“[…] Almost daily, the discourse has been filled with opinions on Cepep and Cepep workers: UNC/PNM supporters, radio commentators and newspaper columnists present opinions and arguments on one side or the other.
“These are all useful for taking the public temperature. But, after nearly 20 years of Cepep, absent from the discourse is any solid research.
“No studies on the effectiveness of Cepep in achieving its objectives have been presented to the public. No studies on the value for money of the programme. No studies on the wider social and economic impacts of the programme.
“No evidence, just opinions. Real reform requires real evidence…”

Photo: Cepep.
The following Letter to the Editor on what the Cepep fallout says about Trinidad and Tobago was submitted to Wired868 by Dr Jamelia Harris, an economist:
As with most things that capture national headlines and public attention, the Cepep fallout has revealed some of the underlying issues we face in Trinidad and Tobago.
Issues that if left unchecked, will continue to undermine our development.
First, is our inability to routinely conduct and utilise sound research. Almost daily, the discourse has been filled with opinions on Cepep and Cepep workers: UNC/PNM supporters, radio commentators and newspaper columnists present opinions and arguments on one side or the other.

Photo: Cepep.
These are all useful for taking the public temperature. But, after nearly 20 years of Cepep, absent from the discourse is any solid research.
No studies on the effectiveness of Cepep in achieving its objectives have been presented to the public. No studies on the value for money of the programme.
No studies on the wider social and economic impacts of the programme.
No evidence, just opinions. Real reform requires real evidence.

Photo: Office of the Parliament 2019.
Second is our inability to look outside ourselves and learn from international experience, where appropriate.
Public works programmes like Cepep and the Reforestation programme are common in many countries. One of the differences is that in other developing countries, donor funding usually supports these programmes.
For example, a research team I was part of recently conducted a value for money assessment of the US$500 million productive safety net programme in Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian context is significantly different to Trinidad and Tobago, but the authorities there have placed emphasis on graduating participants out of their programme and implemented support services to help this. Perhaps this is something we can learn from.
The World Bank supports many public works programmes internationally, including the Ethiopian one, and have documented evidence from these programmes, which is freely available online.
The same can be said for what are now perennial issues facing our society, like crime and school violence.
What have other countries done to tackle these issues and how can we learn from these cases? What mistakes have others made, and how can we avoid the same pitfalls?
To bring these lessons into our context requires a willingness to learn.
Third, as a society, we are becoming increasingly polarised politically, and nuance in political debates is being stifled.
The UNC and its supporters point to contract impropriety and the absence of audited statements for several years by the Cepep company. The PNM and its supporters highlight the plight of workers, most of whom are on the breadline.

Photo: Office of the Parliament 2025.
It is entirely possible that arguments by both sides are valid. Holding such a nuanced position and not taking a side is becoming less common publicly.
Any sympathy towards a PNM argument leads to ‘yuh is a PNM’, and any support of a UNC argument ‘yuh is a UNC’.
Aside from Cepep, we have seen this recently with the senators on the independent bench. Some of the independent senators supported expanding the Children’s Life Fund, but identified ways in which the bill could be amended, ultimately abstaining at the voting stage. This is a nuanced position.

Photo: Office of the Parliament 2025.
Sadly, they were publicly attacked and branded as ‘PNM’. If we stifle any dissent as anti-government (regardless of who is in government), we fail to hold the government to account and damage our independent institutions.
With such tendencies, we will be marching toward despotism. History teaches us that this is not a pleasant destination.
Paradoxically, as the polarisation of the public discourse continues, the share of the electorate turning out to vote declines: from 66.7% in 2015, to 58.1% in 2020 and 54% in 2025. From this, one can deduce that the largest share of the population in 2025 want better, but are not convinced by either team.
The inability to tackle these fundamental issues will continue to see us spinning top in mud.
The UNC government has been relatively silent on what the new incarnation of Cepep will look like. It has said that a new system for engaging contractors will be launched. This addresses the contracting side of the issue, but what about the other issues, particularly concerning workers?
The ILO decent work agenda should not be forgotten here: all our citizens deserve work that is productive, pays a fair income, offers job security and social protection.

Will the new Cepep improve the quality of work for some of the lowest paid? Will the new Cepep include supplementary initiatives to train workers and help them graduate out of the programme?
Will the new Cepep include strict rules to minimise the tendency for corruption, improve accountability and move away from politicising jobs?
We wait to see if the outcome is a real operation, or merely another plaster on a deep and festering problem.
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.