qna.files.parliament.ukqna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/178764/original/Feasibility study for the...Contents Ref. Annex Page 3.1 Environmental data set from BIOT field visit

Feasibility study

for the

resettlement of

the British Indian

Ocean Territory

Volume II: Annexes

31st January 2015

J

Contents

Ref. Annex Page

3.1 Environmental data set from BIOT field visit 3

3.2 Environmental questionnaire 16

3.3 Environmental Questionnaire results 31

4.1 BIOT environmental conventions 44

5.1 Changes in Coral Cover with Depth on Ocean Facing Slopes in Chagos 46

5.2 Environmental parameters for monitoring 47

5.3 Environmental monitoring costs 50

5.4 Environmental criteria for Maldives 51

5.5 Environmental concerns in the Maldives 53

5.6 Island environment factors 54

6.1 US Military Construction 55

6.2 Asset Maintenance 66

6.3 Airports & Runways 70

6.4 Ports, Harbours & Maritime Structures 81

6.5 Building Costs 90

6.6 Energy & Electricity 98

7.1 Fisheries 108

7.2 Tourism 135

7.3 Coconuts 164

7.4 Resettlement Options 181

1

Currency Equivalents

Currency Unit = Sterling Pound (£)

Exchange Rates (1 October 2014)1

£ 1 = US$ 1.6203

£ 1 = € 1.2866

Fiscal Year

1 April – 31 March

Abbreviations and Acronyms

APCC Asian and Pacific Coconut Community

BIOT British Indian Ocean Territory

BIOTA BIOT Administration

BMFC British/Mauritius Fisheries Commission

BSFC British/Seychelles Fisheries Commission

CB Capacity Building

CCT Chagos Conservation Trust

CDA Coconut Development Authority (Sri Lanka)

CPI Consumer Price Index

DFID Department for International Development

EC European Commission

ECCB East Caribbean Central Bank

EDF European Development Fund

EEZ Economic Exclusion Zone

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIB European Investment Bank

EPPZ Environment Protection and Preservation Zone

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FCMZ Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone

FCNO Filtered Coconut Oil

FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office

FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return

FPO Fisheries Protection Officer

FPV Fisheries Protection Vessel

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GRT Gross Register Tonnage

GST Goods and Services Tax

HR Human Resources

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1 Source: Bank of England.

2

Abbreviations and Acronyms

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPCC International Panel on Climate Change

IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MDG Millennium Development Goal

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MIS Management Information System

MPA Marine Protected Area

MRAG Marine Resources Assessment Group Limited

MSC Marine Stewardship Certificate

MWR Morale, Welfare and Recreation

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NM Nautical Mile

NSFDG US Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia

NTA/NTZ No Take Area/No Take Zone

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OT Overseas Territory

OTD Overseas Territories Department

OTEP Overseas Territories Environment Programme

P.B Peros Banhos

PIDG Private Infrastructure Development Group

PIO Pitcairn Island Office

PM Pacific Marlin

RIB Rigid-hulled Inflatable Boat

RM Royal Marines

ROPO Royal Overseas Police Officer

SFPO Senior Fisheries Protection Officer

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

TCI Turks and Caicos Islands

TdC Tristan da Cunha

TEFU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TOR Terms of Reference

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

USAF United States Air Force

VAT Value Added Tax

WHO World Health Organisation

WTO World Tourism Organisation

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

3

3.1 Environmental data set from BIOT field visit

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)

4a,b,c. Three Brothers

(Middle visited) (+N&S)

(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Day/Date Thurs

15.05.14

Thurs

15.05.14

Thurs

15.05.14

Fri

16.05.14

Fri

16.05.14

Sat

17.05.14

Sat

17.05.14

Latitude (S) &

Longitude (E) at

central point

6o40’ x 71

o22’ 6

o11’ x

71o20’

5o20’ x 71

o51’

Distance from

DG (direct)

73nm 77nm 94.5nm 88nm 119nm 128nm 130nm

Distance from

DG

82nm 82nm (same

anchorage as for

Sudest)

110nm 109nm 127.5nm 136.5nm 131nm

Surface Area

(ha)

98.02 46.2

1 243.5

255.4 + 36.4

8.0 (6.0 N; 23.0 S) 127.5

130.1

150.0

145.8 1

88.5

105.5 1

Max. Length

(nm) &

orientation

2.2

(NW-SE)

1.1

(N-S)

2.5

(NE-SW)

0.25

(Circular or Square)

1.65

(WNW-ESE)

1.95

(NNE-SSW)

1.1

(NE-SW)

Approx.

observed Max.

Height (m)

approximately 2.0-

2.5

(less than 2 m;

Sheppard, 2002)3

approximately 2-

3.5

(less than 1 m;

Sheppard, 2002)i

approximately 2.0-2.5

(approximately 2m;

Sheppard, 2002)i

approximately 2.5-3.0m

(1.0-1.2 m; Sheppard,

2002)i

approximately 1.75-

2.0

approximately

1.75-2.0

approximately 1.75-

2.0

2 Klaus, (Unpublished)

3 Sheppard, 2002.

4

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Prev. habitation

& dwellings?

No dwellings

seen – some

remnants

reported.

No dwellings

seen/found.

Yes, on highest part

of island; 4-5

dilapidated

habitation(s) seen.

Only vertical walls

survive. 3-4 buildings’

‘plinths’ seen. 3

reported graves at

shoreline – no

headstones remain.

Main graveyard

approximately 80m

inland.

No dwellings

seen/none

Yes, substantial

colony. ‘Main road’

layout;

approximately 150

graves (many small

children); Manager’s

house substantial,

roof now collapsed.

Other buildings,

large metal water

tank, WC, wall

separating

processing area

No dwelling

seen/found.

Yes, but transient

population, some

wells reported; no

dwellings seen/found.

Previous

population &

livelihood

Unknown Unknown Previously inhabited;

coconut/copra &

subsistence/artisanal

fishing

Unknown Previously inhabited:

coconut/copra &


fishing

Unknown Previously inhabited;

temporary

coconut/copra

plantation &


fishing?

Anchorage 3km offshore;

narrow ledge only

3km offshore;

narrow ledge only

East better 2.5nm; W

less than 300m

(approximately 30m

depth), small ships

only.

2.5nm, Great Chagos

Bank

1.5nm lagoon-side 0.5nm lagoon-side 0.5nm lagoon-side

Sea depth

beyond reef (m)

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

Atoll area (km2) 40 (Egmont) 18,000 (Gt. Chagos Bank) 463 (Peros Banhos)

% atoll rim

enclosed by

islands & reef

flats

35 (Egmont) 35 (Egmont) less than 5 (Gt.

Chagos Bank)

Channel cut in reef on

NW side – dangerous

entry

less than 5 (Gt. Chagos

Bank)

65 (Peros Banhos)

5

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Approach &

ease of access

1 = Relatively

easy to get

small craft near

shore.

5 = Extremely

difficult

1

Lagoon-side;

limited reef; easy

at High Tide; OK

at Low Tide.

3

Lagoon-side;

more reef &

outcrops – harder

landing than

Sudest.

Long walk/wade

at Low Tide.

3

5. Ocean-side Oct-

May

2. Oct-May Lagoon-

side

4. Other months –

SW winds create

hazard

Lagoon-side; wade &

swim required at high

tide

1

1.Middle Island –

always accessible (but

big surf on approach);

3.South – weather –

dependent;

5. North – cliffs & surf

severe.

Lagoon-side;

Substantial dead reef to

cross to get ashore on

middle island. N & S

islands v difficult

access (attempt

abandoned on safety

grounds); N island up to

5m limestone cliffs &

2.5m waves onshore in

relatively modest winds

2

1. OK at High Tide –

Lagoon-side;

Disused jetty –

unusable. Former

‘railway’ tracks

visible.

4. Low Tide –

swim/wade

required.

2

1.Lagoon-side

Beach access at

High Tide – but

only across E

corner.

3. Low Tide more

difficult – long

wade/walk

(awkward –

shallow, many

reefs)

2

Lagoon-side (SE

corner only).

1.High Tide

3.Low Tide (small

channel; many reefs;

wading, access quite

tricky)

Jetty need &

issues

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 300

m from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 300

m from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 50 m

from shore

Essential

approximately 5m deep

water @ 3 m from

shore (ship cannot

anchor – coral blasting

required); Coral reef

outcrops suddenly

upthrusting en-route to

shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 180 m

from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 120

m from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 60m

(N), 120m (S), from

shore

Rainfall mm/yr (Chagos range 2,500 mm/yr in S. atoll, 4,000 mm/yr in N atolls) 3,999 (Peros Banhos atoll)

6

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Shoreline: sand

width (m)

Description

10-30; Classic

heaped sandy

coral lip and then

lower inland

saucer;

impenetrable

mostly coconut &

some fringe

Scaevola

10-30;

NB v narrow

Island

approximately

300m across.

Relatively

impenetrable

fringe coconut &

Scaevola

Approximately 2.0-

3.0;

Range of rounded

coral boulders.

Elevated eroded sea-

wall foundations

falling into sea.

Coconut & Scaevola

Approximately 2.0-3.0;

Outcropping upthrust

island with ‘domed’

inland cross-section –

with pitting – small

depressions.

Coconut & Scaevola

Approximately 2.0-

5.0; Typical coral

atoll x-section but

some elevated area;

Coconut & Scaevola

Approximately

2.0-5.0;

Coconut &

Scaevola

Approximately 3.0-

5.0; Coconut &

Scaevola

Inland

vegetation &

ease of access

Impenetrable

without machete,

mostly extreme

proliferation of

coconut;

hard walking

Younger

vegetation;

smaller trees &

evidence of

regular inundation

– strewn &

flattened boughs

& debris

Mixed mature

vegetation; v little

‘undergrowth’ Much

of island cleared –

easier access to

centre of island, cf

Sudest and Sipaille).

Small mangrove area

inland on boggy

ground

Less dense

undergrowth; lack of

young shoots – being

eaten Scaevola &

heliotrope/hardwood

Coconut, some

citrus, thinner

undergrowth,

relatively easily

penetrated

Some old

plantation trees

Fallen coconuts soft,

rotten inside (only

Diamont); moderately

dense vegetation

inside; Pisonia.

Undulating terrain (the

most uneven island)

and central

depression

Soil (humic

matter) depth

inland

4’ humic layer,

then sand

Approximately 2-

4’ sandy & dark

layer with limited

organic material

and humic layer

6-8’ humic layer

(moderate organic

matter – worms

present)

4-6’ sand & limited

humic matter – not soil

Greater than 12’

humic layer/OM; rich

soil – unique

Greater than 12’

humic layer;

moderate OM –

50:50 sand soil

(like Ile du Coin)

Approximately 8’

humic layer: dry

sand/OM (10-12’)

GW lens/depth

of water

surface below

ground.

Exists; surface

ponding in centre

– to approximately

1.5m depth est.

Exists; no

ponding; 2.5m

depth to closer to

surface in centre

Exists;

Square (French?)

wells. GW 0.5 – 1.5m

depth.

Small mangrove area

inundates

Probably; unknown,

though FW at

approximately 1 m

depth; no boggy central

depression, but debris

around centre of island

(= how far SW comes

in; significant for

agriculture & re-

settlement)

Exists; central boggy

area. Round (British)

wells. GW 0.5-1.5m

depth – deeper at lip

Exists (?FW up to

1.5 m depth

below surface;

influenced by tidal

cycle and rock

porosity);

depression in

centre, but not

boggy; No wells

Exists;

Boggy centre; Wells

1.5-1.0 depth.

7

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Inundation

risk?

1.= Low

5.=High

5

High – Centre can

flood at high tide

4

5

Over-topping, ≥ 2 x

per year (Oct/Apr);

causes seawater

flooding soil &

agriculture (damage)

1

5

Floods regularly

1 4

Geology Upthrust raised

limestone reef;

limestone beach rock

Wildlife Rats;

Rats; ‘Super Rats’ (2010

eradication effort

failed); Large coconut

(robber) crabs Birgus

latro; chickens/jungle

fowl; spiders;

significant number of

midges &

mosquitoes.

No Rats. Range of

crabs including coconut

crabs.

Rats; land & coconut

crabs; v many

midges &

mosquitoes.

Rats;

land & coconut &

‘white’ hermit

crabs (distinctive

– coloured on

other islands)

Rats;

Seabirds

nesting habitat

Seabirds: e.g.

terns, boobies,

noddies

Trees: Coconut

palms, Scaevola,

other sp (p.)

Seabirds: e.g.

Fairy and other

terns, noddies

Trees: Coconut

palms, Scaevola

Seabirds: e.g.tern

sp(p)

Trees: Coconut

palms, Scaevola

Seabirds: e.g. Sooty

terns; Fairy terns,

Lesser frigate birds,

Red footed boobies;

Common noddies;

Trees: Coconut palms

(tall or short); Brothers

have most grasses,

herbs etc. cf other

BIOT islands

Seabirds: e.g. Fairy

terns

Trees: As above,

plus ‘Ironwood’

trees

Seabirds: e.g.

Red-footed

boobies

Trees: Coconut

palms, Scaevola

Seabirds: Red-footed

boobies, Fairy terns,

plus Frigate birds

Trees: As above

8

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Marine Ecology

(0-6 log

abundance

scale (Rapid

Environ-mental

Assessment,

2010)4

Corals/reefs (3),

Birds (3), Fish (4),

Invertebrates (5)

Corals/reefs (1),


Invertebrates (4)

Corals/reefs (4), Birds

(2), Fish (3),

Invertebrates (4).

Most southerly limit

of Indian Ocean

mangroves


(3), Fish (3),

Invertebrates (5).

Mangroves – most

southerly limit of Indian

Ocean

Corals/reefs (5),


Invertebrates (5)

(No records: rapid

environmental

assessment)


(2), Fish (4),

Invertebrates (5)

Coastal

disturbances

and impacts5

Construction (0),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil

(0), Solid

waste/beach

rubbish (4)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil

(0), Solid

waste/beach

rubbish (4)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0), Beach

oil

(0), Solid waste/beach

rubbish (5)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0), Beach oil


rubbish (4)

Construction (3),

Fishing (0), Beach

oil

(0), Solid

waste/beach rubbish

(3)

(No records: rapid

environmental

assessment)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0), Beach

oil


rubbish (3)

Infrastructure

Potential &

Challenges

Debris indicates

periodic flooding

to centre of island

– raised plinths

required for any

infrastructures –

flood risk high

Not a practicable

option for regular

& safe habitation.

Raised

foundations

needed for any

buildings

Complete habitation

rebuild(s) required.

New buildings need

to be greater than 2m

off ground (platform

or pilings

approximately 1m

down to rocks)

Patches of extensive

open spaces

(accessible for re-

settlement)

Disused jetty

approximately 180m

long; end pier-block

still intact; linking

platform collapsed;

old trolly axles &

inland 3 derelict

railway lines remain;

NB some white

asbestos corrugated

sheeting materials to

be disposed of

safely

Undulating terrain (the

most uneven island)

4 Estimated log abundance, i.e. no. of individuals or area in m

2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999 etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m

2 (500 m x 500 m); see Price & Harris, 2009.

5 Estimated log magnitude, i.e. no. of items or area in m

2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999 etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m

2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009).

9

ITEM/Island

1. Sudest

(Egmont Atoll)

2. Sipaille

(Egmont Atoll)

3. Eagle (Great

Chagos Bank)



(Gt Chagos Bank)

5. Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos)

6. Ile Pierre

(P.B.)

7. Ile Diamant

(P.B)

Agriculture

potential &

challenges

Limited potential.

Coconut possible

v.v. limited

potential –

overtopping likely.

Coconut possible.

Tarrow plant former

staple

Possible. Coconut

processing (former

coconut plantations);

Guava, bread fruit –

unique to Ile de

Coin, Tara (only

island with citrus

fruits)

Soil good for

carrots?

Other

livelihood

options

Subsistence

possible

Various (Heavy sea

cucumber

poaching, at least

formerly)

10

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos

Bank) 14. Diego Garcia

Day/Date Sat

17.05.14

Sat

17.05.14

Sun

18.05.14

Sun

18.05.14

Sun

18.05.14

Mon

19.05.14

Tues-Wed 13-

14.05.14

Latitude (S) &

Longitude (E) at

central point

5o20’ x 72

o15’ 7

o2’ x

72o26’

Distance from DG

(direct)

130nm 127nm 120nm 120nm 118nm 102nm 0

Distance from DG 135nm 133.5nm 124.5nm 124.5nm 124.5nm (same

anchorage as for Ile

Fouquet)

100.5nm 0

Surface area (ha) 43.5

74.0 6

58.5 44.0

47.3 1

39.5

47.1 (Klaus,

unpublished)

108.5

117.4 1

81.0

123.3 1

2719.5 (DG/main

island)

Max length (nm) &

orientation

0.75

(E-W)

0.8

(NNW-SSE)

0.65

(NW-SE)

0.8

(NE-SW)

1.25

(NW-SE)

0.7

(E-W)

approximately 15.5

with ‘dog-legs’

(NW-SE & NE-SW)

Max Ht (m) approximately 1.5-

2.0

approximately 2.5-

3.0

approximately 2.0-

2.5m

approximately

1.75-3.0 (uneven)

approximately 2.0-2.5 approximately 3.5-

4.5+

6.7 (mean: 1.2 m

above mean SL)7

Population now approximately

3,500-5000

Prev. habitation

& dwellings?

Yes, transient, no

dwelling

seen/found

No dwellings

seen/found

Yes, some ground

plinths reported

Yes, some ground

plinths reported.

(Island farmed,

not settled,

previously)

Yes, extensive

habitation in complete

disrepair found.

Remnants of many

buildings (school,

police, jail, shop –

corrugated roof and

raised on concrete

plinth, church etc) &

graveyards

No dwellings

found, but some

rumoured &

chickens present.

(shark-infested

reef/lagoon).

Yes, extensively

populated

historically

(coconut/copra &

subsistence/artisan

al fishing) and

presently by UK &

US military &

support & admin.

personnel.

