Commercial Interests, Seed Distributors, and the Threat to Local Seed Sovereignty in Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago’s Protection of New Plant Varieties (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which seeks to align local legislation with the UPOV 1991 Convention, raises important questions about commercial influence, farmers’ independence and the future of national and community seed banks.

While protecting plant breeders' innovations is a legitimate objective, such protection must not come at the expense of agricultural independence, biodiversity or national food security.

Who benefits from stronger commercial control over protected seeds, and what safeguards exist to protect farmers and the public interest?

Commercial Interests: Market Dependency versus Local Autonomy

Commercial seed importers and distributors have a financial interest in the continued sale of planting material. Farmers' ability to save, reproduce and exchange eligible seeds, however, can reduce dependence on repeated commercial purchases.

Stronger intellectual property protections may benefit breeders and their authorised commercial partners. Without adequate safeguards, they could also increase farmers' reliance on commercial seed supply chains.

This raises an important public-interest question: could legislation intended to encourage plant breeding inadvertently strengthen commercial dependency while weakening independent seed preservation initiatives?

National, independent and community seed banks serve a fundamentally different purpose. Their role is to preserve planting material, maintain agricultural biodiversity, support farmers and strengthen local food security.

Their continued operation must be protected.

When Seed Protection Threatens Seed Sovereignty: The United Nations Warning

Concerns surrounding UPOV 1991 and its implications for traditional seed systems are not confined to Trinidad and Tobago. They have been raised before the United Nations Human Rights Council itself.

During the Council's 63rd Session on 16 September 2026, Shalmali Guttal, a member of the UN Working Group on the Rights of Peasants, called on governments to refrain from implementing UPOV 1991 and related laws that restrict farmers' rights to save, exchange and sell seeds.

She recommended that governments instead develop and strengthen nationally appropriate seed systems that reflect local agricultural biodiversity and farming realities, in consultation with farmers' organisations.

An intervention from India's Rajasthan Samagra Kalyan Sansthan similarly emphasised that farmers must remain custodians of the varieties they have conserved, improved and shared across generations, rather than becoming merely consumers within commercial seed systems.

The Indian intervention advocated for community seed banks, women-led seed preservation initiatives, participatory breeding and safeguards for traditional agricultural knowledge.

These interventions reinforce a fundamental concern for Trinidad and Tobago: legislation intended to protect commercial plant breeders must not inadvertently strengthen the position of commercial seed suppliers while weakening independent seed banks established to serve farmers.

Such an outcome risks transforming farmers from custodians and producers of their own planting material into increasingly dependent customers of commercial seed suppliers.

Protecting plant breeders must never come at the expense of protecting the farmers who sustain a nation's food security.

Source: United Nations Human Rights Council, 63rd Session, 14th Meeting, 16 September 2026.

Read the UN proceedings and transcript

Commercial Influence and the Need for Transparency

Where individuals involved in agricultural policymaking also hold commercial interests in seed importation, distribution or related agricultural businesses, full disclosure and independent examination of potential conflicts of interest are essential.

This is not an allegation of wrongdoing against any particular individual or business. It is a necessary standard of transparency where public policy may create commercial advantages for particular market participants.

The public deserves to know:

• Whose recommendations influenced the proposed legislation?

• Were relevant commercial interests disclosed and appropriately managed?

• Were independent farmers, seed banks and agricultural organisations meaningfully consulted?

• Was the potential impact on seed prices, competition and food security independently assessed?

Agricultural legislation must be developed in the national interest, not simply around the commercial interests of those positioned to benefit from its implementation.

How UPOV 1991 Could Affect Local Seed Banks

Under UPOV 1991, breeders of protected plant varieties receive exclusive rights over specified activities involving propagating material, including production, reproduction and certain forms of distribution.

Although the Convention contains exceptions, their scope and implementation are critical.

For national, independent and community seed banks, potential implications include:

• Restrictions on seed multiplication: Reproducing protected varieties for distribution may require authorisation from the rights holder.

• Constraints on seed sharing: Certain exchanges or distributions involving protected varieties may fall within breeders' exclusive rights.

• Greater commercial dependency: Restrictions on access to protected planting material could increase reliance on authorised suppliers.

• Pressure on independent seed initiatives: Without appropriate legal safeguards, community-based efforts to preserve and distribute planting material could face additional operational and legal constraints.

These concerns do not mean that every seed variety or seed bank activity would automatically become restricted. However, they demonstrate why the legislation must clearly distinguish between protected commercial varieties, traditional farmers' varieties, eligible seed-saving practices and independent conservation activities.

Local seed banks must not become unintended casualties of legislation designed primarily to protect commercial plant breeding.

Consequences for Farmers and Consumers

Seed dependency is ultimately a national food-security concern.

Excessive reliance on imported planting material exposes farmers to international supply disruptions, exchange-rate pressures, price increases and decisions made outside Trinidad and Tobago.

Where farmers face restrictions on reproducing protected seeds, recurring input costs may increase. These costs can affect agricultural production and, depending on market conditions, ultimately contribute to higher food prices for consumers.

The preservation of locally adapted planting material is equally important.

Independent and community seed banks help maintain agricultural biodiversity, preserve traditional varieties and support resilience against changing environmental conditions.

Weakening these initiatives risks undermining the very foundation of a sustainable domestic agricultural sector.

Corporate IP Enforcement: Foreign seed corporations holding locally enforceable plant breeders’ rights may use Trinidad and Tobago’s courts to pursue alleged infringement of protected foreign-bred varieties. The potential consequence: farmers and distributors could face legal action for unauthorized reproduction, exchange or sale of protected seeds, subject to the applicable law and any relevant exceptions.

