Van der Sluijs-Plantz: St. Maarten has too many institutions, too little capacity

THE HAGUE--St. Maarten has too many institutions for the size of the country and too little capacity to properly staff and operate them. That was one of the clearest observations made by Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz, Chairwoman of the Evaluation Committee for the Mutual Arrangement for Cooperation on Reforms, during IPKO, as she explained why Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten cannot be treated as one uniform “CAS” category.

She said St. Maarten was organized according to models based on the Netherlands or the former Netherlands Antilles. The result, according to Van der Sluijs-Plantz, is a small country carrying an institutional structure that is too large for its available capacity. She described St. Maarten as a small country with an oversized administrative structure and said the country does not have enough capacity to properly fill and operate all of the functions required by that model.

Van der Sluijs-Plantz made the remarks in response to a question from Curaçao MP Giselle Mc William of MAN, who asked her to explain, based on the committee’s evaluation, why the term “CAS” does not accurately reflect the realities of the three Caribbean countries of the Kingdom. Mc William said she was pleased to hear Van der Sluijs-Plantz state that “CAS does not exist,” adding that the term irritates her when it is used by the Dutch side and even by politicians from the islands themselves.

Mc William asked Van der Sluijs-Plantz to provide examples from the evaluation work to show why Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten should not be treated as one bloc. She said the countries in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom should be approached according to their own specific needs, rather than placed under a label that suggests they are administratively or institutionally the same.

Using St. Maarten as one of the clearest examples, Van der Sluijs-Plantz said the country’s institutional setup does not match its size, scale and available capacity. She referred to the constitutional transition of October 10, 2010, and recalled meeting a St. Maarten politician at Schiphol after a roundtable conference who told her: “Maria, we fell in love with a date, but we are not ready.”

Van der Sluijs-Plantz said that statement remains highly relevant to understanding St. Maarten’s institutional position today. She explained that if St. Maarten were being designed from a blank slate, it would probably be structured differently.

Her comments place St. Maarten’s current reform and governance challenges in a broader historical and structural context. The issue, as she explained it, is not only whether St. Maarten wants to reform or whether reforms are important. It is also whether the country has the institutional foundation, staffing, expertise and administrative space to carry the full weight of the structures and responsibilities placed on it after 10-10-10.

The Evaluation Committee’s presentation to IPKO supports this point. It found that Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten differ fundamentally in starting position, capacity and context, summarized by the committee as: “CAS bestaat niet,” meaning “CAS does not exist.” The presentation also stated that there is relative institutional immaturity that is historically explainable, and that the reform agenda in the country packages is too ambitious and broad in relation to the countries’ ability to absorb and implement the reforms.

The committee further noted that the cooperation under the Mutual Arrangement had a difficult start because liquidity support was linked to reforms. As a result, the reform process was initially experienced as something imposed. At the same time, the committee found that the joint structure and agenda have provided direction, that support through the Temporary Work Organization, TWO, has added significant value, and that trust has improved at the administrative level.

For St. Maarten specifically, the committee concluded that continuation of the Mutual Arrangement is necessary to help get the institutional basis in order and to further strengthen the mutual trust that has been built. The committee recommended a two-year extension for St. Maarten, with a focus on getting the institutional “basis op orde,” maintaining support through TWO, and taking an active role in discussions about cooperation after 2029.

Van der Sluijs-Plantz used the comparison with Aruba and Curaçao to show why a single “CAS” label is too broad and misleading. Aruba, she said, left the Netherlands Antilles earlier and, after decades of status aparte, had to build much of its own system. Because of that experience, Aruba developed stronger administrative capacity and stronger institutions than the other two countries.

She explained that Aruba’s institutional path is therefore not the same as St. Maarten’s. Aruba had many years to operate separately, learn by doing, develop its own governing structures and build up its administrative experience. That makes its starting position different when reforms, capacity and cooperation are discussed.

Curaçao, Van der Sluijs-Plantz said, presents another reality. Because many of the former Netherlands Antilles structures were based there, one might have expected Curaçao to be institutionally stronger after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. However, the evaluation showed a more nuanced picture.

She said Curaçao does stand stronger than St. Maarten in some respects, but not as strongly as one might have expected if the institutions of the former Netherlands Antilles had fully and effectively transferred into Curaçao’s current system. This means Curaçao also cannot simply be judged by assumption or treated as if its institutional base automatically equals what existed under the former Antilles.

The committee’s country-specific recommendations reflect these differences. For Aruba, the committee considered continuation of the Mutual Arrangement desirable in order to maintain momentum, secure results and further strengthen the trust that has been built. It recommended continuing the arrangement through April 2029, focusing on implementation and anchoring, maintaining support through TWO, and using the period to explore future cooperation after 2029.

For Curaçao, the committee said the country must first create internal and external clarity about political and administrative commitment, ownership, priorities and direction. Only once that commitment is clear, the committee said, would a discussion on continuation be appropriate. The committee advised Curaçao to focus in the remaining year on a limited number of priorities, strengthen administrative direction and first create internal clarity before engaging the Netherlands.

For St. Maarten, the recommendation was different again. The committee said continuation is necessary because the institutional basis still needs to be strengthened. It specifically recommended a two-year extension, a focus on getting the institutional foundation in order, continued support through TWO and an active role for St. Maarten in discussions about cooperation after 2029.

Taken together, Van der Sluijs-Plantz said, these differences demonstrate why Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten should not be treated as one standard group. While the countries may share a constitutional relationship within the Kingdom and may be located in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom, their institutional histories, capacity levels and reform needs are not the same.

She said the countries can certainly learn from one another, but they move at different speeds, face different challenges and require different forms of support. In substance, she told IPKO that there is no “CAS” when discussing reform needs, institutional capacity or cooperation.

‍