valuations or increased scientific apprecia- tion of environmental harm; circumstances that have attended Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, among other jurisdic- tions. Additionally, first offences normally attract the minimum fine possible. These deficiencies continue to afflict modern man- agement frameworks and there continues to be significant differences in the quantum of fines for the same environmental offences as among the different island states. Failure to impose penalties reflec- tive of environmental damage has had neg- ative implications for the rule of law with the emergence of "continuous offences" whereby fines imposed following success- ful prosecutions have been paid but the offence continues unabated. Environ- mental agencies are forced to resume the lengthy, expensive, and scientifically and psychologically challenging process of prosecution whilst environmental damage is prolonged in the interim, often to an irreparable degree.
b. Linking Fines To Environmental
response to the conundrum of sanctions for environmental offences has been signifi- cant upward revisions of the levels of fines . Prosecutors may offer recommendations with regard to appropriate financial penal- ties and it has been canvassed that such recommendations be based upon the nature and extent of injury caused to the environment. In specific instances legisla- tion itself has sought to link the quantum of financial penalty to the magnitude of envi- ronmental harm, albeit in the crudest of terms. In order to further reduce the eco- nomic incentive of using the environment as a free good criminal Courts are increas- ingly empowered to hold the offender liable to the Crown for the value of "property removed or of damage done" to flora and fauna. This is additional to any other penal- ty for which the offender is liable. The valu-
ation by the Court is legislated in terms of the "full market value" of the environmental damage. An alternative formulation empowers the Court to impose "additional fines" to reflect any monetary benefits accruing to the offender in consequence of the commission of the offence. Such fines are in addition to "the maximum amount of any fine that may otherwise be imposed". Yet another formula allows fine of "three times the assessed value of the damage caused."
Common Law Actions
Nuisance is the common law tort most applicable to environmental harm but the torts of negligence, trespass, and Rylands v. Fletcher may also be applicable. Caribbean courts adhere to and faithfully apply common law principles that guaran- tee a plaintiff "full" redress from the defen- dant whose liability is established. The compensation should be "as nearly equiva- lent as money can be to the plaintiff's loss. However, although stated in these wide terms, the traditional interpretation has restricted the categories of recoverable loss to injuries to the plaintiff's person and his property, and have not included not ecological harm.
b. Statutory Cause Of Civil Action
Civil recovery for environmental damage may be grounded in statutory pro- visions and a statutory cause of civil action enjoys an important advantage over com- mon law actions. The nature and quantum of recovery for environmental injuries are a function of the statutory provisions rather than interpretation of traditional common law principles and may therefore include non-traditional valuation of harm to ecolog- ical resources.
Myriad examples of statutory caus- es of action in environmental litigation abound. There are provisions for civil liabil-