs with a deeper level of understanding of market opportunities are handicapped by the lack of a comprehensive national /regional e-commerce linked trade promotion strategy.

Recommendations:

• A comprehensive national /regional e-commerce linked trade promotion strategy should Be developed.

Trade Facilitation

Status:

• There has been inadequate implementation of customs modernization processes and commitments in the TFA.

Recommendations:

• Supported by international and regional partners, the Government of Dominica should strengthen its efforts to implement the commitments in the TFA.



GRENADACapacity Building and Training

Status:

• Limited capacity of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in e-commerce, understanding trade data and market research.

• Grenadians generally prefer cash and most potential ecommerce users will be unaware of the benefits of ecommerce.

Recommendations:

• To build trust in ecommerce, consumers need to be educated about the benefits of a using online payment systems. They also need to be provided with assurances of safety from fraud and identity theft etc. This awareness programme could be actioned by the Ministry of Trade and its agencies.

• Training on ITC’s Trade Map would also be helpful for SMEs.

• Despite challenges, Grenada has some emerging ecommerce best practices from which lessons can be learnt. Two food apps – Carib-Bites and Yo-go demonstrate that Food apps are viable and can do very well. The target market for these two apps is instructive - a younger demographic (who are likely more able to adapt to technologies despite hurdles.


Status:

• Grenada’s position as the furthest and southernmost island in the OECS union adds to its geographic isolation (relative to the other Member States) and places it as a competitive disadvantage with respect to physically moving goods.

• There is difficulty in moving goods regionally because of lack of reliable and transportation. The problems exist on several fronts - distance, timeliness from and time required for consignments to reach other OECS and CARICOM markets are generally longer than the time taken to complete cross border consignments to third country markets like USA via the entry port of Miami.

Cross border products with potential for Grenadian ecommerce entrepreneurs

eg, agro-processed items produced by cooperatives, face logistics and transport hurdles, but also problems with organizing and aggregating at the local level.

One big exception is the lucrative fishing sector, which is well organized and has developed its own systems and procedures to ensure fast and frequent delivery to export markets.

• Import taxes and import costs are generally too high

Recommendations:

• Intra-regional solutions are needed to address logistics as it affects costs. There is a role for the OECS, and CARICOM but as well for the Caribbean Postal Union with respect to the movement of small parcels and consignments.

• The achievements of ecommerce players in the fishing sector should be examined for relevant application to other sectors.

Financial Infrastructure and Solutions

Status:

• The banking system is not geared to deal with SMEs involved in or those who have an interest in ecommerce. Limited banking hours, lack of access to finance to realize business propositions are some of the problems faced by SMEs.

Recommendations:

• Banking hours need to be more business-friendly

• Ecommerce businesses need to be recognized as viable business propositions and suitable access to finance solutions should be considered for the sector.

Trade Promotion

Status:

• SMEs are not fully aware of the opportunities available to them in ecommerce.

Recommendations:

• A Small Business Policy is needed which could advise SMEs on how to navigate various bottlenecks related to ecommerce. This is a role suited to the Ministry of Trade.


Appendices \ 181

Trade Facilitation

Status:

• Trade Facilitation consultations were started pre-pandemic and should continue.

Recommendations:

• There should be consultations with Compete Caribbean which is doing work in this area

ST KITTS NEVISData Protection, Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity

Status:

• The group is not aware of specific policies or regulations in place for data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity.

• It is not clear what recourse there would be for clients in case of a breach on an institution’s server.

• There is conversation on data protection, but it is unclear if there are concrete activities are happening. There is need for more work.

• The Telecommunications Act of 2000 was replaced by a Bill, which will aim to tackle some of the issues. Things are on the way for greater digitisation in the Federation.

• Data Protection Act 2018 is in effect.

• Challenge is that information is not readily available,

Recommendation:

• Carry out more public information campaigns data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity.

• Undertake a dedicated programme of work on data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity.

Capacity Building and Training

Status:

• Limited ICT skills training for practical use across the general population.

Recommendations:

• Need an all-inclusive approach across the population, so that, for example, a

grandmother can go online and send a message to grandchildren.

• Need training of parents etc. so they can guide students in home schooling.

• Need affordability of internet.


Status:

• DCash is being rolled out from ECCB. An e-commerce version should be rolled out soon.

• Transactions with PayPal require a 30-day hold on funds before they can be cleared to a local account.

