Sunday, 30 March 2014

Chagos Newsletter March 2014

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER MARCH 2014
PARLIAMENT
The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group will hold its 42nd meeting on the 6th May.

Now that the FCO is beginning to consult Chagossians, the APPG and other ‘stakeholders’ by way of the new Feasibility Study, we can expect there to be far fewer Parliamentary Questions.  On the 5th March the Conservative Andrew Rosindell asked:

“what military personnel are stationed in each of the British Overseas Territories?”

Mark Francois (The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence; Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

“UK Military personnel are stationed in the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island, Gibraltar, the
British Indian Ocean Territories and the Sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The establishment at each location is as set out in the following table.

Overseas territory Military personnel
British Forces Cyprus, including Sovereign Base Areas 2,825
Falkland Islands 1,060
Ascension Island 20
Gibraltar—includes UK Military and Royal Gibraltar Regiment 400
British Indian Ocean Territories 40

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. The exact numbers of personnel currently located in each overseas territory may vary from published statistics as personnel either change location or are deployed on operations.  The other UK overseas territories have no permanent UK military presence.”

On the 7th March the Minister for the Overseas Territories Mark Simmonds provided Parliament with the following written statement:

“I wish to update the House on our work to protect the environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in particular, the island of Diego Garcia which is home to a large UK-US military base.

This Government, and the Government of our most important ally, the United States, value the strategic location of the island of Diego Garcia, and we want to see our partnership there continue.

We also share a deep commitment to the pristine environment of BIOT, and take great steps to minimise the impact of the military presence on Diego Garcia on that environment. This ranges from the troops stationed there regularly taking part in beach clean-ups to remove Indian Ocean flotsam that has washed ashore, through conservation efforts with NGOs like the RSPB to remove rats or invasive plants, to a US investment of over $30 million during 2014-15 to protect the shoreline from gradual erosion. Diego Garcia military base operates an environmental protection council which co-ordinates this activity, and the standards governing its behaviour are guided by our own scientific advisers and the most stringent relevant environmental legislation.

One area where we have been working recently with the US to ensure the highest standards of environmental stewardship is in the lagoon of Diego Garcia where we are on a path to recovery and protection of the coral that supports the island above the waves. In April last year it came to our attention that the US vessels moored in the lagoon had been discharging waste water into the lagoon since the establishment of the naval support station there in the early 1980s.

This waste water is treated sewage, and water left over from routine processes like cleaning and cooking. Though the amounts are small in proportion to the size of the lagoon itself, our policy has consistently been that any form of discharge of these substances into the lagoon is prohibited because of clear scientific advice that it would be damaging to coral in the long term. That advice has not changed, and nor has our policy.

I asked my officials to immediately establish the impact of these discharges, and in October 2013, UK scientists concluded that based on the available data, there were elevated levels of nutrients in the lagoon which could be damaging to coral.

Over the period since October, my officials have been working to agree a plan with the US to come into compliance with our no discharge policy, and I am pleased to say I have now agreed this. The plan will involve expenditure of several million dollars by the US over a period of three years to retrofit all of the vessels in the lagoon. The programme of work balances the requirement to maintain operational readiness in the region, meet international security commitments, and deal with the logistical and fiscal challenges such a large-scale programme brings with it. A comprehensive joint UK-US study is now also under way to assess and monitor the coral and marine health of the lagoon and ensure that the programme has the desired effect of reducing the levels of nutrients in the lagoon and protecting the coral.”

12th March- Lord Avebrury (Liberal democrat)

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether (1) the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and (2) the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, apply to each of the Overseas Territories.”

Lord Faulks (The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Conservative)

“(1) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 covers any recorded information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. The Act does not apply to the public authorities of British Overseas Territories.
(2)The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 implement European Council Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and cover any recorded environmental information held by public authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. The Regulations do not apply to the public authorities of British Overseas Territories. Gibraltar, as part of the EU, has implemented the directive through the Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment Regulations 2005.”

13th March- Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they accept the findings of the study of the sea level in the British Indian Ocean Territory ‘Contemporary sea level in the Chagos Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean’ published in the journal Global and Planetary Change in 2012.”

Baroness Warsi (Conservative)

“We welcome scientific debate on environmental issues affecting British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), particularly as we begin our factual assessment of the feasibility of returning a civilian population to these islands. Though we welcome the scientific debate about this aspect of environmental change, both globally and for BIOT specifically, it would be inappropriate for the British Government to endorse any single piece of scientific analysis. We look forward to the resettlement feasibility study further assessing this question, although it may not be possible to come to a conclusive answer on a question on which there is a great deal of inherent uncertainty”

RESPONSE TO INCEPTION REPORT
Earlier this month the British Government published its Inception Report ahead of the commencement of the feasibility study into resettlement of the Chagos Islands.  The full report is attached to this edition of the newsletter.  UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean provided the following response:

“We believe that the right of return should be restored to all Chagossians as their exile was unlawful, undemocratic, and violated their human rights.  Therefore the feasibility of 'holiday rights' as envisaged in the short-stay option is not helpful.  A 'short stay' option and an education programme should be put into place at once as part of expanding the current visiting programme but it does not address the right of return which is non-negotiable. 
The returning Home report was the first study to adopt proper consultation with Chagossians, and a serious attempt to provide workable solutions to provide for a phased return, whilst recognising the desire of all Chagossians to have the right to return and the right to visit their homeland. I would commend this approach to the new feasibility Study team.
We note your intention to examine the current literature on conservation and science on Chagos. What is of paramount importance is that regional expertise on central scientific issues are rigorously examined, with the involvement of such world-leading experts as Prof Paul Kench of Auckland University who is the foremost expert on climate change and the effects on small islands – an issue that was dealt with in a fundamentally flawed way in the phase 2B report.
The Inception report is alarmingly silent on who is to provide the expertise to the Study, despite the promise that outline CV's would be included in the Inception report.
It is also true to say that the proposed scientific adviser Dr Andrew Price does not appear to be objective and is unfortunately close to Prof Charles Sheppard the former BIOT Scientific Adviser to BIOT and the one who is most responsible for the flawed Phase 2B Report. He is therefore considered to be neither neutral nor acceptable.”
The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) also provided its own response to the report:

“The Chagos Refugee Group (CRG) Management Committee met on Saturday 22 March 2014, with Olivier Bancoult, its President, in the chair, in order to take stock of the draft Inception Report on the Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagossian People.

The CRG Management Committee broadly welcomes the stated scope and approach of the Inception Report and looks forward to providing assistance to the Feasibility Study team. It must be pointed out however that the current study cannot inspire confidence unless the obvious mistakes of the past Feasibility Studies are known and avoided now. The Committee raises some specific issues of its own in the main text below and has also received external input from advisers which, due to the limited time to respond, it has not had the opportunity fully to discuss. The latter input is contained in an Annex to this submission. It would wish that all of these points of concern should be addressed by BIOT and the consultants (most notably the apparent lack of objectivity of one of the proposed project specialists).

Subject to addressing these concerns, we would make three general points on the proposed scope and approach that the Committee believes need clarification and hence strengthening and amendment.
First, the consultation mechanisms proposed should ensure that consultation process is not simply a matter of the Study Team soliciting the views of Chagossians on proposals suggested by the consultants: there needs to be close collaboration in the development of proposals involving a wide representation of  Chagossian views to ensure as much consensus as possible.
Second, the different options for resettlement should emerge from such collaboration and not be presented as a set of alternatives. For example, the 'small scale' resettlement may well be desirable as a pilot phase towards 'large scale' resettlement rather than an end in itself; and the limited stay option is best seen as a facility within a resettled community rather than an alternative option.
Third, the Committee feels it is important for the team to engage with expertise and experience, including private investor experience, from the Indian Ocean region and its smaller islands.
With these considerations in mind, and in line with  the principles that have consistently guided CRG’s activities, and relying on the collective resources, experience and wisdom of the Chagossian people, the CRG  would like to propose the following:

1.         Introduction, Overview of the Feasibility Study (page 1):
To add the following bullet point:
the impact of the UK Government’s duty to fulfill its human rights obligation towards the resettlement of the Chagossian people
2.3       Resettlement options (page 2):
To state that  the proposed options are not mutually exclusive and indicate that
Option 1: large-scale resettlement, could be examined with proposed Option 2 (small-scale resettlement) being the 1st phase or a pilot phase. 
As for proposed Option 3, CRG’s position is that this option is a denial of the Chagossian people’s right of return and resettlement and therefore CRG cannot and will not endorse it.
In line with this position, CRG proposes to modify the last paragraph’s hypothetical  phrase as follows: ‘ …when resettlement takes place’.