Safeguards Required in the Public Interest

Before implementation of the proposed legislation, Trinidad and Tobago should:

1. Require full disclosure of relevant commercial interests among individuals advising on or participating in agricultural policymaking, supported by appropriate conflict-of-interest procedures.

2. Establish clear legal protections for national and independent seed banks, including provisions addressing the collection, storage, preservation, multiplication and distribution of eligible planting material.

3. Protect farmers' traditional seed practices to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable legal framework, including saving, reusing and exchanging seeds.

4. Publish consultation records, identifying the representations received and demonstrating how the concerns of farmers, consumers and independent seed initiatives were considered.

5. Commission an independent impact assessment examining potential consequences for seed prices, market competition, domestic agricultural production, biodiversity and national food security.

6. Ensure meaningful farmer participation in developing seed legislation and related agricultural policies, consistent with the principles advanced under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP).

Who Controls the Seeds?

The central issue is not whether plant breeders deserve protection for their innovations. It is whether that protection is appropriately balanced against the national interest in affordable planting material, agricultural independence and farmers' ability to produce food.

Trinidad and Tobago must ask three fundamental questions:

Who stands to benefit commercially? Were relevant interests disclosed? And what enforceable safeguards will prevent stronger breeders' rights from undermining local seed sovereignty?

CAIR calls for transparency, accountability and meaningful legal protections for farmers and independent seed banks.

Our agricultural future must not become increasingly dependent on external commercial supply chains at the expense of local seed preservation and farmers' independence.

A nation that cannot preserve, reproduce and maintain access to its own eligible planting material risks surrendering an essential measure of control over its food future.

---

Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource (CAIR)

An independent voice advocating for consumer protection, food security and the public interest.

Further reading:

CAIR – Who Owns the Seed?

United Nations Human Rights Council – 16 September 2026

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true

Support CAIR:paypal.me/cairtt

 

 

Trinidad and Tobago’s 2027 National Budget: Will Consumers Actually Be Better Off?

Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource (CAIR)
FY2027 Budget Analysis | Trinidad and Tobago

The real test is what consumers receive

Trinidad and Tobago’s FY2027 National Budget proposes expenditure of TT$63.368 billion, against estimated revenue of TT$59.729 billion, leaving a projected fiscal deficit of TT$3.639 billion.

These figures establish the scale of the Government’s financial commitments. But consumers must ask a more important question: Will this expenditure improve the affordability, quality and accessibility of the goods and services on which households depend?

For consumers, economic progress is not measured solely by the amount spent. It is measured by whether families can afford nutritious food, obtain timely healthcare, access quality education, secure reliable transport, find decent employment and retain more of their income after paying essential expenses.

CAIR examines the Budget through these outcomes.

1. Cost of living: Where is the relief?

Consumers need measures that address the pressure of everyday expenses. Taxation, food prices, electricity costs, transportation, housing and digital services can all affect disposable income.

The Budget includes a proposed VAT measure affecting overseas digital services and a proposed surcharge for residential electricity customers with very high consumption. These measures raise questions about the distribution of costs between government, businesses and households.

A tax on digital services may increase the price paid by consumers if providers pass the tax through. The electricity surcharge may affect certain households depending on its threshold and design.

The critical issue is whether the Budget provides sufficient counterbalancing measures to improve household purchasing power.

CAIR asks:

• What measurable reduction in the cost of essential goods and services should consumers expect in 2027?

• How will the impact of new or extended taxes on household expenses be assessed?

• What protection exists for low-income households and consumers who have limited ability to reduce essential consumption?

• Will consumers have access to clear information about changes to the prices they pay?

A measure that raises revenue is not automatically a measure that improves consumer welfare. Its distributional effects must be considered.

2. Income and employment: Can households afford more?

The ability to earn an income is fundamental to consumer welfare. Yet employment figures alone do not reveal whether households can meet their needs.

The Budget proposes TT$2 million for the READY youth internship programme, intended to provide approximately 1,300 secondary-school students aged 16 and over with four-week internships during the July–August 2027 vacation.

This creates a defined opportunity for young people to gain workplace experience. However, the programme's longer-term contribution to household income will depend on the quality of placements, the skills acquired and whether participants can progress into paid employment.

CAIR distinguishes between temporary exposure to work and sustainable income generation.

CAIR asks:

• What proportion of participants will progress into further training, employment or entrepreneurship?

• What support is available for young people who are not in education, employment or training?

• What measures will help small businesses expand and create sustainable jobs?

• Will economic opportunities reach rural communities, people with disabilities and households facing persistent barriers to employment?

The consumer outcome is not simply the number of people who participate in a programme. It is whether people acquire the capacity to earn reliable incomes and meet the cost of living.

3. Healthcare: Does spending translate into timely, quality care?

The proposed TT$8.061 billion health allocation represents a major public commitment.

For consumers, however, the quality of healthcare depends on access and results. A service that is theoretically available but affected by long waiting times, medicine shortages, delayed tests or inaccessible facilities may impose substantial costs on patients and their families.

When public services fail to meet needs promptly, households may have to pay privately, travel farther or lose income while seeking care.

CAIR asks:

• Will patients experience shorter waiting times for consultations, diagnostic tests and treatment?

• Will essential medicines and supplies be consistently available?

• How will service quality and patient experience be measured?

• Will people with disabilities, elderly people and low-income households have equitable access to care?

• What improvements will reduce the need for consumers to pay privately for services they reasonably expect to obtain through the public system?

The consumer benefit of healthcare expenditure should be visible in the availability, timeliness, safety and quality of care.

4. Food security: Will local production make food more affordable?

Agriculture receives a proposed TT$987 million allocation. The relevance of this expenditure to consumers lies in whether it strengthens the availability, affordability and safety of food.