• PayPal says this a country regulation.

• Trade thinks it may be a Financial Sector regulation.

Recommendations:

• Obstacle of a 30-day hold on funds needs to be removed because it slows down trade.

• Explore possibilities for regional or local platforms.


Status:

• Serious talks within region need to be accelerated, as the solutions cannot be carried out at the national level only.

Recommendations:

• Need a variety of transportation options – ferry, air, etc.

Financing Infrastructure and Solutions

Status:

• Ministry of Finance has invested in digital infrastructure.

• Online payment strategy has been budgeted for.

• Digital payment infrastructure project is to be launched.

• SKN has invested in digital infrastructure.

Recommendations:

• Project in collaboration with telecoms – moving to fibre optic cabling to homes because fibre was available 15 years ago.



• MSMEs need a different type of financial support and financial institutions need to be more open to financing MSMEs.

• Financial institutions need to become more accommodating as MSMEs become more creative.

• Project with ECCB and Germans to understand MSME financing and financial innovation. This ties in with capacity building component.

Trade Promotion

Status:

• Some MSMEs have already enjoyed benefits of online trading.

• SKN is not on OECD list.

• Limited entrepreneurial and market research mindset in Saint Kitts Nevis. Need a shift in thinking for our businesses. The Ministry of Education has started initiatives in the schools to influence mindsets early and there is potential use this channel.

• Limited accessibility of information on basic rates such as internet rates, electricity rates, etc

• Junior Achievement Programme – this was vibrant in in SKN for years – it encouraged business development in secondary schools. Unfortunately, it fell under financial stress and was not pushed to the extent required.

Recommendations:

• Increase sensitisation of MSMEs of opportunities for e-commerce.

• Increase start-up incubation and accelerator programmes to encourage people not only to use, but also to launch e-commerce initiatives.

• Development of a curriculum needs to shape the mindset towards entrepreneurship in SKN.

• Extend the existing Innovation Centre to the community level.

• Increase market intelligence and market research including on basic rates such as internet rates, electricity rates.

• Provide a financial package for MSMEs

• Encourage new types of partnership by setting up a co-ordination unit to facilitate these types of partnerships.

• Create a mechanism to encourage Public-Private Partnerships, e.g., to get youngsters into Robotics.

Investment

Status:

• FDI: does not target MSMEs

Recommendation:

• Develop linkages between FDI and encouraging MSME development.

Industry Best Practice

Recommendations

• Need to adopt an Open Data Framework.

• Persons need to access to data that they are going to use to develop business.

• Public sector data needs to be more accessible.

• Sometimes data is available, but it is fragmented and not easily accessible and in a single information source. Needs to be more seamless.

• Needs to harmonise standards for sharing data.

• This requires a Data Governance Framework – accuracy of data, etc.

• Need an inter-operable framework for payments – so services such as DCash should be inter-operable to facilitate open payments.


Status:

• Private sector must be kept abreast of what is happening.

• Stakeholder consultation is conducted by Government, but it could be more strategic and structured.

• Attempts have been made to have more regular consultations.

Recommendations:

• There needs to be buy-in from above, so that work of technocrats results in actions.


Appendices \ 183

• Competitiveness Council network should be established to filter information.

• It is not a lack of engagement opportunities, but the problem is that stakeholders often do not hear of or see any results from their suggestions/inputs. More communication with general public to let them know that something is coming from consultations.

• We need more success stories told by people who have benefitted from consultations, etc.

Advocacy (Administrative, e.g., business lobby; Political, e.g., passing legislation)

Status:

• Legislation may be passed but regulations not implemented.

Recommendation:

• Advocate for regulations.

SAINT LUCIADigital (ICT) Education

Status:

• Too much money and time spent on educating and training endusers who are not in a position to take advantage of the training.

• Caribbean people have no problem with digital tech when travelling to the UK or USA; why would they have a problem with tech in the Caribbean? – It is businesses that have not deployed digital tech widely.

Recommendations:

• Training would be better targeted to those who really need it, including business leaders to help in the digital transformation of their business.

• Work with businesses to digitalise, rather than too much training should be considered.

Procurement – RFPs

Status:

• RFPs [requests for proposals] tend to exclude local businesses and often preclude local consortiums (through non-subcontracting clauses).

Recommendations:

• Write requests for proposals (RFPs) that better align to the reality of the terrain; for example,

taking into account MSMEs rather than large organisations.