3.1       Key phases of activity  (page 4, para.4):
-Modeling of costs and incomes: the proposed time-span (5-10-20 years ) should also be considered as phases of the resettlement process.
            -Phase II: the private sector should be involved, and not just for tourism but also for other sectors of economic activity (agriculture, fishing, handicrafts…) in a sustainable development perspective. Seychelles (and Rodrigues) to be added.
            -Phase III: Page 5, last sentence: “The draft will be circulated to those with an interest…” : CRG and other Chagossian based organizations should be among them.
            -Additional development data from comparable literature on small islands (French departments, self-governed UK overseas territories, autonomous islands) should also be tapped.
3.2       Analytical framework (table, pages 6 -7)
2. Legal and political factors:
Under ‘Key questions/issues for consideration’: add ‘reparation’ to human rights agreements, as follows: “human rights/reparation agreements”.
            3. Environmental impact: add 'experience/role/involvement of resettled Chagossians in protection of marine/land environment'.
           4. Economic prospects: add Seychelles and Rodrigues (as proposed at 3.1).
           5 .Access issues: add the experience of Seychelles and Rodrigues.
           7. Risks and uncertainties :  to add the regional experience of disaster management plans (cyclones, climate change, and recently tsunami alert and management system).
3.3       Core study team (page 9):
CRG proposes that wider pool of experts (page 10 last para) should comprise Indian Ocean region based experts (Seychelles, Reunion, Mauritius-Rodrigues, Zanzibar)

Annex to CRG Comments on BIOT Draft Inception Report – Chagos Feasibility Study – KPMG dated 19 March 2014
The KPMG draft Inception Report (IR) dated 19 March 2014 has been produced in accordance with the clause 9 of the Terms of Reference (TOR) dated January 2014.
Inter alia the IR was required to provide “project management information” [standard format for monthly update reports; risk management plan; proposed timeframe for delivery and reporting, including monthly milestones; list of proposed experts together with curriculae vitae].
Format for Monthly Update reports
This aspect appears not to have been addressed in the draft IR.
Risk Management Plan
Again, there is no mention of a risk management plan.
Proposed Timeframe
The proposed timeframe (IR 3.1) envisages a “consultation and data gathering” phase during April – June 2014. This includes investigation of the “carrying capacity and resources” through “a visit to the Territory”. It is not clear to what extent this represents the satisfaction of the environmental and scientific aspects of the study (in particular the factors enumerated at TOR 7). There is concern that the studies required have not been adequately scoped. Certain key areas were those that were flawed in the previous Phase 2B study. In particular, are external experts to be engaged on these aspects and if so whom? (see further below).
Proposed Experts
Section 3.3 of the draft IR lists a “Core study team” of a Project Manager and Assistant and 3 ‘experts’ together with abbreviated CVs. It is not stated whether these 3 ‘experts’ are KPMG staff or external consultants although a general search indicates the latter in each case. In the absence of an extended CV for either Malcolm Summerfield or Nancy Laatunen and of readily available on-line information, it is not possible to judge their suitability and/or prior connection with the Chagos in greater depth.
Andrew Price however is known from his connection with both Charles Sheppard (former BIOT Conservation/Scientific Adviser 2003-13) and with the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) and through his past publication record and CV[1]. As the proposed “Environmental Specialist” Price would presumably be required to oversee all scientific and environmental aspects of the study.
Sheppard and the CCT are perceived to be ‘anti-resettlement’ when it comes to the possibility of the return of Chagossians to the islands, promoting the Archipelago as ‘pristine’[2] where conservation of the natural environment takes precedence.
Price is understood to be a close academic colleague of Sheppard, both having worked at Warwick University in the School of Life Sciences for many years. He has also travelled on a number of expeditions to the Chagos led by Sheppard. Furthermore he was a co-author with Sheppard (and others) on a recent paper concerning the Chagos which is considered to overstate the case for environmental conservation[3], and on the recent (2012) Chagos Conservation Trust publication: “Conservation and Management in British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)”[4] which is perceived as a CCT centric view of conservation. This track record and association has the potential to seriously undermine the key principle of ‘neutrality’ in the context of this study, whether real or perceived.
Price’s own environmental/scientific work/expertise in the Chagos has been restricted to surveys of holothurians (sea cucumbers)[5], or beach pollution[6] and he has been a co-author on other pollution papers[7]. Overall his known academic publication record [8] is sparse, particularly in the areas specified in clause 7 of the TORs under “Environmental factors”. Although he is known to possess considerable consultancy experience, his suitability as the sole “Environmental Specialist” is less clear.
In the circumstances it is strongly recommended that other alternative candidates to Price should be investigated.
Wider Pool of Experts
The IR concludes “This core team will be supported by a wider pool of experts, the composition of which will be determined during the inception phase”. Since this draft report represents this Inception Phase, further details of the wider pool should have been included in the draft and notified to interested parties. This is particularly important given the doubts about Andrew Price.”
In addition, David Snoxell, on behalf of the APPG, has provided a summary of their response to the Inception Report:
"On 24 March 2014 the Chairman of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG wrote to Mark Simmonds, the FCO Minister responsible for Chagos, to express the Group's support for the draft Inception Report as a sound basis on which to proceed subject to reservations. These concerned the proposed appointment of Prof Andrew Price as the Environment Specialist; the Group's wish that the feasibility study should be completed by the end of 2014 so that there is time before the election for proper consideration of the results, parliamentary debate and implementation; the lack of any reference to involving or consulting the Government of Mauritius; the description of the MPA as 'international'; and a suggestion on how to make the resettlement options clearer."

CHAGOS ISLANDS WASTE WATER POLLUTION
News that the current occupants of Diego Garcia were engaging in practices which brought into question the stewardship of an alleged marine zone was reported around the world.  The Independent newspaper in the UK was the first publication to pick up on the scandal and swiftly focussed on the hypocrisy of the British Government in allowing the practice to continue unchecked for so long:

“The American military has poured hundreds of tonnes of human sewage and waste water into a protected coral lagoon on the British-owned base of Diego Garcia over three decades in breach of environmental rules, The Independent can reveal.

The Indian Ocean base on the Chagos Islands has been one of the world’s most isolated and controversial military installations since Britain forcibly removed hundreds of islanders in the early 1970s, abandoning them to destitution, to make way for US forces including nuclear submarines and bombers.

The British Government has repeatedly underlined its commitment to maintaining the pristine environment of the islands, which are known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and were four years ago declared the world’s largest marine reserve.

Despite these undertakings, it has emerged that US Navy vessels have been discharging waste water, including treated sewage, into the clear lagoon ever since a naval support station was established on Diego Garcia in the early 1980s.

According to scientific advisers, elevated levels of nutrients caused by the waste – which have resulted in nitrogen and phosphate readings up to four times higher than normal – may be damaging the coral.

Friday night, campaigners fighting for Chagossians to be allowed to return accused the British and US authorities of double standards by using the unspoilt character of the archipelago as a reason to prevent repopulation while themselves creating pollution.”

Moscow-based Russia Today was similarly scathing in its assessment of the levels of double standards:

“The base in question – located on the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean – has been the focus of intense lobbying by supporters of the native residents, who were resettled elsewhere in the 1970s in order to make way for a US naval establishment. The British government has stated on multiple occasions that those Chagossians could not return to the island due to its effort to maintain the area’s unspoiled habitat.

Despite these claims, however, scientists have found the state of the coral in the lagoon to be deteriorating, and have singled out increased levels of nitrogen and phosphate as the possible culprits. According, the presence of these elements is likely the result of the US Navy dumping treated sewage water and other waste into the lagoon for the last three decades.

Although the British government was aware of the Navy’s behavior in 2013, it has only now been revealed to the public.”

UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean was invited by the Independent newspaper to offer her own views on the revelations:

“When we Chagossians lived on our islands, the seas and lagoons were pristine. When the Americans arrived, they caused massive environmental degradation, including bulldozing our villages and flattening graveyards. To create building materials, they started dynamiting the lagoon of Diego Garcia, killing fish and destroying large areas of coral reef.

For many years we have been pressing BIOT to conduct an environmental audit of the effects of the US occupation. This has been consistently refused, with the explanation that the impact of the occupation is minimal. We can now see that throughout this period there have been no controls on the pollution.

We are the real guardians of our homeland. Until we are allowed to return, we think that this degradation is bound to be permitted to continue.”

Just ahead of this edition of the newsletter going to press, Cahal Milmo implicated the British Government in the pollution of the waters around Diego Garcia during a follow-up piece in the Independent newspaper.

“The FCO has admitted that British ‘no discharge policy’ was not complied with by US vessels.
But in a statement to Parliament on 6 March it failed to disclose the claims that the Pacific Marlin, a 36-year-old Japanese tug which is chartered from a Singapore-based company to conduct duties including fishery patrols and operations with Royal Marines, may also have contributed to the problem.

Swire Pacific Offshore Operations Ltd, which operates the Pacific Marlin, told The Independent that it had modified the vessel to ensure there could be no accidental discharges of sewage but said it had not been shown any evidence that it was responsible for elevated levels of faecal bacteria found near its vessel.

Professor Charles Sheppard, a leading biologist from the University of Warwick, who acts as scientific adviser to the BIOT on environmental matters, reported last year that its patrol vessel was ‘a regular culprit in terms of sewage discharge’ on Diego Garcia.