Increasing domestic production can improve resilience and reduce exposure to international supply disruptions. However, greater production does not necessarily mean lower supermarket prices. The final price depends on production costs, transport, storage, distribution, market conditions and other factors.

Consumers need to know whether agricultural investment will improve the connection between farmers and markets, reduce post-harvest losses and expand the supply of affordable local food.

Food safety must also remain central. Affordable food that does not meet appropriate safety and quality standards is not a satisfactory consumer outcome.

CAIR asks:

• What improvements in domestic food availability are expected during FY2027?

• How will consumers benefit from agricultural investment through more competitive prices?

• What measures address transport, storage and distribution costs?

• How will food safety and quality be protected?

• How will the Government assess whether food has become more affordable relative to household incomes?

The objective must be more than increased agricultural activity. It must include better access to safe, nutritious food at prices consumers can afford.

5. Education: Is public investment expanding opportunity?

The proposed TT$8.033 billion education and training allocation places education among the largest areas of public expenditure.

Consumers should assess this investment in terms of educational quality, equitable access, skills development and the ability of learners to progress into productive employment.

Education also affects household finances. Where students lack access to essential materials, appropriate facilities, digital resources or reliable transport, families may face additional expenses and learners may experience unequal opportunities.

CAIR asks:

• Will students have more equitable access to quality education and training?

• Are educational resources reaching communities with the greatest needs?

• Will training programmes correspond to actual labour-market opportunities?

• How will education spending help reduce barriers faced by low-income households?

• What evidence will demonstrate improvements in learning outcomes and employment prospects?

The objective should be an education system that develops capability, expands opportunity and reduces—not reinforces—inequality.

6. Utilities, transport and housing: Reducing the hidden costs of daily life

Public spending on utilities, transport, infrastructure and housing affects consumers beyond the immediate price of a service.

Unreliable water supplies, transport delays, poor infrastructure and unaffordable housing can generate additional costs through lost working hours, private alternatives, repairs, higher business expenses and longer journeys.

The Budget proposes TT$4.087 billion for Public Utilities, TT$1.712 billion for Transport and TT$904 million for Housing.

These investments should be assessed according to their practical effects on households and businesses.

CAIR asks:

• Will utility services become more reliable, and will consumers receive clearer information about disruptions?

• Will transport improvements reduce journey times, improve safety and expand access to employment?

• Will housing initiatives deliver affordable options for households that need them?

• Will infrastructure investment reach underserved communities?

• How will the Government measure service reliability, affordability and value for money?

The relevant question is not merely whether infrastructure is funded. It is whether consumers experience better services and lower avoidable costs.

7. Efficiency and inclusion: Are public resources reaching the people who need them?

A budget can be large without being equally effective for every household.

Efficiency requires that public resources produce meaningful results without unnecessary waste, delays or duplication. Inclusion requires that those results reach people across income groups, locations and circumstances.

The effects of expenditure should therefore be assessed not only through national averages, but also through differences in access and outcomes for vulnerable and underserved groups.

CAIR believes that public accountability should include measurable indicators of service quality, waiting times, programme participation, delivery rates and consumer satisfaction.

Where programmes are intended to support specific groups, reporting should show who benefited and whether the assistance addressed the intended need.

Without this information, consumers cannot adequately assess whether public expenditure is achieving its purpose.

8. What should consumers expect by the end of FY2027?

The Budget's success should be judged against observable outcomes, not announcements alone.

Consumer priority	What should be measured?
Affordability	Changes in the cost of essential goods and services relative to household income
Purchasing power	Whether disposable income can cover a greater share of essential expenses
Employment	Sustainable jobs, earnings and progression from training into work
Healthcare	Waiting times, medicine availability, service quality and equitable access
Food security	Availability and affordability of safe, nutritious food
Education	Access, learning outcomes, skills development and opportunities for employment
Utilities	Reliability, service interruptions and household costs
Transport	Affordability, journey times, safety and access to employment
Housing	Access to suitable housing at prices households can afford
Efficiency	Timely delivery, measurable outcomes and value for public expenditure
Inclusion	Whether underserved and vulnerable groups benefit from public programmes

These indicators would give consumers a clearer basis for assessing whether the Government's commitments are improving their lives.

CAIR's position: Public spending must deliver consumer value

The FY2027 National Budget commits substantial resources to public services and national development. The consumer question is whether these commitments will translate into more affordable essentials, higher and more secure incomes, better access to quality services and fairer opportunities.

CAIR recognises that not every policy produces immediate price reductions and that some investments deliver benefits over several years. Nevertheless, public commitments should have clear objectives, realistic implementation plans and measurable results.

Consumers should not have to infer improvements in their lives from expenditure totals. They should be able to see evidence of better services, greater affordability and expanded opportunities.

The ultimate test of Budget 2027 is whether people can live better—not simply whether more money has been spent.

About CAIR

Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource (CAIR) is an independentconsumer NGO in Trinidad and Tobago. CAIR promotes consumer awareness, research, advocacy and alternative avenues for resolving consumer concerns, including issues involving financial services, food safety and security, and technology.

Consumers are invited to connect with CAIR, participate in its work and support a stronger, more informed consumer voice nationwide.

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true 

Support CAIR:paypal.me/cairtt

 

 

WHO OWNS THE SEED?

Why Trinidad and Tobago Must Protect Farmers and Consumers in Amending Its Plant Variety Laws

By CAIR – Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource

There is a deceptively simple question at the heart of Trinidad and Tobago’s proposed plant-variety legislation:

Who should have the greater power over the seed that produces our food—the farmer who grows it, saves it, and depends upon it, or the commercial breeder whose variety is legally protected?

For CAIR (Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource), this is not an abstract debate about legal technicalities. It directly affects:

• Consumer Food Prices: What Trinidadian and Tobagonian families pay at the market and supermarket.