• Encourage lobbying of governments and commissions.

Regional co-operation

Status:

• ICT Associations or Digital Start-up Groups tend to keep to themselves.

• Too many generalists and not enough specialists (that collaborate) to make us world-class in competition with the Cap Gemini’s etc.

Recommendation:

• Encourage cross-pollination and collaboration between all in the OECS and wider afield should be a policy.

Practical steps

• On the ground support to push digitalisation adoption by small businesses.

• On the ground support to structure businesses with digital tech.

• Better legislation regarding online payments.

• Better integration through the Single ICT Space (promised but still not delivered).

• Better legislation and tariff structuring, allowing free movement of goods and services.

• Clarification and simplification of tax on digital goods.

ST VINCENT AND GRENADINESSTATUS

Cross-cutting

Status:

• Everything is taking too long.

• There are at least 7-10 outstanding pieces of regulation that must be proclaimed (including some that impact e-readiness)

Recommendation:

• Proclaim outstanding pieces of regulation that must be proclaimed (including some that impact e-readiness). Advocacy by the Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders [is] required to advance regulatory adoption.



Finance, Infrastructure and Solutions

Recommendation:

• Government should use fiscal incentives to encourage business adoption of digital transactions.

Payments, Infrastructure and Solutions

Status:

• The local payment gateway has worked through the bank, but the bank has recently closed that service, therefore limiting the ability to accept international payments (only local). The anti-money laundering regulations limit the banks, and it is not clear how to work around this issue because necessary players are being blocked. The regulations are challenging and appear to make it harder for developing countries than developed ones.

• The ECCB has the clearing house incorporated and [an] automated harmonised system for clearing checks.

Recommendations:

• Verify the implementation of a regional clearing house is an initiative of the ECCB. OECS harmonisation of regulation is another area to be advanced and this could help.

• Solve the differences in Prudential regulations for banks and non-bank financial institutions that limit access to payment and clearance systems.

• Public Education of the values of e-commerce and the relative cost of managing cash, e.g., risk and security, accounting systems.

Transport and Logistics

Status:

• Shipping costs and logistics – B2B and B2C transactions are very constrained by the closure of the post office and LIAT. DHL is costly, especially when the goods are not luxury items, and all costs cannot be directly passed on to the consumer. Wholesale shipments may be more feasible. The handicraft sector has been especially hard hit, because the decline in tourism limits on-island purchases and craft providers are not able to fulfil demand. Not ranked highly enough in findings.

• Swift Pack is a promising service provider.

• SVG is relatively uncompetitive, and trade is generally being negatively affected over time.

• All the groundwork for free circulation in the OECS has been done; therefore, this is ready to go, and no new initiative need, just implementation. Not clear that the issues are. (Maybe revenue implications for some agencies, SPS other border issues, mindset).

Recommendations:

• OECS should move speedily to the Customs Single Window (initiative going on over five years).

• Explore and incentivise specialised logistics and delivery services that pool the private sector and small businesses.

• Explore increased used of wholesale shipments and services such as SwiftPac, which may be more feasible.

• Implement free circulation in the OECS.

• Administrators of this project should link with the trade facilitation project, because e-commerce is trade. Trade facilitation is a precondition for e-commerce.

Summary matrix

The following table reflects the recommendations, by OECS member states, made in the virtual consultation in relation to priority gap areas derived from the survey findings and AZGI (A-Z Gap Index). The recommendations are non-exhaustive, based on time constraints of the virtual consultations. However, they provide useful direction for OECS member state priorities at the national level, and programme scheduling with development partners. The level of detail by each OECS state varies and this indicative listing could form the basis for further consultations in the areas of:

• Data protection, consumer protection and cybersecurity

• Capacity building and training

• Payment infrastructure and solutions

• Finance, infrastructure and solutions

• Transport and Logistics

• Trade promotion

• Stakeholder engagement

• Advocacy

• Trade facilitation


Appendices \ 185

Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

–2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

DAT

A P

RO

TEC

TIO

N, C

ON

SU

MER

PR

OT

ECT

ION

AN

D C

YB

ERS

ECU

RIT

Y

AN

U –

Str

engt

heni

ng re

gula

tory

fram

ewo

rk re

gard

ing

cybe

rsec

urity

, dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n an

d co

n-su

mer

pro

tect

ion.