The report was withheld by the FCO until this week on the grounds that its disclosure could damage Anglo-American relations until it was challenged by another academic and forced to disclose the material under environmental information rules.

Prof Sheppard wrote that the suspected discharges were going into ‘the very confined small boat basin in Diego Garcia where pathogen effects may be magnified’ and also leading to criticism of double standards from Britain's closest ally. He said: ‘Comments have been received from several sources along the lines of 'if the British ship continues to do this then why shouldn't US ships?’
Tests have found levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates up to four times higher than normal levels in the lagoon, meaning damage may be being caused to coral on Diego Garcia.

Peter Sand, a lecturer in environmental law at Munich University who secured the release of Prof Sheppard's report, told The Independent that the island, which is home to about 5,000 US personnel, should be brought into the marine reserve.

He said: ‘The declaration of the reserve will remain an empty shell as long as it totally excludes the Diego Garcia military base. This may explain the desperate attempts by the Foreign Office to prevent public access to all embarrassing pollution data concerning Diego Garcia.’


FEASIBILITY STUDY EXPERTS APPOINTED
Following on from news last month regarding the final draft of the terms of reference being published, the British Government has now appointed the consultants for the long awaited feasibility study.  John Vidal from the Guardian picks up the story:

“The coral islands, which have some of the cleanest waters in the world and half the total area of high quality coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, are rich in fish which would normally form the economic base of any resident community. But since Britain established the archipelago as the world's largest marine reserve in 2010, it is theoretically illegal for anyone to fish there – except for the US military who have been allowed to catch around 50 tonnes of fish for sport. The setting up of the reserve by the then-foreign secretary David Miliband was widely interpreted as an attempt to prevent any resettlement by the evicted Chagossians.

But the terms of reference for the consultants also suggest Britain may be prepared to compromise on the total ban on fishing. The team has been asked to consider eco-tourism, fishing, game fishing and "industrial development". If the Chagossians return, they have said they plan to re-establish copra production and fishing, and to develop the islands for tourism.

Britain has previously made it impossible for the islanders to return, citing both costs and sea level rise. A 2003 feasibility study led to the government concluding that resettlement would be "costly and precarious" and that sea-level rise was averaging 5.4mm a year – twice the global average – and accelerating. This was refuted by other scientists.

The study will consider many other environmental factors that could make life impossible for a small community to establish itself, but which appear to have not deterred the US military. The terms of reference specifically ask the consultants to look at how climate change could affect life on the islands in future. "This should include sea-level rise, rogue waves, coastal erosion, tropical cyclone frequency and intensity and changes in wave and wind conditions."

David Snoxell, Co-ordinator of the Chagos islands' All-Party Parliamentary Group and former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, said: ‘The FCO are to be applauded for initiating a new feasibility study which the all-party group has been arguing for since 2008. The Foreign Secretary announced in December 2012, following the Strasbourg verdict, that the case was inadmissible, that he would take stock of policies towards resettlement, but it has taken 15 months to get only to the stage of publishing terms of reference. It is imperative that the study is completed by the end of 2014 so that Parliament is consulted and decisions taken before the election. We do not want a repeat of what happened over the announcement of the marine protection area in April 2010, five weeks before the last general election, thus ensuring that there was no time to consult Parliament.’”

PARALLELS DRAWN BETWEEN CHAGOS ISLANDS AND CRIMEA
An observation made by UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean was noticed by a Washington based weekly newspaper called The Hill.  Sabrina pointed out that the British and American-led condemnation of the Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory in Crimea amounted to yet more hypocrisy given the events surrounding the depopulation of the Chagos Islands.  Adam Ereli outlined the unfortunate parallels between Crimea and the Chagos Islands:

“For years, Great Britain has repeatedly used its power and influence to stymie the peaceful resolution of this dispute. In 2012, Mauritius announced that it would leave the Commonwealth if necessary in order to take the Chagos issue before the International Court of Justice. But the UK immediately amended its declaration relating to the jurisdiction of the Court so that the ICJ would not have mandatory jurisdiction if a case was brought against it. In 2010, Britain declared a Marine Protected Area around the archipelago, and in response Mauritius initiated proceedings against the UK under Annex 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The African Union and Non-Aligned Movement have expressed unanimous support for Mauritius over the Chagos issue.

Now is the time to do the right thing and begin negotiations over the return of the Chagos Archipelago to its rightful owner, the Republic of Mauritius. The era of colonialism is over. Russia’s actions in Crimea are a searing reminder that the international community will no longer tolerate the forceful subjugation of weaker states by their more powerful neighbors. Mauritius is acting responsibly, consistent with recognized international norms, to resolve this dispute peacefully. The West has the opportunity to match its words with deeds. Great Britain and the United States should do honor to their status as great powers and sit down with us to negotiate a formal, legal transfer of sovereignty.

Washington has no interest in being the subject of protracted challenges against the legality of the territory on which it maintains a vital military facility. As a close ally and strategic partner, Mauritius will continue to provide full access and basing rights to the United States on Diego Garcia. By accepting Mauritian sovereignty, the UK will not prejudice its position with respect to other colonial territories, nor will it prejudice the "defense purposes" by which it justifies its continued occupation of the islands.”

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL
Our friends at Minority Rights Group International have published a new report ahead of our appeal into the Judicial Review which commences at the High Court in central London on the 31st March.  The full document is attached with this month’s copy of the newsletter and calls on the British to avoid further delays in addressing the continuing injustice inflicted against the Chagossian community:

“A new MRG report says that the creation of the Marine Protected Area, and the subsequent banning of commercial fishing in its waters, effectively bars Islanders from returning to their homes. Under international law, the Chagossians have a right to return to their homeland, unless such return is not feasible, in which case they should be offered appropriate compensation.

‘The Court case highlights the pressing need for a new feasibility study to clarify, once and for all, the possible means and arrangements for return to the islands,' says Lucy Claridge, MRG's Head of Law.
‘Given that the 2002 investigation commissioned by the UK government on resettlement of the Chagos Islands was found to be seriously flawed, it is imperative that any new feasibility study must be carried out with the full participation of the Chagossians,' she adds.

The Islanders' struggle to return home has led to a decades-long legal battle in the UK courts, and culminated in a December 2012 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dismissal of their claims to return, citing reasons based on technical grounds.”

DEMONSTRATION AT THE HIGH COURT IN LONDON
We will once again be organising a demonstration outside the High Court in central London on Monday 31st March.  This will commence at 10am and we hope as many of our incredible supporters as possible will be available to join us.  The demonstration is to mark the two day appeal against the High Court rejection of the Judicial Review of the MPA brought by Olivier Bancoult last April.

CHAGOS FOOTBALL TEAM TOURNAMENT
We are delighted to confirm news of a football tournament which will be administered by the Chagos Football Association.  The event is an opportunity to raise funds for our fledgling football side (we need all the support they can get after suffering our first ever defeat last month!)

The fundraiser will be taking place at the Hazelwick School on Hazelwick Mill Lane, Three Bridges, Crawley RH10 1SX.  The entrance fee will be £100 per competing team and all money raised will be ploughed towards turning our up and coming side into the next Bayern Munich.  Further details are available from Giany, Gino, Dorian or Sabrina.

UKChSA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)
A final reminder that we will of course be hosting our AGM at the Pimlico branch of the Pizza Express on Sunday 6th April at 12 noon.

The full address is: 46 Moreton Street, London SW1V 2PB.

As always all of our wonderful supporters are welcome to come along.  We are delighted to confirm that Richard Gifford from our legal team will once again be addressing the AGM, which of course will be the week following our latest date at the High Court.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)



[1] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/people/publications/?ssn=MwZTkFw2Uz0=&inst=WARWICK
[2] At least from the marine perspective
[3] SHEPPARD, C. R. C., ATEWEBERHAN, M., BOWEN, B. W., CARR, P., CHEN, C. A., CLUBBE, C., CRAIG, M. T., EBINGHAUS, R., EBLE, J., FITZSIMMONS, N., GAITHER, M. R., GAN, C. H., GOLLOCK, M., GUZMAN, N., GRAHAM, N. A. J., HARRIS, A., JONES, R., KESHAVMURTHY, S., KOLDEWEY, H., LUNDIN, C. G., MORTIMER, J. A., OBURA, D., PFEIFFER, M., PRICE, A. R. G., PURKIS, S., RAINES, P., READMAN, J. W., RIEGL, B., ROGERS, A., SCHLEYER, M., SEAWARD, M. R. D., SHEPPARD, A. L. S., TAMELANDER, J., TURNER, J. R., VISRAM, S., VOGLER, C., VOGT, S., WOLSCHKE, H., YANG, J. M.-C., YANG, S. Y. & YESSON, C. 2012b. Reefs and islands of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean: why it is the world's largest no-take marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22, 232-261.
[8] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/people/publications/?ssn=MwZTkFw2Uz0=&inst=WARWICK
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 28 February 2014

Chagos Newsletter February 2014

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER FEBRUARY 2014
PARLIAMENT
The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 41st meeting on 26 February 2014. A new member, Chris Kelly MP, was welcomed.

