THERE HAS been surprisingly little discussion in Jamaica at the decision by Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders to suspend the community's common external tariff (CET) from a range of goods to cushion the impact of rising costs in the region. The matter is worthy of robust debate so that all stakeholders can be assured that a policy being implemented with good intent is not to the long-term detriment of Jamaica and its partners in Caricom.

The motivation of Caricom's move is clear. Rising oil prices, the mortgage crisis in the United States, and the credit crunch that has been triggered by events there, have been causing a spiral in prices. For developing countries, the spike in the cost of imported food, exacerbated by competition of grain to be processed into alternative fuels, has been particularly worrying.

In all countries, consumers, particularly the poor, are taking thumping blows. In Jamaica, for instance, inflation for the fiscal year, which concludes at month end, will be closer to 20 per cent than the single digit that had been projected.

It is in this context that Caricom leaders, including Prime Minister Golding, met in Guyana last December to consider ways to combat the problem. Reducing or suspending the 30 per cent CET was an obvious option.

The heads of government, therefore, asked the ministerial council on trade and economic development (COTED) to take a more detailed look at the issue and they, in turn, asked a technical team to establish a set of commodities which weigh heavily in the region's price indices, are not significantly produced in the community or have close substitutes. The CET would be adjusted downwards on the products so identified for two years, beginning this month.

The heads of government, at their summit in Nassau, Bahamas, from March 7-8, in effect, endorsed the list of items that had been approved by COTED. Unfortunately, except perhaps for the technocrats in the foreign and commerce ministries, and maybe a few people in industry, most Jamaicans do not know what these items are.

Nor are they aware of the technical and/or procedural arrangements for the implementation of the schemes. Consumers, too, hardly know what to expect.

Dr Ken Baugh, foreign minister; Karl Samuda, trade and commerce minister; and Dr Christopher Tufton, agriculture minister, all of whose portfolios are impacted, have been strangely silent on the issue; so, too, Mr Golding.

We suspect that this is, in part, because the Government would like to have a big declaration about a cooling, if not rollback, of prices during the Budget Debate next month. Audley Shaw, the finance minister, and Prime Minister Golding would have an opportunity to grandstand a bit in a fiscal environment far from pristine. We, however, would prefer frank and honest discourse without the political hype. For while lower taxes, including import tariffs, are, broadly, good for economies, there are exceptional circumstances.

Indeed, agriculture is often the sector that suffers major consequential impact. For, while consumers get cheap commodities, food security may be compromised. The balance, therefore, is to protect domestic production without institutionalising inefficiencies. These are among the issues pertinent to any discourse on the lowering or the suspension of the CET. Caricom, happily, is paying attention. The heads of government have mandated an agricultural investment forum in Guyana for June. So, we may yet get some robust discussion on the matter.