Pha

se 1

- P

ublic

aw

aren

ess

on

cybe

rsec

urity

, dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n, c

ons

umer

pro

tect

ion

(link

ed to

pro

-m

otio

n o

f pay

men

ts in

fras

truc

ture

[PI]

onl

ine)

. Thi

s co

uld

take

the

form

of a

‘kno

w y

our

dig

ital

right

s’ c

ampa

ign.

Pha

se 2

- S

uppo

rt c

ont

inue

d de

velo

pmen

t of l

egis

latio

n/po

licy

re: c

yber

secu

rity,

dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n an

d co

nsum

er p

rote

ctio

n (n

atio

nal le

vel).

Pha

se 3

- S

uppo

rt c

ont

inue

d de

velo

pmen

t of l

egis

latio

n/po

licy

re: c

yber

secu

rity,

dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n an

d co

nsum

er p

rote

ctio

n (O

ECS

leve

l) –

focu

s o

n ha

rmo

nisa

tion.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

DM

A-

Pha

se 1

- D

eepe

n pu

blic

aw

aren

ess

on

cybe

rsec

urity

, and

dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n.

Pha

se 2

- S

uppo

rt c

ont

inue

d de

velo

pmen

t of l

egis

latio

n/po

licy

re: c

yber

secu

rity

and

data

pro

tect

ion.

Supp

ort

co

ntin

ued

deve

lopm

ent o

f leg

isla

tion/

polic

y re

: cyb

erse

curit

y an

d da

ta p

rote

ctio

n.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 1

GR

D –

Dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n.-

X

SK

N –

Aw

aren

ess

build

ing/

stak

eho

lder

eng

agem

ent c

halle

nge

is th

at in

form

atio

n is

no

t rea

dily

av

aila

ble,

so

mo

re p

ublic

info

rmat

ion

cam

paig

ns a

re re

quire

d to

mak

e pe

opl

e m

ore

aw

are

of s

pe-

cific

po

licie

s o

r reg

ulat

ions

in p

lace

.

XX

CA

PAC

ITY

BU

ILD

ING

AN

D T

RA

ININ

G

AN

U –

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g in

e-g

ove

rnm

ent.

Pha

se 1

- C

ond

uct n

eeds

ana

lysi

s ac

ross

go

vern

men

t min

istr

ies,

dep

artm

ents

and

age

ncie

s re

gard

ing

e-go

vern

men

t.

Pha

se 2

- S

uppo

rt d

evel

opm

ent o

f co

mpr

ehen

sive

e-g

ove

rnm

ent s

trat

egy

and

actio

n pl

an.

Pha

se 3

- O

ngo

ing

trai

ning

and

cap

acity

dev

elo

pmen

t in

spec

ific

org

anis

atio

ns, a

ddre

ssin

g sp

e-ci

fic a

reas

/nee

ds.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

DM

A-

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g (le

gisl

ativ

e ca

paci

ty a

nd d

eepe

ning

sta

keho

lder

kno

wle

dge

of t

he e

-co

m-

mer

ce e

cosy

stem

, its

inte

r-lin

ked

com

pone

nts

and

opp

ort

uniti

es p

rese

nted

)X

GR

D –

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g (s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

and

nat

iona

l and

regi

ona

l tra

de p

rom

otio

n ag

enci

es).

XX

I

TC T

rade

Map

Tr

aini

ng

GR

D –

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g (e

nd u

sers

).X

X ITC

Tra

de M

ap

Trai

ning

SV

G –

Fis

cal/o

ther

ince

ntiv

es to

enc

our

age

busi

ness

ado

ptio

n o

f dig

ital t

rans

actio

ns a

nd lin

ked

serv

ices

, e.g

., lo

gist

ics.

X 18 M

ont

hs

SK

N –

Citi

zens

’ rea

dine

ss; n

eed

an a

ll-in

clus

ive

appr

oac

h ac

ross

the

popu

latio

n, s

o th

at, f

or e

xam

-pl

e, a

gra

ndm

oth

er c

an g

o o

nlin

e an

d se

nd a

mes

sage

to g

rand

child

ren;

par

ents

can

gui

de s

tu-

dent

s in

ho

me

scho

olin

g.