6 Klaus (Unpublished)

7 www.as39.navy.mil/download%5CWELCOMETODIEGOGARCIA.doc

11

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos


Prev. Popln &

livelihood

Unknown Unknown Previously

populated;

coconut/copra &

subsistence/artisan

al fishing Previously

camp for sea

cucumber poachers

Previously

populated;

coconut/copra &

subsistence/artisa

nal fishing

Previously populated;

coconut/copra &


fishing

Unknown Previously

populated;

coconut/copra &

subsistence/artisan

al fishing

Anchorage 0.5nm lagoon-side None; Anchor at

Manorel – 1.5nm.

3km (S); Great

Chagos Bank

1nm offshore

(lagoon)

Sea depth beyond

reef (m)

greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

102-2000+ 102-2000+ 102-2000+ greater than 100-

2000+

greater than 100-

2000+

Atoll area km2 463 38 (Salomon) 18,000 (Gt.

Chagos Bank)

250

% rim enclosed by

islands & reef flats

65 (Peros Banhos) 85 (Salomon) less than 5 (Gt.

Chagos Bank)

97% (Diego Garcia)

Approach & ease

of access

1 = Relatively Easy

to get small craft

near shore.

5 = Extremely

difficult

2

1.High tide

3.Low tide – long

wade/walk;

extensive coral/algal

reef flat noted.

1

Lagoon-side.

Low tide or High

tide OK.

Easiest of all Not

exposed to SE

winds; island well

protected by reef

extending

approximately 5

miles

1

Lagoon-side –

beach landing from

ship in Lagoon at

both High tide or

Low tide (sand,

some coral

bommies)

1

Lagoon-side –

beach landing

from ship in

Lagoon at both

high tide or Low

tide

1

Lagoon-side – beach

landing from ship in

Lagoon at both High

tide or Low tide (but

caution needed due to

sudden coral bommies,

2-3m, in otherwise

deep water)

4

Ocean-side.

Difficult Oct –

May;

High tide access

only

[1] –

Subject to USA-UK

Agreement(s).

Substantial Jetty

Exits on Western

‘arm’ – as well as

airport facilities.

Derelict E arm jetty

exists – old

Plantation

Jetty need &

issues

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 60 m

from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 150

m from shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 200

m from shore (but

environment very

dynamic in places)

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 100

m from shore

Essential

approximately 5m deep

water @ 120 m from

shore

Essential

approximately 5m

deep water @ 80

m from shore

Existing

approximately 5m

deep water.

12

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos


(Ship cannot anchor

– coral blasting

required for channel)

Rainfall (mm/yr) 3,999 (Peros Banhos) 3751 2599

Shoreline: sand

width (m)

Description

Approximately 2.5-

3.0; Coconut &

Scaevola

Approximately 1.75-

2.0 (very steeply

inclining); Coconut

& Scaevola

Approximately 2.5-

3.0;

Coconut & Scaevola

Approximately

2.5-3.0; Coconut

& Scaevola

Approximately 1.0-6.0;

Significant height

Coconut & Scaevola

Approximately

3.5-5.0; Uplifted;

Limestone cliffs

at either end with

heavy sand

fill/beach in

between.

Coconut &

Scaevola

Variable

Inland vegetation

& ease of access

Dense vegetation,

but some openings;

Pisonia; Birds’ nest

fern (big leaves).

Mangrove (swamp,

600m x 300 m, very

boggy; water

(unusually) seeps

from under

mangrove

Big, very open

spaces (some 150

m x 60 m); no

depressions in

centre of island

(unique). Scaevola

shore fringe and

inland & Pisonia

Scaevola and

coconut palms,

hardwoods (e.g.

Takamaka), Pisonia

(dominant), Birds

nest fern.

Moderately open

areas

Vegetation mod.

dense, but

walkable (mostly

without machete);

veg waste ht. and

coconut trees

either big or small;

Pisonia; Birds nets

fern

Mod. thick

undergrowth, except

areas formerly roads.

Undulating terrain &

mounds, central island

depression, always

damp and sometimes

floods

Mod. dense

vegetation over

much of island;

coconut trees,

Scaevola &

heliotrope; SE end

of island cover of

these low & low

scrub

Scaevola and

coconut palms;

much cleared

especially on W

side

Soil (humic

matter) depth

inland

Approximately 2’

humic material

(deeper in some

areas)

Approximately 4-8’

humic layer near

island edge/lip

(smells of soil); in

clear inland areas

only surface moss

then sand (no

OM/humus).

Greater than 12’

humic layer – v

sandy loam OM

(some humus

smell)

Greater than 8-12’

humic layer – v

sandy loam;

OM/sand 50:50

(smells of

soil/humus)

Approximately 12-14’

humic layer – v sandy

loam

Approximately 6-

8’ organic layer –

did not smell

strongly of humic

materials (pure

OM/’compost’

texture, little or no

sand)

Variable

13

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos


GW lens/depth of

water surface

below ground.

Exists; boggy &

substantial

mangrove area –

which at HT

inundates

‘vertically’ to 0.5m

depth

Exists; No boggy

area;

Arid Surface; Sandy

substrate; est. 2.0-

2.5m depth

Exists; Some Boggy

area – up to 0.5m

tidal inundation

depth – evidenced

by tide-mark on

coconut trees.

Est 1.5-1.0m GW

depth (sq. well)

(No central

depression;

overtopping by sea

water rare & area –

10 m x 10 m)

Exists; Some

boggy area at one

end; 1.5-2.0. No

boggy area in

centre

Exists; Boggy centre;

1.5m.

Well ‘1’: circular

(British), within square

– no water; Well ‘2’:

1.5 m to water surface;

Well ‘3’: 1.7 m to water

surface

Exists; No boggy

area; centre of

island depressed,

but no

overtopping by

SW, though soil

felt spongy or soft

on foot

Est. 3-5m depth

Exists; aquifer lens

sufficient for

resident population

(desalination not

necessary)

Inundation risk?

1.= Low

5.=High

4-5

In places

1 3 2 4 1 4-5

In places

Geology No central

depression (tilts

longitudinally)

Wildlife Rats; Rats; Rats;

Chickens;

Rats; Rats; Rats absent;

Chickens

Rats;

Gammant Lizards

Seabirds nesting

habitat

Seabirds: e.g.

Boobies nesting in

mangrove swamp

Trees: As above

Seabirds: e.g.

Boobies and tropic

birds – nesting

Trees: As above

Seabirds: e.g.

Boobies, tropic

birds, fodies,

noddies, fairy terns

Trees: as above

Seabirds: e.g.

Red-footed

boobies and

lesser noddies,

Frigate birds

Trees: as above

Seabirds: e.g.

Madagascar fodies,

Fairy terns, boobies

Trees:

Seabirds: e.g. Red

footed & brown

boobies; Lesser

frigate, petrels,

lesser noddies

(nest in cliffs, cf

Pisonia trees in

other islands),

greater crested

terns; fairy terns.

Trees: as above

Seabirds: e.g.

Frigate birds, fairy

terns (plus various

land birds);

Trees & Ground (by

non-piscivorous

Cattle Egret)

14

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos


Marine ecology (0-

6 log abundance

scale (Rapid

Environ-mental

Assessment,

2010)8

Many sea

cucumbers

(Stichopus

chloronotus) &

morays near shore.

Most southerly

water-ingressed

mangrove in Indian

Ocean –

biogeographic

significance; very

distinctive flora (No

rapid environmental

assessment

records)

Environmentally

significant island;

(Pisonia/big trees).

(No rapid

environmental

assessment

records)

Corals/reefs (3),


Invertebrates (3)

Corals/reefs (4),


Invertebrates (3).

Very dense

populations of sea

cucumbers (H.

atra) (5/m2where

present)

(No rapid

environmental

assessment records)

Corals/reefs (4),


Invertebrates (5)

Island rarely

visited; very rich

in bird life

Corals/reefs (4),


Invertebrates (5)

Coastal

disturbances and

impacts9

(No rapid

environmental

assessment

records)

(No rapid

environmental

assessment

records)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil (0),

Solid waste/beach

rubbish (4)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil (0),

Solid waste/beach

rubbish (3)

(No rapid

environmental

assessment records)

Construction (0),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil (0),

Solid waste/beach

rubbish (4)

Construction (5),

Fishing (0),

Beach oil (0),

Solid waste/beach

rubbish (2)

Infrastructure

potential &

challenges

No/little clearance

needed for

resettlement and

infrastructures;

relatively easy to

get equipment &

materials in

Agriculture

potential &

challenges

Extent of former

coconut operations:

Diego Garcia greater

than Boddam greater

than Ile du Coin

Former coconut

plantations

8 Estimated log abundance, i.e. no. of individuals or area in m

2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999, etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m


9 Estimated log magnitude, i.e. no. of items or area in m

2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999, etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m


15

ITEM/Island

8.Ile

Moresby

(P.B)

9. Ile Yeye (P.B)

(& New Pacific

Marlin Island =9b)

10. Ile Takamaka

(Salomon Atoll)

11. Ile Fouquet

(Salomon Atoll)

12. Ile Boddam

(Salomon Atoll)

13. Ile Nelson

Great Chagos


Other livelihood

options

Island used by

visiting yachts;

barbecue area

Visited by yachts;

barbecue area; volley

ball

Various potential

options (all subject

to USA-UK

Agreement(s)

16

3.2 Environmental questionnaire

Environmental Aspects of Potential Resettlement of the BIOT.

Name: Anonymous Process Id: 1373

Status: In Progress Country Id: 227

Completion Date: Questionnaire: Environmental Aspects of

Potential Resettlement of the

BIOT

Welcome to the ‘Environmental Aspects of Potential Resettlement of the BIOT’ questionnaire.

As part of the study to assess the feasibility of resettlement of BIOT by Chagossians, KPMG would

like to seek your views on various environmental issues. The questions relate to options and models

for resettlement, followed by questions about: the impact of resettlement on environment and the

carrying capacity of islands; the impact of environment on resettlement; and environmental

monitoring requirements, should resettlement proceed. The questionnaire is being sent to members

of BIOT's Scientific Advisory Group (SAG), Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) as well as to other

scientific stakeholders, including several international organisations.

The questionnaire should take approximately 30 to 45 minutes to complete. You do not have to

complete the whole questionnaire in one session: you can save your responses and then click 'Exit

and Complete Later'. You will then be asked to provide your e-mail address and you will receive an

email with a weblink enabling you to return to the questionnaire with your saved answers. You are

able to download a summary of your responses at the end of the survey. The deadline for the

completion and submission of questionnaires is 29 September 2014.

The introductory email provides further information about the project. If you have read the

information and are happy to participate in the survey, please click 'next'.

17

1. Personal Information

Name:

What is your professional activity? (You may select more than one option)

a. Scientist

b. Legal profession

c. Commercial interests

d. Other

If you selected 'other' to the above question, please specify your professional activity. If you

specified a professional activity, you may wish to elaborate on it,

e.g. fisheries, corals, oceanographer, sea-level research, geomorphologist, geographer, remote

sensing).

What are your interests in BIOT? (You may select more than one option)

a. Environment and conservation

b. Fisheries and fishing

c. Tourism

d. Legal representation of Chagossians

e. Other

If you selected 'other' to the above question, please specify your interests in BIOT.

Are you a member of a Chagos related interest group?

Yes

No

If yes, please specify which:

Chagos Conservation Trust

Chagos Environmental Network

Chagos Refugees Group

Other

If you selected 'other' to the above question, please specify.

18

How many trips have you made to BIOT?

0

1-2

3-5

More than 5

In what capacity have you visited BIOT?

Scientific researcher

Yacht visitor

Member of Armed Forces

Civilian contractor

Consultant

Other

If you selected 'other' to the above question, please specify.

19

2.1 Resettlement Options – models

Five resettlement options have been selected for the BIOT. We would like you to consider

these options and how they may be defined. Please select the 'Don't know' box if you are

unsure.

Modern Lifestyle: How would you define/describe this option?

Don't know

Subsistence lifestyle: How would you define/describe this option?

Don't know

Eco-village: How would you define/describe this option?

Don't know

Pilot resettlement/employment on Diego Garcia: How would you define/describe this

option?

Don't know

Scientific research station: How would you define/describe this option?

Don't know

20

2.2 Resettlement options – by island

If resettlement of BIOT occurs, please check which island(s) you would consider to be the

most suitable overall, assuming adequate environmental management?

(You may select more than one resettlement option for each island.)

Modern

lifestyle

Subsistence

lifestyle Eco-village

Pilot

resettlement

employment

(Diego Garcia

only)

Scientific

research

station

Island

unsuitable for

resettlement Don't know

Diego Garcia

Ile du Coin (Peros

Banhos atoll)

Boddam (Salomon

atoll)

Any other islands? (Please name and comment on suitability for different options).

2.3 Resettlement options – research station

Do you consider that a research station in Chagos would be an effective means of assessing

environmental aspects of resettlement (in conjunction with, not instead of, ship-based research

and assessment)?

Yes

No

Don't know

Please elaborate on the answer given for the above question, if your answer is Yes or No.

Do you know of an existing example of a research station anywhere in the world that might be

a suitable model for Chagos?

Yes

No

If you have selected 'Yes' to the question above, please provide comments on this example

research station(s).

21

Would the station be able to employ Chagossians?

Yes

No

Please elaborate on the answer given for the above question.

What are the estimated capital costs of such a research station – sourcing from private funds

e.g. Bertorelli, PEW etc? (Please put costs in GBP)

What are the estimated operational costs of such a research station – sourcing from private

funds e.g. Bertorelli, PEW etc? (Please put costs in GBP)

What are the estimated capital costs of such a research station – sourcing from public funds e.g.

Government, universities, IUCN, EU etc? (Please put costs in GBP)

What are the estimated operational costs of such a research station – sourcing from public

funds e.g. Government, universities, IUCN, EU etc? (Please put costs in GBP)

3.1 Impact of resettlement on environment – subsistence lifestyle

How would you score the overall resilience/robustness of the following islands and their

reefs to impacts from potential resettlement infrastructures and human activities? Please

tick appropriate column. (Two extremes of resettlement options have been selected as

examples – a) Subsistence lifestyle, b) Modern lifestyle.) For the purpose of this exercise,

please assume an initial resettlement population of up to 200.

a) Subsistence lifestyle: (Chagossians living mainly from BIOT islands and reefs;

modest/minimal infrastructures assumed; but only minimal use of coral/sand as building

materials permitted.)

Robust/resilient

Neutral (neither

robust/resilient

or fragile) Fragile Don't know

Diego Garcia

Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos

atoll)

Boddam (Salomon atoll)

Any other islands and/or additional notes? (please name and comment on the level of

robustness/fragility of these islands to resettlement impacts).

22

3.2 Impact of resettlement on environment – modern lifestyle

How would you score the overall resilience/robustness of the following islands and their

reefs to impacts from potential resettlement infrastructures and human activities? Please

tick appropriate column. (Two extremes of resettlement options have been selected as

examples – a) Subsistence lifestyle or eco-village, b) Modern lifestyle.)

b) Modern lifestyle: (Food for Chagossians mainly supplied from outside Chagos; larger

infrastructures assumed, e.g. airfield or port, hospitals, administrative & other

infrastructures to support a modern lifestyle; and only minimal use of coral/sand as

building materials permitted).

Robust/resilient

Neutral (neither

robust/resilient


Diego Garcia


atoll)


Any other islands and/or additional notes? (please name and comment on the level of

robustness/fragility of these islands to resettlement impacts.

3.3 Impact of resettlement on environment – carrying capacity a)

If resettlement of BIOT occurs, what is your view on the carrying capacity of the

following islands, in terms of maximum sustainable population size that could be

supported, assuming environmental impacts from infrastructures and activities are

properly managed? Carrying capacity for a particular resettlement location is influenced

by a number of factors including, but not limited to, water supply; source of food (local or

imported); source of building materials (local or imported); land area; former population

(as an indication of possible carrying capacity). Please insert a number next to each

island/atoll, plus your reasons in the 'Notes' box. (Two extremes of resettlement options

have been selected as examples.). Please select the 'Don't know' box if you are unsure.

a) Subsistence lifestyle

Diego Garcia (Diego Garcia atoll)

Notes/reasons:

Don't know

Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos)

Notes/reasons:

Don't know

23


Notes/reasons:

Don't know

Any other Islands (please name and indicate maximum sustainable population size for

subsistence lifestyle with notes/reasons).

3.4 Impact of resettlement on environment – carrying capacity b)

If resettlement of BIOT occurs, what is your view on the carrying capacity of the

following islands, in terms of maximum sustainable population size that could be

supported, assuming environmental impacts from infrastructures and activities are

properly managed? Carrying capacity for a particular resettlement location is influenced a

number of factors including, but not limited to, water supply; source of food (local or

imported); source of building materials (local or imported); land area; former population

(as an indication of possible carrying capacity). Please insert a number next to each

atoll/island, plus your reasons in the 'Notes' box. (Two extremes of resettlement options

have been selected as examples.) Please select the 'Don't know' box if you are unsure.

b) Modern lifestyle

Diego Garcia (Diego Garcia atoll)

Notes/reasons:

Don't know

Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos)

Notes/reasons:

Don't know


Notes/reasons

Don't know

Any other Islands (please name and indicate maximum sustainable population size for modern

lifestyle with notes/reasons).

24

4 Impact of environment on resettlement

Over the next 50 years, how resilient/robust do you think the following islands will be (in terms of the

capacity of their reefs, vegetation cover and fauna) to absorb and recover from ‘natural’

environmental disturbances, such as episodic storm events, rogue waves, sea level rise and coastal

erosion?

Robust/resilient

Neutral (neither

robust/resilient


Diego Garcia

Notes/reasons

Robust/resilient

Neutral (neither

robust/resilient



atoll)

Notes/reasons

Robust/resilient

Neutral (neither

robust/resilient



Notes/reasons

Any other islands, or points you wish to add, such as shore defence needs/costs? (Please name

and comment on the level of island robustness/fragility to natural environmental disturbances

for any additional island(s) noted).

25

5 Environmental monitoring requirements

The following are a possible suite of environmental parameters that KPMG suggests

should be monitored before, during and after any resettlement of BIOT islands, to

determine effects of construction, infrastructures and activities, including any ecotourism

development. Please indicate if you agree or disagree with each parameter, plus

estimated total annual monitoring costs (including e.g. travel & ship time) and also add

any additional parameters you consider appropriate.

