Tag: COVID-19

  • Vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone: Vaccines, viruses and the war for immunological supremacy

    Vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone: Vaccines, viruses and the war for immunological supremacy

    Image by hakan german from Pixabay

    By Dr. Garrey Michael Dennie, Guest Contributor

    In the late 60’s and early 70’s the polio virus swept through St. Vincent in waves of fearsome fury. In Rose Place, it killed eight year old Sandra Culzac. As a child in Rose Place I still remember the fear as the invisible and lethal enemy stalked our homes, broke the bodies of children, permanently crippled their lives, and brought death to our doors. The virus was merciless. Chance and chance alone decided who lived, who died, who became crippled, and who escaped the deformities that polio inflicted on our young bodies.

    Today, no Vincentian child has to fear polio. Indeed with a few exceptions, the threat that polio posed to earlier generations of children all over the world is no more. And the reason for this is simple: mass vaccination campaigns have virtually eradicated polio from the world.

    In fact, what is true for polio is even more so for another killer virus: small pox. In the 20th century alone, small pox killed more than 300 million people worldwide. Indeed in 1492 when Columbus and the Spaniards who followed him arrived in the Americas, they brought with them small pox and a cocktail of other lethal viruses. But small pox was the single greatest instrument of conquest that destroyed indigenous civilizations. With no immunity to small pox, indigenous people died in the millions.

    Today, however, small pox is gone, utterly and completely eradicated from the face of the earth. Again, the reason is simple: mass vaccination campaigns removed from the planet a lethal virus that had slaughtered humanity for thousands of years.

    The Covid-19 pandemic that currently afflicts us certainly bears deep comparison to these great viral killers of the past. It has shattered economies, destroyed international flights, shuttered borders, infected more than 100 million people, and killed more than two million. In the face of such immense suffering some people have sought refuge in their faith. And faith indeed can provide comfort in times of great stress.

    Others, however, have sought to traffic and profit from legitimate human fears by promoting false cures to the fearful and the uninformed. And more dangerous still, some have embraced a Cult of Death, essentially declaring that our most treasured medical research institutions and our strongest scientific minds cannot be trusted to guide us through this medical crisis that currently engulfs the world. They would therefore have us do nothing as Covid-19 rages around us killing and maiming at will.

    However, we should be clear on this point: the defeat of SARS 2, the virus that causes Covid-19 is absolutely certain. We do not know the precise time when we would declare victory. But we do know the manner by which that defeat would be administered: the mass vaccination of the world’s population against the SARS 2 virus would immunize the vast majority of the people against contracting Covid-19.

    It is highly unlikely that every person on the planet would take the vaccine. But that is not necessary. The key concern is that the global population achieves what immunologists describe as herd immunity. In the instance of Covid-19 it simply means that if around 85 percent of the population in every country is vaccinated that would squeeze out the opportunity for the virus to replicate. Without the opportunity to replicate, the virus ultimately faces extinction.

    Vaccines defy viruses by denying them the capacity to seize our cells and transform them into viral replicators. They do this by a simple trick. They expose our bodies to a dead virus or a protein from the virus that cannot harm us. Our immune system interprets this as a dangerous assault against us and goes into full combat mode producing antibodies designed to destroy the invasive pathogen. And this is where the magic happens. Our immune system remembers this attack and the next time it meets the virus it is fully prepared to repel it from our system.

    Our scientists have known this for more than 200 years. We produced the first vaccines in the 1790s. And over the next 200 years we continued to perfect our capacity to make vaccines. We therefore stand today in a world of extraordinary medical, scientific, and engineering expertise without parallel in the past 200 years of medical history.

    The proof of this is staring us in the face. For whereas the virus has already killed more than two million people in just one year, in the USA alone, American health officials have administered more than 50 million vaccinations and not a single person has died from any vaccine. Indeed, in Israel, more than 700,000 people took the Pfizer and Modena vaccines and 99.95 percent of those vaccinated have failed to contract the virus. These numbers are simply incredible, a testament to the intellectual firepower we have brought to bear against the virus. In fact, what we do know is that although the vaccines vary in their capacity to prevent illness, every single one of them prevents an infected person from dying of Covid-19. These numbers clearly tell us that after a year of tears, the reign of Covid-19 should come to a swift end.

