Van der Sluijs-Plantz at IPKO: Reform cooperation shows results, but progress remains vulnerable

THE HAGUE--Chairwoman of the Evaluation Committee for the Mutual Arrangement for Cooperation on Reforms, Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz, told IPKO on Saturday that reform cooperation between the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten has produced concrete results, but remains vulnerable because progress depends heavily on capacity, continuity, political commitment, public support and administrative direction.

Van der Sluijs-Plantz delivered her presentation during Saturday’s panel discussion on the main IPKO theme, “Cooperation within IPKO and within the Kingdom.” The panel formed part of the broader Interparliamentary Kingdom Consultation, where delegations from St. Maarten, Aruba, Curaçao and the Netherlands examined what is needed to improve cooperation within the Kingdom.

Speaking as independent chairwoman of the Evaluation Committee, Van der Sluijs-Plantz presented the committee’s findings on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Mutual Arrangement for Cooperation on Reforms in Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. The evaluation also examined lessons that could guide future cooperation within the Kingdom.

The committee consisted of one member from each country: Angel Bermudez for Aruba, Francis Delannoy for Curaçao, Franklyn Richards for St. Maarten and Cees Slager for the Netherlands. Van der Sluijs-Plantz served as independent chairwoman and was supported by Steven Boekhoudt, who served as secretary.

Van der Sluijs-Plantz explained that the committee’s final report consists of two parts. The first is the committee’s evaluation report, containing findings, judgments and recommendations. The second is a research report prepared by AEF, which was attached as an appendix. The evaluation was based on AEF’s factual research, discussions held by the committee in the countries, the expertise of committee members and information obtained from documentation.

The final report was submitted at the end of March to the State Secretary and the Prime Ministers of the Caribbean countries. It was then submitted in early April to the representative bodies of the countries.

One of the committee’s main findings is that Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten differ significantly in starting position, capacity and context. Van der Sluijs-Plantz summarized that finding by stating that “CAS does not exist,” meaning the three Caribbean countries of the Kingdom should not be treated as one uniform category when it comes to reform, support or cooperation.

The committee also found that the countries face a degree of relative institutional immaturity that is historically explainable. It noted that the cooperation had a difficult start because liquidity support was linked to reforms, causing the process to initially be experienced as something imposed.

Another important finding was that the reform agenda in the country packages is too broad and ambitious in relation to the countries’ ability to absorb and implement the reforms. Van der Sluijs-Plantz said time and capacity are needed if the reforms are to be carried out properly and secured for the long term.

At the same time, the committee identified several elements that are working. The joint structure and reform agenda have provided direction and guidance. Support through the Temporary Work Organization, TWO, has also proven to be of significant value.

According to the committee, cooperation through TWO has produced more than technical assistance. It has also helped build stronger working relationships between TWO staff and the senior civil servants in the countries, while improving trust at the administrative level.

However, the committee also identified a structural tension between the ambition of the reform agenda and the countries’ ability to absorb the work. It concluded that priorities must be set, because many results are still in the implementation phase and have not yet been sustainably secured.

The committee’s general conclusion is that concrete results have been achieved in all countries. However, progress remains fragile and depends strongly on capacity, continuity, political commitment, public support and administrative direction. For that reason, the committee concluded that an extension, as provided for under the Mutual Arrangement, is appropriate.

For Aruba, the committee found that continuation of the Mutual Arrangement is desirable in order to maintain momentum, secure results and further strengthen the mutual trust that has been built. It recommended continuation through April 2029, with a focus on implementation and securing results, while also maintaining support through TWO.

The committee also advised Aruba to use the extension period to explore what cooperation should look like after 2029.

For Curaçao, the committee said the country must first create internal and external clarity about its own political and administrative commitment, ownership, priorities and direction. Only once that commitment is demonstrated, the committee said, would a discussion on continuation be appropriate.

The committee recommended that Curaçao focus in the remaining year on a limited number of priorities, strengthen administrative direction and first create internal clarity and commitment before engaging the Netherlands, no later than the second quarter.

For St. Maarten, the committee concluded that continuation of the Mutual Arrangement is necessary in order to help the country get its institutional basis in order as much as possible and to further strengthen the mutual trust that has been built.

The committee recommended that the Mutual Arrangement be extended for St. Maarten by two years. It further recommended that the focus during that period should be on getting the institutional “basis op orde,” maintaining support through TWO and ensuring that St. Maarten takes an active role in discussions on cooperation after 2029.

For the Netherlands, the committee said quick clarity on the continuation of the Mutual Arrangement is important in order to achieve impact. It recommended that the Netherlands provide clarity in the short term on the future of the arrangement, continue along the lines of the country-specific recommendations, maintain capacity and expertise through TWO, and conduct focused administrative discussions on Kingdom cooperation after the next phase, beyond 2029.

‍