Note: Prior to any resettlement, it will be important for FCO/stakeholders to consider and

agree: a) limits of acceptable change for the various parameters, b) penalties for

exceedances and transgressions (causing the problem), and c) who will be bear the costs

of dealing with the problem, if thresholds are crossed.

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using remote sensing.

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

Notes (if you tick 'Agree')

Estimate of annual costs involved

(Please put costs in GBP)

If the answer to the above question is 'Agree', please indicate whether the resettled population

could undertake the task (with training).

Yes

No

Don't know

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using aerial

photography.

Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Estimate of annual costs involved




Yes

No

Don't know

26

Abundance of major ecosystems and species groups and magnitude of coastal uses/pressures

(semi-quantitatively e.g. using rapid environmental assessment)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Estimate of annual costs involved.


If the answer to the above question is 'Agree', please indicate whether the resettled population could

undertake the task (with training).

Yes

No

Don't know

Detailed coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus

sedimentation rates).

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

27

Censuses of reef sharks

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

Censuses of other reef fish.

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

Censuses of turtles and their nesting sites

Agree

Disagree

Don't know




28



Yes

No

Don't know

Censuses of marine alien invasive species

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

Censuses of birds

Agree

Disagree

Don't know




If the answer to the above question is 'Agree', please indicate whether the resettled population could

undertake the task (with training).

Yes

No

Don't know

29

Terrestrial censuses/surveys, including alien invasive species.

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

Sampling and analysis of selected contaminants (e.g. nutrients, O2, faecal coliforms/biomarkers

of sewage pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, antifouling paint residues). It is

noted that monitoring of this sort is already taking place in Diego Garcia lagoon for a suite of

potential contaminants by the US military (under contract by G4S Parsons).

Agree

Disagree

Don't know






Yes

No

Don't know

Field data on sea level, coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation.

Agree

Disagree

Don't know




30



Yes

No

Don't know

Other suggested environmental parameters/recommendations:

If ecotourism development occurs in BIOT, do you support the Galapagos type model, where

tourists come specifically to support environmental monitoring programmes as paying

volunteers, to help assess the environmental effects of tourism?

Yes

No

Don't know

Notes/reasons:

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Aggregated data from the survey will be used in

the final report. Any individual comments and opinions expressed will be anonymised. Findings

from the environmental survey will contribute to the wide consultation that the UK Foreign and

Commonwealth Office has requested to assess the feasibilty of resettlement of BIOT by

Chagossians.

If you would like to download a summary of your responses, please click 'Print Questionnaire'

in the top right hand corner.

31

3.3 Environmental Questionnaire results

An environmental questionnaire was developed to seek views from stakeholders on the various

environmental issues linked to resettlement. Stakeholders included all members of Chagos

Conservation Trust (CCT), the former Special Scientific Group (SSG – no longer an entity) and other

stakeholders with technical environmental knowledge, particularly on Chagos and/or environmental

issues related to resettlement. The questions contained within the tool relate broadly to the

following: the carrying capacity of individual islands; the potential impact of resettlement on the

environment; the impact of the environment on resettlement; and environmental monitoring

requirements (see Annex A17), should a decision to resettle be taken by Ministers.

Section 1: Personal information

Table 3.3.1: Respondents

Response Frequency

Final submissions 37

In progress (with missing data) 14

Total 51

Table 3.3.2: Professional activity:

Professional activity Frequency

Environmental scientist/scientist 18

Legal profession 1

Commercial interests 3

Other 31

Non-response 4

N.B. respondents able to record more than one professional activity

Other category included military/naval interests, environmentalists, engineers, descendant of

Chagossians.

Table 3.3.3: Interest in BIOT

Interest in Chagos Frequency

Environment/conservation 33

Fisheries & fishing 12

Tourism 3

Legal representation of Chagossians 3

Other 5

Non-response 16

N.B. respondents able to record more than one interest

Other category included military/naval use, natural history study/documentaries

32

Table 3.3.4: Member of BIOT-related interest group

Chagos-related interest group Frequency

Chagos Conservation Trust 28

Chagos Environmental Network 5

Chagos Refugee Group 0

UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum 3

Non-response 21

N.B. respondents able to record more than one group

Table 3.3.5: Trips to BIOT

Number of trips to BIOT Frequency

0 14

1-2 11

3-5 3

More than 5 5

Non-response 18

Table 3.3.6: Capacity in which visited BIOT

Capacity in which visited BIOT Frequency

Scientific researcher 6

Civilian contractor 1

Member of armed forces 5

Yacht visitor 3

Consultant 0

Other 7

Non-response 33

N.B. respondents able to record more than one option

‘Other’ included expedition support, documentary maker, fishery observer, government official.

33

Section 2: Resettlement options

2.1 Resettlement options – models

Respondents were asked to consider five resettlement options for BIOT and how these might be

defined. At this stage they were not asked to evaluate the suitability of different models for BIOT or

the Chagossians.

a) Modern lifestyle

Respondents defined this as requiring, for example, ‘a high standard of amenities and infrastructure

and a full range of products and services easily available.’ Comparisons were made with the sort of

lifestyle that Chagossians might experience in current settlements in the Maldives or in the UK. A

21st century lifestyle may be tailored to be comparable to that experienced in settled islands

elsewhere. This might mean, for example, accepting that it may not be practical or affordable to have

comprehensive medical facilities, or tertiary education.

There was a view that a ‘modern’ lifestyle in the context of BIOT may mean a lifestyle that created

associated problems, for example, unrestricted burning of rubbish, unmaintained engines, polluted

ground water, excessive rubbish, with environmental regulation but no enforcement or disincentives.

b) Subsistence lifestyle

There was a broad consensus that this would mean being supported and sustained by local

resources. Subsistence lifestyle was described by some as similar to that experienced in BIOT in the

earlier plantation days (pre 1970s). Further information on requirements included ‘minimal

infrastructure’ and ‘basic facilities and essential services (simple housing, clean water, limited

electricity, some healthcare, possibly primary education). Food sourced locally as far as possible; very

little development (e.g., no paved roads, no major port facilities, no airport); possibly limited

communications (e.g., no internet).’

c) Eco-village

This implied a sustainable community operating with minimal impact on the environment and

including, for example ‘renewable energy, water recycling, low energy usage, minimal development,

environmentally 'friendly' infrastructure.’ This was seen as a settlement model for limited tourism by

some respondents, with associated restrictions on size of settlement and with strict environmental

regulations effectively enforced.

d) Pilot resettlement/employment on Diego Garcia

This was interpreted in a number of ways as:

■ Initial resettlement by a very small number of people to assess the feasibility of broader

resettlement after a trial period and requiring rigorous evaluation against pre-defined criteria.

■ Limited resettlement of no more than 100 people, limited to an adult population in good health

who could be employed, either on the US base, or by BIOT in conservation type work. People

would be selected on the basis of their skills or suitability for training.

■ Replacing a large percentage of non-specialist staff currently employed by US or giving hiring

preference to Chagossians.

■ Independent settlement on Diego Garcia with co-operation rather than integrating Chagossians

into the existing infrastructure and employment opportunities on Diego Garcia.

There was a consensus the pilot option on Diego Garcia would exclude family groups. Also

employment options would need to take into account the timeframes of the US lease of Diego Garcia

and be a factor in future negotiations.

34

e) Scientific research station

This might be a fully-equipped research station that would require ongoing management and support,

or a smaller staffed research facility that could be more temporary with visiting scientists expected,

for example, ‘ to work in minimalist conditions with basic infrastructure and supply delivery in order to

have the most minimum impact on their surroundings while conducting their research’. A ‘research

ship’ able to visit other atolls was raised as an alternative to a fixed research station.

2.2 Resettlement options by island

Table 3.3.7: a) Diego Garcia

Resettlement option Frequency

Modern lifestyle 24

Subsistence lifestyle 9

Eco-village 12

Pilot resettlement/employment(Diego Garcia only) 24

Scientific research station 28

Island unsuitable for resettlement 0

Don’t know 4

Non-response 8

N.B. respondents able to record more than one option.

Table 3.3.8: b) Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos atoll)


Modern lifestyle 2


Eco-village 9



Don’t know 10

Non-response 12


Table 3.3.9: c) Boddam (Salomon atoll)


Modern lifestyle 4


Eco-village 12

35




Don’t know 8

Non-response 14


In the main, other islands were not considered suitable for re-settlement, especially as historically

they had not supported permanent communities, apart from e.g. as leper colonies. Eagle Island and

Egmont atoll were mentioned as possibly suitable for a temporary limited scientific research station

and Egmont for an eco-village.

2.3 Resettlement options – research station

Respondents were asked to consider whether a research station in BIOT would be an effective

means of assessing environmental aspects of resettlement (in conjunction with, not instead of, ship-

based research and assessment).

Table 3.3.10: Value of research station

Research Station Frequency

Yes 29

No 5

Don’t know 3

Non-response 14

Those who favoured a research station viewed it as a necessary part of resettlement in order to

maintain an analysis of environmental conditions in the re-settled areas and to provide a comparative

reference site with non-settled areas. There was a view that present and past ‘expeditionary’ type of

research was limited in scope and precluded experimental work and seasonal assessments. In

contrast, others believed either that there was nothing to be gained by having a land-based static

research station and that maintaining ship-based research was preferable, or that it should be

something looked at once resettlement had begun.

Example of Research Station

Respondents were asked if they knew of an existing example of a research station anywhere in the

world that might be a suitable model for BIOT.

Table 3.3.11: Example research station

Example of Research Station Frequency

Yes 11

No 24

Non-response 16

People who knew of a research station that might be a suitable model for BIOT, cited other UKOTs,

such as Aldabra. Stations in the Seychelles, Laccadives and Galapagos were also mentioned and the

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in the Panama region.

36

Table 3.3.12: Possible employment of Chagossians on research station

Employment of Chagossians on research station Frequency

Yes 26

No 3

Non-response 22

Costs of research station

Estimated capital costs of research station – sourcing from private funds

Mean £2,708,376

Median £625,000

Minimum £3 (the low value/outlier likely a typographic error on response form, which would

depress average figures)

Maximum £10,000,000

(Based on 6 responses)

Estimated operational costs of research station – sourcing from private funds

Mean £750,038

Median £ 500,000

Minimum £150 the low value/outlier likely a typographic error on response form, which would

depress average figures)

Maximum £2,000,000


Estimated capital costs of research station – sourcing from public funds

Mean £2,543,359

Median £130,000

Minimum £3

Maximum £10,000,000


Estimated operational costs of research station – sourcing from public funds

Mean £1,000,000

Median £500,000

Minimum £500,000

Maximum £2,000,000


37

Section 3: Impact of resettlement on environment

Overall resilience/robustness of the islands and their reefs to impacts from potential resettlement

infrastructures and human activities was examined.

Table 3.3.13: Impact of resettlement on environment – subsistence lifestyle

Island

Robust/

Resilient

Neutral

(neither

robust/resilient

or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response

Diego Garcia 11 9 13 3 15

Ile du Coin (Peros

Banhos atoll)

2 3 24 7 15

Boddam

(Salomon atoll)

2 6 17 8 18

Most respondents felt that all other islands (and in some cases, including the three identified) would

be ‘fragile’ due to the necessities of even subsistence human activity, such as fishing, to sustain the

population. Eagle Island was mentioned as possibly able to support a very small population (no more

than 25). Diego Garcia was generally seen as the island most able to sustain subsistence level re-

settlement, since it is already impacted by human activities due to military activity.

Table 3.3.14: Impact of resettlement on environment – modern lifestyle

Island

Robust/

resilient

Neutral

(neither robust/

resilient or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response


Ile du Coin

(Peros Banhos

atoll)

2 27 2 4 16

Boddam

(Salomon atoll)

2 25 2 4 18

There was a greater consensus that none of the islands, apart from Diego Garcia, could sustain a

resettlement based on a modern lifestyle. The ecology generally is seen as extremely fragile and

resettlement likely to cause major environmental damage. It would be preferable to limit future

development to Diego Garcia, since it already has the infrastructure to support a modern lifestyle.

3.3. Impact of resettlement on environment – carrying capacity

Views were sought on the carrying capacity of the three main islands, in terms of maximum

sustainable population size that could be supported, (assuming environmental impacts from

infrastructures and activities were properly managed).

38

Table 3.3.15: Carrying capacity a) Subsistence lifestyle

Island

Carrying capacity

minimum

Carrying capacity

maximum

Carrying capacity

mean

Diego Garcia

(based on 17 responses)

0 3000 383


atoll) (based on 11

responses)

0 200 65



0 200 79

Notes:

Carrying capacity was widely seen as difficult to estimate, depending on the support system and how

this would be managed in terms of long-term population dynamics. Estimates were most likely to be

provided for Diego Garcia. However, it was noted that placing a subsistence economy next to a

‘modern’ naval facility would also have difficult implications for population integration and capacity.

Table 3.3.16: Carrying capacity b) Modern lifestyle

Island

Carrying capacity

minimum

Carrying capacity

maximum

Carrying capacity

mean

Diego Garcia


0 5000 1427


atoll)


0 400 60



0 300 63

Notes:

Again it was seen as difficult to provide estimates for the same reasons as in the previous option

(subsistence lifestyle). It was noted that, historically, Diego Garcia had experienced surges in

population, estimates of maximum population that had been sustained suggested as many as 11,000

people. In considering a fully externally-supported modern lifestyle on other islands (including Eagle

Island), much reduced estimates of a maximum numbers of people were given, with the proviso that

such a lifestyle would require the importation/manufacture of water as well as all other resources.

Precluding any use of local resources at all was viewed as costly, unsafe and against any wellbeing

benchmark.

39

Section 4: Impact of environment on resettlement

Respondents were asked, over the next 50 years, how resilient/robust they thought different islands

would be (in terms of the capacity of their reefs, vegetation cover and fauna) to absorb and recover

from ‘natural’ environmental disturbances, such as episodic storm events, rogue waves, sea level

rise and coastal erosion.

Table 3.3.17: Environmental robustness of islands

Island

Robust/

resilient

Neutral

(neither

robust/resilient

or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response


Ile du Coin (Peros

Banhos atoll)

5 17 4 6 19

Boddam

(Salomon atoll)

4 17 4 6 20

Notes:

All the islands are low lying and seen as vulnerable to natural events. In particular, sea level rise and

climate change were viewed as having deleterious effects within the ocean and on land. While Diego

Garcia was seen as having some capacity to absorb damaging impacts, given its larger land area,

nonetheless it was still thought to be vulnerable and only protectable through significant investment

in shoreline protection. Moreover, it was emphasised,

‘… even this (protection) does not offer complete security. The US military is spending millions

replacing shore defences that have failed around the military base. The difficulties associated with

this are well documented just north in the Maldives where active planning is being made to protect

islands and move communities to safer locations. Some atoll communities in the Pacific have already

been evacuated as their home islands succumb to rising sea level.’

One respondent expressed the view that there was no clear case for Diego Garcia becoming any less

habitable from natural environmental disturbances in the next half century. Sea level rise at its

present magnitude was thought to be probably manageable over the next 50 years. It was felt that,

further ahead than 50 years was difficult to predict and the data were too variable.

Section 5: Environmental monitoring

Table 3.3.18: Environmental monitoring

Type of environmental

monitoring Agree Disagree Don’t know Non-response

Aerial monitoring – using

remote sensing

27 2 8 14


aerial photography

25 4 2 20

Abundance of major

ecosystems (Rapid

environmental assessment)

23 1 8 19

Coral reef surveys 27 0 4 20

40


monitoring Agree Disagree Don’t know Non-response

Censuses of reef sharks 24 1 6 19

Censuses of other reef fish 26 0 4 20

Censuses of turtles 27 0 4 19

Censuses of marine alien

invasive species

25 0 4 20

Censuses of birds 25 0 6 19

Terrestrial Censuses 23 1 8 19

Sampling and analysis of

selected contaminants

23 1 6 21

Field data on sea level,

coastal erosion & accretion

and seawater inundation

25 1 6 19

Table 3.3.19: Environmental monitoring - costs


monitoring

Estimated annual cost

GBP

(mean)


GBP

(minimum)


GBP

(maximum)


remote sensing (based on 3

responses)

353,333 10,000 1,000,000


aerial photography (based on

3 responses)

243,333 30,000 600,000

Abundance of major

ecosystems (Rapid



17,500 10,000 25,000

Coral reef surveys (based on

3 responses)

186,667 10,000 300,000



110,000 5,000 300,000

Censuses of other reef fish


135,000 5,000 300,000

Censuses of turtles (based on

3 responses)

135,000 5,000 300,000


invasive species (based on 2

responses)

27,500 5,000 50,000

Censuses of birds (based on 2

responses)

17,500 10,000 25,000

Terrestrial Censuses (based

on 1 response)

5,000 5,000 5,000


selected contaminants (based

on 2 responses)

40,000 30,000 50,000

41





12,500 5,000 20,000

N.B. estimates based on small numbers

Respondents were asked, if the answer to the question was 'Agree', whether the resettled

population could undertake the task (with training)

Table 3.3.20: Environmental monitoring – Chagossian participation

Task Yes No Don’t know Non-response


remote sensing

9 13 5 23


aerial photography

9 12 6 23

Abundance of major

ecosystems (Rapid


13 6 7 24

Coral reef surveys 13 9 4 24

Censuses of reef sharks 19 4 6 21


Censuses of turtles


invasive species

15 5 8 22

Censuses of birds

Terrestrial censuses 22 1 8 19


selected contaminants

6 12 9 23




12 6 7 25

Notes:

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using remote sensing.

This is one of the tools already being used, so continuation of a data set is seen as beneficial and a

cost efficient method. It was noted that US has high resolution real-time satellite imagery of BIOT.

Access to imagery for environmental management purposes could/should be negotiated.

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using aerial photography

This was broadly seen as an adjunct to remote sensing, and generally of more limited use. Costs

would be variable, depending on the scale of activity, but could extend to policing illegal fishing and

activities within the islands.