The Group considered the final terms of reference (ToRs) of the new feasibility study, issued by the FCO on 30 January. Members felt that the ToRs adequately covered the requirements. They were disappointed that Chagossians would not be included in the visit of the consultants to the Islands, which would have given an opportunity for the consultants to interact with Chagossians in their homeland. They looked forward to hearing which Consultants had been selected. Given that their first task would be to produce an 'inception report' within 4 weeks, the Group assumed that this period was included within the envisaged 12 months for completion of the study. APPG members remained concerned that the study might not be ready in time for decisions to be taken before the next election. They recalled the enactment, without any consultation with Parliament, of the MPA on 1 April 2010, five weeks before the last election. They felt that this time there should be sufficient time for parliamentary debate before decisions were taken. They called on the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the study was completed by 31 December 2014. Members felt that political oversight was as important as the scientific and environmental research, much of which was already available in previous reports. They looked forward to an ongoing dialogue with Mark Simmonds, the FCO Minster responsible for the OTs.

Members were pleased to note that the US was being kept closely informed and that they had not objected to Diego Garcia being considered for resettlement. They urged that Mauritius should also be closely involved. They took the view that discussions with Mauritius about the future of the Islands should continue in parallel so that when the study was completed there would be an understanding between both countries on the way forward, while acknowledging that the Mauritian case against the MPA, which is due to be heard by an Arbitral Tribunal in Istanbul on 22 April, would need to be determined first. The Group expressed the hope that all issues concerning the future of the Chagossians and of the Islands should be resolved before next year's election. They noted that 2015 would be the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of BIOT.

The Group considered legal developments concerning the Judicial Review of the the MPA which would be heard by the Court of Appeal, 31 March-1 April, and also the case before the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) on the applicability of EIRs and FOI to BIOT, on 1 May. They noted that the MPA would be four years old on 1 April and that until the litigation was concluded it remained in legal limbo. The Group believed that the MPA could only be effective with the cooperation of the Chagossians and Mauritius, particularly over the development of a Conservation Plan for the MPA, but was pleased to note that the ToRs of the Feasibility Study made provision for amendment of the Ordinances governing the nature of the MPA.

The Group was informed that the Foreign Secretary had declined to set aside the judgment of the House of Lords of October 2008 and that an application would therefore be made to the Supreme Court to re-open the case on the grounds of an alleged miscarriage of justice, arising from the 2002 flawed feasibility study.

The next meeting of the Group is on 30 April.

David Snoxell
Coordinator.

FEASIBILITY STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE: FINAL VERSION PUBLISHED
On the 19th November Mark Simmonds made a written statement to Parliament announcing that a draft version of the terms of reference for the forthcoming feasibility study had been published.  Last month in this newsletter, we raised concerns that delays threatened to derail our new found optimism.  A few hours after our January edition was published, the Foreign Office formally published the final version of the terms of reference.  A full copy is attached to this month’s edition of the newsletter.

DAVID SNOXELL RESPONSE TO CCT STATEMENT
The Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) statement of 21st February is clearly designed to influence the consultants, who will be announced shortly, and needs to be treated with caution. It begins by welcoming the new feasibility study and proceeds via tendentious claims, non sequiturs and bias to refute "erroneous science". Clearly the underlying theme is to suggest that resettlement is not feasible. A few examples though there are probably others:

1. 3rd para of introduction states that the “nearly intact reef system is due largely to the lack of exploitation during the last 45 years”, thus linking this phenomenon to the removal of the population 45 years ago. But the fact that for nearly two centuries before their removal the reefs remained intact is not mentioned.

2. Para 1 informs us that twenty years ago the estimate of the number who would want to live in Chagos was 15 but it does not say where this estimate comes from.

3. I have not been able to penetrate the meaning of CCT's recommendation in para 3. 

4. Para 4 states that "Attempts to do too much would be damaging for the natural environment, and for the survival and stability of a returning population". What does this imply? 

5. Para 4 (2nd para) states “Fishing accounts for just 40kg of biomass per day” but does this refer to the pelagic or reef fishery or both? Based upon the data that MRAG have collected for DG recreational fishery, the true value is nearer 100 kg per day over the last 6 years, and when shore fishing is taken into account could be double this (Dunne et al 2014 in prep). There is also evidence that reef fish at Diego Garcia have been significantly depleted (Graham et al 2013).

6. Para 4 also refers to the cost of engineering on Diego Garcia “to combat the effects of sea level rise and erosion”. Much of the engineering is a consequence of the US development of the island and is not solely attributable to these natural processes. And since there is no evidence of sea level rise in Chagos, the costs can only relate to other activities such as combating erosion. The basis for all this can be found in consultant reports to the US Navy.

7. The absence of reference to the coral blasting of DG and the possible need to examine its effects on the coral environment is a significant omission. To assert that the base is irrelevant ignores the lessons to be learned from e.g. coral regeneration.

8. Para 5 on “erroneous science” refers to “recent papers by opponents of the MPA” but there are no papers by ‘opponents’. All agree with the value of an MPA but some would like it to take account of Chagossian and Mauritian interests. Also the para appears to claim that the only expert analysis of sea-level rise (Dunne, Barbosa and Woodworth 2012) contains “quite incorrect statements”. Woodworth has recently provided a short brief for the BIOT SAG which CCT have put on their website. But he has not revised any of his and his co-authors’ original conclusions see Dunne’s commentary at - https://sites.google.com/site/thechagosarchipelago2/chagos-science/sea-level/update-2014

9. Final para: "the MPA began more than 40 years after the Chagossian communities had left the Islands" - the implication is that Chagossians left of their own volition. Note that “CCT has well established plans to expand” their outreach and caring for Chagossians in Mauritius. It does not say whether this generous assistance would be acceptable to Chagossians in Mauritius or who will pay for it.

David Snoxell, 24 Feb 2014









CHAGOS ISLANDERS “WILL NOT GIVE UP” FIGHT TO RETURN HOME
The MPA came under further attack in the form of a piece from the Inter Press Service news agency with an article by Nasseem Ackbarally.  Published last week, Ackbarally looks ahead to the next stage of the legal battle which commences at the end of next month at the High Court in London and includes contributions from Olivier Bancoult, Richard Dunne and Richard Gifford.

“Following a feasibility study in 2002, the FCO concluded that resettlement on the Chagos archipelago was unfeasible due to the islands’ low elevation and "the islands are already subject to regular overtopping events, flooding and erosion of the outer beaches." It also said that "as global warming develops, these events are likely to increase in severity and regularity."
However, scientists Richard Dunne and Barbara Brown, who have been working on coral reefs in the Indian Ocean for several decades, do not agree.  Dunne tells IPS that the British government has been presenting these findings to Parliament, court and the public for the last 10 years as an argument against the resettlement of the Chagossians back in their homeland.
"We now know that the feasibility study was scientifically flawed and that little reliance can be placed upon its conclusions,” Dunne says, adding that this may be partly the reason why the FCO is undertaking a new feasibility study this year.
"The Chagos are low-lying coral islands with a mean elevation above sea-level of only about two metres. As a consequence, they are like the Maldives to the north — very susceptible to changes in mean sea-level, storms, erosion and flooding," Dunne affirms.
MATCH OF THE DAY
Our Chagos Islands football team were finally back in action last weekend, once again taking on Sealand in another international friendly.  Having seen off the Sealanders 3-1 two years ago, it would appear that they have been smarting from their defeat and inflicted a bit of history on us.  The 4-2 defeat was the first time our side had ever lost a game.  As a supporter observed at the time, we had to let the other teams win sooner or later, otherwise nobody would agree to play us anymore (!)

We were contacted ahead of the match by a photographer called Rachel Megawhat who has kindly uploaded the pictures from the day.  We would also like to thank everyone who made the day possible, including a special thank you to Kits 4 Causes who made the very generous gesture of providing our team with a kit to play the match.

A brilliant day was had by all and the match took place just a few days after the Confederation of Independent Football Associations (CONIFA) accepted our very own side as part of its umbrella organisation of non-FIFA affiliated nations. 



UK CHAGOS SUPPORT ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
As announced last month, the 2014 AGM of the UKChSA will be taking place on Sunday 6th April 2014.  We can now confirm that the meeting will be taking place once again in the basement function room of Pizza Express in Pimlico and will commence at 12pm.  We hope as many of our wonderful supporters as possible will be available to join us this year.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

Diego Garcia Expansion Underway?

Some very interesting news was brought to our attention thanks to our ever increasing reach on the Twitter platform, the significance of which seems to have slipped largely under the radar in the wider media.  Defi Media Group report that 40,000 tonnes of rocks are being exported from Mauritius to Diego Garcia with the intention of filling in sea area to enable expansion of the military base.  Furthermore Mauritian Foreign Affairs Minister Arvin Boolell seemed entirely relaxed about the news and stressed that the common arrangement did not jeopardise their own claims for sovereignty over the islands.