• National Food Security: Whether we can strengthen domestic agricultural production and reduce our dependence on imported food.

• Farmer Livelihoods: Whether small farmers can continue producing food without facing unnecessary increases in input costs.

• Agricultural Resilience: Whether Trinidad and Tobago maintains access to diverse, locally adapted seed and the ability of farmers to preserve and reproduce it.

This is not an argument against plant breeding.

It is an argument for balance.

Plant breeders have a legitimate interest in being rewarded for developing new varieties. Farmers have an equally legitimate interest in producing food, saving seed, preserving agricultural biodiversity, and continuing to farm without becoming unnecessarily dependent upon proprietary seed.

When seed and other production costs rise, farmers face pressure to recover those costs through the prices they charge, creating potential upward pressure on consumer food prices.

The danger is that in the pursuit of stronger intellectual-property protection, a country can protect commercial interests while weakening the very agricultural resilience that food security and affordable food require.

This is why Trinidad and Tobago’s move toward the UPOV 1991 framework deserves far more public and consumer scrutiny than it is receiving.

UPOV 1991 Is Not Simply “The Same System With an Update”

This distinction matters.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has explained that the 1991 Act strengthened plant breeders' rights compared with the earlier framework. Among other changes, UPOV 1991 expanded the scope of breeders' exclusive rights and narrowed the space available for certain traditional farmer seed practices.

Most importantly, the treatment of farm-saved seed changed.

Under UPOV 1991, the ability of farmers to reuse harvested seed of a protected variety on their own land is not an automatic right.

Article 15(2) makes it an optional exception. A country may permit farmers to use farm-saved seed within reasonable limits and subject to measures that safeguard the legitimate interests of the breeder.

UPOV itself confirms that farm-saved seed is an optional exception under the 1991 Act.

That single provision should cause every policymaker concerned about food security and food affordability to stop and ask:

If the protection of farm-saved seed depends upon how national legislation exercises an optional exception, what safeguards will Trinidad and Tobago actually give its farmers?

The answer cannot simply be: “Trust the regulations.”

If farmers' rights matter to national food security, those protections should be visible in the legislation itself.

The Legal Reality for Trinidad and Tobago

To have an honest debate, we must be accurate about where Trinidad and Tobago stands legally.

Trinidad and Tobago enacted its Protection of New Plant Varieties Act, 1997 and became a UPOV member under the 1978 framework in 1998.

The current legislative effort seeks to update the domestic framework and bring it into conformity with the UPOV 1991 Act, facilitating Trinidad and Tobago's accession to that Act.

There is an important legal point here.

The UPOV 1978 Act is no longer open to new accessions. Therefore, Trinidad and Tobago cannot simply decide today to become a new UPOV 1978 member.

But that does not mean that UPOV 1991 is the only possible legislative model for protecting plant varieties.

The WTO TRIPS Agreement requires members to provide protection for plant varieties either by patents, by an effective sui generis system, or by a combination of those approaches.

That means the policy question is larger than:

“UPOV 1991 or no plant-variety protection?”

There are other possible legal approaches.

India is a particularly important example.

India Proves There Is Another Way

India is not a member of UPOV.

That does not mean India has abandoned plant-variety protection.

India created its own Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act.

The Indian system protects plant breeders while also expressly recognizing farmers' rights. Under the Indian framework, farmers have statutory rights concerning the saving, use, sowing, resowing, exchange and sale of farm produce, including seed, subject to the law.

That is important because it destroys a false choice:

A country does not have to choose between protecting breeders and protecting farmers.

It can design a system that recognizes both.

India therefore gives Trinidad and Tobago a legitimate policy question:

Why should our legislation move toward a model that gives stronger exclusive rights to breeders without first examining whether a national system could better balance breeders' rights, farmers' rights, biodiversity and food security?

Food Security Is Not Seed-Company Security

A country can have commercial seed options available and still remain vulnerable if farmers become excessively dependent on costly imported or privately controlled seed.

True food security requires reliable and affordable access to diverse seed suitable for local conditions.

What happens when:

• foreign seed suppliers raise prices?

• international shipping is disrupted?

• foreign exchange becomes scarce?

• a major supplier experiences a production failure?

• a plant disease affects a dominant variety?

• climate conditions change?

• locally adapted varieties disappear because they are no longer commercially attractive?

• farmers lose the practical ability to maintain their own seed stocks?

These are not theoretical questions.

They go to the heart of agricultural resilience.

A farmer-managed seed system provides one form of resilience.

Commercial breeding provides another.

Sound public policy should protect both rather than treating them as competing interests in which one must surrender to the other.

The September 2026 Warning Trinidad and Tobago Should Not Ignore

There is a particularly important development that should be part of the public discussion.

On September 16, 2026, the United Nations Working Group on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas presented its report on the right to seeds to the UN Human Rights Council.

The discussion addressed the relationship between seed laws, farmers' rights, agricultural biodiversity and food security.

The UN Working Group raised concerns about legal regimes that can restrict traditional farmer seed practices and emphasized the importance of protecting farmers' ability to maintain and use seed systems that support food security and biodiversity.

It called attention to the risks of treating seed merely as a proprietary commercial asset and recommended approaches that recognize the rights of peasants and the importance of farmer-managed seed systems.

That matters enormously for Trinidad and Tobago.

Because two days later, on September 18, 2026, Trinidad and Tobago introduced the Protection of New Plant Varieties (Amendment) Bill, 2026 in the Senate.

The Bill seeks to amend Trinidad and Tobago's legislation in order to align it with the 1991 UPOV framework and facilitate accession to that Convention.

The timing does not prove that the Bill is wrong.