42

Abundance of major ecosystems and species groups and magnitude of coastal uses/pressures (semi-

quantitatively e.g. using rapid environmental assessment)

Monitoring was seen as essential, but requiring substantial training/education and costs would be

variable, depending on the scale of activity.

Coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus sedimentation rates).

This was also seen as essential, but again requiring substantial training/education and costs would be

variable, depending on the scale of activity.


This was seen as invaluable:

■ To give an indication of any effects on the shark population due to poaching if the resettled

population are not fishing for sharks.

■ As a key indicator of the health of the reefs.

■ As an important link in the food chain

■ As an indicator of the population


This was seen as invaluable:

■ As a key indicator of the health of the reefs/fish population

■ If fishing is more than a minimal activity.

Censuses of turtles

Given BIOT is a major turtle breeding site, this is an important indicator of disturbance to the

environment.

Censuses of marine alien invasive species

This was seen as increasingly important, especially since increased shipping increases the likelihood

of invasive species being introduced.

Censuses of birds

Birds are a globally used indicator species.

A resettled population is very likely to have an effect on the bird population, either by eating the birds,

their eggs or by disturbing nesting sites.

Terrestrial Censuses

This was seen as necessary in the context of increased travel between atolls. It was noted, however,

that the islands already have many more invasive species than native.

Sampling and analysis of selected contaminants

This was seen as critical given the remoteness of the BIOT, and its significance as a reference for the

rest of the Indian Ocean and the world.

43

Field data on sea level, coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation

Important:

■ As long range marker of developing problems

■ For safety of inhabitants

Other suggested environmental parameters/recommendations:

■ Coral cover and coral health/disease

■ Litter

■ DNA work

■ ‘Records of progress and conduct of inhabitants’

Galapagos model of tourism

Finally, respondents were asked, if ecotourism development occurred in BIOT, did they support the

Galapagos type model, where tourists come specifically to support environmental monitoring

programmes as paying volunteers, to help assess the environmental effects of tourism.

Table 3.3.21: Galapagos model of tourism

Galapagos model of tourism Frequency

Yes 15

No 7

Don’t know 6

Non-response 23

Notes:

There was a view that, if handled professionally, this could be socially and economically successful

for all. One respondent was currently working on such a proposal. However, it was also noted that

the deterioration of the Galápagos Islands by the numbers of tourists is already significant.

44

4.1 BIOT environmental conventions

Environmental conventions applying to BIOT

Date of extension of

ratification

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other

Matters (Adopted, 13/11/1972) (amendments not extended to BIOT)

17.11.1975

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

1973

See also items (12) and (14): Amendments both extended to BIOT

2.8.1976

Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals10

23.7.1985

Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer (Adopted, 22/03/1985) 15.5.1987

Convention on wetlands of international importance (of 2.2.1971) especially as

waterfowl habitat 1987 (including two amendments of the Convention, adopted on

3 December 1982 (Protocol in force 1 October 1986) and 28 May 1987 (in force 1

May 1994) respectively)

8.9.1998

Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer 1987 (amendments

not extended to BIOT)

16.12.1988

1992 Protocol to amend the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution

damage of 29.11.1969

20.2.1998

1992 Protocol to amend the international convention on the establishment of an

international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage of 18.12.1971

(subsequent Protocols not extended to BIOT)

20.2.1998

1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in force 16 November 1994

Accession to the Convention by the UK, on 25 July 1997, was expressly extended

to BIOT on the same date. 1994 Agreement regarding the Implementation of Part XI

of the Convention (in force 28 July 1996) and the 1995 Agreement for the

Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and

Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks also

extended to BIOT.

25.07.1997

Fish Stocks: 3.12.1999

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (2/12/1946) (ICRW), in force

10 November 1948

The UK ratified the Convention on 17 June 1947, and ratified a 1956 amendment

protocol on 23 May 1957 (in force 4 May 1959). In accordance with standard UK

practice at that time (i.e., prior to 1967), treaties ratified by the UK were considered

applicable to its dependent territories unless specifically excluded, hence without

express declaration of extension. The Chagos Islands were then part of the crown

colony of Mauritius; subsequent changes in their constitutional status (including the

establishment of BIOT in 1965) did not affect international legal obligations of the

UK under the ICRW, which thus continues to apply to the territory.

17.06.1947

Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC),

(Approved, 25/11/1993), in force 27 March 1996

31.03.1995

Amendment to Article XI paragraph 3(a) of the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed at Washington.

28.11.1980

10 Under article IV(4) of the Convention, an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Marine

Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia was concluded on 23 June 2001, entered into force on 1

September 2001 (followed by an amendment adopted “by consensus” on 1 March 2009), and was expressly accepted by the

UK on behalf of BIOT on 27 March 2002.

While the MoU does not have the same status as a separate inter-state treaty, the UK assumed international legal obligations

for its implementation under the Convention.

45

Environmental conventions applying to BIOT

Date of extension of

ratification

Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at Washington D.C.

3.03.1973, Adopted at

Gaborone, Botswana on

30.04.1983 extended on

date of UK acceptance on

13.12.1985.

Amendments to Annexes I and II to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine

Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (concerning Incineration at Sea)

Extended to BIOT 9

March 1979

Resolution to amend Articles XI, XIV and XV of the Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 29 December 1972

(adopted by the Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties at London on 12

December 1978)

Extended to BIOT 21

March 1980

46

5.1 Changes in Coral Cover with Depth on

Ocean Facing Slopes in Chagos

1978, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2012 and 2014 (CCT data).

47

5.2 Environmental parameters for

monitoring

Baseline and ongoing surveillance is required for a wide number of variables that may be altered by

increased anthropogenic activity, in the event of resettlement in BIOT – and providing the data upon

which to take appropriate mitigation actions. Initial monitoring should be on at least an annual basis. If

data are relatively constant over a number of years, then the frequency and scale of measuring

different parameters can be modified. Estimated Capex and Opex costs are shown in Annex 5.3.

Required environmental monitoring parameters include the following:

■ Aerial extent of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion (e.g. using satellite imagery and

aerial photography)

■ Abundance of major ecosystems and species groups and magnitude of coastal uses/pressures

(semi-quantitatively e.g. using rapid environmental assessment)

■ Detailed coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus turbidity &

sedimentation rates)

■ Censuses of reef sharks

■ Censuses of other reef fish

■ Censuses of turtles and their nesting sites

■ Censuses of marine alien invasive species

■ Censuses of birds

■ Terrestrial censuses/surveys, including alien invasive species

■ Sampling and analysis of selected contaminants (e.g. nutrients, O2, faecal coliforms/biomarkers of

sewage pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides & herbicides, antifouling

paint residues)

Monitoring of contaminants and other chemical and biological parameters is already taking place in

Diego Garcia lagoon for a suite of potential contaminants by the US military (under contract by G4S

Parsons). Following are the various categories of parameters, and many of the individual parameters11

will be valuable for assessing environmental impacts of resettlement – at both affected islands/sites

and at comparative, undisturbed ‘reference’ sites in the outer atolls.

Monitoring by Labs on Diego Garcia

1. Water quality monitoring (8 physico-chemical & bacteriological parameters)

2. Wastewater monitoring (7 biochemical & physico-chemical parameters)

3. Diego Garcia Lagoon Seawater Monitoring – Ships in Lagoon (various physico-chemical &

bacteriological parameters)

4. Solid Waste Management Centre – Groundwater and Leachate monitoring (various physico-

chemical parameters)

Analyses of Samples Sent Off-Island, by certified labs of US EPA or US State with primacy of

water programme

5. Water quality monitoring (Dieldrin insecticide, heavy metals, radionuclides, plus many other

inorganic and organic compounds)

11 Readman et al. 2013.

48

6. Sold Waste: Ash, Groundwater and Leachate quality monitoring (numerous volatile organics,

inorganics and physical parameters).

Notes on environmental monitoring and costs

EIA and environmental monitoring should begin at least 1 year before infrastructure construction

begins, and continue every year after construction is completed, over a 20-yr period; Capex and Opex

need to reflect this; EIA and monitoring are seen as an integral and on-going process.

Monitoring costs are relatively high for various reasons; the scale required is not as for a single

project or site – BIOT resettlement could represent a potentially expanding set of facilities and

activities in an area equivalent to a sizable portion of England – substantially more if the MPA area is

also considered (see map below). Aerial photography of BIOT would be valuable, but would be costly.

However, costs cannot yet be determined. In the absence of aerial photography, use would need to

be made of satellite imagery alone.

Left. Site map and location of Chagos. Atolls and banks with land are in bold, and the remainder are

shallow and submerged reefs. Right: The relative size of BIOT and the UK.

Given the global significance of the Chagos No-Take MPA, the expectation (as seen by the outside

world) will be for FCO to demonstrate that resettlement is not having detrimental environmental

effects; extensive monitoring and resources are necessary for this, and for determining the degree of

compliance with environmental legislation and BIOT ordnances.

Comprehensive monitoring will also be essential to determine changes in reef health plus impacts

from sea level rise and other environmental disturbances on resettlement; vulnerability of a returning

population to a physically precarious environment is a key concern to FCO; monitoring of these

impacts will also require substantial financial and human resources.

Our estimates of overall Capex & Opex costs are very close to figures given by respondents to the

environmental questionnaire (although the number of responses to these questions was low –

usually six or less); it is also noted that their Capex figures were for a laboratory only – estimates

Science in Chagos What we know and what we need to know Sheppard CRC

a, Chen A

b, Harris A

a, Hillman C

c, Graham NAJ

d, Marx D

e, McGowan A

f,

Mortimer J g, Pfeiffer M

h, Price ARG

a, Purkis S

i, Raines P

j, Riegl B

i, Schleyer M

k, Sheppard

ALS a

, Smith S e, Tamelander J

l, Topp JMW

c, Turner J

m, Yang SY

b

Introduction Chagos is a British Territory of about 55 islands totalling 55km2 of land, spread over

10,000 km2 of reefs (Fig 1). It is the site of the greatest marine biodiversity in the UK

and its Territories, and it is the most remote reef system in the Indian Ocean. The

near-absence of direct, local, human impacts and their overall condition has identified them as a key scientific reference site, and has led to their inclusion in the

Pew Trusts Ocean Legacy series of four locations of major global importance1.

This paper accompanies a more general colour document designed to promote

awareness of the need to conserve and protect Chagos, a need which has become

urgent in a period of global environmental deterioration and climate change. It presents a selection of extracts taken from over 100 papers published by more than

50 scientists. It demonstrates the importance of understanding the science of a

region affected by climate change only, without local development impacts. It

identifies immediate research targets to improve the knowledge base.

Fig 1. Left. Site map and location of Chagos. Atolls and banks with land are in bold,

remainder are shallow and submerged reefs. Right: The relative size of Chagos and the UK.

Published by Chagos Conservation Trust, 2009. http://www.chagos-trust.org/ a University of Warwick UK, b Academia Sinica Taiwan, c Chagos Conservation Trust, d James Cook University Australia, e Naval Facilities Engineering Command USA, f Exeter University, g University of Florida, h University of Cologne, i National Coral Reef Institute USA, j Coral Cay Conservation

k Oceanographic Research Institute Durban, l IUCN Switzerland, m Bangor University.

49

were not given for diving gear, equipment etc., but this and other equipment are necessary and have

therefore been costed).

Costs estimates for monitoring (and many other aspects of resettlement) inevitably carry

uncertainties; for example, Opex costs for a laboratory could be high (although part of the laboratory

'facility' will likely be needed on offshore islands – where all costs escalate in comparison with Diego

Garcia – where costs are high; it is also noted that costs for aerial surveys are not possible at present,

and are therefore cannot be included in our figures).

The three resettlement options will have different environmental footprints (Option 1,> Option 2,

Option 3), arguably calling for some cost scaling – such that monitoring costs might be lower initially

then increase over time, in line with phased resettlement towards Option 1; however, recent

research shows significant impacts to reefs and reef fish from a population as low as 40.

Monitoring would also be required on the outer islands, which serve as comparative ‘reference’ sites;

as noted, costs for everything in remote areas of Chagos are even higher than for Diego Garcia;

EIA/environmental monitoring calls for survey and sampling of a very wide range of parameters,

expertise and specialists, as outlined – with sufficient survey/sample replication and ‘statistical

power, plus (substantial) resources for data analysis, to show environmental effects of resettlement.

Annual environmental audit and similar reports, e.g. as produced by MRAG, will complement

monitoring; however, these are generally not at sufficient resolution for assessing environmental

change/impacts/sustainability; it is noted that the decline of the recreational fishery in Diego Garcia

under modest/light levels of fishing was discerned by comprehensive research studies by reef fish

scientists.

Studies conducted from ‘Pacific Marlin’ and other research (including the investigation into the

recreational fishery above) will also augment environmental monitoring; however, this addresses

wide-ranging research issues, not those specifically related to resettlement.

Chagossians could do some monitoring (e.g. rapid environmental assessment, and some censuses)

with minimal training. A strong environmental ethic is evident amongst many Chagossians. As noted,

in the final report (Section 5), several individuals are already engaged with restoration in plantation

areas of Diego Garcia. However, much of the environmental monitoring and assessment work

needed requires elaborate sampling/survey – demanding highly specialist skills. Building capacity to

required levels can take many years.

Much concern would arise if BIOT and the MPA gradually transformed into the degraded condition

that now characterizes many inhabited areas of the Indian Ocean – but initially went undetected

through insufficient environmental monitoring; comprehensive monitoring allows for early remedial

action as an option at all stages of resettlement.

50

5.3 Environmental monitoring costs

(Team estimates)

CAPEX £/Year

4 x Inflatables and outboard engines 20,000

Transport of above to Diego Garcia 50,000

4 x sets diving equipment 6,000

Transport of above to Diego Garcia 20,000

Field survey equipment 75,000

Small lab/office/sleeping (+ generators etc) 2,000,000

Opex cost/year – new satellite imagery 150,000

Total Capex 2,321,000

OPEX £/Year

Ship time, e.g. Pacific Marlin (1.5 months) 150,000

Return flights to Diego Garcia (25 X £2,500) 62,500

Satellite images, 20,000 km2 @ $15/km2 (archive) = $300,000; (@ $25/km2 (new) = $500,000 –

one per year. New imagery would add £128,000)

190,000

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using remote sensing (10

days x £1,000)

10,000

Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using aerial photography12

(10 days x £1,000)

10,000

Other environmental assessment: abundance of major ecosystems and species groups &

magnitude of coastal uses/pressures (25 days x £1,000)

25,000

Detailed coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus

sedimentation rates & turbidity 100 days x 1,000)

100,000

Censuses of reef sharks and other reef fish (25 days x 1,000) 25,000

Censuses of turtles and their nesting sites (25 days x £1,000) 25,000

Censuses of marine alien invasive species (10 days x 1,000) 10,000

Censuses of birds (25 x 1,000) 25,000

Terrestrial censuses/surveys, including alien invasive species (25 x 1,000) 25,000

Field sampling of selected contaminants (e.g. nutrients, O2, faecal coliforms/biomarkers of sewage

pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, antifouling paint residues) – 30 days x

1,000

30,000

Transport of 400 samples to lab. 25,000

Lab analysis of selected contaminants (e.g. nutrients, O2, faecal coliforms/biomarkers of sewage

pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, antifouling paint residues) – 200 samples x

2 per year x 750

300,000

Field data on sea level, coastal erosion & coral reef accretion and seawater inundation (30 x 1,000) 30,000

Operational costs of small lab/office/sleeping 1,000,000

Total Opex 2,042,500

Total Opex with New Satellite Imagery 2,170,500

12 As noted in Annex 5.2, costs for aerial photography (actual images) cannot yet be determined. The costs shown in the table

are for interpretation of the images, and data analysis, by a specialist.

51

5.4 Environmental criteria for Maldives

Environmental criteria used in evaluation of proposals for the development or redevelopment of

tourist resorts in Maldives (2004). Scores shown are the maximum possible for best practice

standards in construction, operation and human activities.

Item Scores Comments and guidance on mitigation

Mitigation of

construction,

operation and

human/tourism

activities

3 Construction

(1) Environmental carrying capacity of reefs and island prior to resort construction;

(2) limiting solid structures (e.g. breakwaters, jetties, which restrict circulation and

can increase erosion); (3) minimising access routes from blasting reefs and sand;

(4) limited clearance of peripheral vegetation and seagrass, and minimising

disturbance of nesting turtles and seabirds; (5) adequate ‘green-belt’ along shore

(to minimise interference with natural sand movement conserve vegetation); (6)

minimal aquifer contamination by pathogens and chemicals, e.g. used to

clear/control vegetation; (7) limited discharge of sediments on to reefs; (8) proper

disposal of construction materials; (9) sustainable use of coral and timber as

construction materials; (10) use of prefabricated materials and imported sand and

other building materials, as appropriate.

Resort operations and tourist activities

Measures to minimise the following: coral damage from trampling, snorkelling

and diving; anchor damage from boats; disturbance to turtles and visitors and

speedboats – the latter also causing erosion from prop-wash.

EIA and monitoring

EIA is a national requirement. One would expect its application mainly in resort

construction, operations and tourist activities. Three aspects are important: (1)

setting of targets or objectives, (2) periodic monitoring of these, to determine

extent to which expected effects match the actual effects13

; (3) any action by the

bidder, if appreciable difference between expected and actual effects. Missing

significant items should lead to a mark down.

Method of

energy

generation

1 Cost a major issue, but important that environmental issues not overlooked.

Diesel generators likely to be main source of energy; fuel and overall efficiency of

power system and components important. Measures to minimise pollution from

fuel for generators (e.g. during transport) are also an issue. Use of solar power

where appropriate (e.g. water heaters, and possibly navigation marks) is desirable.

Anything significant missing should be marked down.

Method of

energy

conservation

1 Above remarks on power efficiency and solar power apply here also. Other

beneficial energy-saving measures include: low-energy light bulbs, and electricity

cut-off devices (keys in ‘slot’ for resort rooms). Also useful are public awareness

materials on energy conservation in resorts. Omissions or significant

shortcomings should lead to a marking down.