XX

SK

N –

Nee

d aff

ord

abilit

y o

f int

erne

t.X

X

SK

N –

Cre

ate

a di

ffer

ent t

ype

of fi

nanc

ial s

uppo

rt fo

r MS

MEs

; and

fina

ncia

l inst

itutio

ns s

houl

d be

m

ore

ope

n to

fina

ncin

g M

SM

Es.

XX

X

SK

N -

Exp

and

the

Inno

vatio

n C

entr

e to

mee

t the

nee

ds a

t the

co

mm

unity

leve

l.X

XX

SLU

- O

n th

e gr

oun

d su

ppo

rt to

pus

h di

gita

lisat

ion

ado

ptio

n by

sm

all b

usin

esse

s, a

nd to

str

uctu

re

busi

ness

with

dig

ital t

ech.

XX

SLU

- T

arge

ted

trai

ning

incl

udin

g to

bus

ines

s le

ader

s to

hel

p in

the

digi

tal t

rans

form

atio

n o

f the

ir bu

sine

ss.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

SLU

- S

uppo

rt to

bus

ines

ses

to d

igita

lise

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 187

Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

PAY

MEN

T IN

FRA

STR

UC

TU

RE

AN

D S

OLU

TIO

NS

DM

A-

Pha

se 1

- Su

ppo

rt in

crea

sed

usag

e o

f Fin

tech

Pha

se 2

- Im

plem

ent r

egul

ato

ry p

olic

y co

nsis

tent

with

nee

ds a

nd s

peci

al c

ircum

stan

ces

of S

MEs

Pha

se 3

: Dev

elo

p w

holly

indi

geno

us p

aym

ent i

nfra

stru

ctur

e

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

GR

D -

Cre

ate

a ba

nkin

g po

licy

and

infr

astr

uctu

re w

hich

allo

ws

the

mo

vem

ent o

f fun

ds a

nd fa

cili-

tate

s ec

om

mer

ce. T

he E

aste

rn C

arib

bean

Cen

tral

Ban

k (E

CC

B) h

as a

n im

port

ant r

ole

to p

lay

on

this

issu

e.

X Pha

se 2

SK

N –

The

obs

tacl

e o

f a P

ayP

al 3

0-da

y ho

ld b

efo

re fu

nds

can

be c

lear

ed to

a lo

cal a

cco

unt n

eeds

to

be

rem

ove

d, b

ecau

se it

slo

ws

dow

n tr

ade.

X

SK

N –

Fin

anci

al in

stitu

tions

nee

d to

bec

om

e m

ore

resp

ons

ive

as M

SM

Es b

eco

me

mo

re c

reat

ive.

X

SLU

– B

ette

r leg

isla

tion

rega

rdin

g o

nlin

e pa

ymen

ts.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

TR

AN

SPO

RT

AN

D L

OG

IST

ICS

AN

U –

Tra

nspo

rt &

logi

stic

s: n

eed

new

trad

e ro

utes

.

Pha

se 1

- E

xplo

re n

ew tr

ansp

ort

atio

n an

d lo

gist

ics

opt

ions

– ‘E

xpre

ss d

es Il

es’ F

erry

co

uld

link

Ant

igua

to F

renc

h Is

land

s, D

om

inic

a &

Sai

nt L

ucia

.

Pha

se 2

- S

uppo

rt to

mak

e in

ter-

OEC

S tr

ansp

ort

atio

n an

d lo

gist

ics

mo

re v

iabl

e.

Pha

se 3

– e

nsur

e th

at tr

ansp

ort

atio

n an

d lo

gist

ics

solu

tions

that

are

ado

pted

are

clim

ate

frie

ndly

: i.e

., ze

ro o

r low

C02

em

issi

ons

.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

DM

A-P

hase

1-

Incr

ease

cap

acity

of l

oca

l po

stal

ser

vice

and

furt

her i

mpl

emen

tatio

n o

f cus

tom

s m

ode

rnis

atio

n pr

oce

sses

.

Pha

se 2

- C

reat

e pa

rtne

rshi

ps w

ith in

tern

atio

nal c

our

ier c

om

pani

es

Pha

se 3

- Im

plem

ent r

egio

nal lo

gist

ics

solu

tions

bas

ed u

pon

part

ners

hips

bet

wee

n O

ECS

Sta

tes

and

oth

er te

rrito

ries.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

GR

D –

Dev

elo

p an

d im

plem

ent I

ntra

-reg

iona

l so

lutio

ns th

at a

ddre

ss lo

gist

ics

sinc

e th

is a

ffec

ts

tran

spo

rtat

ion

and

logi

stic

s co

sts

for M

embe

r Sta

tes

like

Gre

nada

that

are

furt

hest

so

uth.