But it raises an unavoidable public-interest question:

If an international UN human-rights body is warning governments about the implications of restrictive seed regimes at precisely the moment Trinidad and Tobago is strengthening its plant-variety protection system, why has there not been a serious public examination of those concerns?

Trinidad and Tobago should not simply ignore that discussion.

Our policymakers should explain why the concerns raised internationally do—or do not—apply to our agricultural circumstances.

Colombia Shows Why Consultation Matters

Colombia provides another important lesson.

Colombia's Constitutional Court reviewed legislation approving UPOV 1991 and declared it unconstitutional because Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities had not received the constitutionally required prior consultation.

The decision is important because it demonstrates that plant-variety legislation is not necessarily a narrow technical matter.

Where legislation affects communities whose livelihoods, cultural practices and agricultural systems are connected to seed, consultation can become a constitutional and human-rights issue.

The lesson for Trinidad and Tobago is straightforward:

Farmers and affected communities should not be consulted after the legal framework has already been determined.

They should have a meaningful voice before the system is finalized.

African Countries Raised Similar Concerns

The concern is also not unique to Latin America.

The Organization of African Unity historically raised concerns about plant-variety protection regimes that did not adequately recognize the cultivation practices and interests of African farming communities.

The underlying concern was not opposition to agricultural innovation.

It was that intellectual-property systems designed primarily around commercial breeding could fail to recognize the realities of smallholder agriculture.

That distinction remains important today.

The question should not be:

“Are farmers against innovation?”

It should be:

“Does the innovation system recognize the farmer as a participant, or merely as a customer?”

The Real Issue: Cost, Concentration and Consumer Impact

Consider what could happen if Trinidad and Tobago implements UPOV 1991 without strong farmer safeguards.

1. Production costs

If farmers face greater restrictions or costs associated with the reuse of protected seed, their input expenses can increase.

2. Pressure on food prices

Farmers operate businesses.

When input costs increase, they face pressure to recover those costs through the prices received for their produce.

That can place upward pressure on consumer food prices.

3. Greater dependence on external suppliers

If farmers increasingly depend upon proprietary commercial seed rather than maintaining diverse local seed systems, the agricultural sector may become more exposed to international supply chains, foreign exchange pressures and external pricing decisions.

4. Loss of agricultural diversity

If locally adapted varieties receive less attention than commercially protected varieties, genetic diversity can decline.

That can make agricultural systems less resilient to pests, diseases and climate change.

5. Market concentration

If a small number of companies control important seed varieties, farmers may have fewer practical alternatives.

This is why plant-variety protection should also be examined through the lens of competition policy.

The Government Must Prove the Benefits

If stronger plant-variety protection is justified on the grounds that it will stimulate innovation, attract investment, increase yields, strengthen food security and expand exports, then the Government should demonstrate those benefits with Trinidad and Tobago-specific evidence.

Where is the assessment of:

• expected seed-price impacts?

• expected farmer-income impacts?

• effects on small and medium-sized farmers?

• effects on local seed production?

• effects on traditional varieties?

• effects on agricultural biodiversity?

• expected foreign investment?

• expected local breeding activity?

• expected changes in food production?

• expected effects on consumer food prices?

• expected contribution to reducing the food-import bill?

These are reasonable questions.

They are not anti-business.

They are not anti-breeder.

They are basic questions of public policy.

What Trinidad and Tobago Must Require

CAIR is not calling for the abolition of plant breeders' rights.

CAIR is calling for consumer-centric and public-interest safeguards before stronger intellectual-property controls are implemented.

Before the amended legislation is fully implemented, Trinidad and Tobago should require:

1. A Consumer and Food-Security Impact Assessment

Government should publish an independent assessment showing how the new framework could affect seed prices, agricultural production costs, local food production and consumer prices.

2. Explicit Protection for Farm-Saved Seed

If Trinidad and Tobago chooses to exercise the Article 15(2) exception, the protection should be clearly established in national law.

Farmers should not have to guess whether they can save and reuse seed.

3. Protection for Traditional and Locally Adapted Varieties

The law should recognize the importance of farmer-maintained varieties and agricultural biodiversity.

4. Competition Safeguards

Government should monitor seed-market concentration and prevent the development of abusive market power over essential agricultural inputs.

5. Meaningful Farmer Consultation

Small farmers, agricultural organizations, cooperatives and consumer representatives should have a genuine opportunity to participate in the development of the regulations and implementation framework.

6. Transparency About Commercial Benefits

If the principal argument for UPOV 1991 is that it will attract investment and stimulate agricultural innovation, Government should publish the evidence and projections supporting that claim.

7. Examination of a Sui Generis Alternative

Parliament should examine whether a Trinidad and Tobago-specific system could provide effective plant-variety protection while giving stronger statutory recognition to farmers' rights, traditional seed systems and national food-security objectives.

This Is About More Than Farmers

Consumers should pay attention.

Every discussion about agricultural inputs eventually becomes a discussion about food.

Seed affects what farmers can plant.

Seed affects production costs.

Production costs affect farm viability.

Farm viability affects domestic food production.

Domestic food production affects import dependence.

And import dependence exposes consumers to international prices, shipping costs, foreign exchange pressures and external supply disruptions.

The seed question therefore eventually becomes a consumer question.

CAIR's Position

Food security and affordable food must come before commercial convenience.

Seeds are not simply another commercial product.

They are the beginning of the food system.

They determine what farmers can plant, what varieties survive, what agricultural knowledge is maintained, what production costs farmers face and, ultimately, what food is available to consumers.

CAIR therefore believes that Trinidad and Tobago should not strengthen plant-variety rights without simultaneously strengthening the protections available to the farmers who produce our food.

The Government should answer a fundamental question:

Will this new framework make Trinidad and Tobago's farmers more secure and our food supply more resilient—or will it make farmers more dependent upon proprietary seed and external suppliers?