    Some caution, however, is due. The struggle to defeat this virus might take longer than it should because of scientific illiteracy. Anti-vaxxer communities proliferate on the Internet and they have used the Internet to propagate lies, scams, and deceit about the vaccines. Their ignorance of medical history guarantees that they will continue to direct their misinformation at the ranks of the uniformed.

    Quite frankly, anti-vaxxers lie, and people die. For the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines, however, whose first duty is to honour the scientific and historical truths in the fight against Covid-19, the way forward should be plain: vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone, and crush this virus. It is a war we must win.

    Dr. Garrey Michael Dennie is an Associate Professor of History at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

    The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the guest author and are not necessarily representative of those of the Caribbean Trade Law & Development Blog.

  • Communique issued at the conclusion of the Forty-First Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, via Videoconference, 29 October 2020

    Communique issued at the conclusion of the Forty-First Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, via Videoconference, 29 October 2020

    CARICOM Secretariat – The Forty-First Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) was held virtually on 29 October 2020.The Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dr. the Honourable Ralph Gonsalves, chaired the proceedings.

    Other Members of the Conference in attendance were: Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Honourable Gaston Browne; Prime Minister of The Bahamas, Honourable Dr. Hubert Minnis; Prime Minister of Barbados, Honourable Mia Amor Mottley, Q.C, MP; Prime Minister of Dominica, Honourable Roosevelt Skerrit; Prime Minister of Grenada, Dr. the Rt. Honourable Keith Mitchell; President of Guyana, His Excellency Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali; President of Haiti, His Excellency Jovenel Moise; Prime Minister of Jamaica, the Most Honourable Andrew Holness; Premier of Montserrat, Honourable Easton Taylor-Farrell; Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, Dr. the Honourable Timothy Harris; Prime Minister of Saint Lucia, Honourable Allen Chastanet; the President of Suriname, His Excellency Chandrikapersad Santokhi; and Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. the Honourable Keith Rowley.

    Belize was represented by Attorney General, Honourable Michael Peyrefitte.

    Associate Members in attendance were: Bermuda represented by Premier, the Honourable David Burt; the British Virgin Islands represented by Premier,the Honourable Andrew Fahie; and the Turks and Caicos Islands, represented by Premier, the Honourable Sharlene Cartwright-Robinson.

    OPENING

    Chair of the Community, Dr. the Honourable Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Secretary-General of the Community, Ambassador Irwin LaRocque, made brief opening remarks.


    COVID-19 AND ITS IMPACT ON THE REGION

    Heads of Government acknowledged the relative success of the Community in its fight against the multi-faceted challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic which they attributed to the application of functional cooperation, one of the core principles of regional integration and which was adopted from the outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus.

    Heads of Government advocated continued vigilance and adherence to the regional public health approach being led by the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA). They commended CARPHA for its on-going leadership and technical support to Member States in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also expressed appreciation for the assistance provided by International Development Partners.

    Heads of Government recognised the impact of COVID-19 on several sectors, including health, tourism, education, security and law enforcement, as well as the different phases of the pandemic which individual countries may be experiencing.

    Heads of Government also recognised that in the absence of a vaccine, COVID-19 will continue to be a grave public health, security and economic threat, and the regional approach must continue to be undertaken to manage these ongoing threats.

    In that regard, they further recognised that re-opening and recovery require a careful balance between reducing restrictive measures and ensuring adequate actions to reduce importation and spread of new cases.

    Heads of Government welcomed the COVAX Facility as an initiative to secure access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines that will afford countries the best opportunity to fast-track access to COVID-19 vaccines.

    They also welcomed the fact that six CARICOM Member States have been identified for Advance Market Commitment – a financing instrument to support the procurement of vaccines for low and middle-income economies. They noted that the remaining Member States have committed to the COVAX Facility as self-financing countries, but were concerned at the limited criteria used to determine how countries accessed financing.

    Heads of Government expressed deep concern that despite being in the midst of a global pandemic, the per capita income criterion was still being used to determine how countries accessed financing from the COVAX Facility. 

    Heads of Government expressed appreciation to the European Union, CARPHA and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) for their support in facilitating the down payment for self-financing Member States.

    They mandated CARPHA to explore, in collaboration with the CARICOM Secretariat and PAHO, other financing options to cover additional costs for the vaccines.