The

O

ECS,

CA

RIC

OM

and

the

Car

ibbe

an P

ost

al U

nio

n ha

ve a

role

to p

lay

in a

ddre

ssin

g th

is p

robl

em.

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

GR

D -

The

ach

ieve

men

ts o

f eco

mm

erce

pla

yers

in th

e fis

hing

sec

tor s

houl

d be

stu

dies

for r

el-

evan

t app

licat

ion

to o

ther

sec

tors

.X P

hase

1

SK

N –

Acc

eler

ate

serio

us ta

lks

with

in re

gio

n as

the

solu

tion

cann

ot b

e eff

ecte

d na

tiona

lly.

XX

X

SK

N –

Cre

ate

a va

riety

of t

rans

port

atio

n o

ptio

ns –

ferr

y, a

ir, e

tc.

XX

X

SV

G –

Exp

ande

d us

e/im

plem

enta

tion

of a

regi

ona

l cle

arin

g ho

use

to in

clud

e no

n-ba

nk fi

nanc

ial

inst

itutio

ns a

nd m

ore

co

mm

erci

al b

anks

; enh

ance

d le

gisl

ativ

e fr

amew

ork

.X (1

8 m

ont

hs to

two

ye

ars,

with

pro

-gr

essi

ve w

ins)

FIN

AN

CE,

INFR

AST

RU

CT

UR

E A

ND

SO

LUT

ION

S

AN

U –

Dev

elo

pmen

t of i

ndig

eno

us p

aym

ent s

olu

tions

(PI)

at th

e na

tiona

l leve

l, an

d at

the

OEC

S

leve

l to

faci

litat

e cr

oss

-bo

rder

trad

e.

Pha

se 1

- S

tren

gthe

n ex

istin

g P

I, i.e

., o

nlin

e ba

nkin

g pl

atfo

rms.

Pha

se 2

- S

uppo

rt d

evel

opm

ent o

f new

PI o

ptio

ns –

e.g

., sp

ecifi

c to

go

vern

men

t, p

rivat

e se

cto

r.

Pha

se 3

- C

ont

inue

regu

lato

ry re

form

to e

nsur

e th

at la

ws/

polic

ies

keep

pac

e w

ith in

nova

tion

and

mar

ket d

evel

opm

ents

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 189

Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

DM

A-

Pha

se 1

- Su

ppo

rt in

crea

sed

usag

e o

f Fin

tech

Pha

se 2

- Im

plem

ent r

egul

ato

ry p

olic

y co

nsis

tent

with

nee

ds a

nd s

peci

al c

ircum

stan

ces

of S

MEs

Pha

se 3

: Dev

elo

p w

holly

indi

geno

us p

aym

ent i

nfra

stru

ctur

e

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 1

GR

D –

Est

ablis

h re

vise

d ba

nkin

g ho

urs

that

are

mo

re b

usin

ess

frie

ndly

to S

MEs

. Sim

ilarly

, mak

e av

aila

ble

mo

re fi

nanc

ial p

rodu

cts

to e

com

mer

ce e

ntre

pren

eurs

.X (6

–9 m

ont

hs)

X Pha

se 2

TR

AD

E PR

OM

OT

ION

DM

A-

Dev

elo

p an

d im

plem

ent a

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Po

licy

whi

ch in

clud

es a

dvic

e to

SM

Es o

n ho

w to

m

arke

t pro

duct

s an

d pe

netr

ate

loca

l, re

gio

nal a

nd in

tern

atio

nal m

arke

ts.