That question deserves evidence, not assurances.

The answer should be determined in the public interest—not solely from the perspective of breeders, investors or commercial seed companies.

Protect breeders.

Protect farmers.

Protect agricultural biodiversity.

Protect consumers.

Above all, protect Trinidad and Tobago's food security.

CAIR – Consumer Advocacy and Information Resource

Watch this  UN address on the matter:

When Control of Seeds Becomes a Human Rights Issue

Submitted by: C. Patrick 

Edited by: CAIR Digital

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true 

 

                        

WATER SECURITY IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO:

What We Have, What We Are Already Struggling to Deliver, and What Large AI Data Centres Could Mean

The question is not only whether Trinidad and Tobago has water.

The question is whether Trinidad and Tobago has enough reliable, treated and deliverable water to satisfy existing households and businesses while accommodating major new industrial users—particularly large AI data centres—without worsening the service already being experienced by citizens.

The answer cannot be determined simply by looking at the amount of water stored in our reservoirs.

Trinidad and Tobago has substantial water resources and reservoir storage. However, the Regulated Industries Commission (RIC) has explicitly acknowledged that the country is not water-scarce while also stating that WASA is unable to maintain a 24/7 water supply to all customers. The RIC attributes intermittent supply primarily to inadequacies in the distribution infrastructure, with the situation becoming worse during the dry season when reduced rainfall decreases available surface water.

That distinction is critical.

1. WHAT TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HAS

The country's major reservoirs provide substantial storage capacity:

RESERVOIR	STORAGE CAPACITY
Caroni–Arena	≈ 10.25 billion Imperial gallons
Navet	≈ 4.20 billion Imperial gallons
Hollis	≈ 1.04 billion Imperial gallons
Hillsborough	≈ 224 million Imperial gallons
TOTAL	≈ 15.71 billion Imperial gallons

But reservoir capacity is not the same thing as water available to consumers.

Water has to be collected, treated, transmitted and distributed through a network that is old, vulnerable and subject to significant losses and operational constraints.

WASA itself has acknowledged that ageing infrastructure and increased non-revenue water, combined with climate-change effects, have significantly affected the volume of water available for consumption. In WASA's documentation for new water-treatment projects, the Authority stated that some communities had been receiving water as infrequently as once every nine days.

That is not a theoretical infrastructure problem. It is a service-delivery problem.

                         

2. WHAT WASA SAYS ABOUT THE CURRENT SERVICE

WASA's own verified figures provide a stark picture.

In May 2025, WASA reported that only:

• 19% of customers received continuous 24/7 supply during 2024.

• 27% received continuous 24/7 supply during January–April 2025.

WASA attributed the continuing service problems to ageing infrastructure, climate impacts and operational inefficiencies.

Therefore, when discussing water availability, it is misleading to say simply:

"Trinidad has billions of gallons stored."

The relevant question is:

How much reliable, safe water can actually be delivered to consumers, and how consistently?

A reservoir full of water does not provide a household with water if the treatment plant, transmission system, pumping system or distribution network cannot reliably deliver it.

3. CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAKING THE PROBLEM MORE DIFFICULT

The RIC's analysis is particularly important because it connects water security directly to climate change.

The RIC records that the Trinidad and Tobago Meteorological Service has projected warmer and longer dry seasons and reduced rainfall during wet seasons.

The RIC also notes that climate change is expected to increase evaporation during dry seasons, further complicating water-supply management. It warns that changes in rainfall patterns can mean more intense rainfall over shorter periods, which can reduce the effectiveness of rainfall in replenishing groundwater and can negatively affect surface-water quality.

This means that the issue is not simply:

"Do we have enough rain?"

It is:

"Can rainfall reliably replenish the water sources at the rate at which society is consuming water?"

That is a much more serious water-security question.

4. THE RIC HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM

The RIC has said that most customers receive scheduled water primarily because of inadequacies in the water-distribution infrastructure.

It further states that dry-season conditions exacerbate the problem because limited rainfall reduces the availability of surface water.

The RIC has therefore proposed that WASA's dry-season planning should move beyond short-term emergency responses and incorporate:

• long-term water-security planning;

• risk management;

• minimum levels of supply to customers;

• monitoring of the actual level of supply received;

• performance monitoring;

• contingency planning; and

• better reporting on whether published supply schedules are actually being met.

This is important because water rationing is not a normal measure of a fully resilient water system. It is a mechanism for managing scarcity or system constraints.

5. DESALINATION HELPS—BUT CAPACITY IS NOT THE SAME AS ACTUAL PRODUCTION

Trinidad also has desalination capacity.

The Point Lisas desalination plant operated by DESALCOTT has a normal supply capacity of approximately 40 million Imperial gallons per day (MIGD).

But even this number must be interpreted correctly.

WASA has documented occasions when DESALCOTT's production fell substantially below its normal 40 MIGD. In February 2023, for example, production was reduced to 15 MIGD because of repairs to a collapsed backwash pipeline. WASA stated that the plant normally supplied 40 million gallons per day and expected to ramp back up to that level after the repairs.

Therefore:

40 MIGD is capacity/full production—not a guarantee that 40 MIGD will be available every day under every circumstance.

That distinction becomes extremely important when calculating whether Trinidad has spare water capacity for a new major industrial customer.

6. THE AI DATA-CENTRE QUESTION

Two proposed AI/data-centre projects have been announced with an initial combined electrical requirement of approximately:

450 MW

• EY-related project: approximately 300 MW

• Hummingbird AI: approximately 150 MW

The Hummingbird proposal has reportedly contemplated expansion to approximately 500 MW.

If both projects eventually reach those stated levels, the potential combined electricity requirement could therefore reach approximately:

800 MW

But electricity is only one resource.

