作者： admin

Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo unveiled Trinidad and Tobago’s 2025-2026 national budget on October 13 at the Red House in Port of Spain. The budget, delivered with confidence and compassion, promises significant relief measures, including wage increases for public servants, fuel subsidies, and investments in education and housing. However, the fiscal framework hinges on optimistic assumptions about oil and gas revenues, raising concerns about its long-term sustainability.

Central to the budget is the assumption of an oil price of US$73.25 per barrel, which underpins the projected modest deficit of 2.17% of GDP. However, global forecasts from institutions like the IMF and the World Bank predict Brent crude prices averaging US$60-65 per barrel in 2026—a 15-20% shortfall compared to the government’s estimates. Given Trinidad and Tobago’s oil production of 55,000 barrels per day, this discrepancy could result in a petroleum revenue shortfall of $1.3 to $1.6 billion. Combined with potential delays in gas field development, total revenue could fall short by $4-5 billion, pushing the deficit closer to 5-6% of GDP.

The budget also assumes a rise in natural gas production from 2.6 to 3.2 billion cubic feet per day by 2027, largely dependent on projects like Shell’s Manatee field. However, industry timelines suggest even a one-year delay could derail these projections. Meanwhile, oil production remains near historic lows, with no major new discoveries monetized, casting doubt on the energy sector’s ability to deliver the anticipated revenues.

On the expenditure side, the budget is ambitious, committing to a 10% wage increase for public servants, costing $214 million annually, and reinstating part of the fuel subsidy by reducing super gasoline prices by $1 per litre. Additionally, multi-billion-dollar allocations for infrastructure, education, and social support programs further strain the fiscal framework. While these measures are individually defensible, collectively they embed a permanently higher wage and subsidy bill that will persist even if energy revenues falter.

To bolster non-energy revenue, the government introduced new measures, including a 0.25% asset levy on banks and insurers, a $0.05 per kilowatt-hour electricity surcharge, and higher excise duties on alcohol and tobacco. These are expected to generate $1-1.5 billion in additional revenue, but this falls short of addressing a potential $4 billion shortfall. Moreover, the asset levy may lead to higher lending rates and service fees, potentially dampening private-sector investment.

The budget’s development promises, such as 20,000 affordable homes and $150 million for laptops, are commendable but overly ambitious given the country’s fiscal capacity and implementation track record. Without robust private-sector partnerships or multilateral financing, many projects may face delays or downsizing as fiscal pressures mount.

Tobago’s allocation of 6.3% (approximately $3.7 billion) represents a modest improvement, but the 10% wage increase across the public service signifies a structural shift in expenditure. This higher wage cost limits future fiscal flexibility unless revenues rise sharply—a scenario unlikely under current global energy conditions.

If oil prices average US$62-65 per barrel and gas production remains flat, total revenue could hover around $51-52 billion against expenditures of $59 billion, resulting in a deficit closer to $7-8 billion. Financing this gap would require new borrowing or drawdowns from the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund, both of which would weaken fiscal resilience.

In conclusion, while the 2025-2026 budget is socially generous and politically astute, it is economically precarious. It offers short-term relief and comfort after years of austerity but bets heavily on an energy rebound that may not materialize soon enough. The real risk lies in a country counting on oil dollars that the market may never deliver, trading short-term satisfaction for long-term vulnerability.

In a startling revelation, Trinidad and Tobago’s import cover has dropped to a mere 5.4 months, the lowest level recorded in decades. This critical metric, which measures how long foreign reserves can sustain national imports in the event of disrupted foreign earnings, serves as a barometer of economic stability. The sharp decline has sparked widespread concern among policymakers and citizens alike, signaling potential vulnerabilities in the nation’s financial health.

When the People’s National Movement (PNM) assumed office in 2015, the import cover stood at a robust 11 months. Over the subsequent decade, it gradually decreased to approximately eight months by early 2025. This decline, though worrisome, unfolded against a backdrop of global challenges, including energy shocks, inflation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the situation has taken a dramatic turn under the United National Congress (UNC) administration. In just five months, the import cover has plummeted from eight months to five months, a steeper decline than witnessed over the entire previous ten-year period. This rapid deterioration suggests deeper systemic issues, such as unsustainable foreign exchange spending, mismanagement of reserves, or a failure to restore investor and export confidence.

While supporters of the UNC may attribute the economic fragility to the PNM’s legacy, the current administration cannot evade accountability for its policy decisions. The alarming pace of the decline indicates either a lack of control or a failure to grasp the urgency of the situation. Trinidad and Tobago cannot afford a repeat of past foreign exchange crises.

Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo and the Central Bank must now provide transparent explanations to the public. What policies have contributed to this steep decline in reserves? Are factors such as capital flight, excessive imports, or the depletion of savings to fund short-term consumption at play?

The numbers are unequivocal: the economy is losing reserves at an unprecedented rate. The government must act swiftly and with transparency to restore confidence and prevent a further downward spiral. The stakes are high, and the time for decisive action is now.

In the aftermath of Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo’s budget presentation, reactions have been mixed, with some praising it as a ‘people’s budget’ while others remain sceptical of its long-term viability. The budget, which shifts financial burdens from the working class to banks, insurance companies, and landlords, has been described as a political solution to a complex economic problem. However, critics argue that this approach merely redistributes costs rather than addressing systemic issues.