X

GR

D –

Dev

elo

p an

d im

plem

ent a

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Po

licy

whi

ch in

clud

es a

dvic

e to

SM

Es o

n ho

w to

na

viga

te v

ario

us b

ott

lene

cks

rela

ted

to e

com

mer

ce. T

his

is a

role

sui

ted

to th

e M

inis

try

of T

rade

.X P

hase

1

X Pha

se 2

SK

N -

Mar

ket i

ntel

ligen

ce a

nd m

arke

t res

earc

h, e

.g.,

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on

cert

ain

basi

c ra

tes,

su

ch a

s in

tern

et ra

tes,

ele

ctric

ity ra

tes,

etc

.X

SK

N -

Priv

ate

sect

or n

eeds

to d

evel

op

min

dset

of m

arke

t res

earc

h.X

X

SK

N -

Shi

ft in

min

dset

of b

usin

ess,

yo

uth

and

oth

er s

take

hold

ers

tow

ards

ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p in

S

KN

. A c

urric

ulum

nee

ds to

be

deve

lope

d fo

r fac

ilitat

e th

is. T

he M

inis

try

of E

duca

tion

has

star

ted

initi

ativ

es in

the

scho

ols

to in

fluen

ce m

inds

ets

early

. (A

lso,

pub

lic a

war

enes

s bu

ildin

g).

XX

SK

N -

Sen

sitis

atio

n o

f MS

MEs

mus

t be

incr

ease

d in

term

s o

f opp

ort

uniti

es fo

r e-c

om

mer

ce.

XX

SK

N -

Mo

re s

tart

-up

incu

batio

n an

d ac

cele

rato

r pro

gram

mes

– w

e ar

e en

cour

agin

g pe

opl

e to

no

t o

nly

use,

but

als

o to

laun

ch e

-co

mm

erce

initi

ativ

es.

XX

X

(Con

tinue

d)



Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

SK

N -

Enc

our

age

busi

ness

dev

elo

pmen

t in

seco

ndar

y sc

hoo

ls, e

.g.,

thro

ugh

rein

tro

duct

ion

of

Juni

or A

chie

vem

ent P

rogr

amm

e.X

XX

SK

N -

Enc

our

age

new

type

s o

f par

tner

ship

s th

roug

h a

co-o

rdin

atio

n un

it, o

r oth

er m

echa

nism

, to

fa

cilit

ate

part

ners

hips

, inc

ludi

ng p

ublic

–priv

ate

part

ners

hips

, to

get

yo

uth

into

robo

tics

and

oth

er

ICT-

enab

led

activ

ities

.

X

STA

KEH

OLD

ER E

NG

AG

EMEN

T

AN

U –

Pub

lic a

war

enes

s to

pro

mo

te u

se o

f PI a

nd e

-co

mm

erce

ado

ptio

n (b

ehav

iour

cha

nge

com

-m

unic

atio

n).

Pha

se 1

- P

ublic

aw

aren

ess

to p

rom

ote

use

of P

I, w

hile

edu

catin

g pu

blic

abo

ut c

yber

secu

rity,

dat

a pr

ote

ctio

n, c

ons

umer

pro

tect

ion.

Pha

se 2

- O

ngo

ing

educ

atio

n ab

out

PI,

and

rela

ted

issu

es –

targ

eted

pro

gram

mes

in s

cho

ols

, th

roug

h ch

ambe

r of c

om

mer

ce/p

rivat

e se

cto

r org

anis

atio

ns, t

he m

edia

.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

SV

G –

Sta

keho

lder

eng

agem

ent.

Pub

lic e

duca

tion

on

the

valu

es o

f e-c

om

mer

ce a

nd th

e re

lativ

e co

st o

f man

agin

g ca

sh.

X (Now

)

AD

VO

CA

CY

AN

U –

Adv

oca

te fo

r bet

ter I

CT

dat

a ra

tes

fro

m IS

Ps.

Pha

se 1

- A

dvo

cate

for i

mpr

ove

d IC

T in

fras

truc

ture

dev

elo

pmen

t and

mo

re c

om

petit

ive

data

ra

tes

fro

m IS

Ps,

at n

atio

nal le

vel.

Pha

se 2

- A

dvo

cate

for i

mpr

ove

d IC

T in

fras

truc

ture

dev

elo

pmen

t and

mo

re c

om

petit

ive

data

ra

tes

fro

m IS

Ps,

at O

ECS

and

CA

RIC

OM

leve

ls.

Pha

se 3

- A

dvo

cate

for i

mpr

ove

d IC

T in

fras

truc

ture

dev

elo

pmen

t and

mo

re c

om

petit

ive

data

ra

tes

fro

m IS

Ps,

at O

ECS

and

CA

RIC

OM

leve

ls.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

(Con

tinue

d)


Appendices \ 191

Tabl

e A

5. C

oun

try

Repo

rts

of P

rio

rity

Act

ions

fro

m S

take

hold

er C

ons

ulta

tio

ns (C

onti

nued

)

Hig

h-pr

iori

ty e

-rea

dine

ss g

aps

Sho

rt te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

1 y

ear)

Med

ium

term

ac

tio

n (1

-2 y

ears

)Lo

ng te

rm a

ctio

n (U

p to

5 y

ears

)

DM

A –

Pha

se 1

- A

dvo

cate

for i

mpr

ove

d re

gula

tory

fram

ewo

rks.