Method of water

production

1 A range of measures should be in place for collection and use of rainwater.

Importance of minimising contamination of aquifers (see below). Missing

significant items should lead to a marking down. 14

Method of water

conservation

1 One should look for several approaches: (1) use of recycled water (e.g. from

washing & effluents and use of brackish water for toilets15

); (2) use of ‘half-‘and

‘full-flushing’ toilets; (3) public awareness materials and actual measures for water

conservation in resorts (e.g. reduced frequency of washing of towels, cloths and

bedding). Omission or significant deficiencies should be marked down.

13 One would expect some baseline environmental information in a proposal.

14 Desalination is also an important factor for the Maldives, but is not a requirement in BIOT.

15 It has been found that use of seawater can lead to the encrustation of pipes and toilet systems by barnacles and other

fouling organisms.

52

Item Scores Comments and guidance on mitigation

Method of

sewage

treatment and

disposal

1 At least 1ry and 2ry treatment and use of advanced technologies (e.g. Sequencing

Batch Reactor) is important; a related issue is the capacity and adequacy of septic

tanks. One should also look for environmentally friendly ways of using sludge

(solid waste), e.g. for fertiliser and/or composting. Treatment of liquid waste (e.g.

UV to kill bacteria) and re-use of water (e.g. fertiliser, washing, toilets) is also

expected. The discharge point for excess effluents/wastes is critical (i.e. in ground

or out-to-sea); bidder should argue case for choice; surplus effluents discharged

out-to-sea should not have high nutrient levels, to prevent impact to coral reefs.

Method of solid

waste collection

and disposal

1 Mix of technologies is desirable. One would check for correct procedures, e.g. for

burning (plastics can emit toxic substances) and dumping (should be far out to

sea/deep water). Crushers are desirable for compaction of cans; options may exist

for cost sharing with neighbouring resorts. Innovative solutions can be valuable

(e.g. wastes put in poly bag and taken back to Europe). One would look for

periodic inspections by staff to ensure no build-up of solid wastes, which attracts

rats or mice, impeding seabird and turtle nesting. Anything significant omitted

should be marked down.

Conservation of

flora and fauna

1 Stated conservation measures should comply with national and international

legislation. Safeguards are needed to prevent spear-fishing and collection of

corals, shells & other 'souvenir species. One would look for promotion of

conservation ethic through posters and promotion of tourist activities (e.g. Shark

Watch, Whale Watch).

53

5.5 Environmental concerns in the

Maldives16

(From Price and Firaq, 1996)

■ Practical Problems

– Coral and sand mining, which has severely impaired the capacity of some reefs to act as

natural sea defences, and undermined their biological role as fishery areas and repositories of

biodiversity;

– Waste disposal problems, in particular sewage and solid waste;

– Human population pressures, particularly in Malé but also in areas such as Seenu and

Thulhaadoo;

– Coastal erosion from coral/sand mining, dredging, coastal construction and reclamation,

exacerbating impacts from natural events such as wave damage and flooding;

– Sea level rise, in particular the potential threat to urban centres, populated atolls and tourist

islands;

– Shortage of human and financial resources for environmental management;

– Degradation of freshwater/land resources, including unsustainable use of aquifers and fuel

wood, as well as contamination of aquifers by sewage and chemicals (e.g. Pesticides).

■ Policy Issues

– Policies leading to non-sustainable resource exploitation; and related to this,

– Further promotion of economic incentives and disincentives and other policies to conserve

biological resources, following the example of the recent reduction of duty (30% to 15%) on

imported construction materials;

– Widespread implementation of EIA prior to new development projects, also recognising that

human and financial resources are needed for this, and for monitoring compliance with EIA and

related environmental guidelines/standards.

■ Cross-Sectoral Issues

– Limited understanding and data on cross-sectoral environment development issues;

– Need for greater incorporation of environmental concerns into development planning;

– Conflicts between incompatible activities in the same area, such as fishing and diving;

– The current land tenure system, which creates a climate of uncertainty and limits the

commitment of lease holders to environmental management, and related to this;

– The uncertain future status of islands which are currently unpopulated, and hence function as

valuable fishery replenishment zones, turtle and bird breeding sites, i.e. as protected areas.

■ Environmental Issues And Concerns Related To Tourism

– Resort siting, construction and choice of construction materials.

– Resort operations (e.g. solid and liquid waste, other pollution, energy issues) – Tourist diving

and souvenir or ‘curio’ species collection.

– Effects of cruise ships, boating, fishing and surfing – Indirect environmental effects of tourism

– Environmental impact of other sectors on tourism.

16 Price. A and Firaq. I (1996) The environmental status of reefs on Maldivian resort islands: a preliminary assessment for

tourism planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol 6, Issue 2, pages 93-106, June 1996.

54

5.6 Island environment factors

(Used for comparative evaluation of island options)

Diego Garcia Ile du Coin Boddam

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR Value (High,

Med, Low if

qualitative)

Units Value

(High, Med,

Low if

qualitative)

Units Value

(High, Med,

Low if

qualitative)

Units Certainty (e.g.

H/M/L & notes)

Information sources

1. Carrying capacity, life support

systems (self-sufficiency)

Rainfall 2,599 mm/y

3,999

mm/y 3,751 mm/y H/M Topp & Sheppard

(1999)

Sustainable aquifer yield 2,350 m3/day

290

m3/day 140 m3/day H; data for East

Point, DG; H/M

data for resident

poplulation and

not including any

non-residential use

(tourism, irrigation,

fish processing etc.)

Hunt (1997); Posford

Haskoning (2002),

Phase 2;

Soil quality & agro-forestry potential H

M

M M Annex 5.7; Posford

Haskonig (2002)

Coral reef fish abundance c. 1,200

(total fish

biomass),

600

(targeted

fish

biomass)

kg/ha c. 9,000

(total fish

biomass,

7,900

(targeted

fish

biomass){Pe

ros Banhos)

kg/ha c. 4,000

(total fish

biomass,

3,000

(targeted

fish

biomass){Sa

loman)

H Graham et al. (2013)

Food from local or external sources

(transport)

H/M

H

H

Building materials from local or

external sources

H/M

H

H

Previous human population size 200-619 individuals 60-346

(Peros

Banhos)

individuals 89-219

(Saloman)

individuals M Wenban-Smith (in

press)

2. Other natural assets and

environmental significance

Naturalness Med

High

High High; but factor can

be applied in

alternative ways.

Various; direct

observation.

Scientific importance for research and

monitoring

Med

High

High High Various

International significance Med/High High High High Carr et al (2013)

3. Impacts of environment on

resettlement - climate change and

other factors (atoll robustness and

stability)

Sea level rise (and coastal intrusion) 3.36-3.74 mm/y 3.2-3.24 mm/y 3.2-3.24 mm/y M (Data are radar

altimetry

measurements;

tidal gauge data

available only for

Diego Garcia).

Dunne (2014)

Island size H M M H (but

interpretation of

information not

straightforward, as

noted in Final

Report).

Annex 5.7

Approach & ease of access H M H H Annex 5.7

4. Potential of natural resources for

economic activities

Ecotourism value of coral reefs for

diving

M

H

H H General observations

Ecotourism value of island for land &

inshore recreation

H

M

M M Various

55

6.1 US Military Construction

US Military Construction Codes and Guidelines

US Military Guidelines are only relevant to the extent that these are applied. They are provided here

for information as they are clearly one option, particularly if infrastructure is integrated with the US

Military Facility. The infrastructure design standards and codes required to be implemented by

contractors to the US Navy on Diego Garcia are framed within the US Department of Defence (DoD)

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). This has evolved since 1989 when the DoD adopted the

Construction Criteria Base (CCB) information system as the official distribution method for facilities

criteria17

. This framework is implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, and the US Airforce Civil Engineering Centre.

In order to accommodate different service requirements, to reduce duplication of information, to

incorporate better private-sector practices, and to reduce publishing costs, these three services

provide infrastructure under the aegis of the consolidated Unified Facilities Criteria Program (UFCP).

Box 6.1.1 provides a summary overview and active e-links to the key elements of the WBDG. The

links give access to thousands of documents, Statements of Requirement, Tender Documents, and

Quality Standards.

It is clear that for a main contractor to be appointed to undertake any significant infrastructure works,

a strong background in similar projects and a comprehensive knowledge of DoD procurement and

contracting system rules, as well as adequate cash flow and capital reserves will be a distinct

advantage. New contenders are likely to find it extremely difficult to take a Prime Contract, but may

build experience and track-record as sub-contractors over a period of time.

The US Army’s Facility Construction and Maintenance Process follows a similar approach compared

with private sector good practice, the former involves generally higher design and construction costs

and higher costs and lower efficiency in maintenance. This is explained by the relative absence of

competitive market forces18

.

The four military services own about a quarter of a million family housing quarters in the US. Within

age and size categories, most of this housing is similar or identical in design. The annual operation

and maintenance costs, however, vary widely among the services. In FY98, the costs ranged from

$4,979 per unit for the Marine Corps to $9,745 per unit for the Navy. The following (eight) factors

explain the majority (62 percent) of the O&M spending differences: area maintenance cost factors,

maintenance surcharges, incidental alterations and additions, backlog reduction, utility rates,

headquarters and base staffing, headquarters management charges, and fire and police services19

.

Guidance on all phases of US Military construction cost estimating is provided within the United

Facilities Criteria (UFC) Handbook on Construction Cost Estimating20

. A typical house/facility-building

outline schedule of works is illustrated in Figure 6.1.1. The earlier technical manuals (e.g. 1994) spell

out more clearly the use of site, location and difficulty cost adjustment factors21

.

17 2014 US DoD Construction Criteria Base (CCB), http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ccb.php

18 2000, Galley D.R et al, The Army’s Facility Construction and Maintenance Process: An Assessment, ADA386348, 239pp,

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA386348

19 2001, Neve, T. L, Military Family Housing O&M Costs: Differences Among services, http://www.lmi.org/en/News-

Publications/Publications/Publication-Detail?id=148

20 2011, UFC 3-740-05 8 November 2010 ii UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)

Handbook: Construction Cost Estimating, 116pp, http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_740_05.pdf

21 1994, Headquarters, Department of the Army, TM 5-800-4, Programming Cost Estimates for Military

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ccb.php

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA386348

http://www.lmi.org/en/News-Publications/Publications/Publication-Detail?id=148

http://www.lmi.org/en/News-Publications/Publications/Publication-Detail?id=148

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_740_05.pdf

56

Figure 6.1.1: Illustrative example of typical Building Construction Plan

Box 6.6.1: The DoD Whole Building Design Guide

Design Disciplines

Products & Systems

Design Objectives

Building Types

Space Types

Building Commissioning

Delivery Teams

Risk Management

Comprehensive Facility Operation & Maintenance Manual

Real Property Inventory (RPI) and Asset Management (RPAM)

Computerised Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS)

Periodicals

Case Studies and High Performance Building Database

Participating Agencies

Industry Organisations

Federal High Performance and Sustainable Buildings

Federal Mandates

Construction Criteria Base (CCB)

ProductGuide™

Browse Tools by Agency Use

Browse Tools Alphabetically

Construction, 25 May, 79pp http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/tm5_800_4.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/design/design_disciplines.php

http://www.wbdg.org/design/productssystems.php

http://www.wbdg.org/design/designobjectives.php

http://www.wbdg.org/design/buildingtypes.php

http://www.wbdg.org/design/spacetypes.php

http://www.wbdg.org/project/buildingcomm.php

http://www.wbdg.org/project/deliveryteams.php

http://www.wbdg.org/project/riskmanage.php

http://www.wbdg.org/om/om_manual.php

http://www.wbdg.org/om/rpi.php

http://www.wbdg.org/om/cmms.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/periodicals.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/casestudies.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/partagencies.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/industryorgs.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/fhpsb.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/federal_mandates.php


http://www.wbdg.org/references/pg.php

http://www.wbdg.org/tools/tools_use.php

http://www.wbdg.org/tools/tools_alpha.php

http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/tm5_800_4.pdf

http://www.nibs.org/


http://www.wbdg.org/

http://www.wbdg.org/

57

Browse Tools by Category

Federal Energy Management Program Courses

Whole Building Design Guide Courses

BIM Libraries

NIBS BIM Initiatives

Industry BIM Initiatives

Building Technology Research

Behavioral Research

Post Occupancy Research

Practice Research

Workplace Research

Building Envelope Research

Sustainable and High Performance Building Strategies Research

Energy Efficiency Research

Federal High Performance and Sustainable Buildings

Federal Mandates

Construction Criteria Base

ProductGuide

Periodicals

Case Studies

Participating Agencies

Department of Defense (DOD)

General Services Administration (GSA)

Department of Energy (DOE)

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Department of State (DOS)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

National Park Service (NPS)

Smithsonian Institution

1. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)

2. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Technical Publications

3. Unified Facilities Spreadsheets

Related Links

DoD Engineering and Construction Bulletins (ECB)

DoD criteria by Agency (CCB)

Non-Government Standards (Limited Access)

Military Standards: ASSIST database

Comments, suggestions and recommended changes for UFGS or UFCs are welcome and should be

submitted as a Criteria Change Request. To submit a Criteria Change Request, click on the CCR link

next the document title on the applicable page listed above.

The Department of Defense (DoD) initiated the Unified Facilities Criteria program to unify all technical

criteria and standards pertaining to planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of

real property facilities. UFC documents have a uniform format and a standardised numbering scheme.

The UFC program is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), Naval

Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). Further

information on the UFC program can be found in MIL-STD-3007 (PDF 200 KB) and in the UFC program

report (PDF 406 KB) from the last fiscal year. UFC 1-300-01 (PDF 290 KB) and UFC 1-300-02 (PDF 184

KB) provide information on developing UFC documents.

http://www.wbdg.org/tools/tools_cat.php

http://www.wbdg.org/education/femp_ce.php

http://www.wbdg.org/education/wbdg_ce.php

http://www.wbdg.org/bim/bim_libraries.php

http://www.wbdg.org/bim/nibs_bim.php

http://www.wbdg.org/bim/initiatives_bim.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/buildingtechnology.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/behavioral.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/postoccupancy.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/practice.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/workplace.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/buildingenvelope.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/sustainablehpbs.php

http://www.wbdg.org/research/energyefficiency.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/fhpsb.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/federal_mandates.php


http://www.wbdg.org/references/pg.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/periodicals.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/casestudies.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/partagencies.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_gsa.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_doe.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_va.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_epa.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_nasa.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_aousc.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dhs.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dos.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_nih.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_nps.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_smithsonian.php

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_org.php?o=70

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?o=29&c=4

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod_sps.php

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?c=268

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb

http://www.wbdg.org/references/ngstandards.php

https://assist.dla.mil/online/start/

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?o=29&c=4

http://www.usace.army.mil/

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod_cieng.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod_cieng.php

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FEDMIL/std3007f.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/ufc_fy2013_program_review.pdf




58

In 1989, DoD adopted the Construction Criteria Base (CCB) information system as the official

distribution method for facilities criteria. Over the years, the military services have been instrumental

in the advancement of CCB and have overseen its evolution into the Whole Building Design Guide

(WBDG).

Publications, Guidelines & Directives

Memorandum of Understanding for the Specifications-Kept-Intact (SpecsIntact) System

(09-16-2014, PDF 650 KB)

DoD Unified Facilities Criteria Program FY2013 Program Review (03-2014, PDF 406 KB)

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum: DoD Sustainable Buildings Policy (11-10-

2013, PDF 251 KB)

Memorandum of Army Sustainable Design and Development Policy Update – SPiRiT to LEED

Transition (01-05-2006, PDF 76 KB)

Memorandum of Understanding for the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (03-14-2005, PDF 554

KB)

Tri-Service Coordination Sheet (PDF 82 KB)

Navy Coordination Sheets (PDF 89 KB)

Memorandum of Agreement for the Whole Building Design Guide (10-08-2003, PDF 200 KB)

Working Groups Charter (09-23-2003, PDF 57 KB)

Memorandum on Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (05-23-2002, PDF 25 KB)

Memoranum of Understanding on Unified Design Guidance (07-08-1998, PDF 80 KB)

Tri-Service Design Guidance Coordinating Panel Charter (07-08-1998, PDF 97 KB)

National Institute of Building Sciences | An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built

Environment

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005-4950 | (202) 289-7800 | Fax (202) 289-

1092

© 2014 National Institute of Building Sciences. All rights reserved. Disclaimer

Regulations for Diego Garcia Contractors

All infrastructure tenders will either cross-reference to key standard Unified Facilities Guide

Specifications, or will refer to current updates that apply specifically to particular geographic locations

and facilities. Box 6.1.2 illustrates Works Restrictions & Contractor Regulations in force for DG from

July 2014. The web hyper-link is provided at the end of the Box.

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/specsintact_mou_091614.pdf


http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/dod_sustainable_buildings_policy.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/asaie_sdd_policy_upd.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/asaie_sdd_policy_upd.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/ufgs_moa.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/coord.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/navy_coord.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/wbdg_moa.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/dwg_charter.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/ufc_implementation.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/udg_mou.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/tsdgcp_charter.pdf


http://www.wbdg.org/about.php

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod_energy.php

59

Box 6.1.2: DG Work restrictions from DoD 2014

Preparing Activity: NAVFAC, Superseding UFGS-01 14 00 (May 2011), UNIFIED FACILITIES

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS References are in agreement with UMRL dated July 2014, SECTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS SECTION 01 14 00, WORK

RESTRICTIONS. 11/11

][1.7 CONTRACTOR REGULATIONS FOR DIEGO GARCIA

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use this paragraph for Diego Garcia projects.

**************************************************************************

The Contractor must develop, promulgate and enforce operating regulations for campsite and

other facilities and equipment under his control. The regulations must include the maintenance of

good discipline, security, sanitation, and a fire plan. Prepare and submit for approval after

consultation with Navy authorities.

][1.8 BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY (BIOT) LAWS FOR DIEGO GARCIA

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use the following paragraphs for projects at Diego Garcia.

**************************************************************************

Applicable on Diego Garcia (DG) and enforced by the representative of the

BIOT Commissioner on DG.

