rarely substantial. There is no case law on protecting the sea turtle and there are no studies
suggesting that the implementation of the environmental police unit has protected more
endangered species. The environmental police unit is currently an experiment being run by the
EMA and will be closed down pending a review of its efficiency. Although, if it is decided that
the environmental police unit is not necessary, then under whose authority will it be to enforce
the EMA. Without a proper force implemented, it will be another useless document.
The leatherback turtle is very important in terms of eco-tourism for Trinidad and Tobago. The
potential for profitability matches the goals of sustainable development. The economic and
environmental goals can both be reached, by protecting the sea turtle and achieving financial
gains, if it is managed properly. This incentive has caused Trinidad to become more vigilant
about protecting the endangered leatherback turtle. The embarrassment of 2012 was criticised on
the world stage when thousands of sea turtle eggs were destroyed by cranes attempting to
redirect the river that was causing problems for a tourist site nearby. The EMA was quot ed
stating “If left on its current course, the existing route of the river would have caused more
erosion and loss to previous nesting sites… The EMA believes that this emergency action will
have some positive impact on the overall population of leatherback turtles nestling in Grande
Riviere.”3 This gross oversight by the EMA has led to criticism of the agency both
internationally and domestically. This is not the first time the EMA has encountered severe
scrutiny. In the Fisherman and Friends of the Sea v The Environment Management Authority
and BP Trinidad and Tobago LLC,56 BP was not required to follow the legislative procedure in
securing environmental clearance due to the EMA 1995 not being implemented by secondary
legislation that would make it effective. There were also doubts that the EMA 1995 was not
compatible with the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago because it had not been passed by
special majorities.
The EMA 1995 was found for all practical purposes ineffective.
Considering the vast environmental consequences of an oil pipeline and the lax state of
environmental legislation, this is another case of inefficiency on the part of the Environment
Management Authority.
56
Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v The Environment Management Authority and BP Trinidad and Tobago LLC
[2005] UKPC 32
40