Pha

se 2

- A

dvo

cate

for i

mpr

ove

d IC

T a

nd p

aym

ent r

elat

ed in

fras

truc

ture

.

Pha

se 3

- A

dvo

cate

for c

ont

inui

ng m

arke

t dev

elo

pmen

t sup

port

for S

MEs

to m

eet n

ew c

halle

nges

an

d ta

ke a

dvan

tage

of n

ew o

ppo

rtun

ities

as

they

aris

e.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

GR

D –

Adv

oca

cy.

X

SK

N –

Reg

ulat

ions

: the

re is

a n

eed

for a

dvo

cacy

in th

is a

rea.

Leg

isla

tion

may

be

pass

ed, b

ut re

gu-

latio

ns n

ot i

mpl

emen

ted.

X

SLU

- B

ette

r int

egra

tion

thro

ugh

the

Sin

gle

ICT

Spa

ceX P

hase

1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

SV

G –

Pro

clai

m a

t lea

st 7

–10

out

stan

ding

pie

ces

of r

egul

atio

n th

at a

re a

lread

y de

velo

ped.

X

TR

AD

E FA

CIL

ITAT

ION

DM

A-

Pro

vide

sup

port

for c

usto

ms

mo

dern

isat

ion

pro

cess

es a

nd th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he T

FA

com

mitm

ents

.X

XX

GR

D –

Co

ntin

ue s

take

hold

er c

ons

ulta

tions

on

trad

e fa

cilit

atio

n m

easu

res

incl

udin

g th

e ad

opt

ion

of S

ingl

e W

indo

ws

and

oth

er e

com

mer

ce-f

riend

ly m

easu

res.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

X Pha

se 3

SLU

- B

ette

r leg

isla

tion

and

tariff

str

uctu

ring,

allo

win

g fr

ee m

ove

men

t of g

oo

ds a

nd

serv

ices

.Cla

rifica

tion

and

sim

plifi

catio

n o

f tax

on

digi

tal g

oo

ds.

X Pha

se 1

X Pha

se 2

SV

G –

Nee

d fr

ee c

ircul

atio

n o

f go

ods

and

ser

vice

s in

the

OEC

S, to

giv

e eff

ect t

o th

e Tr

eaty

of

Bas

sete

rre

and

Trea

ty o

f Cha

guar

amas

tow

ards

regi

ona

l inte

grat

ion

and

seam

less

trad

e.X



Appendix 7: Statistics on selected commercial banks and credit unions

Commercial banks statistics

Territories 2018 EC$000

2019 EC$000

Antigua and Barbuda

Total capital & reserves 475,668 465,711

Total deposits 3,935,966 3,993,358

Total assets 6,779,071 5,610,337

Dominica


Total deposits 2,051,729 1,866,491

Total assets 2,366,329 2,111,115

Grenada


Total deposits 3,095,824 3,202,883

Total assets 3,558,391 3,708,615

St Kitts and Nevis


Total deposits 4,574,635 4,626,191

Total assets 7,613,248 6,803,718

Saint Lucia


Total deposits 4,273,005 4,348,857

Total assets 6,274,492 6,400,504



Total deposits 1,767,835 1,921,278

Total assets 2,201.078 2,250,808

Source: ECCB statistics – ECCB Website.


Appendices \ 193

Credit union statistics

Territories 2018 2019

Antigua and Barbuda

Number of credit unions 6 6

Membership 40,234 43,467

Total savings (deposits & shares) USD$105,798,108 USD$123,322,402

Total assets USD$125,547,898 USD$146,549,724

Dominica




Total assets USD$398,685,134 USD$331,825.969

Grenada





St Kitts and Nevis





Saint Lucia










Source: Caribbean Confederation of Credit Unions (CCCU) website.


Commonwealth Secretariat

Marlborough House, Pall MallLondon SW1Y 5HXUnited Kingdom

thecommonwealth.org

assessment of digital trade and e-commerce readiness and

Documents