    Heads of Government mandated CARPHA and the Chief Medical Officers of Member States to meet to refine the common technical standards for the CARICOM Travel Bubble and the entry of external arrivals, and report to the Secretariat within 48 hours.

    CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND TRANSFORMATION

    Heads of Government acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the development challenges already confronting the Community and that CARICOM States have been more deeply affected than other developing countries. Member States are now faced with a perfect storm of a public health crisis, an economic crisis and a deepening debt crisis.

    Heads of Government agreed on the need to protect lives, while restoring livelihoods through policies and measures for the gradual and safe return to economic activity.

    Heads of Government noted that the economic prospects for the Caribbean had worsened and cited a report by the International Monetary Fund that the Caribbean is the most affected globally by this pandemic, given that it is the most tourism and travel dependent Region in the world.

    Heads of Government noted that the pandemic would also exacerbate already high deficits and debt in many countries in the Region and building back better would have significant capital requirements which required a multi-faceted financing plan.

    In that regard, Heads of Government agreed to the concept of a Caribbean Economic Recovery and Transformation (CERT) Plan, which has been devised by a regional team of experts under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Barbados, Honourable Mia Amor Mottley.

    Heads of Government called for a new Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) as well as the refinancing of COVID-related debt into long-term low interest instruments.They also urged the early development and use of a Universal Vulnerability Index to determine countries’ eligibility for development assistance.

    A JOINT TOURISM POLICY FOR CARICOM

    Heads of Government noted that over the past seven (7) months, CARICOM Member States had seen an unprecedented decline in tourist arrivals brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

    Heads of Government further noted that several Member States were still recovering from the devastating hurricanes of 2017 and 2019, a situation further compounded by the effects of the pandemic.

    Heads of Government recognised that the resulting reduction in tourism-related tax revenues and the implementation of needed COVID-19 containment, economic and social support mechanisms had placed unparalleled financial demands on Governments across the Community.


    Heads of Government recognised the critical importance of rebuilding the tourism industry and, in that regard, welcomed a proposal by the Government of Saint Lucia for the preparation of a Joint Tourism Policy. They agreed to a Working Group to formulate the policy and report to the Conference by December 31, 2020.

    Given the urgency of the matter, Heads of Government also agreed that a Prime Ministerial Sub-Committee (PMSC) on Tourism be established to provide political oversight for the preparation of the Joint Tourism Policy and other related issues.  The Prime Minister of The Bahamas, as the Lead Head of Government for Tourism in the CARICOM Quasi Cabinet, will preside over the Sub-Committee which will include Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica and Saint Lucia.


    BLACKLISTING

    Heads of Government observed that the European Union, through the actions of the Council and the Commission, have stepped up the economic assault on Small States despite the prevailing global pandemic which has forced the protracted shutdown of economic activity amidst predictions of a slower recovery than envisaged.

    Heads of Government condemned in the strongest possible terms the continued blacklisting by the European Union of Members of the Community through unilaterally and arbitrarily determined standards, and in the absence of any meaningful prior consultation with the affected Members.

    Heads of Government noted that the European Union has steadfastly ignored that capacity constraints and other challenges at the national level continue to impact the speed and depth of reforms in tax administrations, and financial intelligence units in Member States.

    Heads of Government stated that this disproportionate treatment of CARICOM States is a breach of the rights of CARICOM citizens, and called upon the European Council and European Commission to desist from this egregious practice.

    CARICOM PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATION (CPSO)

    Heads of Government agreed to designate the CARICOM Private Sector Organisation (CPSO) as an Associate Institution of the Community.

    They also agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Caribbean Community and the CPSO Inc. for cooperation towards the further implementation of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).


    BORDER ISSUES

    Belize-Guatemala Relations

    Heads of Government received an update on the most recent developments on the Belize – Guatemala border issue. They noted the extension of the time limits for the submission of the Memorials and the Counter Memorials to the International Court of Justice by Belize and Guatemala, respectively. Heads of Government urged Belize, Guatemala and the OAS to continue implementing fully the Confidence Building Measures that have been in place since 2005, pending the resolution of Guatemala’s claim at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    Heads of Government noted that the undertaking by both countries and the Organisation of American States (OAS) to engage in the design and development of a mechanism of co-operation for the Sarstoon River is still outstanding, and called on both countries and the OAS to reinvigorate their efforts to this end.

