That’s a provocative question, but it came to mind for the first time (not the first time) after reading the launch of the Caribbean community (Caricom) leader (not the first time) “Comprehensive Review” of business relationships between this region and the United States (US). This was one of the major announcements since it was recently concluded 48th Regular Meeting The Director-General of the Government of Barbados’ Caribbean Community (Caricom) was announced on February 19-21, 2025 under the theme of “Strength of Unity: Resilience, Inclusive Growth, and Sustainable Development in the Caribbean.” Given the significant changes in US trade policy, the necessary and timely movement should also serve as a wake-up call for CARICOM to adopt a culture of regular review of all trade agreements and arrangements. For access by all local stakeholders.
The CARICOM countries are the signatories of many trade agreements and agreements with external partners, primarily as part of CARICOM. However, they negotiated and signed several partial scope agreements with external partners, particularly Trinidad and Tobago and Belize. Most CARICOM countries enjoy tax-free access to the US market for goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and constituent laws such as the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and the Caribbean Basin Trade Preference Act (CBTPA). . The CBI is a one-sided arrangement. In other words, it is the result of law passed in the US Congress, not a negotiated trade agreement. It is also unopposed in that beneficiary countries do not need to extend the same treatment to US products. The extent to which this still applies is something I have discussed elsewhere.
There is also a similar arrangement under the Caribbean to Canada. This, like Cbera, is subject to regular World Trade Organization (WTO) exemptions. The CARICOM countries also have trade agreements with the European Union (EU) and the UK (UK) through California, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. These latter are primarily partially scoped contracts. At one point, the region was negotiating a trade agreement with Canada, but these negotiations were eventually shelved.
Unfortunately, many of CARICOM’s trade agreements remain largely unexamined in terms of their impact on development. At the very least, this information is not publicly available in most cases, if such reviews are being conducted. The US is conducting a biennial review of the ongoing Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), and the European Union regularly evaluates trade agreements, but CARICOM appears to have not institutionalized a similar approach. is. Currently, the most comprehensive, publicly available information regarding the operation of our contracts is published in reviews by our partners, not ours. This needs to be changed.
However, one of the most comprehensive reviews of CARICOM’s trade agreements conducted by two well-known regional economists is McClean and Khadan (2015)which found that trade agreements in the region are generally underutilized, resulting in lower trade performance within and outside the region. The reasons range from a lack of awareness among companies to the challenges of meeting market entry requirements and supply-side constraints.
A regular review of trade arrangements and contracts allows Caricom to have evidence-based interventions to improve trade performance and assess the impact of these contracts on actual development. Did they lead to an increase in exports and an increase in export diversification? Have they strengthened our industry and led to job creation? What are the major challenges exporters face in each of these markets? How can we make better use of the diaspora in these markets? Is our current contract still suitable for purpose given the new sector we are exploring? Without this information it is impossible to determine whether these contracts are truly useful for the economic benefits of the region, and, if any, what future trade agreements should conclude. Additionally, these assessments must be data-driven. Addressing the chronic problem of data shortages in the Caribbean is essential to making informed decisions that strengthen trade policy. To achieve this, the private sector and academia must play an important role in the review process. As companies are actively engaged in trade, their opinions through research and interviews are essential to conduct comprehensive empirical sound assessments. Meanwhile, academia offers a wealth of academic research into the region’s trade performance and offers valuable insights that can inform policy decisions.
Beyond simply conducting a review, CARICOM should make sure the findings are published. Transparency in trade policy making is important to promote public trust and enable businesses, academia and civil society to be meaningfully involved in shaping evidence-based trade policies that promote regional development. Citizens and the private sector must be able to see how these contracts affect their livelihoods. While CARICOM’s hardworking team has raised awareness of their work, they often feel that what happens at the local level is being heavily removed from the daily citizens.
I warmly praise the decision to review the Caricom-US trading relationship, but this should not be an isolated exercise. The global trade environment is changing rapidly, and CARICOM can’t afford to respond. Instead, this must be the beginning of a broader initiative to systematically monitor and evaluate all Caricom trading agreements. Only through this approach can CARICOM have said that its trade agreements truly function for the best interests of the economy and people in the region, contributing to resilience, inclusive growth and sustainable development. We can guarantee it.
Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. Trade Policy Specialist and Founder of Caribbean Trade Law and Development Blog: www.caribbeanttradelaw.com.