[1.8.1 BIOT Immigration Requirements

Third country Contractors and personnel must have valid passports. Requirements for Contractor

employees who are residents of the BIOT must be as specified by the Commissioner of the BIOT.

][1.8.2 Contractor I.D.

Prepare and issue I.D. cards for each person with their equivalent General Schedule rating as

prescribed in the JTR Manual Vol 11.

][1.8.3 Contractor-Owned Vehicles

Approved Contractor-owned vehicles will be permitted on the site. Motor scooters, mopeds,

motorcycles, and privately owned vehicles are prohibited on DG. Drivers must have a valid

international drivers' license.

][1.8.4 Inspection

Personnel, equipment and plant are subject to customs inspection. Personnel are also

subject to physical searches at random intervals.

][1.8.5 Business or Occupation on DG

Engaging in commercial enterprise or other than work covered by this contract is prohibited. This

prohibition includes, but is not limited to, commercial fishing, oil or mineral exploration, and

production in or under those areas of the waters, Continental shelf, and seabed around DG over

which the United Kingdom has sovereignty or exercises sovereign rights.

][1.8.6 BIOT Taxes and Customs Duties

Base bids on the assumption that the Contractor's firm and employees are exempt from BIOT

taxes and customs duties. There are import and export controls applicable to the BIOT. Personal

household effects, privately-owned vehicles, drugs, firearms, and other controlled materials are

not authorised. Authorised goods and materials for a non-U.S. Contractor must be consigned in

care of the Contracting Officer.

]][1.9 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT (BOS) FOR WAKE ISLAND AND DIEGO GARCIA

60

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use for Wake, Johnston Island, and Diego Garcia projects.

**************************************************************************

The BOS Contractor as mentioned herein is a private contractor retained by the Government for

base operations support services. Coordinate with the Contracting Officer for services available

from the BOS Contractor.

][1.10 FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR WAKE ISLAND AND DIEGO GARCIA

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use for Wake, Johnston Island, and Diego Garcia projects.

**************************************************************************

Verify rates and available with the Activity.

[1.10.1 Meal Services for Diego Garcia

Available on a cost reimbursable basis. U.S. expatriate (EXPAT) and Third Country Nationals (TCN)

personnel may obtain meals from the Navy Support Facility Consolidated Dining Facility, and the BOS

Contractor TCN Dining Facility, respectively. Each employee must sign the Meal Signature Record

Book (MSRB) before each meal. Submit to the Contracting Officer the Meal Signature Record Book

(MSRB) on a daily basis. The Contractor will be charged by the number of personnel on island and not

by the number of meals consumed. Cost for three meals per day is $3.85 per person for TCNs and

$5.65 per person for EXPATs.

][1.10.2 Dining and Lodging Facilities for Wake Island

Meals and lodging facilities are available on a cost reimbursable basis. This includes furniture, bed,

linen, a towel, janitorial services and shower/toilet facilities. Submit dining and lodging requirements at

least 60 days prior to actual requirements for approval.

Rates and schedule:

MEAL RATES SCHEDULE (DAILY)

Breakfast $4.85 6:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.

Lunch $6.00 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Dinner $6.00 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Box Lunch $2.50

Lodging: $4.00/Person/Day

][1.10.3 Housing for Diego Garcia

Provide suitable housing for employees using the Splendidville/PWC Camp facilities or other locations

as directed. Approval required to upgrade these seahuts through alteration or construction. Develop

and maintain a housing plan which reflects the actual use of housing assets under Contractor control.

The housing plan and any revisions thereto will be subject to approval. Maintenance and repair of

facilities are available on a cost reimbursable basis. TCN housing must not be air-conditioned unless

approved.

][1.10.4 Medical Facilities for Wake and Diego Garcia

Limited medical facilities and services are available on a cost reimbursable basis. Submit a

medical plan and medical records of employees prior to transporting them to the Island. The

following conditions apply.

a. Medical plan: Include narrative description that delineates the procedures for maintaining

medical records; screening physical exams and immunisation requirements; testing for

contagious disease, such as dengue, malaria, tuberculosis; and other diseases that may be

associated with the employee's country of origin.

61

b. Personnel must receive a thorough dental and physical examination and should bring unique

medication/drugs and two pairs of prescription eyeglasses.

c. Rates:

Out-patient Care $30.00 per visit

In-patient Care $100.00 per day

Pharmacy Prevailing cost

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Also include this paragraph for Diego Garcia projects.

**************************************************************************

d. Government medical services are available in emergencies where life may be in danger and for

infectious diseases. Treatment for long-term medical problems or those requiring

hospitalisation not available. When determined by the attending medical authorities, transfer

patients to a non-Governmental medical facility as soon as possible… [X-ray services are

available for emergencies.]

e. The MEDEVAC point is Kadena, Okinawa. The Contractor is responsible for transferring the

patient from the air terminal to a private doctor or hospital. In case of extreme emergency,

patients may be transferred to a private hospital in Okinawa at the Contractor's expense.

][1.10.5 Dental Treatment for Diego Garcia

Limited to out-patient dispensary service, at $30.00 per visit, during regular working hours for

relief of pain, contagious oral diseases or humanitarian reasons.

][1.10.6 Retail Store

Limited items and quantities such as canned goods, bread, milk, produce, candy, toilet articles,

magazines, and other such items, are available at the prevailing rates. Luxury items are not

available for purchase.

][1.10.7 Alcohol and Gambling

[The Contractor may operate a combined mess and club where beer may be dispensed at authorised

times.] Consumption of alcoholic beverages is only authorised in clubs, designated areas or quarters.

Gambling is prohibited.

][1.10.8 Postal Services

Postal services via the U.S. Postal system are available to U.S. personnel. Foreign national

employees may send letter mail to non-APO addressees and may receive letter mail. Foreign

nationals may neither send nor receive packages or purchase money orders through the U.S. Postal

system. Money orders are available.

][1.10.9 Custodial Service for Diego Garcia

Custodial services for personnel housing and other facilities under the Contractor's control are

available on a cost reimbursable basis.

][1.10.10 Janitorial Services for Wake Island

62

Janitorial services, other than those included as part of the dining and lodging facilities, are

available on a cost reimbursable basis.

][1.10.11 Recreation Facilities

Existing recreation facilities and special services activities are available. The Government

retains the right to limit Contractor use or schedule such use so as not to interfere with

Government employees.

][1.10.12 Club Privileges

Club privileges may be granted by invitation from the various clubs on the basis of classification or

grade of the employee.

][1.10.13 Swimming and Fishing

Permitted. [However, exercise caution in eating fish caught within the [Midway][Wake] reef

area as certain species are poisonous. Inform personnel of known species of poisonous fish.]

(NB: for DG, in May 2014, following a shark attack contractor death, ocean-side swimming was

prohibited)

][1.10.14 Fuel for Wake Island

[JP-5 and MoGas are available at [$] and [$], respectively, plus a [ ] and [ ] percent surcharge,

respectively. Diesel fuel is not available. The Government will not provide fuel storage facilities

and will not be liable for damages and losses due to the use of JP-5 and MoGas purchased

from the Government.]

][1.10.15 Fuel for Diego Garcia

[JP-5, MoGas, and diesel are available at $0.71, $0.82, and $0.69 per gallon, respectively. The

Government will not provide fuel storage facilities and will not be liable for damages and losses

due to the use of JP-5, MoGas, and diesel purchased from the Government.]

]][1.11 TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONNEL, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT FOR WAKE AND

DIEGO GARCIA

*************************************************************************

NOTE: Use the following paragraphs as applicable for Wake and Diego Garcia projects.

*************************************************************************

Coordinate arrangements for transporting materials, equipment, and personnel with the

Contracting Officer. [Rates shown were the latest available when this specification was

prepared, and is furnished for informational purposes only.] [The Contractor will be charged

rates in effect at the time the services are actually provided.] The Contractor has the option to

use commercial or privately-owned transportation.

[1.11.1 Surface Transportation

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Verify the availability and rates with the proper Government office.

**************************************************************************

Use of Government facilities are on a priority basis as determined by the Government. Repair

damaged Government property such as docks, buoys, lightering watercraft and equipment due to

the Contractor's negligence at the Contractor's own expense.

a. Military Sealift Command (MSC): [The current shipping cycle to Midway is approximately 90 days

but is subject to change without notice]. [There is no regularly scheduled MSC service to [DG]

[Wake]]. If the Contractor elects to use MSC services, the Contractor is responsible for costs

incurred or delays encountered because of late or non-delivery of materials or equipment. MSC

services are subject to the following conditions:

(1) Provided on a space available basis or if no commercial service is available.

63

(2) The Government has the right to reject cargo offered and to limit the quantities of materials

accepted.

(3) The Government incurs no responsibility, expressed or implied, for return transportation,

continued frequency, timeliness or reliability of the MSC service.

(4) Pay in advance by means of a special deposit account to the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center

(FISC), administering the services for transportation, stevedoring, handling, securing and local

accessorial services.

For FISC [Pearl Harbor] rates are:

Transportation, Tonne Ton

1.1 Cubic Meters Per Measurement 40 cubic feet

Per Measurement

Stevedoring

General Cargo $[ ] $[ ]

Special Cargo $[ ] $[ ]

Cargo Trailer $[ ] $[ ]

(5) The BOS Contractor's stevedoring/lighterage rates are:

Laborers: [$] per hour

Operation Supervisor: [$] per hour

Safety Supervisor:[$] per hour

LCM-8 Boat Crew (5 Men per LCM-8):[$] per hr/man

Crane Operator:[$] per hour

Forklift Operator:[$] per hour

Administrative Charges: [$] per day

(6) Damages or loss due to handling, loading, securing, transporting, failure of, or delay in delivery

shall be borne by the Contractor. Obtain adequate insurance against damage, loss or failure of, or

delay in delivery, as appropriate, and include the Government as a named insurer.

b. Commercial vessel:

(1) Lighterage operations are [normally 24 hours to avoid turnaround delay at Midway]

[restricted to daylight hours unless approved otherwise at [Wake] [DG].]

(2) The Contractor is liable for accidental injury or death of Contractor's personnel and

damages to material and equipment during stevedoring operations performed by the

Contractor.

(3) Pay demurrage charges for barges and vessels not under Navy sponsorship, or vessels

where delay results from the failure of the Contractor to perform specified stevedoring

services. When demurrage is assessed to cargo belonging to several agencies, arrange

with the agencies concerned in sharing such expenses. No priority will be afforded the

Contractor's cargo over others, and cargo will be handled as the ship's cargo master

elects to unload, except that food or medical supplies will be given first priority.

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use the text below for Wake projects.

**************************************************************************

64

(4) Unload cargo from ships anchored offshore into BOS Contractor controlled watercraft and

repair damages to Government lightering watercraft due to Contractor negligence. The

movement of the cargo from the dock to the jobsite is the Contractor's responsibility.

(5) The Contractor will not be charged for the use of the watercraft dockside crane and two forklifts

for lighterage operations but will be charged for the labor involved at the prevailing labor rates.

The Contractor must utilise the BOS Contractor's operators.

(6) Government lightering watercraft consists of two LCM-8's. The LCM-8's are 22.5 m long; 6.4

m wide; 2.8 m side board; 73 feet 8 inches long; 21 feet wide; 9 feet 4 inches side board; one

meter 3 feet 3 inches draft light; 1.2 m 4 feet draft loaded; have 53 tonnes 53 1/2 tons load

capacity, and 76.8 cubic meters 2742 cubic feet cargo space. The dockside crane capacity is

20,400 kg 45,000 pounds. Cargo that is not adequately crated/packed or cannot be safely

handled by the LCMs or crane will not be unloaded by the Government. Materials in bulk, such

as aggregate, will not be transported or handled by the BOS Contractor unless bagged or

otherwise contained for convenient handling.

][1.11.2 Purchase Orders for Diego Garcia

Submit three copies of purchase orders for materials and equipment purchased from the U.S.

prior to actual procurement for approval. Also submit monthly three copies of subsequent

revisions or amendments to the purchase orders with the MSR Purchase orders must refer

to and contain the same nomenclature and item number as the corresponding item listed in

the BM.

][1.11.3 Air Transportation

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use the text in ‘a.’ below for Wake and Diego Garcia projects. Verify the

availability and rates with the proper Government office.

**************************************************************************

a. Air Mobility Command (AMC) [is not scheduled on a regular basis to [Wake] [DG].] [Service is

subject to the following conditions:]

b. Commercial and private aircraft: If approved, special commercial chartered flights and private

aircraft will be permitted to land on [DG] [Wake]. Submit for approval at least 30 days prior to

the flight date.

][1.11.4 Agreement

**************************************************************************

NOTE: Use this paragraph entitled ‘Agreement’ for Wake and Diego Garcia projects.

**************************************************************************

Submit prior to shipment of materials and equipment by Government air and surface

transportation, an agreement in the following form:

‘In consideration of the carriage of the property described as follows:

(Description and maximum quantity to be shipped--the latter to be stated in both weight and

measurement tons.) I, (Acting both individually and as the duly authorised agent of ..., the owner

of said property) hereby agrees that neither the carrying vessels, nor the United States, nor an

agent or agency incorporated or unincorporated thereof, will be liable for loss of, or damage of

any nature whatsoever to, said property or for any failure to deliver above said property in the

same quantity and in the same order and condition as when received by the initial carrying

vessel, or for any delay in such delivery, whether said loss, damage or failure of or delay in

delivery is occasioned by the negligence of the carrying vessel, the United States, or any

employee or agency thereof, or by any cause whatsoever. The owner of said property and [ ]

hereby further agree to hold harmless and indemnify the United States for any loss or damage

arising out of the carriage of the aforesaid property and also agree to pay for freight and terminal

service charges as may be determined by the Government loading and discharging terminals.’

65

][1.11.5 Packaging

Package in accordance with ‘Department of Defense Military, Standard Transportation

and Movement Procedures’ and the requirements of the Government shipping

service.

Box 2 Regulations from:

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2001%2014%2000.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2001%2014%2000.pdf

66

6.2 Asset Maintenance22

Infrastructure Asset Management

Research by the Environment Agency and DEFRA on flood zone and coastal infrastructure assets in

the UK shows that the life-time of specific items (e.g. vertical walls, embankments, and various

revetments) depends on a range of variables, and system-specific deterioration-maintenance curves

need to be estimated and recorded for each asset. Understanding and quantifying deterioration rates

is important for estimating and planning programmes of maintenance that contribute to an asset’s

whole-life costs (WLCs), and for the day-to-day maintenance and renewal intervention activities23

.

Lessons from Pacific Island Countries

Inadequate infrastructure maintenance has long been recognised as a challenge. The failure to

manage and maintain existing infrastructure assets in Pacific island countries has resulted in a large

infrastructure deficit or backlog. The premature deterioration of infrastructure has many

consequences, such as fewer people having access to health clinics; fewer children going to school;

accidents from vehicles colliding when negotiating pot-holed roads; and disease resulting from the

contamination of water sources because of blocked drains, untreated sewage, and exposure to

hazardous waste.

The lack of preventative maintenance is also costly. Preventative maintenance generally provides a

better financial return than investment in new infrastructure. Yet there is a strong tendency for

donors to fund new infrastructure even in contexts where preventative maintenance is inadequate.

The partners of the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF) plan to spend an estimated USD1.7

billion investing in core economic infrastructure between 2008-09 and 2016-1724

.

The Solomon Islands National Infrastructure Investment Plan 2013-2023 identifies economic

infrastructure investment expenditure requirements at some SBD$3.2 Billion (approximately UK£300

million) up to 2020 (of which approximately SBD$300 million could come from private sector sources

for suitable projects). Additional maintenance costs will be about SBD$290 million over the next 10

years, rising to an annual maintenance burden of approximately SBD$50 million/year25

.

The World Bank estimates resources required for infrastructure maintenance at average of 5.1 per

cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in middle income countries to 6.9 per cent in low income

countries. For Pacific island countries, an average of around 6 per cent of GDP is required for the

maintenance of existing infrastructure, equating to US $1,300 million per annum. Pacific island

countries must also address the backlog of delayed maintenance and budget for the maintenance of

planned infrastructure. Data on current maintenance spending are not available, but there is

widespread concern that maintenance is being avoided within a ‘build – neglect-rebuild’ paradigm.

22 This annex section draws heavily from 2013 Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre (PIAC), Maria Corazon Alejandrino-Yap et

al, Infrastructure Maintenance in the Pacific, Challenging the Build-Neglect-Rebuild Paradigm, Summary Paper, Sydney,

Australia, 33pp.

23 2009 Joint Environment Agency – DEFRA, Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme, Assessment and

measurement of asset deterioration including whole life costing, Science report SC060078/SR2, 107pp,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291131/scho0509bqav-e-e.pdf

24 PIAC operates under the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF), a multi-partner infrastructure coordination and financing

mechanism for the Pacific region. The partners are the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Australian Agency for International

Development (AusAID – subsumed into DFAT from 2014), the European Commission (EC), the European Investment Bank

(EIB), the New Zealand Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade (NZMFAT), and the World Bank Group (WBG).

25 2013, Solomon Islands National Infrastructure Investment Plan, http://www.theprif.org/index.php/resources/document-

library/14-solomon-islands-national-infrastructure-investment-plan-2013-2023-summary-paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291131/scho0509bqav-e-e.pdf

http://www.theprif.org/index.php/resources/document-library/14-solomon-islands-national-infrastructure-investment-plan-2013-2023-summary-paper

http://www.theprif.org/index.php/resources/document-library/14-solomon-islands-national-infrastructure-investment-plan-2013-2023-summary-paper

67

PIAC proposes a number of steps that Pacific island governments, infrastructure service providers,

and development partners can take to address the barriers to sound infrastructure asset

management. These are grouped into four categories:

a) Addressing Resource Constraints;

b) Establishing Accountability and Appropriate Incentives;

c) Building organisational Capacity for asset Management, Planning and Implementation; and

d) Development assistance.