    They also expressed support for the significant role of the OAS in the process aimed at resolving the dispute arising from Guatemala’s claims on Belize, and further called on the international community to continue supporting the OAS Office in the Adjacency Zone.

    Heads of Government re-emphasised their steadfast support for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of Belize.

    Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy

    Heads of Government noted that the ICJ held an Oral Hearing on Jurisdiction by ‘virtual’ process in the Case of Guyana v. Venezuela on 30 June 2020. A decision is awaited. If the Court affirms its jurisdiction, Guyana will proceed to the next stage of its pleadings as to why the 1899 Arbitral Award is the valid demarcation of the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, thus providing for a final resolution of the controversy between the two countries as determined by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

    Heads of Government reiterated their full support for this judicial process that is intended to bring a peaceful and definitive end to the long-standing controversy between Guyana and Venezuela.

    Heads of Government further reiterated their firm and unswerving support for the maintenance and preservation of the sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Guyana.


    EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL

    Heads of Government engaged with the UN Secretary-General as their Special Guest. They held an extensive and fruitful exchange of views on issues related to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Region’s economy, which has exacerbated existing vulnerabilities, in particular, those related to high levels of debt and access to concessional financing. With regard to climate change, the Secretary-General commended the Community for its efforts to become the first climate-resilient Region.

    He also noted the similarity of views on climate change and recovery to the pandemic which were linked through their solutions. Recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and securing climate action are not separate efforts, he stated. He affirmed the United Nations’ support for a multi-dimensional vulnerability index to help in determining access to concessional financing. 

    Heads of Government welcomed the Secretary General’s firm support for the need for urgent debt relief for middle-income developing countries, and for the importance of the recourse to the criterion of vulnerability as opposed to GDP in measuring development.  They recognised that the upcoming meeting of UNCTAD XV, to be held in Barbados in April 2021, would provide an opportunity to discuss a more equitable multilateral trading system.  

    DATE AND VENUE THIRTY-SECOND INTER-SESSIONAL MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE

    The Government of Trinidad and Tobago will host the Thirty-Second Intersessional Meeting of the Conference, to be held on 23-24 February 2021.

    The preceding was from the Caribbean Community.

  • COVID-19: Why Caribbean Countries should re-examine their investment treaties

    COVID-19: Why Caribbean Countries should re-examine their investment treaties

    Alicia Nicholls

    All Caribbean countries have signed at least one treaty containing provisions meant to reciprocally protect, promote and liberalise the flow of investments between themselves and their treaty partner(s). Unfortunately, the vast majority of our countries’ international investment agreements (IIAs) are older generation bilateral investment treaties (BITs) which lack many of the development-friendly language and best practices of newer vintage IIAs. The end result is that Caribbean countries could potentially face significant legal exposure to claims brought by investors under these treaties.

    Although most Caribbean countries’ experience thus far with investor claims have been contract-based and not treaty-based, the threat for treaty-based claims looms larger now in the midst of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This is because Caribbean governments, like those governments around the world, have had to take measures to contain and mitigate the spread of the virus, and may face claims from foreign investors who feel aggrieved by these measures and seek legal protection under these BITs.  

    This article argues that the time is long overdue for Caribbean countries to re-evaluate whether their BITs remain ‘fit for purpose’ and to take proactive steps to mitigate the risk for investor disputes post COVID-19.

    CARICOM Investment treaty landscape

    CARICOM countries are party to a spaghetti bowl of IIAs. Some are investment chapters in free trade agreements, such as the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. However, the majority are the 83 BITs signed by individual Caribbean governments with external treaty partners, many dating back to the 1980-1990s. Of these BITS, 56 are currently in force according to data from UNCTAD’s IIA Navigator.

    Although the effectiveness of IIAs at attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows remains debated in the academic literature, countries sign these agreements in order to increase their attractiveness to foreign investors. Signing IIAs shows their commitment to guaranteeing investors and their investments certain minimum standards of treatment, as well as protection from heavy-handed State action, such as, for example, direct or indirect expropriation of investors’ investment(s) without compensation.