That may be the case, but the British Government has continued to pledge publicly that no decision has been taken over the future of the base beyond 2016 and that once the issue is on the table, Parliament will be consulted and kept informed.  For a decision which is not yet taken, this would appear to be a very pre-emptive decision by the US Government to expand the base if it did not already know what the future of the Islands would hold beyond the existing lease.

Pertinent questions do remain over this rather unusual cargo which is being exported to the Chagos Islands in such vast volumes. 
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Chagos Newsletter January 2014


CHAGOS NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014

PARLIAMENT
The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group will hold its 41st meeting on 26th February 2014.  Due to the Parliamentary recess we only have one written question, from the Crossbencher Lord Luce, to bring you up to date with this month: 

“what steps they are taking, in respect of public documents for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible, to meet their commitment to reduce the period of retention from 30 to 20 years; and

when they expect to release to the National Archives documents relating to Mauritius and the British Indian Ocean Territory for years later than 1980.”

This was answered on the 15th January by the Conservatives’ Baroness Warsi:

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), like all Government departments, is required to achieve the release of its records at the 20-year mark by transferring two years’ of selected records to the National Archives (TNA) over every year of the transitional period (2013-2022).

Work on the release of colonial administration files over the 2011-2013 period has regrettably caused a backlog in the regular annual transfer of FCO departmental files to TNA. The colonial files project was completed in November 2013 and we have now deployed all of our file transfer resources onto annual release. We publish the order in which we will be transferring files to the TNA on our website at: www.gov.uk/archive-records.

FCO departmental files relating to Mauritius and the British Indian Ocean Territory form part of the FCO 31 class (Eastern Africa) at TNA. We expect 1981 and 1982 FCO 31 files to transfer to the TNA later this year following which the TNA will require a further period to prepare the files for public release. We are working closely with the TNA on the transfer of files in the FCO 31 class for later years.”
FCO DELAYS THREATEN TO DERAIL NEW HOPES
Back in November, Mark Simmonds made a written statement to Parliament confirming that a draft version of the terms of reference for the forthcoming feasibility study had been published.  At the time of writing we are still waiting for the Foreign Office (FCO) to formally publish a final version of this.  As has already been highlighted, the timetable for the study was precariously narrow.  The next General Election is now under 15 months away and there is a real danger that the process will be commenced only to be abandoned prior to competition.  This would be a disaster for all concerned and the Association calls on the FCO to urgently address this matter so that the feasibility study commences and completes on time.

COMMITTEE REPORT ON SUSTAINABILITY IN THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
Earlier this month, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee released its report into sustainability in the Overseas Territories.  This came in the form of its Tenth Report for the Parliamentary session of 2013-14.  Following on from the release of the Security, Success and Sustainability Government White Paper published in June 2012, this was specifically tasked with analysing the UK’s relationship with her Overseas Territories in terms of her environmental responsibilities and obligations.

The overall theme of the report appears to be holding up the Marine Protection Area (MPA) around the Chagos Islands as being a shining example of good management of marine resources.  However the report also highlights that over three years after the MPA was created, sufficient legislation to uphold its existence was still lacking:

“Although commercial fishing licences are no longer issued in BIOT, legislation to prohibit extractive activities such as commercial fishing or marine mining has still not been enacted.  Defra and the FCO must complete the legal protections for the marine
environment in BIOT by prohibiting all extractive activities.” 

Page 98 of Volume I scathingly denounced the MPA as:

“..in legal terms, little more than a name.”

One can only wonder what our legal team will make of that, ahead of further action in March at the High Court.

During its written evidence, the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) emphatically declared its support for the MPA around the Islands, although did point out that it:

“…regrets some of the ways in which this was implemented, particularly the unwise and improper comments by the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories which indicated that the designation was a means of preventing re-settlement by Chagossians.”



As part of the same submission it also noted that it did not:

“…share the view that the whole of marine protected areas should necessarily be no-take zones, although it would be surprising if all such areas did not include large no-take zones.”

The Marine Reserves Coalition makes reference to the “highly protected Chagos Marine Reserve” during its written evidence, without intentionally intending to lighten the mood of a laborious task of wading through the report.  This is some feat given that a member of the coalition includes Greenpeace UK, whom one assumes would have been informed of the comments of Greenpeace International regarding the illegal fishing in the region which still continues unchecked.  Is this another coalition heading for condemnation?

The Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) cites its work in the Chagos Islands and highlights the participation of Chagossians in its projects. 

“CCT with its CEN partners has encouraged various initiatives...to increase dramatically the number of science expeditions to BIOT for environmental monitoring and research, and to involve and train people of Chagossian descent in conservation work. A successful pilot project on the latter has already been completed by ZSL and its partners for Chagossians living in the UK (Crawley and Manchester), which we hope will be continued into future years...”

Regretfully their evidence makes no reference to the fact that an overwhelming majority of Chagossians continues to reject the prospect of attending Zoological Society (ZSL) workshops.  This is largely because the CCT, CEN & ZSL have all repeatedly maintained that the MPA must exist as a no-take fishing zone.

It was a mighty document, spanning some 258 pages across two volumes, with The Guardian’s Damian Carrington being the first to digest its contents successfully.  The conclusion was that the UK Government was not doing enough to safeguard the rare wildlife which existed in the Overseas Territories and that legislation was the only way to remedy the situation.

DIEGO GARCIA EXPANSION UNDERWAY?
Some very interesting news was brought to our attention thanks to our ever increasing reach on the Twitter platform, the significance of which seems to have slipped largely under the radar in the wider media.  Defi Media Group report that 40,000 tonnes of rocks are being exported from Mauritius to Diego Garcia with the intention of filling in sea area to enable expansion of the military base.  Furthermore Mauritian Foreign Affairs Minister Arvin Boolell seemed entirely relaxed about the news and stressed that the common arrangement did not jeopardise their own claims for sovereignty over the islands.

That may be the case, but the British Government has continued to pledge publicly that no decision has been taken over the future of the base beyond 2016 and that once the issue is on the table, Parliament will be consulted and kept informed.  For a decision which is not yet taken, this would appear to be a very pre-emptive decision by the US Government to expand the base if it did not already know what the future of the Islands would hold beyond the existing lease.

Pertinent questions do remain over this rather unusual cargo which is being exported to the Chagos Islands in such vast volumes. 

THE PLIGHT OF THE CHAGOSSIANS
The independent journalist Jennifer Kennedy marked the beginning of the year with an interview with Bernadette Dugassee as part of a wider piece in Intercontinental Cry (IC) describing the tragedy of the Chagossians.

“Chagossians who resettled in Seychelles have never been compensated, including Dugasse, who says she has ‘not received a penny’ from the British Government. The ECHR argued that those who had not claimed compensation should have done so in the British courts. But, when a group of 4,500 islanders tried to claim compensation from the government in 2002, the case was struck out in 2003 on the grounds that the case was ‘unmeritorious’.

Speaking to IC about the ECHR’s ruling, she said: ‘My expectation was very high, I feel so depressed, so sad. It was not the answer I was hoping for... As a Chagossian born on the island [of Diego Garcia] I never renounced my right [to return] and I never received any compensation.’

In 2011, Bernadette visited Diego Garcia for the first and only time in 52 years. Describing the experience of seeing her homeland she said: ‘When I wake up in the morning I can feel the fresh air, I can feel the warm sunshine on me, I can feel free. I am not free here, I was not free in Seychelles but I am free on Diego Garcia.’

Bernadette’s visit was brief but the islanders’ struggle for justice has continued. After the disappointing result in the ECHR, the British Government, which has always argued that resettlement would cost the taxpayer, and compromise the environment of the BIOT, has agreed to conduct a feasibility study.”










PETER HARRIS
Long time supporter and researcher Peter Harris picked up from where he left off in his piece in Green Futures Magazine in September.  Writing on the shared research forum Academia, he questioned the authenticity of such conservation studies.

Once again Peter’s engaging views on the future of the base on the islands do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association:

“There are also conservationist grounds for opposing the resettlement of BIOT, however. Several scientists (including some of those most intimately acquainted with the Chagos Archipelago) suggest that resettlement of BIOT is too costly to countenance when viewed from the perspective of environmental science—their chief argument being that human habitation of Chagos would deprive scientists of a unique benchmark against which to measure the health of coral reefs elsewhere. Such scientists have over recent years become unlikely allies in the FCO’s bid to oppose the Chagossians’ right of return. This axis was tightest with Labour’s David Miliband as Foreign Secretary, a politician reputed to have valued the Chagos Islands as a way to obtain a “green” legacy for himself. A coalition of respected environmental and conservation groups known as the Chagos Environment Network (CEN) campaigned for the no-take MPA in Chagos that was ultimately created in April 2010, over the opposition of most Chagossian groups and their supporters and in the face of concerns that this MPA represents a neo-colonial return to ‘fortress conservation’.