Resource constraints

A lack of resources provides an important explanation for why asset management is often inadequate

in the Pacific. In countries where incomes are low, there is often insufficient money available for

maintenance activities. The Pacific is one of the most aid-dependent regions in the world, with many

Pacific island governments reliant on development assistance for their operations. Development

assistance regularly accounts for over 30 per cent of government expenditure in Kiribati,

approximately 50 per cent in Nauru, and 65 per cent in Tuvalu. In 2011, the Government of Tuvalu’s

recurrent budget alone was equal to 148 per cent of its revenue. The precarious fiscal position of

many Pacific island governments highlights the importance of considering liabilities being created by

new infrastructure, as illustrated for selected countries in Table 6.2.1.

Table 6.2.1: Future Liabilities Generated by Planned Infrastructure Investments (AUD million)

Nauru Samoa Tonga Tuvalu

Capital cost 73 246 85 71

Total life-cycle cost 199 447 141 379

Estimated annual operation &

maintenance costs

6.3 6.9 6.6 7.8

Annual government revenue1 19 101 50 19

Est. annual operating + Maintenance

costs as a % of govt. revenue (%)

34 7 13 40

Notes: 1. Nauru 2009/10 (actual budget expenditure, which is 66 per cent of the budget estimates); Samoa 2011/12; Tonga

2011/12; Tuvalu 2011. Life-cycle costs are taken from the National Infrastructure Investment Plans of each country.

Maintenance costs alone are often equal to, or higher than, the initial cost of infrastructure, as

illustrated in Table 6.2.1 and Figure 6.2.1. If the useful life of an infrastructure asset is assumed to be

20 years (as in Table 6.2.1), this implies that annual spending on maintenance should be

approximately 5-6 per cent of the non-depreciated value of the asset.

World Bank guide to maintenance costs

The World Bank has developed rough estimates of maintenance needs for different infrastructure

sectors: 2 per cent of the replacement cost of the capital stock for electricity generation, rail and

road; 3 per cent for water and sanitation; and 8 per cent for mobile and mainline telecommunications.

For buildings, 5 per cent is used.

These numbers represent the minimum annual average expenditure on maintenance required to

maintain the network’s functionality. They do not include maintenance required to rehabilitate

infrastructure where routine maintenance has led to its deterioration

68

26.

Table 6.2.2: Indicative Life-cycle Costs of an Infrastructure Asset per $100 of Investment

Stage

Rate

(%)

Construct/Supp

ly only ($)

+ Other

Up-front ($)

20 year

Maintenance5

($)

Concept & planning 2-5 2-5

Detailed design specification 5-10 5-10

Construction/supply 100 100

Contingency/escalation 10 10

Contract supervision 2-5 2-5

Operating 1 variable

Maintenance – Routine2 0-5 0-100

Maintenance – Periodic3 5-10 10-20

Disposal & decommissioning4 variable

Total 100 120-130 10-120

Source: National infrastructure Investment Plans, various.

Notes:

1. Varies from zero (e.g. for buried pipes) to 20 per cent per annum for mobile plant and equipment.

2. Varies from close to zero (e.g. for buried pipes) to 5 per cent per annum for routine maintenance of assets such as gravel

roads.

3. Based on 20 year asset life with periodic maintenance every seven years.

4. Varies from close to zero to 100 per cent (e.g. clean-up of toxic chemical sites)

5. Varies based on the infrastructure in question and across sectors.

Figure 6.2.1: Infrastructure Asset Life-cycle

Source: Australian National Audit Office 2001:7.

The general categories of maintenance are listed in Box 6.2.1. Routine and periodic maintenance are

often grouped together under the labels ‘preventative’ or ‘planned’ maintenance. The terms

1 http://www.du.edu/ifs/help/understand/infrastructure/flowcharts/translating.html

http://www.du.edu/ifs/help/understand/infrastructure/flowcharts/translating.html

69

recognise that these maintenance activities prevent additional and more costly repairs or

rehabilitation in the future.

Box 6.2.1: Types of Infrastructure Maintenance

■ Routine maintenance – comprises small-scale work conducted on a regular basis, which

is designed to minimise wear-and-tear and maintain assets in a useful condition. The

frequency of routine maintenance varies for different asset types.

■ Periodic maintenance – involves more substantive work designed to ensure the

continuing operation of an asset. Periodic maintenance tends to occur on a large-scale,

and often involves technical expertise and specialised equipment.

■ Urgent maintenance – or repair work, which is undertaken in response to asset failures.

Expenditure on urgent repairs tends to rise where routine and periodic maintenance is

lacking.

■ Rehabilitation – is generally not considered maintenance, and is formally reported as

capital spending by accounting convention. Rehabilitation or refurbishment is

nevertheless important in prolonging the useful life of assets. It occurs infrequently (say

every 20 years) and normally involves major work on an asset. Adaptation/development

– infrastructure is progressively adapted to meet the changing needs of users and to take

advantage of technological change so that services stay relevant.

The UK Institution of Civil Engineers has produced a short publication setting out some key Guiding

Principles of Asset Management that provides a useful outline reference document27

.

27 2014, Institution of Civil Engineers, Realising a World Class Infrastructure, ICE’s Guiding Principles of Asset management,

14pp, http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/Guiding-Principles-of-Asset-Management

http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/Guiding-Principles-of-Asset-Management

70

6.3 Airports & Runways

International Regulation & Overall Conclusion

Airport provision for BIOT resettlement will need to be of a standard acceptable to international air

traffic control regulators. In this case, this would be either the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) since

the overall jurisdiction of the area is the responsibility of HMG, or the US Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) and/or the US Military – Navy as the lessee. This would be a matter for future

UK-US government negotiation.

Major Ted Morris in the response to the Howell Report2829

provided some comments about the cost

of building an airport on BIOT, with the cost estimate range of approximately US$80-100 million as a

minimum probable expense, with substantial millions of additional equipment costs in addition. Later

in this Annex, a range of costs of airport expansions are provided in tables 6.3.2 – 6.3.4 below.

It would be possible, in the event of developing an environmentally acceptable tourism development

operation/resort option, to build infrastructure capable of supporting island-hopping light seaplanes

within the archipelago. Additional fuel storage, fire defence and maintenance and operations would

need to be costed.

For the present, subject to agreement with the US Government, sub-contracted arrangements with

the existing US NSF airfield and sea-traffic are the most practicable and affordable approach.

UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is a public corporation, was established by Parliament in

1972 as an independent specialist aviation regulator and provider of air traffic services (the air traffic

control body NATS was separated from the CAA in the late 1990s and became a public/private

partnership organisation in 2001)30

.

Strategic Objectives include:

■ Enhancing aviation safety performance by pursuing targeted and continuous improvements in

systems, culture, processes and capability.

■ Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future by promoting

competitive markets, contributing to consumers’ ability to make informed decisions and

protecting them where appropriate.

■ Improving environmental performance through more efficient use of airspace and make an

efficient contribution to reducing the aviation industry’s environmental impacts.

■ Ensuring that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation

principles.

UK Airports

Basic facts and figures about all of the UK’s passenger airports are available from the website of the

Liaison Group of the UK Airports Consultative Committees, including runway profiles and passenger

numbers31

.

28 Turner J et al. 2008. An evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands (Howell

Report). Report to BIOT Administration, FCO, 2008.

29 Ibid.

30 2014 UK Civil Aviation Authority, http://www.caa.co.uk/

31 2014 UK Airports Consultative Committees, http://www.ukaccs.info/profiles.htm

http://www.ukaccs.info/profiles.htm

71

Highland and islands Airports Limited (HIAL)

HIAL operates a group of 10 airports in Scotland at: Barra; Benbecula; Campbeltown; Inverness; Islay;

Kirkwall; Stornoway; Sumburgh; Tiree and Wick (the ‘HIAL Airports’). Dundee airport is operated by

HIAL through a subsidiary company, Dundee Airport Limited32

.

Barra International Airport – Outer Hebrides, Scotland

This is the only airport in the world where airplanes land on the beach, which is overtopped daily by

the tide. (Because the airport is lit by natural lighting, pilots on late afternoon flights are assisted by

headlights from cars in a nearby parking lot).

US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The US air traffic system is based on infrastructure that was largely built 50 years ago and is now out

of balance with stakeholders’ changing needs. A new four-year programme ‘NextGen’ is redefining

the National Aviation Services (NAS)33

and is aimed at delivering benefits to system users, including

as reduced fuel costs, reduced delays, and reduced environmental impact. Table 6.3.1 summarises

the key FAA initiatives34

. Data and statistics on US airport programmes are to be found in the hyper-

linked footnote35

.

Table 6.3.1 FAA Strategic Priorities and Priority Initiatives

FAA Strategic

Priorities Administrator Priority Initiatives Related Sub-initiatives

Make aviation

safer and

smarter

Risk-Based Decision Making:

Build on safety management principles to

proactively address emerging safety risk by using

consistent, data-informed approaches to make

smarter, system-level, risk-based decisions

■ Improve standardisation, data access,

and modelling integration

■ Enhance decision making process

■ Redefine oversight model for industry

Deliver benefits

through

technology and

infrastructure

National Airspace System (NAS):

Lay the foundation for the NAS of the future by

achieving prioritised NextGen benefits, integrating

new user entrants, and delivering more efficient,

streamlined services

■ Focus to achieve the benefits of

NextGen

■ Integrate new user entrants

(unmanned aircraft and commercial

space)

■ Right-size the NAS

Enhance global

leadership

Global Leadership:

Improve safety, air traffic efficiency, and

environmental sustainability across the globe

through an integrated, data-driven approach that

shapes global standards, enhances collaboration

and harmonisation, and better targets FAA

resources and efforts

■ Transform our internal structure

■ Develop an integrated, data-driven

approach to international activities

■ Ensure global interoperability of

NextGen

■ Place international resources

strategically

Empower and

innovate with

the FAA’s

people

Workforce of the Future:

Prepare FAA’s human capital for the future, by

identifying, recruiting, and training a workforce

with the leadership, technical, and functional skills

to ensure the U.S. has the world’s safest and

most productive aviation sector

■ Leadership Development

■ Skills Identification

■ Skills Development

■ Attracting Talent

32 2014 HIAL Airport information, http://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport/

33 NAS, http://nascorporate.com/

34 2014, FAA, http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/FAA_Strategic_Initiatives_Summary.pdf

35 2014, FAA, Data & Statistics, http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/data_stats/

http://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport/

http://nascorporate.com/

http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/FAA_Strategic_Initiatives_Summary.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/data_stats/

72

FAA Engineering Design & Construction Standards

These standards and codes give some indication of the complexity (and associated high costs) of

building an international airport to FAA-approved standards. For a full list of current advisory circulars

visit the e-list in the Series 150 Advisory Circular Library. Boxes 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 are an abbreviated

indication of the range of issues required to build, maintain and manage an internationally-accredited

airport36,37

.

Box 6.3.1: FAA Airport Design Advisory Circulars

Item Reference (See most recent version)

Airport Design AC 150/5300-13

Airport Drainage AC 150/5320-5

Airport Layout Plans AC 150/5070-6

Airport Lighting – Runway/Taxiway AC 150/5340-30

Airport Lighting – Runway Centerline AC 150/5340-30

Airport Lighting – Radio Control AC 150/5340-30

ARFF Vehicle AC 150/5220-10

ARFF Water Supply AC 150/5220-4

Artificial Turf AC 150/5370-15

AWOS AC 150/5220-16

Beacons AC 150/5340-30

Compass Calibration Pad AC 150/5300-13 (Appendix 4)

Construction Standards AC150/5370-10 See also Constr. Standards for Airports

Deicing Facilities AC 150/5300-14

Disability Access to Airports AC 150/5360-14

EMAS Arresting System AC 150/5220-22

Fuel Storage AC 150/5230-4

Operational Safety – Construction AC 150/5370-2

PAPI AC 150/5345-28

Passenger Lift for the Impaired AC 150/5220-21

Pavement – Heated AC 150/5370-17

Pavement Design AC 150/5320-6

Pavement Management System AC 150/5380-7

REIL AC 150/5340-30

Runway Length Requirements AC 150/5325-4

Runway Thresholds AC 150/5300-13 (Appendix 2)

SRE Buildings AC 150/5220-18

SRE Equipment AC 150/5220-20

36 2014, FAA Airport Design Standards,

http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/

37 2014, FAA,

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5370-10

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/
































73

Item Reference (See most recent version)

State Standards for Non-primary

Airports

AC 150/5100-13

VASI AC 150/5340-30

Wind Analysis AC 150/5300-13 (Appendix 1)

Wind Cones AC 150/5340-30

Wind Cones – Supplemental AC 150/5340-30

Windrose AC 150/5300-13 (Appendices 1, 11)

Airports GIS Windrose Form

The following standards are from AC 150/5370-10F, Standards for Specifying Construction of

Airports. To view the entire AC, select the ‘Complete AC’ link below. See also Notice to Users.

Box 6.3.2: FAA Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports

Part

(Download by Part) Title

AC 150/5370-10F (Complete AC) Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports

PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS definition of terms

proposal requirements and conditions

award and execution of contract

scope of work

control of work

control of materials

legal regulations and responsibility to public

prosecution and progress

measurement and payment

contractor quality control program

method of estimating percentage of material within specification

limits

nuclear gauges

PART II – EARTHWORK

surface preparation

clearing and grubbing

excavation and embankment

controlled low-strength material

subbase course

lime-treated subgrade

temporary air and water pollution, soil erosion, and siltation control

cement kiln dust treated subgrade

flyash treated subgrade

PART III – FLEXIBLE BASE

COURSES

aggregate base course

crushed aggregate base course

caliche base course







https://airports-gis.faa.gov/airportsgis/publicToolbox/windroseForm.jsp



http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10f_notice.doc


http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10f_part1.doc

http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10F_part1_sec10.doc














http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10f_part2_p101.doc














74

Part

(Download by Part) Title

lime rock base course

shell base course

sand-clay base course

aggregate-turf pavement

recycled concrete aggregate base course

PART IV – RIGID BASE COURSES soil-cement base course

cement-treated base course

econocrete base course

PART V – FLEXIBLE SURFACE

COURSES

plant mix bituminous pavements

porous friction course (central plant hot mix)

plant mix bituminous pavements (base, levelling or surface course)

PART VI – RIGID PAVEMENT Portland cement concrete pavement

PART VII – MISCELLANEOUS bituminous prime coat

bituminous tack coat

compression joint seals for concrete pavements

joint sealing filler

adhesive compounds, two-component for sealing wire and lights in

pavement

seal coats and bituminous surface treatments

structural Portland cement concrete

bituminous pavement rejuvenation

PART VIII – FENCING

wire fence with wood posts (classes a and b fences)

wire fence with steel posts (classes c and d fences)

chain-link fences

wildlife deterrent fence

PART IX – DRAINAGE pipe for storm drains and culverts

slotted drains

pipe underdrains for airports

seeding

sprigging

sodding

PART X – TURFING

topsoiling

airport rotating beacons

hazard beacon

airport beacon towers

airport 8-foot and 12-foot wind cones

underground power cable for airports

PART XI – LIGHTING

INSTALLATION

airport obstruction lights




























http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10f_part8_f160.doc





http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10f_part9_d701.doc



http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10F_part10_t901.doc





http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/construction_standards/media/150_5370_10F_part11_l101.doc








75

US State of Florida – Example of Airport Runway Costs (2011 data)

Airports are a major component of Florida’s transportation infrastructure, land tends to be low lying

and is at risk from hurricanes and flooding. The demand for airport capacity has grown considerably

over the past 30 years. Airports are divided into landside and airside areas. The airside areas include

runways, taxiways and ramps, and are accessible to aircraft and authorised vehicular traffic.

Data in Tables 6.3.2 & 6.3.3 provide planning information on the costs of constructing and repairing

runways, taxiways, and ramps. They include available information on costs of constructing new

terminals and fuel tanks; however, construction costs for terminals and fuel tanks may fluctuate

substantially. Airside surfaces, like highways, are usually constructed of concrete or asphalt38

.

Table 6.3.2: Florida Runway Construction Costs – Concrete39

Concrete Cost

General Aviation (2,000 to 4,000 foot runway, typical length: 3,700

ft. 8’ depth, Portland Cement Concrete)

Runway Construction (New, 75’ width) $1,350 per linear foot

Taxiway Construction (New) $18 per square foot

Ramps/Apron Construction (New) $18 per square foot

Terminal Structure (New) $250 per square foot

Slab Replacement (Standard 12.5’ x 20’ slab) $2,200 per slab

Reliever (5,000 to 7,999 foot runway, typical length: 5,000 ft. 18’

depth: 12’ Portland Cement Concrete + 6’ Econocrete (P-306) sub

base.)



Ramp/Apron Construction (New) $22 per square foot



Commercial (8,000 to 13,000 foot runway, typical length: 13,000 ft.

22’ depth: 16’ Portland Cement Concrete + 6’ Econocrete (P-306) sub

base. Includes paved shoulders and blast pavement.)






38 2011, Florida Airport Runway Costs, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Airports.pdf

39 Runway construction costs include paving, grading (2’ fill), lighting, marking, turfing and minimal drainage within the runway

safety area.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Airports.pdf

76

Table 6.3.3: Florida runway construction costs – asphalt

Asphalt Cost

General Aviation (2,000 to 4,000 foot runway, typical length: 3,700

ft.

12’ depth: 4’ asphalt concrete + 8’ base)



Ramps/Apron Construction (New) $16 per square foot


Resurfacing (3’, 75’ width) $200 per linear foot

Reliever (5,000 to 7,999 foot runway, typical length: 5,000 ft. 16’

depth:

4’ asphalt concrete + 12’ base)






Commercial (8,000 to 13,000 foot runway, typical length: 13,000 ft.

20’in. depth: 4’ in Asphalt Concrete + 16’ base. Includes paved

shoulders and blast pavement.)

Runway Construction (New, 100’ width. Includes paved shoulders

and blast pavement.)

$2,000 per linear foot





Fuel Tanks Cost

(Fuel Tank costs include tank, painting inside and out, concrete ring

wall foundation, secondary containment liner and sand bedding under

the tank.)

100,000 Gallon Tank (28’ diameter x 24’ height) $360,000



US Military – Diego Garcia (DG NSF)

Diego Garcia airfield falls under the jurisdiction of the US Navy, as the Naval Support Facility (NSF)

(Permanent Joint Operating Base (PJOB) Diego Garcia – UK terminology), and so infrastructure

standards, rules and regulations all fall within the US Unified Facilities Command (UFC) and wider US

department of Defence (DoD) requirements. These have been discussed in Annex 6.1.