A large AI data centre also requires:

• water for cooling, depending on the cooling technology;

• land;

• telecommunications infrastructure;

• electricity transmission infrastructure;

• backup power;

• wastewater management;

• construction materials;

• and other supporting infrastructure.

7. WATER REQUIREMENTS MUST BE DISCLOSED BEFORE APPROVAL

There is no responsible single number that can be assigned to the water requirements of an AI data centre without knowing its cooling technology and its projected Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE).

Using illustrative WUE scenarios, however, the potential scale can be demonstrated.

At approximately 0.465 litres of water per kWh, continuous operation would produce approximately:

AI LOAD	ILLUSTRATIVE COOLING WATER REQUIREMENT
150 MW	≈ 0.37 MIGD
300 MW	≈ 0.74 MIGD
450 MW	≈ 1.11 MIGD
500 MW	≈ 1.23 MIGD
800 MW	≈ 1.96 MIGD

These are scenario estimates, not disclosed requirements for the Trinidad projects.

Under a much more water-intensive cooling scenario, the requirement could be several times higher.

That is why the Government and developers should disclose the actual projected WUE and cooling design before anyone concludes that the water requirement is insignificant.

8. PUTTING THE AI DEMAND AGAINST DESALINATION

Using the illustrative medium scenario:

450 MW → approximately 1.11 MIGD

Against DESALCOTT's 40 MIGD nominal capacity, that represents approximately:

2.8% of DESALCOTT's nominal capacity.

An eventual 800 MW → approximately 1.96 MIGD, equivalent to approximately:

4.9% of DESALCOTT's nominal capacity.

Those percentages may appear modest.

But that is not the end of the analysis.

The question is whether the AI facilities would receive a guaranteed, dedicated water supply while ordinary consumers continue to experience scheduled or unreliable service.

9. THE PUBLIC-INTEREST QUESTION

The issue therefore should not be framed as:

"Should Trinidad and Tobago have AI data centres?"

The better question is:

"Under what conditions should Trinidad and Tobago allocate scarce and strategically important public resources to very large private industrial facilities?"

Before approval, the public should know:

1. Exactly how much water each data centre will require.

2. What cooling technology will be used.

3. What its projected Water Usage Effectiveness will be.

4. Whether potable water will be used.

5. Whether desalinated water will be used.

6. Whether reclaimed or treated wastewater will be used.

7. Who will finance the dedicated water infrastructure.

8. Whether the facilities will have priority access during droughts.

9. What happens to the allocation when reservoirs fall below critical levels.

10. Whether the facilities can be required to reduce consumption during water shortages.

11. What wastewater and thermal-discharge impacts will result.

12. Who ultimately owns and benefits from the projects.

10. THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS QUESTION

This is where the issue becomes much larger than the AI industry.

Water is a shared national resource.

If a community is receiving water intermittently while a new industrial customer receives a guaranteed supply, the question is not simply how much water the industrial customer consumes.

The question becomes:

Who has priority over the resource?

The RIC's own work recognizes that Trinidad and Tobago must plan for water security under increasingly difficult climatic conditions and that existing infrastructure already prevents WASA from providing 24/7 service to all customers.

WASA's own figures show that continuous 24/7 supply reached only 19% of customers in 2024, rising to 27% in the first four months of 2025.

At the same time, WASA's current public information continues to show active water disruptions and temporary supply schedules in 2026.

Therefore, the burden of proof should not rest on citizens to demonstrate that AI data centres will cause shortages.

The developers should demonstrate that their projects will not compromise existing water security.

THE STANDARD SHOULD BE SIMPLE:

No new major industrial water commitment should be approved without a transparent assessment of existing supply, climate-change risk, drought scenarios, infrastructure capacity, cooling-water requirements and the protection of domestic consumers.

Trinidad and Tobago does not merely need more water.

It needs water security.

And water security means having enough safe, reliable and resilient supply for people first, while determining transparently what additional industrial demand the country can sustainably support.

Edited by: CAIR Digital

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true 

 

GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES GAP Healthy Soil Honest Harvests Safe Food

Will Consumers Be Better or Worse Off Under Trinidad and Tobago’s 2025/2026 Budget?

Analysis of the 2025/2026 Trinidad and Tobago National Budget reveals that while targeted relief measures exist, the overall consumer position is likely to worsen modestly due to new structural costs and indirect price pressures.

---

A Delicate Balancing Act

The 2025/2026 National Budget reflects the Government’s effort to maintain fiscal discipline while supporting households in a period of moderate inflation and post-pandemic recovery. It introduces short-term relief measures and social protection programs, yet embeds structural cost increases that will gradually tighten consumer budgets.

Overall, this is a budget that offers relief at the margins but demands contribution at the core — and the balance tips slightly against consumers over time.

---

What Consumers Gain

Several initiatives in the budget aim to provide immediate, visible relief:

• Super Gasoline Reduction (TT$1 per litre): A direct cost-of-living benefit that lowers transport expenses and slightly reduces the cost of goods moved by road.

• Duty and Tax Exemptions: On electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment and sporting gear, making eco-friendly and health-oriented purchases more affordable.

• Housing and Social Support: Expansion of Home Improvement and First-Time Homeowner Grants helps citizens access and maintain homes.

• Period Poverty Initiative: A socially progressive measure improving access to menstrual hygiene products for vulnerable women and girls.

• Agricultural Incentives: VAT and duty exemptions on farming inputs may enhance food security and eventually stabilize retail food prices.

These measures show a commitment to targeted relief — especially for lower-income and socially vulnerable groups — but their reach is limited.

---

What Consumers Will Pay More For

The same budget introduces new and recurring obligations that will tighten household finances:

• National Insurance (NIS) Contribution Increase (+3%) — Effective January 1, 2026, this change directly reduces take-home pay and raises labour costs for employers.

