Since its inception in 2002, the Community-Based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP) has been one of the most visible public employment initiatives in T&T.
Aimed at providing short-term jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled individuals while enhancing local communities, CEPEP sits at the crossroads of socioeconomic upliftment and political controversy. Over two decades later, has CEPEP delivered on its promise, or has it outlived its purpose?
Dr Marlene Attzs, a development economist and Dr Ralph Henry, a distinguished economist and advocate for Caribbean development, agree that while CEPEP’s purpose endures, its effectiveness is in need of urgent recalibration.
An estimated 10,500 people were fired from the programme, following the termination of more than 300 contractors on June 27.
According to a Sunday Guardian (July 6, 2025), more than $6 billion was allocated to CEPEP in the 15 years between 2009 and 2023, yet the organisation has not submitted audited financial statements since 2014.
This lack of transparency and accountability raises serious questions about how taxpayers’ money has been spent, Attzs said.
In fact, she noted both the 2017 and 2018 national budget statements recognised the need to overhaul CEPEP, citing that the 2017 budget promised to “target assistance to those truly in need while enhancing productivity,” while the 2018 budget pledged to reorient social programmes toward sustainability and more meaningful opportunities for vulnerable citizens.
The 2020 Joint Select Committee (JSC) report also highlighted similar issues, noting that CEPEP had strayed from its “entrepreneurship model,” leaving contractors with “…no impetus to expand their entrepreneurial activities.”
Workers, too, were left with no clear path to move on from the programme, Attzs said, adding that the report also pointed to weak governance, questionable contracting practices and poor oversight - problems that have persisted for years.
In 2025, the Government faces ballooning deficits, rising debt, and growing demands on scarce resources.
In this regard Attzs emphasised it is more urgent than ever to transform CEPEP into a programme that genuinely helps people climb out of poverty.
However, she made it clear this does not mean abandoning vulnerable citizens - rather, it means creating real pathways for them to achieve independence and participate more fully and purposefully in the workforce.
To make CEPEP effective and accountable, Attzs recommended better data collection.
“Specifically, we should collect detailed information on participants’ education levels, skills, age, gender - and critically, the number of single-parent households depending on CEPEP. That data would help set clear, realistic goals, such as helping participants move into better jobs or start their own businesses after a period of support and training.
“As far back as 2015, I suggested looking at Argentina’s Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogar - a programme introduced during that country’s 2002 economic crisis. It provided a modest stipend in exchange for community work and mandatory training. Millions of Argentinians were lifted out of poverty and transitioned into more stable employment through this approach,” she explained.
Attzs maintained that a similar strategy in T&T could preserve CEPEP’s social and environmental goals while making better use of its short workday.
Workers, she said, could spend part of the day gaining new qualifications - like CXC passes, learning technical or vocational skills such as IT, construction, or cosmetology, or building entrepreneurial and financial literacy.
Most importantly, Attzs advised there must be a clear graduation pathway, so CEPEP becomes a stepping-stone rather than a permanent job, stressing that with political will, transparent oversight, and measurable targets, CEPEP could become a dynamic development tool - uplifting individuals, safeguarding public funds, and delivering real social and economic benefits.
“In today’s economic climate, we have a responsibility to use scarce resources prudently - not just to maintain livelihoods, but to empower people to stand on their own. With data-driven reform and a clear vision, CEPEP can finally deliver on its promise: becoming a true catalyst for personal growth, stronger communities, and more sustainable livelihoods - not just another line item in the budget,”Attzs added.
For CEPEP to truly deliver on its intended purpose, reforms must centre on transformation rather than maintenance, Henry also echoed.
He noted that CEPEP plays a significant role in T&T’s labour force by providing short-term jobs for thousands of semi-skilled and unskilled workers who might otherwise struggle to find employment.
This includes single parents, older workers with limited formal education and people in rural or economically depressed areas.
“Different communities where people didn’t have work always had a problem of the labour market not absorbing all the people who need work and Government has long accepted a responsibility to provide some kind of employment relief because you just can’t run a society where large numbers of people are unemployed,” Henry said.
However, he agreed that when people get on the programme there is no arrangement in place to have them upgraded and eventually exit to enter into a more regular form of employment.
“The same problem has continued. It is supposed to be short-term employment but people come on the system and then they accept that’s their work period. We still have the problem of structural unemployment... You don’t have enough jobs being created such that people can really find work elsewhere and we have never succeeded in going the next step, which is there are some people who may never be able to be part of the regular employment. For instance, women who have children and they need to take some time before they are able to work full-time in an eight to four job. You still want to provide some support for them or women who may have passed their ‘prime’ in terms of being active but they still need to earn an income because they have no other form of livelihood,” Henry explained.
Asked whether he believed CEPEP has been economically viable over the years, Henry said there might be need for something like CEPEP adding, “But I could tell you that there’s also the problem of people who are in agriculture who find that the presence of CEPEP prevents them from accessing unskilled labour to work in agriculture. All these things have to be assessed in looking at CEPEP, but I wouldn’t be able to pronounce on its viability.
“Whether we can look at the economy and say are we creating jobs that can deal with the problem of structural unemployment, that we have enough jobs being created...There will always be some people who will be unemployed, hopefully temporarily, because when one part of the economy declines and people have to move to other jobs and it’s not a case where as a particular kind of activity declines we can no longer provide employment that people can the next Monday morning move into another job...Economies don’t operate like that,” Henry further explained.
He said the viability of the programme must take all these factors into consideration.
Henry also reiterated that CEPEP could be restructured to make it more more efficient where there’s a commitment to create the institutional arrangements to have workers upgraded in terms of their training and education.
“So now that you’re in CEPEP for maybe no more than a year and during that year you have to get some kind certificate, you get some training, you have to find a way to improve your level of education to get a job and assuming that the economy is taking over and creating the jobs or you can become an entrepreneur because you’ve acquired some skill and get productive activity on your own. That should be linked and that was the original intention but never really got implemented,” Henry added.