The Chagossians have been unsuccessful in securing a right to resettle their homeland through the courts. In 2008, the Law Lords upheld the Government’s right to exile the islanders from BIOT. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights declined to hear the islanders’ case on jurisdictional grounds. In 2013, the High Court dismissed the Chagossians’ Judicial Review claim, in which they had argued that the Chagos MPA was unlawful because it was intended as a barrier to resettlement. Nevertheless, the announcement of a new feasibility study means that a political equilibrium in favour of the Chagossians’ claims may yet emerge. Numerous MPs and peers are already organized in support of the Chagossians, dozens as part of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands headed by Jeremy Corbyn MP and coordinated by David Snoxell, a former High Commissioner to Mauritius and BIOT Commissioner. Indeed, critics abound of the way that the UK and the USA currently run BIOT on account of the Chagossians’ ongoing exile, and of allegations that Diego Garcia has been used as a CIA black site, and because the base is a significant polluter (thus undermining the point of an MPA in Chagos). Mauritius’s longstanding claims to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (which was integral to the Colony of Mauritius until its 1965 excision to form BIOT) will be heard in 2014 by a tribunal organized by the Permanent Court of Arbitration and according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If the upcoming feasibility study finds that resettlement of BIOT is practically possible, even if politically sensitive, this could catalyse political support for an overhaul of what is currently a troubled Overseas Territory.”


REUNIONAISE CHAGOSSIAN CONFERENCE
Professor Andre Oraison was one of the attenders of the CRG 30th anniversary international conference in October.  During the event he met many supporters associated with the cause including our Chair Sabrina Jean.  Professor Oraison, along with le Comite Solidarite Chagos La Reunion, then decided to stage a conference on the neighbouring island of Reunion, which was held earlier this month. 

The one day event was covered quite extensively by the Reunionaise based newspaper Temoignages, including promotional coverage ahead of the conference itself.  They also included extensive coverage in the proceeding days, paying particular attention to the address to the conference by Professor Oraison.

It was a presentation which drew attention to the fact that the two year period of consultation for the extension of the lease on Diego Garcia would open on the 30th December 2014.  The address was a rallying call for Chagossians and their supporters to take up the challenge and ensure that as much pressure as possible is applied ahead of this landmark milestone later in the year.

It was a refreshing change to see that the coverage from Temoignages was staggered and ensured that the news of the conference remained in the public domain for longer.  It was certainly nothing that would be typical of anywhere in the British media handling such a story and they should be roundly applauded for the initiative shown. 

NEW CHAGOS VIDEO NOW ONLINE
Supporter David Evans contacted us earlier this month to tell us about a new video he had put together and uploaded to YouTube.  The video is a musical montage over a slideshow of images from the Chagos Islands, from the native settlers to the current incumbents.  The video is entitled Chagos Island in the Sun and can be found here.

MPA JUDICIAL REVIEW APPEAL: DATE ANNOUNCED
Following on from our news in November regarding the leave to appeal, we are pleased to confirm that the hearing will commence at the High Court in London on 31st March 2014.  In the light of this announcement, the Chagos Refugees Group has announced that it will be staging a modest demonstration outside the entrance on the Strand.  We are inviting other supporters who oppose the existence of the MPA to come and join us.

CHAGOS ISLANDS FC IN ACTION
Our very own Chagos Islands football team will once again take on Sealand.  The match will be taking place on Sunday 23rd February with the game kicking off at 2.30pm. Unfortunately we are still awaiting venue information at the time of publishing but this will as always be confirmed via our Twitter page as soon as this finalised. Hopefully we can pull off another famous victory!
                                                                                                                                  



DR LAURA JEFFERY
Edinburgh University Researcher and Lecturer Dr Laura Jeffery contacted us earlier this month regarding a project she has been working on alongside Professor Vinesh Hookoomsing and Dr Rebecca Potter.  An opportunity to introduce the proposal will take place Crawley Library on Saturday 8th February from 1-3:30pm.  This will be especially relevant for natives (first generation Chagossians).  The purpose of the meeting will be to introduce the project and the project partners.  It will also be a forum to listen to suggestions for improving the project and to ensure the participation of the Chagossian community.

UK CHAGOS SUPPORT ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
The 2014 AGM of the UKChSA will be taking place on Sunday 6th April 2014.  More details will be announced nearer to the time but we wanted to provide as much notice as possible so that our supporters can make necessary arrangements to come along and join us.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,


Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 30 December 2013

Chagos Newsletter December 2013

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 2013

PARLIAMENT
The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 39th meeting on 20 November 2013

The Group considered the ministerial statement of 19 November to Parliament concerning the new feasibility study and the draft terms of reference (ToRs) athttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/british-indian-ocean-territory-feasibility-study 

 Members congratulated the FCO on the thorough, far-reaching and objective nature of the draft ToRs. They were pleased to note the emphasis placed on possible resettlement in Diego Garcia and assumed that this indicated prior consultation with the US. They felt that  having different options  for resettlement was a sensible approach. While recognising that this would entail a more elaborate study they agreed that there ought to be some simplification of procedures and a shortening of the timescale in order to meet the deadline imposed by the  May 2015 general election and to reduce costs. Given that the Foreign Secretary had announced a stock taking of  policy towards resettlement on 20 December 2012 they had expected the study to be completed by the summer recess (July 2014), so that decisions could be taken well before the election. On the timetable proposed it looked as if it might not conclude until shortly before the election, since the ToRs would not be finalised until next year, followed by a period for selecting consultants. This would hardly allow enough time for  the BIOT Policy Review into which  the conclusions of the feasibility study will feed. It is understood that this review will consider all aspects of BIOT policy, including re-negotiation of the UK/US Agreement, sovereignty and future management of the MPA and the Chagos Islands.

The Group urged that there be no more procrastination and that the proposed feasibility study timetable be shortened to meet the overriding deadline of a general election.  A future government might well decide to carry out its own policy review. The Group was also concerned that no progress appeared to have been made in identifying the wide ranging experts who would carry out the study, and their availability. It was not clear whether there would be a tendering process for consultants or if the FCO itself would invite experts to participate, and how their suitability for this complex task would be determined. 

Members took note of the PQs and Questions answered since the last meeting on 9 October, the interventions made by Lords Luce and Ramsbotham in the debate on the Commonwealth on 17 October and also Early Day Motion 649 tabled by the Chairman which reads:

"That this House congratulates the Chagos Refugees Group on their conference in Mauritius to mark 30 years since their foundation following their displacement from the Chagos Islands; and recognises that this historical wrong can best be corrected by allowing and facilitating their return to the Islands." The Coordinator gave a report on the conference and on his meetings in Mauritius.

The Group was also informed of the Chagos Conservation Trust conference on 18 November which marked its 20th anniversary. Members were pleased to hear about developments in the Outreach programme for Chagossians living in the UK. They noted that Chagossians living in Mauritius and Seychelles were more likely to want to live in the Chagos Islands and that conservation and marine skills education was more appropriate for their needs.

Members were pleased to learn that Dr Mark Spalding of The Nature Conservancy, respected by Chagossians and the Chagos science community, had been appointed the new BIOT Science Adviser. They congratulated the FCO and Dr Spalding on his appointment.

The Group was informed that the Judicial Review of the MPA was set for appeal at the end of March and that the Mauritian case at ITLOS remained active. It was noted that the draft ToRs of the feasibility study referred to the possibility of amending the MPA. Members wondered why the MPA had not already been amended to take account of Chagossian and Mauritian interests, thus obviating the need for litigation. 

The Group held its 40th meeting on 17 December 2013 and reviewed the progress made since its first meeting 5 years ago, on 16 December 2008. Members recalled the purpose of the Group was "to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossian people". The Group had also decided that "following the end of legal proceedings (Law Lords judgment Oct 08) the responsibility for the Chagos Islanders now rests with Parliament". At its second meeting on 29 Jan 2010 the Group agreed several objectives one of which was. "A truly independent study of the practicalities and way in which a limited resettlement of Salomon and Peros Bahnos can be achieved..... drawn up in consultation with interested parties, not least the Chagossians". They were pleased to note that after 5 years the FCO had now agreed to a new study. They were disappointed that another of its objectives ("Discussions with Mauritius on the future sovereignty of the Outer Islands") had not so far begun although its objective ("Re-negotiation of the Agreement with the US by 2015, to reflect the right of the Chagossians to live on the Islands and any changes to the sovereignty of those Islands") appeared to be on course. 

Members discussed the proposed TORs for the new feasibility study. They endorsed the points made by Baroness Whitaker, Lord Avebury and Lord Luce in the Lords debate on 27 November, in particularly that it would be necessary to cut the length of the study from 12 to 6 months in order for decisions to be made and implemented before the general election. Members agreed that they should continue to monitor the process and timetable closely. 