    Another feature of IIAs is the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), allowing investors to by-pass domestic courts and bring a claim against a host State before a neutral and independent arbitration tribunal, either ad hoc or established under the rules of an established arbitration centre, such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

    Though popular back in the 1980s-90s, in recent years, however, the legitimacy of ISDS internationally has been increasingly questioned for many reasons. Firstly, arbitral tribunals have been criticized for their generous interpretation of vaguely drafted provisions, such as the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard, in favour of investors. Secondly, in many cases, tribunals have arrived at different decisions on the same facts. Thirdly, there is concern about the lack of geographic and other diversity of persons who serve as arbitrators on these panels. Fourth, there is the potential of using Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clauses for treaty shopping.

    A study I conducted a few years shows that there is no consistency in Caribbean countries’ BIT practice, which is reflective of our unequal bargaining power as rule-takers. Moreover, because of their vintage, our older BITs lack the best practices in development, such as more express provisions for the State’s right to regulate in the public’s interest, development exceptions and provisions on investor obligations.

    There are, of course, defences that States can make to investor claims, but many of these older BITs have very broadly drafted protections and lack the exceptions or defences newer BITs have included permitting the State to take action in the interest of public health. Failing this, States would have to rely on other defences under international law, such as necessity.

    ISDS and Caribbean countries

    Caribbean countries have had some experience with claims brought by foreign investors. Although the majority of these claims have been contract-based, one of the most well-known examples of a Caribbean country which was on the losing end of an investor dispute under a treaty-based claim was that of the Dunkeld International Investment Ltd. V Government of Belize. Following Belize’s compulsory acquisition of certain shares in Belize Telemedia Company, in which Dunkeld held an interest, Dunkeld brought a claim against the Government of Belize under the Belize-UK BIT. Belize was ordered by the arbitral tribunal to pay millions of dollars in compensation.

    In an excellent article from April 2020, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) raised the alarm about a possible deluge in investor claims post-COVID-19 and called for a ‘global, coordinated response’ to this risk. This fear and call to action are not unfounded as in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, Argentina faced a litany of investor claims. The stakes are even higher for small States like ours. Defending investor claims is costly and the award amounts, if on the losing end, can be in the millions or billions of dollars, a cost which cash-strapped Caribbean governments, whose economies have been severely impacted by months of shutdowns and border closures, can ill-afford to pay.  There is also the potential for reputational damage for those countries involved in investor disputes, which could affect their investment attractiveness.  

    How can we get around this?

    Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing number of countries around the world have already either suspended or completely overhauled their BITs to limit their legal exposure to investor claims under these treaties. For example, a couple years ago India unilaterally terminated its BITs with over 50 treaty partners, including Trinidad & Tobago, and South Africa terminated BITs with several EU countries.  More recently, in May 2020, 23 EU countries signed an agreement to terminate all intra-EU BITs.

    The CARICOM Secretariat has for many years been working on a Draft CARICOM Investment Code, as well as a template Member States could use for investment agreements with third country partners, incorporating many of the most recent investment treaty best practices. However, to my knowledge, there has not been a systematic review by individual CARICOM countries of their BITs and whether they are indeed ‘fit for purpose’, that is, drafted in a way that promotes investment for sustainable development. Moreover, current economic exigencies may make such a comprehensive evaluation of our BITs low down on the policy totem pole for Caribbean countries.

    Despite this, Caribbean governments should support calls for a multilateral solution to prevent what many anticipate could be a slew of investor claims arising from governments’ COVID-19 measures. However, there are interim mitigating measures they can take, such as deciding with their treaty partners to issue interpretive notes for some of the most used (and abused) provisions by investors or carving out COVID-19 related measures from the application of ISDS.

    On a final note, Caribbean governments need to be more actively involved in efforts to ensure investment rule-making actually creates an environment conducive to attracting investment for sustainable and inclusive development. We must move from simply being ‘rule-takers’ to part of the ‘rule-makers’. As such, our governments should, for example, consider taking an active part in the UNCITRAL Working Group III on ISDS reform.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B is an international trade and development specialist. Read more of her commentaries here or follow her on Twitter @licylaw. All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may from time to time be affiliated.

  • COVID-19: How have Caribbean governments responded so far?

    COVID-19: How have Caribbean governments responded so far?

