Towards the end of 1999 the FCO and BIOT “gave consideration to commissioning an examination, by an independent team of experts, of the physical, economic, social and environmental feasibility of establishing permanent re-settlement on the Outer Islands.” (atolls of Peros Banhos and Salomon).
BIOT “arranged for terms of reference to be drafted” ….and… “it was decided that … the feasibility study should be undertaken in two stages.”
The First Stage
The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the first stage were drawn up by the FCO/BIOT in late 1999 and put out for tender. These TORs are reproduced at Annex A of the Study in a slightly amended version which omits some of the original clauses. The principal TOR was: “The consultants will undertake an assessment of the current physical state of the islands and their capacity to support a settled population. They will also make a preliminary study of the potential environmental impact of any settled population. If settlement appears possible and environmentally acceptable, they will make a first estimate of the possible size (maximum and minimum) of population that the islands could support, with a broad estimate of the likely financial costs that could be involved, and a preliminary timetable identifying the principal work and the time taken to complete that work which would need to be undertaken to render the islands capable of being resettled.”
The TORs also stated that “Depending on the results of the stage one study, further more detailed work may be undertaken in a second stage to identify and work out what infrastructure and other investment would be needed to allow a sustainable community to be established.”
The Stage 1 Consultancy Report
As regards the production of the report of the Stage 1 study, the TORs state: “The team leader will coordinate the input of the team members and produce a consolidated report.” Followed by the requirement that: “The consultants will produce a report with recommendations which will form the basis for a decision on whether to proceed to stage two.”
At the request of the Chagossians, their legal adviser (Mr Richard Gifford) was permitted to meet with the 5 consultants (Brian Crapper – Team Leader, Brian Little, James Warren, Dr Susan Clark, Alex Holland) at the FCO on 13 April 2000. The meeting lasted 1.5 hrs and involved Mr Richard Gifford outlining the background to the previous occupation and use of the islands.
The consultants visited the islands between 9 and 13 May 2000 and then returned to the UK to complete their study. It seems that up to this point, the consultants worked independently of the BIOT to produce a draft copy of the report in May 2000. What follows is not documented, but there appears to have been a “de-briefing meeting” between the consultants and the FCO/BIOT at which the May draft was discussed. It is not known who attended this meeting. In any event, a final version of the report was published on 20 June 2000. This “de-briefing meeting” is referred to in the May 2000 draft in the section on “Recommendations for further studies” as follows: “5.1.12 (This section will be revised and completed after the de-briefing meeting).”It also is alluded to in the “Timing” section of the TORs as a requirement for the consultants to: “present the draft report with their findings within two weeks of their return to the UK.” although the TORs do not specifically refer to the requirement for any meeting prior to the final report production for Stage 1.
The relevance of the “de-briefing meeting” between consultants and the FCO/BIOT is that it seems to have influenced the views of the consultants, such that there are quite substantial differences between the May and June versions of their report, and gives rise to doubts that the Stage 1 report can be said to have been truly independent of the FCO/BIOT.
The substantial changes that appear in the June version of the report are primarily to be found in “Section 5. Conclusions”. The tenor of this section changes from a largely positive outlook supporting resettlement to one that whilst concluding that resettlement is possible, then seeks to hedge this conclusion with a number of new and substantial reservations/conditions. This results in the replacement of the original paragraph 5.1.1 with the replacement paragraph 5.1 followed by 4 new paragraphs (5.2 to 5.5) which expand the 4 new ‘conditions’.
The original (May 2000) conclusion was that:
“5.1.1 The conclusion of this preliminary study is that there is no obvious physical reason why one or both of the two atolls should not be re-populated, by the sort of numbers (up to or around one thousand) of Ilois who are said to have expressed an interest in re-settlement. No attempt has been made to estimate the maximum size population which the islands can support. This cannot be calculated mechanistically in terms of (for example) the availability of a finite water resource set against an estimate of per capita consumption, or of the impact of various levels of population on the environment. Carrying capacity is largely a function of the nature of economic activity which accompanies re-settlement, and its capability of financing the necessary amount of resources to ensure adequate supplies of water and to minimise the environmental impact. ”
In the final version of the report (20 June 2000) this section has been substantially altered to:
5.1 The conclusion of this preliminary study is that resettlement of one or both of the two atolls is physically possible, but only if a number of conditions are met. These include confirmation that:
A sustainable and affordable water resource can be developed
The nature and scale of settlement will not damage the environment
Public money is available to finance infrastructure and basic services; and
One or more private investors are willing to develop viable enterprises which can generate sufficient incomes to pay for the investment and recurrent costs of re-settlement.
The following sections (5.2 to 5.5) then expand on the 4 ‘conditions’.
“5.2 Further research is necessary to establish the safe long term yield and potability of the groundwater resource. If the conclusion on groundwater is negative, settlement is not automatically ruled out but the alternative water sources are both more expensive to establish and more complex to maintain, and would need a more productive economy and a higher skill base in the community to support.”
It is fair to say that this additional research had already been recommended in the original (May 2000) version under the section on “Recommendations for future studies” and in its new context the apparent negativity is balanced by practicality.
The ensuing paragraphs, are however, significantly negative in tone. Firstly, the caveat concerning any changes to the environment:
“5.3 The island ecosystems are fragile and any level of settlement will affect the environment through the construction of infrastructure and the use of resources, and inevitably mean a change to their current pristine condition. Coral reefs could be altered and some biodiversity lost. Of major concern are the potential for habitat destruction, the over-exploitation of natural resources and pollution. Hence, sound environmental protection and management plans must be prepared and implemented for the selected islands. This is of particular significance in view of the long term effect on these low lying islands of predicted global climate changes.”
The question of infrastructure and basic services in paragraph 5.4 highlights potential problems and concludes in a final sentence which reads as though it was written by BIOT administrators rather than the consultants:
“5.4 Settlement, even by only a small number of people, will require a minimum level of administration and publicly provided services. The cost of running some services (eg power and water) might be recovered through charges, and private investors may provide some initial investment funds. However, public funding could still be required for initial investment in communal infrastructure, for funding regular administration and law and order, and possibly for subsidising external transport. Hence, it is an important pre-condition of settlement that the BIOT administration would be willing and able to provide this funding.”
Finally, the earlier statement that “Commercial economic development will require one or more entrepreneurs and investors”, becomes translated into a precondition that:
“5.5 Lastly, there must be one or more private entrepreneurs (from within or without the Ilois community) willing to invest in viable commercial activities. Indeed, successful economic activity is the key factor in the feasibility of settlement ….”
Further Stages
In making their recommendations for further studies the consultants engaged for the Stage 1 work proposed that following their preliminary study (which they called Phase 1) there should be a further two Phases. Phase 2 to involve extensive additional investigations (broadly speaking - Field Surveys), and Phase 3 an examination of “the technical, financial, economic and environmental aspects of specific development proposals put forward by groups of islanders who wish to re-settle and who have proper financial and technical backing for their proposed enterprises.” According to the consultants Phase 3 was also only to take place “if and after a decision is taken in favour of resettlement”.
A full copy of the Preliminary Study report can be accessed here: PDF
Page last updated: 17 November 2020