The Group decided that the Chairman should write to the Foreign Secretary about this and other concerns such as the need to engage Mauritius in a diplomatic dialogue concerning the future management of the Islands and of the MPA.  As Lord Luce had said in the debate " it is essential that they (Mauritius) are regarded as a vital player in any Chagossian solution". Members agreed with Lord Avebury's suggestion, made in the Lords debate, that to help break the ice the new BIOT Science Adviser, along with members of the BIOT Science Advisory Group, should have  meetings with their Mauritian counterparts to discuss a joint approach to the science of Chagos, sharing data and current research. The Group decided to invite the Mauritian High Commissioner to a meeting. 

Members were keen to take up the Foreign Secretary's offer of a further meeting which he had made at the last meeting with the Group on 15 December 2011.

The Group also discussed legal developments. They took note that permission had been granted by the High Court for an appeal against the judicial review of the MPA to be heard on 31 March on the three grounds of improper motive, fishing rights and EU law. Members were interested to learn that, with respect to the ruling of the Law Lords in Oct 2008, lawyers had recently written to the Treasury Solicitor alleging a miscarriage of justice, on the grounds that the flawed feasibility study and the way it had been influenced, was a key factor on which the majority judgment had been based. The letter invited the Foreign Secretary to set aside that judgment and restore the right of return,

The next meeting of the Group is on 5 February.

David Snoxell
Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

On the 27th November a fifty-four minute debate in the House of Lords demonstrated the determination of Peers to maintain pressure on the Government.  The full text of the debate is attached to this newsletter, and included a contribution from the cross-bencher Lord Luce recalling the first time he became aware of the human rights violations inflicted against the Chagossians:

“I think that it was in early 1982, when I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office and had responsibilities for the African continent and the Indian Ocean, that I paid my first visit to Mauritius. When we landed, we were the only aeroplane at the airport. I came down the steps and the high commissioner whisked me away. At that point, I noticed that there were some 2,000 people at the airport. I expressed surprise that for one aeroplane there should be 2,000 people and I asked him why they were there. He said, “That’s a demonstration”. I said, “A demonstration against whom?” He said, “A demonstration against you”. So I said, “Look, if there’s a demonstration, the important thing is to meet the leaders. Please lay on the demonstration again and ask them to demonstrate again”.

They demonstrated the next day outside the high commission. I invited the five leaders, five marvellous Chagossian ladies, to come in and have tea. That was the first time that I realised that what we had done in the late 1960s and early 1970s by expelling 1,500 people, going back two, three and even four generations, was a really black mark for our country. It was serious abuse of human rights. I very much regret that, because I decided with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to resign very soon after that, I did not do more about the issue at that time.

I believe that the issue has undermined our voice in the case that we put for human rights all over the world. If we are going to argue for upholding the Commonwealth charter on core values, which we do, we have to be able to say that we are strong, in our own country and in our own foreign policy, on respecting human rights. Last week, on 21 November, we had a splendid debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in which I could not take part, on human rights all round the world. When we do that, we need occasionally to pause to remember that we abuse human rights from time to time. In this case, we have, and we need to put it right.”

CRG 30th ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE
At the end of October the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) marked the 30th anniversary of its establishment with an international conference in Mauritius.  APPG Coordinator David Snoxell was one of several to have addressed the audience and a full copy of his speech is attached with this edition:

“Clearly, after more than a decade of intransigence, the FCO needs a thorough and objective review of all its policies towards Chagos. And here I pay tribute to today’s FCO for recognising this. The Policy Review announced ten months ago by the Foreign Secretary on 20 December 2012 was a belated but welcome step forward. I believe that it
is a genuine attempt to be open, objective and fair.” 

As promised, our Chair Sabrina Jean, who represented our Association, has provided us with some wonderful images from the conference:
  
BIOT POLICY REVIEW: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE PUBLISHED
Minister for the Overseas Territories Mark Simmonds made a written statement to Parliament on November 19th confirming that a draft of the terms of reference for the forthcoming feasibility study had been published:

“Over the summer, FCO and BIOT officials sought initial views from over 400 people, including members of the Chagossian community in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

These initial consultations show that views within Chagossian communities vary widely on the issue of resettlement. Though a clear majority of Chagossians expressed a preference to return to BIOT, there were significant differences in the detail. Numerous concerns and issues were highlighted, by Chagossian groups and others, which will need to be carefully considered during the Feasibility Study. These include the scale of resettlement, the extent of the provision of modern infrastructure and facilities, access to employment opportunities, and the need to protect the unique environment of BIOT.

The input provided has helped to shape the draft Terms of Reference(TORs) for the study which will be published immediately on the Overseas Territories webpage on GOV.UK and placed in the libraries of both Houses. The Feasibility Study will look at the full range of options for resettlement and will include all  the islands of the Territory, including Diego Garcia with its vital military base. Following the Study, in assessing the potential options for resettlement, the Government will wish to balance a range of factors including whether this could be accommodated in a way that does not inhibit the scale and output of the existing base, and whether the base can continue to operate undisturbed alongside any potential resettlement.”

A summary of the draft TORs published by the Foreign Office last month is also attached to this edition of the newsletter.  The closing date for submissions passed before our December edition was published but we will await confirmation of the finalised TORs in the New Year.  UKChSA joint-patron Philippa Gregory provided the following submissions on behalf of our Association:

“The UK Chagos Support Association is aware of submissions from other stakeholders and would want to  support the comments made by the Chagos Refugee Group, The Alliance, and The All Party Parliamentary Group on Chagos, and add the following thoughts:

Working, as we do, in support of all Chagossians, but with especial contact with those exiled in the UK, we would like to draw your attention to the urgency of the feasibility report. The Chagossians have already waited far too long for the right to return to their homeland, and every year now sees more deaths in exile. We are particularly concerned at the length of time proposed for the feasibility report, especially as this might take the reporting period over a general election. Accordingly we call upon the FCO to speed up the process. Also, we think it appropriate that the legal changes necessary to the MPA legislation and to the Chagos citizenship status be investigated now - so that Chagossians can start their return as soon as possible. We also would want to know that the feasibility report will be accepted by all parties, in the event of a change of government.

The political social and cultural aspects of the feasibility report must take into account the needs for a full community of islanders to return to their homes. The report currently rules out issues of citizenship and compensation and we believe that this is a grave mistake. Chagossians cannot return to their homeland without clarity about their legal status. The current Chagos-only citizenship and visa arrangements which are acknowledged to have been drafted in error and are a practical obstacle to the Chagossian people will have to be reviewed and amended. At the moment they divide families. If people are to live on Chagos, Mauritius, and the UK, if they marry other nationalities and if their children are born in either Chagos or the UK what is their legal status to be? We recognise that these are complex and complicated issues but the feasibility report cannot answer on the 'feasibility' of return, unless it addresses this fundamental need. We suggest that the Home Office be requested urgently to prepare a mini-feasibility report on the legal status of the Chagossians and that this should mirror, as is only fair and just, the status of other British Overseas Territories, without special Chagos clauses, and report at the same time as this FCO feasibility report.

Political - we require that the necessary approaches and negotiations with the US government regarding the terms of the use of Diego Garcia are made public. We are concerned at the suggestion that, until now, the US has not been made aware of the Chagossians wish to return. It is not feasible that the USA should continue to use Diego Garcia as her base excluding the Chagossians.  The report will need to consider what arrangements can be made. Please note the Chagossian willingness to negotiate.

Economic - on behalf of the Chagossians we welcome the exploration of a sustainable lifestyle on Chagos and hope that the report considers two potential income streams: the money which could be raised for fishery protection by the Chagossians, the sustainable industry of artisan fishing and sustainable agriculture, and the income which presumably the US government will pay for the continued use of the Diego Garcia base.

Consultation - we welcome the feasibility report's intention of consulting stakeholders, and we respectfully remind the FCO that while there are many interested parties, there is only one community of indigenous inhabitants: the Chagossians, and that their views should be paramount. They are particularly concerned that consultations about the environment and the suitability of island developments be made with them, as active and participating observers and reporters. They are particularly concerned about their legal position as Chagossians, British Overseas Territory dwellers and British subjects. We, as the supporters' association, support them completely in their determination to be allowed to decide their future on Chagos and elsewhere.”





Olivier Bancoult provided the following submissions on behalf of the CRG:

“The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) has met on two occasions, and has also consulted a broad range of experts about the draft TORs and the conduct of the Feasibility Study more generally.  The General Assembly was held on Sunday 8th December and was attended by the majority of the native Chagossians living in Mauritius.  The General Assembly made a list of recommendations and as a result we wish to propose several changes/refinements to the draft TORs. These are shown in the attached version as 'track changes'. We are grateful for the opportunity to provide input at this stage and would further ask that if any of our proposals are considered controversial, then there should be a further brief consultation with us to try to reach a compromise.