    Alicia Nicholls

    Declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on March 11, 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak has now spread to well over 100 countries worldwide, including most Caribbean countries. As of March 22, Belize and St. Kitts & Nevis are the only English-speaking Caribbean countries to have not yet reported a confirmed COVID-19 case.

    Globally, the number of confirmed cases is over 300,000. In the Caribbean, the number is over 300 (if the Dominican Republic and Cuba are included). Detailed COVID-19 statistics for each English-speaking Caribbean country as at March 21, may be found here.

    While the number of cases and deaths in the Caribbean currently remain low compared to other regions, the economic fall-out is far more daunting. Tourism associations across the region have reported booking cancellations, a reduction in flight bookings and the real possibility of some accommodations having to close their doors temporarily. Similarly, many businesses across the region have begun to feel the economic pinch from declining patronage and event cancellations.

    This article takes a brief look at some of the various policy responses instituted by Caribbean governments so far to mitigate the human and economic impact of the highly contagious virus.

    Caribbean Government Policy Responses

    As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads across Caribbean shores, regional governments have stepped up their responses which vary according to the severity of the outbreak in the country concerned.

    Based on media reports and government public announcements, below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the major COVID-19 policy measures implemented by Caribbean governments to date:

    A. Containment Policies

    1. Mandatory quarantining of all travellers (both nationals and foreigners) coming from selected countries – mainly the US and Europe, China, South Korea, and Iran e.g: Barbados
    2. Temporary restrictions of entry of foreign nationals from selected countries e.g: many Caribbean countries
    3. Restrictions on non-essential travel by nationals to certain affected countries e.g: many Caribbean countries
    4. Suspension of international flights or flights from certain countries e.g: Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago
    5. Refusal of docking for cruise ships with cases of respiratory illness onboard e.g: most Caribbean countries now
    6. Temporary closures of land borders, and most or all ports of entry (except for citizens or permanent residents returning home – they will be placed in quarantine on arrival) e.g: Belize, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago
    7. Restrictions on mass events, public gatherings and public events over a certain number of persons, e.g: in Barbados the number is now restricted to 25 persons
    8. Closure of beaches e.g: Tobago has closed beaches to control public gatherings
    9. Mandatory closures of bars, restaurants, casinos e.g: Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago
    10. Restrictions on public visits at hospitals, polyclinics and geriatric hospitals e.g: Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago
    11. Temporary closures of schools and other educational institutions e.g: several Caribbean countries
    12. Declaration of state of emergency e.g: Haiti, Dominican Republic
    13. Imposition of curfew with penalties for non-compliance e.g: The Bahamas, Haiti

    B. Communication Policies

    1. Establishing dedicated COVID-19 hotlines e.g: several Caribbean countries
    2. Regular press briefings on the status of the outbreak in the country and measures being taken e.g: Barbados
    3. Public service announcements/campaigns e.g: many Caribbean governments are running public service announcements on respiratory hygiene and social distancing

    C. Social and Economic Policies

    1. Stimulus package e.g: the Government of Barbados, which is currently undergoing an IMF-sanctioned adjustment programme, announced a BBD $20 million stimulus package to assist people and businesses impacted by the outbreak. The Jamaica government has also outlined a JAM $25 billion fiscal stimulus package.
    2. Tapping into disaster funds e.g: Cayman Islands has tapped into its National Disaster Fund to set aside $3 million for its COVID-19 response.
    3. Anti-price gouging policies e.g: Barbados has instituted a COVID-19 basket of goods
    4. Additional benefits for affected workers, such as extending the period of non-certified sick leave and increasing the duration period of unemployment benefits e.g: Barbados
    5. Providing assistance to affected families and small businesses e.g: increasing welfare cheques and recapitalising funds for assisting businesses
    6. Enlisting private sector and civil society support
    7. Reinstatement of standpipes e.g: Dominica
    8. Efforts to stimulate local food production e.g: The British Virgin Islands has set aside $2 Million to stimulate local food production and assist fisherfolk under its stimulus package “The Rapid Response Fishing and Farming Production Programme”.

    D. Providing external assistance to other affected countries

    Cuba has reportedly sent 144 health care workers to assist affected countries.

    This article will be updated periodically .

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant. You can also read more of her commentaries at www.caribbeantradelaw.com and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.