The recently published list of foreign exchange (forex) recipients from EximBank raises serious concerns about equity, transparency, and national priorities.
A review of the beneficiaries, particularly in the pharmaceutical and food sectors, reveals a disturbing trend: forex allocations are being extended to companies that do not appear to meet essential import criteria, especially in the context of our struggling economy.
Some of the pharmaceutical companies listed are also distributors of alcohol and other non-essential products. One is openly bringing in construction items.
This blending of business activities undermines the intended purpose of allocating forex to import critical medical and health-related items.
Importers that were initially supported to bring in PPE and essential Covid-19 supplies have been given extensive funds to import cosmetics and hundreds of discretionary goods. This shift not only dilutes the original mandate, but also places strain on the already limited forex reserves.
The food sector is another area where forex allocations seem poorly managed. Companies are importing luxury food items in large quantities: multiple types of grapes, foreign cereals, specialty teas, alcohol, and a range of apples, to name a few—not necessities in any struggling economy. These imports crowd out forex access for truly essential goods and contribute little to national food security.
With Trinidad and Tobago’s vast tracts of arable land and the rising number of citizens relying on food assistance, it is difficult to justify our continued dependence on imports such as chicken and eggs. The forex being used to import these items could be better invested in local hatcheries, feed production, and agricultural development. This would not only reduce forex demand but also create jobs and strengthen food independence.
It is clear some companies are receiving forex not based on merit or national interest, but due to preferential treatment. This creates an uneven playing field for other businesses and fosters an environment of mistrust. Exporters, for instance, should receive forex based on their actual export earnings, which are verifiable. A fair, performance-based system would be both more transparent and sustainable.
The list does not clarify what allocations have been made by the local banks to sectors such as car dealerships or other non-priority industries. This lack of detail further obscures the true picture of forex distribution and prevents public accountability.
In times of economic strain, forex is one of the country’s most critical and scarce resources. Its distribution should be guided by clear, transparent and strategic principles: essential needs, local capacity development, and equitable access. Anything less risks worsening inequality, undermining national resilience, and mismanaging public trust.
S Ramkissoon
San Fernando
