community than protecting the sea turtle from shrimp trawling boats. Although this case did not
return a verdict in favour of the United States and the endangered sea turtle, it is still a case of
enforced environmental legislation. That is something that does not seem to exist in Trinidad.
The legal framework is apparent, but the lack of enforcement shines a gaping hole and questions
the legitimacy of the environmental legal landscape of Trinidad. The EMA has been a complete
embarrassment since its conception. From, rubber stamping BP’s endeavours in the Fishermen
and Friends of the Sea to the international fiasco of destroying thousands of endangered turtle
eggs. It has proven itself to be inefficient and inconsequential. Trinidad can continue to be a
signatory on every important international convention and continue to expand its domestic law,
but without proper enforcement, the leatherback sea turtle will cease to exist because of
economic goals over riding environmental prosperity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v The Environment Management Authority and BP Trinidad
and Tobago LLC [2005] UKPC 32
Natural Resources Conservation Authority v. Seafood and Ting International Ltd., (Suit No. C.L.
1999/S-134; dated July 1 1999)
Talisman (Trinidad) Petroleum Ltd. v. The Environmental Management Authority, EA 3 of 2002.
United States v India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand (1998) WTO Appellate Body (ShrimpTurtle Case)
Statutes and Statutory Interpretation
Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species 1984
Environmental Management Act 2000
Environmentally Sen sitive Areas Rules 2001
National Environmental Policy 2005
42