Members of the independent evaluation committee pictured (from left): Franklyn Richards (St. Maarten), Cees Slager (the Netherlands), Chairwoman Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz (St. Maarten), Angel Bermudez (Aruba), and Francis de Lanoy (Curaçao). The committee, supported by secretary Steven Boekhoudt, represented all four countries within the Kingdom.
PHILIPSBURG--A new independent evaluation of the reform cooperation between the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten concludes that the arrangement has helped to set in motion long-stalled reforms in the Caribbean countries, including St. Maarten, but that most measures are still far from fully implemented and require a longer timeframe to take effect.
The evaluation looks at the so-called Mutual Regulation for Cooperation on Reforms, established in April 2023, which formalised earlier agreements made during the COVID-19 crisis. These agreements, known as the Country Packages, were linked to Dutch liquidity support provided from 2020 onwards in response to the severe economic impact of the pandemic.
For St. Maarten, the report highlights a structural challenge that runs through the entire reform process: limited administrative capacity in a small public sector combined with a high number of simultaneous reform demands. According to the evaluation, this has made implementation slower and more vulnerable to delays, but also increased reliance on external support and coordination mechanisms.
The evaluators conclude that the reform agenda was, from the outset, exceptionally broad and ambitious. It included structural changes across public finance, taxation, education, healthcare, labour markets, governance and the investment climate. These reforms were expected to be prepared and implemented at the same time, while the countries were still dealing with the social and economic aftermath of the pandemic.
In St. Maarten’s case, the evaluation notes that this combination of crisis recovery, limited institutional capacity and simultaneous reform pressure created a particularly
challenging environment for execution. Many of the intended reforms require legislative change, institutional restructuring and sustained administrative follow-through, all of which take time in small government systems.
Despite these constraints, the report finds that the cooperation framework has played an important role in getting reform processes started. Projects that had previously stalled or progressed slowly were placed within structured joint implementation agendas, supported by coordination between the countries and the Temporary Work Organisation, known as the TWO, which is part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.
The evaluation describes this support structure as a key factor in mobilising expertise and implementation capacity. In St. Maarten, this has helped to organise reform processes more systematically and provided additional technical and project management support where domestic capacity was limited.
At the same time, the report stresses that progress remains highly dependent on political prioritisation, administrative continuity and stable staffing within key institutions. In St. Maarten, frequent turnover in key positions and limited specialist capacity in areas such as legislation and policy development have affected the speed and consistency of implementation.
The evaluators also point to the parallel recovery programme managed by the National Recovery Program Bureau as an additional pressure factor. The coexistence of recovery projects and structural reforms has placed significant strain on the island’s administrative absorption capacity, with limited evidence of synergy between the two programmes.
The report concludes that while the cooperation has contributed to the initiation of reforms in St. Maarten, many measures are still in a transitional phase between planning and implementation. Structural reforms in areas such as public administration, fiscal management and institutional strengthening require sustained effort over multiple years before their effects become visible.
According to the evaluation, St. Maarten’s starting position within the Kingdom cooperation framework is particularly vulnerable compared to Aruba and Curaçao. This is mainly due to the smaller size of the government apparatus and more limited implementation capacity, which makes prioritisation and sequencing of reforms essential.
The report emphasises that without clear prioritisation, the reform agenda risks remaining fragmented. It therefore recommends a sharper focus on institutional
strengthening measures that form the basis for all other reforms, including improvements in human resources capacity, administrative systems and data management within government.
The evaluation also notes that cooperation within the Kingdom has gradually become more structured over time. While the initial phase of the reform agreements was marked by tension and urgency due to the financial crisis during COVID-19, the working relationship between the countries and the Dutch support organisation has become more stable and constructive in practice.
In St. Maarten, this has resulted in more regular coordination between ministries and the TWO, as well as more consistent use of joint planning instruments and progress reporting. The report observes that this has helped create a more predictable framework for reform delivery, even if implementation challenges remain.
However, the evaluation warns that this progress remains fragile. It is strongly dependent on continued political commitment, institutional stability and sustained cooperation. Changes in government priorities or administrative capacity could quickly affect the pace of reforms.
The report further notes that the reform cooperation has largely focused on strengthening underlying conditions for economic resilience rather than delivering immediate economic outcomes. In St. Maarten, this includes improvements in public financial management, tax administration, governance structures and institutional transparency.
Some progress has been made, including steps toward improving financial reporting systems and strengthening administrative control mechanisms. However, the evaluation stresses that these reforms are still being developed and have not yet fully translated into long-term institutional stability.
The commission concludes that economic resilience in St. Maarten should be understood as the cumulative result of many incremental institutional improvements rather than individual policy changes. As such, the impact of reforms will only become fully visible over a longer period.
A key conclusion of the evaluation is that continued cooperation is necessary to complete ongoing reforms. The current arrangement runs until April 2027, but the report states that this timeframe is too short to fully implement and embed many of the structural changes currently underway.
For St. Maarten, the evaluators recommend extending cooperation for an additional period of two years beyond 2027, with a strong focus on implementation and institutional consolidation. This would require a clearer prioritisation of reforms and a more focused reform agenda.
The report also urges the government of St. Maarten to take a more explicit position on its reform priorities and the level of political commitment available for implementation. Without this clarity, the effectiveness of the cooperation framework could be limited.
At the same time, the evaluation recommends that the Netherlands provides timely clarity on the future of the cooperation model, to avoid uncertainty that could slow down ongoing reforms or reduce administrative engagement.
The evaluators stress that uncertainty about the continuation of the arrangement has already created concerns among stakeholders involved in reform implementation, particularly regarding the time horizon available to complete complex institutional changes.
Looking ahead, the report calls for a broader discussion within the Kingdom about how structural reform cooperation should be organised in the future. It notes that the challenges faced by St. Maarten, Aruba and Curaçao are long-term in nature and require sustained institutional support beyond short policy cycles.
For St. Maarten specifically, the evaluation highlights that strengthening the basic functioning of government remains the central priority. This includes improving administrative systems, building professional capacity, and ensuring that government institutions can consistently implement policy decisions.
The commission concludes that while progress has been made under the reform cooperation framework, St. Maarten’s institutional fragility means that continued support and focused implementation efforts remain essential to ensure that reforms are not only designed but also fully realised in practice.