In addition, the CRG would ask that the following general points concerning the Feasibility Study are taken into account:
1) The Consultants appointed to the study should be truly independent and that there should be no changes to the TORs without further consultation with interested parties.
2) That the study should be published directly by the consultants without any prior vetting, or reviewing by any party, including the FCO/BIOT.
3) Consideration should be given for Chagossian involvement in the study; for example if consultants visit the islands, then at least one appointed observer should be permitted to accompany them. Ideally this would be A Chagossian 'native' who can assist in traditional knowledge and provide general background knowledge about the islands where necessary, under supervision of an expert chosen by the Community.
4)We would like to obtain a guarantee that the US is agreeable to resettlement.

In parallel with the Feasibility Study we would ask for discussions and consultation on other issues that we have identified but which are not directly related to resettlement:

1) Environmental and conservation training for Chagossians be commenced in Mauritius as soon as possible but only if it is conducted without prejudice to the fundamental human rights of the Chagossians and without prejudice to ongoing litigation
2) Pension provision for 'native' Chagossians.
3) Educational scholarships for young Chagossians.
4) The establishment of a 'funeral fund' to help meet costs associated with dispersed families consequential upon the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.
5) That consideration be given to widening the scope of the Chagos "Marine Protected Area" to one that encompasses the islands themselves and which includes human involvement. 
6) That the UK address the problems of family separation arising after the British Overseas Citizenship Act 2002. 






DAVID SNOXELL
It was a busy few weeks for APPG coordinator David Snoxell who also found time to write an article which appeared on the Conservative Home website, a similar piece also appeared in Labour’s Tribune magazine.  Reflecting on recent events, he argued that we may indeed be witnessing a watershed moment in this extraordinarily prolonged injustice:

“During a debate in the Lords in November, peers urged the Government to shorten the process so that decisions can be taken well before the election. The only way to achieve this would be to make the feasibility study six rather than twelve months. Since there have been several academic studies analysing the 2002 feasibility study over the past decade and, since significantly more scientific data is now available than in 2002, this should be possible.  Clearly, speakers felt that the deadline of an election was an overriding factor.

It had taken until now to reach a point (commissioning a new study) which could have been decided when the Government came into office. In the run-up to the election, the Coalition parties had each promised to work for a fair and just solution. It was noted that the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group had been established in 2008 to press for justice, and will have its 40th meeting later this month. It has pressed for a new feasibility study since its first meeting.”

FROM THE EDITOR
It’s quite remarkable to think where we all were twelve months ago, collectively still reeling from that now infamous Strasbourg ruling.  As 2013 glides off into the sunset we can all seek reassurances from the renewed sense of hope that 2014 could indeed become a pivotal year in this struggle for justice.  On behalf of the Association I would like to thank all of our fantastic supporters for all their work over the past year and wish you and your families a very happy new year.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Chagos Islands APPG 40th meeting December 2013

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 40th meeting on 17 December 2013

The Group reviewed the progress made since its first meeting 5 years ago, on 16 December 2008. Members recalled the purpose of the Group was "to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossian people". The Group had also decided that "following the end of legal proceedings (Law Lords judgment Oct 08) the responsibility for the Chagos Islanders now rests with Parliament". At its second meeting on 29 Jan 2010 the Group agreed several objectives one of which was. "A truly independent study of the practicalities and way in which a limited resettlement of Salomon and Peros Bahnos can be achieved..... drawn up in consultation with interested parties, not least the Chagossians".They were pleased to note that after 5 years the FCO had now agreed to a new study. They were disappointed that another of its objectives ("Discussions with Mauritius on the future sovereignty of the Outer Islands") had not so far begun although its objective ("Re-negotiation of the Agreement with the US by 2015, to reflect the right of the Chagossians to live on the Islands and any changes to the sovereignty of those Islands") appeared to be on course. 

Members discussed the proposed TORs for the new feasibility study. They endorsed the points made by Baroness Whitaker, Lord Avebury and Lord Luce in the Lords debate on 27 November, in particularly that it would be necessary to cut the length of the study from 12 to 6 months in order for decisions to be made and implemented before the general election. Members agreed that they should continue to monitor the process and timetable. closely. 

The Group decided that the Chairman should write to the Foreign Secretary about this and other concerns such as the need to engage Mauritius in a diplomatic dialogue concerning the future management of the Islands and of the MPA.. As Lord Luce had said in the debate " it is essential that they (Mauritius) are regarded as a vital player in any Chagossian solution". Members agreed with Lord Avebury's suggestion, made in the Lords debate, that to help break the ice the new BIOT Science Adviser, along with members of the BIOT Science Advisory Group, should have  meetings with their Mauritian counterparts to discuss a joint approach to the science of Chagos, sharing data and current research. The Group decided to invite the Mauritian High Commissioner to a meeting. 

Members were keen to take up the Foreign Secretary's offer of a further meeting which he had made at the last meeting with the Group on 15 December 2011.

The Group also discussed legal developments.They took note that permission had been granted by the High Court for an appeal against the judicial review of the MPA to be heard on 31 March on the three grounds of improper motive, fishing rights and EU law. Members were interested to learn that, with respect to the ruling of the Law Lords in Oct 2008, lawyers had recently written to the Treasury Solicitor alleging a miscarriage of justice, on the grounds that the flawed feasibility study and the way it had been influenced, was a key factor on which the majority judgment had been based. The letter invited the Foreign Secretary to set aside that judgment and  restore the right of return,

The next meeting of the Group is on 5 February.

David Snoxell

Coordinator
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 13 December 2013

David Snoxell: The Chagos Islands – the tide may at last be turning

This article will be republished in Tribune, a Labour-leaning publication, on December 20th

David Snoxell is Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group.
Last year on ConservativeHome, I noted that the climate (of Chagos discussions) had changed, but not the tide. Nearly two years later I can report that the tide is beginning to turn.  But will it have done so completely by the time of the general election?

Immediately following the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the Chagos case was inadmissible, William Hague announced last December that the Government would take stock of its policy towards the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).  Its people were exiled in the early 1970s to make way for a US base on Diego Garcia. In 2002 an FCO inspired feasibility study concluded that resettlement would be precarious and costly.

Last July, Mark Simmonds, the Foreign Office Minister, announced a new study. Following a four month consultation process the draft terms of reference (TORs) were laid before Parliament last month. Feedback on the TORs, with a deadline of 18 December, was invited. The TORs will then be finalised, and consultant experts appointed to undertake the study. This process could take until March. The FCO expects the study to then take a further year.

Thereafter, Ministers will consider the findings and review all aspects of BIOT policy, including resettlement, defence and sovereignty. Unfortunately, this timetable brings the end result perilously close to the 2015 election. Indeed, it seems more likely that decisions on the study and a review of the policy would have to be held over to the next Government.  While it is to their credit that the Foreign Office is this time determined to ensure that the study is seen as objective and thorough, and that the Chagossians are consulted, there is also the parliamentary timetable to be considered.

During a debate in the Lords in December, peers urged the Government to shorten the process so that decisions can be taken well before the election. The only way to achieve this would be to make the feasibility study six rather than twelve months. Since there have been several academic studies analysing the 2002 feasibility study over the past decade and, since significantly more scientific data is now available than in 2002, this should be possible.  Clearly, speakers felt that the deadline of an election was an overriding factor.
It had taken until now to reach a point (commissioning a new study) which could have been decided when the Government came into office. In the run-up to the election, the Coalition parties had each promised to work for a fair and just solution. It was noted that the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group had been established in 2008 to press for justice, and will have its 40th meeting later this month. It has pressed for a new feasibility study since its first meeting.

Baroness Whitaker (Lab), who opened the debate, commended the draft TORs of the proposed study. These were far reaching, objective and imaginative, she said – providing a wide range of options and a comprehensive analysis of factors, including human rights, environmental, social, economic and legal. Whitaker noted that the reasoning for the abolition of the right of return and abode in 2004 had now largely been discredited by this new approach, and so should be restored. She reminded peers that the Foreign Secretary had said: “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience, and neither is it in our interests”.

Speaking for the Labour party frontbench, in a distinctly more positive tone than when Labour were in office, Baroness Morgan urged the Government to explore the opportunities for the cost of resettlement to be shared between other interested governments, the EU and the US. She was sure that it was not beyond the wit of the US defence authorities on Diego Garcia to live alongside the Chagos Islanders and to employ them on the base. (The TORs include the possibility of resettlement on Diego).

Peers also called for Mauritius to be involved in the resettlement process since successive governments had undertaken to restore the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes.  There needed to be a dialogue with Mauritius, it was said, about the future management of the islands and of the Marine Protected Area, notwithstanding the pending Mauritian case against the MPA (at ITLOS) declared on the eve of the last election. The TORs allow for the MPA to be amended.


The tide seems to be turning. Chagossians can now, after 45 years, be a little optimistic about their future. As a first step their right to return should be restored and arrangements made to visit their homeland whenever they want to do so. With American cooperation a resettlement on Diego Garcia looks quite possible. This should feature in the extension of the 1966 UK/US agreement which comes up for renewal next year.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)