The Tribune

By RICHARD COULSON

Euphoria but scepticism. These were my conflicting emotions during the two-day gathering, called a ‘Regional Workshop’, of the Caribbean Growth Forum (CGF), held last month in the ornate meeting rooms of the Atlantis Conference Centre.

It was certainly stimulating to see some 200 delegates from across the Caribbean, representing the British Commonwealth countries plus the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Suriname, coming together to discuss issues and problems common throughout the region – and, hopefully, to find solutions. The opening session was enlivened by an emotive address by Prime Minister Perry Christie, followed by officers of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank. These sponsors of the event, together with agencies from Canada and the UK, clearly had done a heroic job of planning and logistics, providing two days of meetings, discussions, videos and power-point presentations, lunches, and a reception, free of charge, to all the invitees. We had the rare opportunity to be educated by senior officials speaking for Barbados, Grenada, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, the US and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The head of the umbrella organisation, ‘Compete Caribbean’, made clear the resources available to help private sector ventures.

So much for the euphoria. I felt my first touch of scepticism when I looked around the initial plenary session and spotted few Bahamians - none of the “heavy hitters” of our economy; the leading bankers, lawyers, accountants, hotel chiefs, property developers or chief executives of our major retail or distribution businesses. Without them, I wondered, who was intended to be the Bahamian target audience?

The CGF’s own publicity defines it as a procedure for “producing growth and creating jobs . . . by analytics work, knowledge exchange, and inclusive dialogue”, with interface between governments, private business and civil society. Growth and employment are, of course, key objectives throughout the Caribbean, even in Trinidad with its petroleum industry. But I could not help asking myself whether the broad-brush approach of CGF is well designed to reach these objectives. The CGF format gives a distinct impression of trying to do too much, with its capabilities spread too widely and with too little depth. The Deputy Prime Minister of St Lucia spoke cogently about air transportation, and how to convince separate island nations to improve connectivity by creating one or two major “hubs”. This subject could well be the topic of an entire conference, with technical and economic experts giving it a full airing, just as separate conferences could be devoted to determining what types of renewable energy, or agricultural projects, are suitable for the various nations.

Here in the Bahamas, at the initial CGF conference in April, three working groups were appointed to meet and prepare reports for submission to Government; one on ‘Logistics and Connectivity’, the second on ‘Skills and Productivity’ and the third on ‘Investment Climate’. I attached myself to the latter and attended two of the three meetings that were held. The approximately dozen delegates spoke forcefully about the many obstacles to economic development, but these sessions, however well-intentioned, amounted to nothing more than generalised recommendations with no time for specific remedies. Our hard-working group leader kept us focused and diligently white-boarded all our comments, eventually producing a 12-page report summarising all the significant points, including Family Island development, improved investment approval procedures,environmental protection, Immigration policy and procedures, land use and ownership, relaxation of exchange control and sources of alternative energy.

The report, though comprehensive and well-written, could be little more than an exercise in re-inventing the wheel, repeating the issues that have been raised over many years by spokesmen from the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies. It was submitted to minister of state for investments, Khaalis Rolle, who may find it useful, as he has publicised his responsibility for creating an Economic Council and a National Development Plan. He assured me that the CGF would not be just another talking session, but would bring specific results. We shall see.

Meanwhile, after the morning’s plenary session of the conference, our ‘Investment Climate’ working party broke up into smaller sub-groups. I attended one called ‘Access to Finance’. About 25 people sat around a u-shaped table, a few foreign delegates but mainly Bahamians, although I did not see any senior executives of our banks, investment firms, pension funds or BISX-listed companies. Under the guidance of a moderator, more than two hours were spent hearing about banks’ deficiencies in providing financing for new or growing companies, the Central Bank’s failure to lower interest rates, and the pernicious effects of our restrictive exchange control policy. These are all subjects worthy of detailed analysis and policy changes, but I found it highly unlikely that our intense, but inevitably disorganised, exchanges will move any action by our Government authorities or our banks. Once again, talk was ill-suited to bring results.

The CGF documentation now seems to put the ball firmly in the hands of the regional governments. “By the end of the first year (2013?) the findings on the research and the dialogues will be disseminated,” it says. I hopefully await to learn, by December 31, what the Prime Minister’s Office decides to release to keep the CGF alive and relevant to our citizens.

I was also curious about the composition of the CGF. Although called ‘Caribbean’, there was no representation from the substantial French territories of Martinique, Guadeloupe and St Martin; the Dutch dependencies of Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St Maarten; the UK colonies of Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands; and the US-linked Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. Presumably they were omitted as subsidiaries of foreign nations, but assuredly the parent states (all IDB members) wish to minimise economic apron-strings and encourage self-reliance, probably with the long-term objective of independence. Fitted snugly and permanently into the Caribbean region, should not these islands be brought into the Forum?

And, of course, there is the unacknowledged gorilla in the room, Cuba. Smack in the centre of the Caribbean, by far its largest land mass and most populous state, Cuba will before too long become the regional economic powerhouse again, once the aging Castro brothers pass on and the dying remnants of communist philosophy inevitably vanish. At present it is politically impossible for Cuba to be integrated into any forum sponsored by the IDB, whose policies cannot conflict with its dominant shareholder, the US, Cuba’s long-standing opponent. But the Bahamas has direct diplomatic relations with Cuba, with many common interests and unrestricted travel. Cuba is our only Caribbean neighbour with the potential to become a major factor in manufacturing and agriculture, and thus provide a two-way trading partnership. In the long run, a closer connection with Cuba may be far more productive than focusing on the small islands who, although friendly Commonwealth members, have little to offer us economically.

In its constant search for new businesses and employment opportunities, our Government can take plenty of steps as relevant as the CGF exercise. In his excellent new book, ‘The Bahamian Dream’, Dr John Rodgers offers practical, specific proposals, although I disagree with his view that we need to become a manufacturer of tangible “products”. There is no way the Bahamas can go that route, which has been partially abandoned even by the US, whose growth enterprises include Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Disney, Verizon and even IBM, generating only systems and images.

The Bahamas can excel down a similar path. We already have the example of IPBS, the specialised wealth management software provider created by a local entrepreneur, whose product is being used in foreign financial centres. If Government assigned a few qualified, articulate IT engineers to open business development offices in Silicon Valley and near M.I.T. in Cambridge, we could reap technology start-ups and spin-offs being set up here. This is just the type of ‘clean’, environmentally friendly industry that could turn COB into a technology centre attracting students from here and abroad.

We should not forget the film industry: We not only have a host of qualified local film-makers (in small productions, but with plenty of expertise), but also most of the “major” studios have used our country for location shoots and would be happy to do more – but only if we grant production subsidies like those available in Canada and elsewhere. Sure, these will be up-front charges against our Government‘s expense budget, but they will be dwarfed by the long-term growth in employment and tourism that will result from recognition as a major film centre, with our vivid annual BIFF already known “to the trade” and seeking wider exposure.

Compared to these more direct efforts, the CGF events are enjoyable parties that do no harm, and cost our taxpayers nothing. But hard results remain to be proven.