• Reintroduction of Property Tax (Residential) — Increases costs for homeowners and may lead to rent hikes where landlords transfer the burden.

• Landlord Surcharge — Adds indirect cost pressure to the rental market.

• Higher Duties on Alcohol and Tobacco — Pushes up retail prices on these consumer items.

• Commercial Electricity Surcharge — Although targeted at businesses, it raises operating costs in energy-intensive industries, with a likely pass-through to consumers via higher prices.

These are structural costs, not temporary adjustments — they repeat monthly or annually, steadily eroding disposable income.

---

Indirect and Medium-Term Effects

Other fiscal and policy shifts carry ripple effects for consumers:

• The removal of vehicle duty concessions for returning nationals will increase the cost of imported and used vehicles, affecting the car market overall.

• While infrastructure investments and agricultural VAT exemptions are positive long-term moves, their consumer benefits will take time to materialize.

• Governance and transparency reforms (e.g., the FOAC and ERC) should boost public confidence and accountability, but their economic benefits are indirect.

---

The Net Consumer Outlook: A Modest Worsening

When relief and burden are weighed together, the evidence suggests that the consumer position will modestly worsen during the 2025/2026 period.

Here’s why:

1. Recurring fiscal obligations (NIS, property tax) outweigh the limited, one-time relief from fuel and social programs.

2. Business-targeted measures (like the electricity surcharge) will likely translate into higher prices over time.

3. Most relief measures are narrow in scope — they do not broadly offset the rising cost of living.

The middle-income group — salaried employees, homeowners, and renters — will likely feel the greatest squeeze.
Lower-income households benefit somewhat more from targeted grants and subsidies, while high-income earners can absorb new taxes more easily.

---

What Consumers Can Do

In this new fiscal environment, households should focus on proactive financial management:

• Reassess monthly budgets to factor in NIS and property tax obligations.

• Capture savings from the fuel reduction while it lasts by improving transport efficiency.

• Apply early for available grants and subsidies (housing, home improvement, period-poverty support).

• Practice energy efficiency at home to offset potential price increases driven by the electricity surcharge.

• Shop strategically and monitor price movements on essential goods.

---

Final Word

The 2025/2026 Budget is neither harsh nor generous — it is pragmatic, but it tilts toward fiscal recovery more than consumer comfort.
While the Government is cushioning the most vulnerable, structural costs are rising for the average household.

For the typical consumer, the next fiscal year will demand careful planning and adaptation — not crisis management, but disciplined adjustment.

Summary Effect:

Submitted by: C.Patrick

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true 

The “S” in ESG is Not Silent — TTSE’s UN SSE Membership and the Road Ahead for Consumers

The “S” in ESG is Not Silent — TTSE’s UN SSE Membership and the Road Ahead for Consumers

When the Trinidad and Tobago Stock Exchange (TTSE) joined the United Nations Sustainable Stock Exchanges (UN SSE) initiative, it marked a significant shift toward transparency, sustainability, and responsible investment in our local markets.

But while finance professionals focused on new ESG standards and disclosure frameworks, we at CAIR zeroed in on one key takeaway:

The “S” in ESG — Social responsibility — must be loud, clear, and enforceable.

Yet, let’s be clear: Environmental, Social, and Governance are deeply interconnected — and consumers, workers, and communities are stakeholders in every part of that equation.

---

ESG is About People, Planet, and Power

E = Environment
CAIR has long championed food safety, clean water, sustainable consumption, and energy justice — all core to environmental sustainability. A company’s environmental impact affects not just ecosystems, but human health and consumer trust.

S = Social
From affordable housing and access to healthcare to fair pricing and digital equity, the social aspect of ESG is where consumer rights and dignity live. How businesses treat customers, employees, and communities directly shapes their risk profile — and their value.

G = Governance
Good governance underpins all of this. Transparency, ethical conduct, board accountability, and anti-corruption measures ensure that companies don’t just say they care — they prove it through systems, decisions, and results.

---

ESG Reporting and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards

With the global adoption of the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (S1 and S2), companies are now required to report how environmental, social, and governance issues affect their enterprise value. This means that how businesses treat consumers and communities directly impacts their financial health, risk profile, and attractiveness to investors.

These standards reinforce that social responsibility is not just good ethics — it’s sound business.

---

TTSE’s UN SSE Membership: A Turning Point

By joining the UN SSE, TTSE has committed to promoting:

• ESG disclosure by listed companies

• Green and social bonds that fund projects with environmental or social impact

• Capacity building for sustainable investing

This is no small move. It positions Trinidad and Tobago to attract global investment that prioritizes sustainability — but it also raises the bar for how companies treat people and the planet.

---

What This Means for CAIR

CAIR is ready to lead in shaping the ESG conversation from the lens of consumer welfare and public interest:

• We will monitor ESG reporting from a consumer-centered perspective

• We will advocate for inclusive social metrics: affordability, access, safety, and community outcomes

• We will call on companies to align their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives with national priorities in health, housing, food, and digital access

• We will work with partners to ensure ESG disclosures don’t just tick boxes — but reflect lived realities

---

Final Word: Consumers Are Not an Afterthought

Sustainability is not about branding — it’s about real impact.
Consumers are not just buyers; we are stakeholders, citizens, and essential to market legitimacy.

As ESG standards become embedded in financial systems, CAIR will ensure that people and planet are not secondary to profit — but central to progress.

Contact CAIR today:

Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/cairtt/about-us?authuser=3

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cair.tt

Twitter: https://x.com/CAIR1000000

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cair_1500000/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheConsumerAdvocacy

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/consumer-advocacy-and-information-resource/?viewAsMember=true