FCO blocks release of Phase 2B Resettlement Files

Court Order required to obtain draft Phase 2B Resettlement Study material

In 2004 the Government used prerogative Orders in Council (which are not open to Parliamentary scrutiny or vote) to overturn a decision by the High Court in 2000 that had allowed the Chagossians to return to the Outer Islands of the Chagos Archipelago.

FCO justifies imposing Orders in Council because of findings of Phase 2B feasibility study

On 15 June 2004, Mr Bill Rammell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs explained the Government had enacted the Orders because of the findings of a feasibility study commissioned by the FCO (Phase 2B Study) which had concluded that:

". . . whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short-term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short-term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population . . . Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time."

 Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that:

". . . the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

  The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

  In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

Although the legality of the Orders in Council were subsequently challenged by Chagossian lawyers, and copies of draft material relating to this report were actively sought, nothing was forthcoming and the Government denied that any existed.

In 2012 draft material was found in the possession of the Treasury Solicitor and finally released - see Discovery of draft Phase 2B Study material. Further legal proceedings were instituted against the FCO culminating in a hearing in the UK Supreme Court in 2015 (Bancoult 4)

Access to Phase 2B files blocked by Foreign and Commonwealth Office

During the course of these proceedings the Chagossians' lawyers asked for access to files held by the Phase 2B contractor (Royal Haskoning - formerly Posford Duvivier). Although Royal Haskoning were willing to do release the files, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office blocked this and a Court Order had to be sought in November 2012 to order their release.

These documents were subsequently scrutinised and provided additional insight into the scientific failings of the critical section in the report on Coastal & Oceanic Processes. The detailed analysis (Addendum to Feasibility Analysis - Feb 2013) revealed that:

1. There were delays to the award of the contract for the Study which resulted in a much shortened work programme and a reduction in the length of the field visit to the Chagos.

2. For its estimation of sea-level rise the consultants only used the IPCC AR4 values for Global Mean Sea Level. They failed to analyse tide gauge data from Diego Garcia or any satellite altimetry.

3. Consultants failed to collect any local weather information because their equipment was insecure and was vandalised. A weather station installed during fieldwork was inappropriately located and provided no useful data.

4. Locally installed tide gauges failed to operate correctly.

5. Modelling of the local wave climate (using SWAN) was not commenced before the fieldwork so that consultants had no prior knowledge of these conditions whilst collecting field data.

6. Similarly, the modelling of wave overtopping (AMAZON) was run until after the fieldwork was complete.

7. The AMAZON output produced unexpectedly large values for overtopping of the islands by seawater. The consultants remarked that they had not seen any evidence of this whilst they were on the islands. Their attempts to resolve this clearly erroneous output were unsuccessful.

8. The current meter deployed by consultants in the field gave unreliable readings. They only achieved what they described as "very limited" drogue measurements of surface current.