77

NSF Diego Garcia provides logistic, service and installation support for the US and Allied forces

forward deployed in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Gulf regions. Diego Garcia is home to

16 separate commands. The base accommodates 360 military personnel, 1,800 base operation

services contractor (BOSC) staff, 300 mariners (MSC), 220 civilians and 80 overseas government

employees.

NSF Diego Garcia operations

NSF Diego Garcia provides services for the vessels of the US Navy, British, MSC and Allied forces

transiting through Diego Garcia.

The major tenant commands based at Diego Garcia are Military Sealift Command Office, Maritime

Prepositioning Ship Squadron Two, Afloat Prepositioning Ships Squadron Four, Naval Mobile

Construction Battalion Detachment, Mission Support Facility, FISC Yokosuka and 36 MXG Pacific Air

Force. The base provides support for the US Navy and allied vessels assigned to these commands.

Garrison facilities

The ship handling facilities are primarily centred at the Waterfront, POL Pier, Small Boat Basin and

Lagoon anchorage areas of NSF Diego Garcia. The POL Pier is situated on the inside west shoreline

of the atoll and the anchorages are located across the lagoon. The base features maintenance, repair

and overhaul facilities for the prepositioned ships.

Air facilities

The facility features a single 3,659m-long runway paved with concrete. The runway can handle a

range of aircraft including C-130, C-141, C-5, KC-10 and C-17. The air traffic control (ATC) centre at

Diego Garcia controls the traffic of the air mobility command (AMC) aircraft operating in and around

the Indian Ocean region. The Ground Electronics Maintenance Division (GEMD) monitors the

maintenance works performed on navigation and communication equipment.

Other facilities and services

The base has Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ), Bachelor Officer Quarters (BOQ) and unaccompanied

personnel housing units to accommodate the troops assigned to it. It also has a galley, officers club,

branch health and medical clinics, post office and NSF chapel. The recreation facilities offered are a

swimming pool, a fitness centre, massage therapy, a bowling centre, and an outdoor theatre40.

Diego Garcia also may be identified as an ETOPS (Extended Range Twin Engine Operations)41

emergency landing site (en route alternate) for flight planning purposes of commercial airliners. This

allows twin-engine commercial aircraft (such as the AirbusA330, Boeing 767 or Boeing 777) to make

theoretical nonstop flights between city pairs such as Perth and Dubai (9,013.61 km or 5,600.80 mi),

Hong Kong and Johannesburg (10,658 km or 6,623 mi) or Singapore and Sao Paulo (15,985.41 km or

9,932.87 mi), all while maintaining a suitable diversion airport within 180 minutes’ flying time with

one engine inoperable.

The island was one of 33 emergency land sites worldwide for the NASA Space Shuttle. None of

these facilities were ever used throughout the life of the shuttle program.

All consumable food and equipment are brought to Diego Garcia by sea or air, and all non-

biodegradable waste is shipped off the island. From 1971 to 1973, United States Navy LSTs provided

this service. Beginning in 1973, civilian ships were contracted to provide these services. From 2004

to 2009, the U.S.-flagged container ship MV Baffin, often referred to as the ‘DGAR shuttle’, delivered

40 2014, http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/diego-garcia/.

41 US Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration (2008) Advisory Circular

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2e0f31985abd83ef8625746b0057fd06/$FILE/AC%

20120-42B.pdf.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/diego-garcia/

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2e0f31985abd83ef8625746b0057fd06/$FILE/AC%20120-42B.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2e0f31985abd83ef8625746b0057fd06/$FILE/AC%20120-42B.pdf

78

250 containers every month from Singapore to Diego Garcia. The ship delivered more than 200,000

tons of cargo to the island each year. On the return trip to Singapore, it carried recyclable metals.

In 2004, Transatlantic lines outbid Sealift Incorporated for the transport contract between Singapore

and Diego Garcia. The route had previously been serviced by Sealift Inc.’s MV Sagamore, manned by

members of American Maritime Officers and Seafarers’ International Union.

Aircraft & Airlines

Factors to consider when deciding on the type of aircraft and the commercial arrangements to be

negotiated include the range, landing capability, and numbers of passengers/payload anticipated.

These are mentioned in Annex 6.1. Once a decision to proceed had been agreed in principle, detailed

option analysis would be required by aviation specialists. In the first instance, it is unlikely that a new

commercial carrier would be able to provide an economically viable service to the Chagos Islands, but

the parameters are too undefined to make an informed assessment.

Airport & Runway Costs

Table 6.3.4 below provides a range of examples of airport improvement schemes, which tend to

benchmark and support the cost estimates proposed in Annex 6.1.

Table 6.3.4: Examples of Airport & Runway Building/Extension Costs

Location & Costs Date & Comments Reference(s)

Maldives, Male,

US$368 Million

(£229.9 Million)

2014; This appointment is by GADL International on

behalf of GMR and MAHB consortium, which was

awarded the 25 year development and operating

concession for the airport. The project includes the

development of a new terminal, ancillary buildings and

support facilities.

The expansion and modernisation of the airport will allow

it to cater for the projected future growth of air traffic as

to meet and maintain international safety standards. The

expansion programme will make MIA the primary

gateway for travellers in the Maldives.

Mott MacDonald will be providing the full airport master

plan for MIA as well as all engineering design,

construction support, cost estimation and management

for a new 55,000m² passenger terminal building. It will

provide 23 new aircraft stands, five of which are bridged.

The other main facilities include a dedicated VIP terminal

and cargo terminal, the refurbishment and widening of

the existing runway and the development of a new

taxiway system. A ground handling base, maintenance

building, fire station and a fuel system will also be

included in the expansion programme.

All work on the project will be carried out to a high

environmental standard with the aim of meeting a

minimum LEED silver certification.

http://www.theconstru

ctionindex.co.uk/news/

view/mott-macdonald-

scoops-maldives-

airport-role

and for views of the

airport:

http://mauritius-

airport.atol.aero/inside-

the-terminal/services

Mauritius, Plaine

Magnien,

MUR 380 Million

(£7.57 Million)

1993-1998; Starter extension of 330m to existing 2600m

runway to enable take-off of B747-400 aircraft.

http://www.gibbmauriti

us.com/port_airport.ht

m

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/mott-macdonald-scoops-maldives-airport-role





http://mauritius-airport.atol.aero/inside-the-terminal/services



http://www.gibbmauritius.com/port_airport.htm



79


Madagascar, 10

airports, Euro 11

Million (£8.60

Million)

2002; Technical Audit costs.

Mahe, Seychelles,

MUR2.5 Billion

(£49.77 Million)

2002-2004; Design, Build & Operate Consortium.

Rodrigues, Plaine

Corail, MUR145

Million (£2.89

Million)

2000-2003; Aircraft Parking Apron, Taxiway, Runway

extension.

Panama, Rio Hato,

(US$60-80 Million)

(£37.5-50.0 Million).

2013-14; This airport is being constructed in Rio Hato

where there currently exists a landing strip built by the

US armed forces. This spot was chosen based on a study

by the Andean Corporation for Promotion (CAF, acronym

in Spanish) which indicated that the existing landing strip

would reduce the costs. The location is also quite close

to the tourism development cluster created by the new

hotels that have opened up in the area.

Rio Hato airport will be able to serve 300 passenger

(arrivals and departures) and allow the landing of Boeing

757-200 airplanes. The runway will be 2,500 meters

(8,202 feet) long, with a new passenger terminal.

Originally several localities in the interior were being

considered, however costs played a major role in the

decision to build in Rio Hato. An already built strip, even

though it needs to be repaired, is less costly than building

a whole new infrastructure. The airport in Rio Hato is

expected to cost $60 to $80 million, whereas a new

airport in Santiago or Chitre would cost more than $100

million.

The current landing strip was built by the US armed

forces around 1942. It reverted back to Panama in 1970

and remained in use until 1989.

http://www.panamaqm

agazine.com/2011_May

/airport%20Rio%20Hat

o.html

and update:

http://tropicaldaily.com/

panama/panamas-rio-

hato-airport-nears-

completion/

NSW, Australia,

Orange County

Airport Expansion

(AUD18.9 Million)

(£10.3 Million)

2014; Orange City Council is proposing a partnership

between the State Government, the Federal Government

and the private sector.

Federal funding worth $4.9 million was announced 6

June. If further funding sources are secured and

development consent granted, it is estimated the project

will be completed in the first half of 2014.

Newcrest Mining currently operates a fly in fly out service

from Orange to its Telfer mine in Western Australia.

While there is potential to expand this service to other

Newcrest sites, the existing runway limits expansion for

larger aircraft.

http://www.orange.nsw

.gov.au/site/index.cfm?

display=308357

Sri Lanka, …

Bandaranaike

International Airport

Development

Project Phase 2;

JICA loan (28,969

million yen) (£158.9

Million)

2012; This project is intended to respond to the sharp rise

in air passenger demand and enhance convenience and

safety by expanding and improving passenger terminal

buildings and the aircraft parking apron, etc. of

Bandaranaike International Airport. (NB: the total cost of

the improvement will be 36,016 Million Japanese Yen).

http://www.jica.go.jp/e

nglish/our_work/evaluat

ion/oda_loan/economic

_cooperation/c8h0vm0

00001rdjt-

att/srilanka120328_01.p

df

http://www.panamaqmagazine.com/2011_May/airport%20Rio%20Hato.html




http://tropicaldaily.com/panama/panamas-rio-hato-airport-nears-completion/




http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/site/index.cfm?display=308357



http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/oda_loan/economic_cooperation/c8h0vm000001rdjt-att/srilanka120328_01.pdf







80


Cape Verde, Praia

Airport, (Euro 32.794

Million) (£25.78

Million)

2013-2016; The project to expand and modernise the

Praia Airport, whose initial construction was co-financed

by ADB, has been designed based on a feasibility study

completed in February 2013 and funded by the African

Development Bank and the Government. This project will

address the air transport demand, especially those needs

relating to economic activity and tourism. To address the

projected traffic increase and ensure efficient

management of passenger flows at peak periods, the

following improvements are envisaged under the

proposed project: (i) expansion of the passenger terminal;

(ii) expansion of the aircraft parking area and various

networks; and (iii) renovation of the freight terminal.

The project area covers the entire Santiago Island, which

has an estimated 271,000 inhabitants, representing 56%

of Cape Verde’s population.

http://www.afdb.org/en

/documents/document/

cape-verde-praia-

airport-expansion-and-

modernisation-project-

pemap-appraisal-report-

31741/

Note: The matter of an airport facility is also discussed in Annex 7.2 in connection with tourism

opportunities and costs.

http://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/cape-verde-praia-airport-expansion-and-modernisation-project-pemap-appraisal-report-31741/







81

6.4 Ports, Harbours & Maritime Structures

Ports & Harbours

Introduction

A natural harbour is preferable on economic and environmental grounds, but failing that, some form

of breakwater is likely to be required depending on wave height, littoral drift and sedimentation, tides

and currents and navigational issues. Dredging may be required to provide adequate areas of deep

water. The use and disposal of that material will have environmental costs, and possibly some

benefits if it can be used for land reclamation. Land stability and the risk of de facto substrate

liquefaction should be taken into account in areas of tectonic activity.

In BIOT coral atoll structures may obviate the need for breakwaters, subject to water depths and

navigational possibilities and risks. Wave-height reduction within a harbour improves as the distance

from the entrance and the width parallel to the shore increase. It is generally appropriate to site the

harbour entrance at a slight angle to the direction of expected greatest sea swell to improve the

conditions of storm shelter sometimes being sought. In order to reduce energy reflection or

resonance, it is desirable to have wave-spending beaches or rock-armoured (or naturally vegetated)

slopes to absorb, not reflect wave energy, as would be the case with vertical harbour walls.

Sedimentation and the risk of siltation as a result of heavier suspended particulate matter settling out

in calmer harbour waters is a significant maintenance issue and requires quantitative predictive

modelling. General guidance has been taken from the Civil Engineer’s Reference Book42

, and design

detailed guidance may be found in McConnell et al, 201243

.

For Piers and Wharves constructed to US Military standards, then United Facilities Criteria (UFC)

apply44

.

Cargoes

Table 6.4.1 provides a short summary of the broad range of cargoes.

42 Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, 4

th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch. 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth

Heinemann, pp26/1-16.

43 McConnell, K, Allsop, W, Cruickshank, I, 2012, Piers, Jetties and Related Structures Exposed to Waves – Guidelines for

Hydraulic Loading, Thomas Telford Bookshop, 168pp.

44 2012, United Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design: Piers and Wharves, UFC 4-152-01, 28 July 2005 change 1, 1 September 2012,

175pp, http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_152_01.pdf


82

Table 6.4.1 Cargoes & Ships

Cargo Type Description Typical vessels

General non-unitised (break

bulk)

Small consignments, requiring individual

handling; labour demand high.

General Cargo (2000 –30,000

DWT45

)

General unitised Pre-packaged small units (including sawn

timber) bundled into larger groups.

Palletised (1-5 tonnes) moved by fort-lift

trucks.

Flats (up to 10t) moved by fork-lifts & low

loaders.

ISO Containers (10t-40t (0.5-2.0 Tonnes

Equivalent Units TEUs)

Specialised forms – for Roll-on Roll-off

trucks/ships.

Container (150-4000 TEU) –

approximately 70,000+ DWT.

Bulk Cargoes Dry (e.g. grain, mineral ores, timber, sugar)

Liquid (e.g. vegetable oils, mineral oil,

petroleum products, liquid chemicals,

liquefied petroleum gases LPG). Some

hazardous and extremely flammable and

require specialised storage and handling.

Bulk Cargo (specialised to the

product carried) 20,000-

approximately 60,000+ DWT

Miscellaneous other Various: (e.g. specialised motor vehicle

carriers; refrigerated fisheries/other

perishables).

Various (including Ro for shorter

crossings)

A range of vessel characteristics, in addition to the most basic length, beam and draft, will influence

port design. These will influence the location of ramps and hatches, loaded and unloaded deck

heights, ship handling characteristics for manoeuvreing, the existence of protruding submerged bow

elements, bow and stern thrusters, windage areas and so likely forces on berths, ship mooring line

sizes and requirements, and deck crane capacities and reaches.

A modern general cargo berth is normally at least 200m long and 200m wide (i.e. 4 ha) and with

appropriate and efficient cargo handling this can move around 250,000t of cargo per year. More is

required for container handling.

Other matters to be considered when moving to detailed design of port developments include the

following:

a) Tugs and pilotage

b) Security & policing services

c) Fuel bunkering facilities

d) Equipment maintenance facilities

e) Services to ships – water, electricity, sewerage, telephone

f) Toilets, canteens and offices

g) Post office

h) Customs and Immigration arrangements

45 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT): weight equivalent of the vessel displacement tonnage minus the blasted weight of the vessel

– therefore, DWT indicates the weight of the cargo, fuel, water and all other items that could be loaded aboard. (NB: the shipping

industry uses the long ton which for planning purposes can be used interchangeably with the metric tonne).

83

Navigation

Three key elements determine the navigational requirements for a harbour:

a) the approach channel (width, vessel dimensions, speed & manoeuvrability, orientation and

strength of currents, wind and wave action, operating pattern of vessel movements, vessel

proximity to channel banks and channel depth);

b) Channel depth (generally at low water should be 1.15 times the maximum draught of the vessel,

with a minimum gross underwater keep clearance of 1.0m – or slightly more with rock substrate);

and

c) Turning circles (to permit departure bow first, often 4 times the length of the vessel without bow

thrusters/pivoting propellers).

In Table 6.4.2 the summary data sheet for the study field visit, a nominal water depth of 5m at the

end of any jetty or pier was used to estimate the length of pier required. This was based on the

requirements of a vessel such as the Pacific Marlin FPS which can only enter a limited number of

atoll reefs, even at high tide, without striking coral rock.

Maritime Structures

There are broadly five general types of maritime structures as follows:

1. Marginal Berth (also termed quay or wharf46

) – a berth parallel to the shore and contiguous with

it;

2. Pier – a finger projection from the shore on which berths are provided;

3. Jetty – A structure providing berth(s) at some distance from the shore. It may be connected to

the shore by an approach trestle or causeway, or the jetty may be of an island type;

4. Dolphin – An isolated structure or strong point used for manoeuvring a vessel or to facilitate

holding it in position at its berth; and

5. Roll-on roll-off ramp – a structure containing a fixed or adjustable ramp on to which a vessel’s

ramp is lowered to permit the passage of vessels (or foot passengers) between ship and shore.

Marginal Berths

Require a vertical face against which the vessel berths and a continuous working area alongside for

cargo-handling equipment. The vertical wall can be achieved by (a) a solid wall (gravity or sheet-piled)

or (b) an open type piled structure.

Piers

The choice of whether the pier is solid or open with frequently depend on its potential effect on the

hydrographic regime and littoral drift, as well as the nature of foundation conditions and the

availability of fill materials.

‘A pier normally requires a vertical face on both sides against which ships are berthed, with the deck

of the pier providing the working area of cargo handling and/or storage. With a very wide pier, the

seaward end can also be used for berthing ships.’47

46 the term ‘quay’ is used in the UK and other Commonwealth countries for solid structures, especially those with warehousing,

whereas wharf is more common in the USA, although London’s old port had hundreds of ‘wharves’ whose buildings are now

converted to residential or office use.



Heinemann, pp26/9.

84

Jetties

These structures provide berth(s) at some distance from the shore where the required depth of water

is available. A jetty head provides the actual berth, and this is connected to the shore by an approach

trestle or causeway. The jetty head should be aligned so that vessels are berthed in the direction of

the strongest currents, and is normally an open-piled structure, although a solid ‘island’-type structure

is used occasionally (e.g. as was the case for Ile du Coin – Peros Banhos – Photo 4). Sometimes, in

the interests of limiting maintenance and increased stability, a causeway is built linking to the shore

until the depth of water makes piled supports more economical and/or with less interference to sea

flows.

The jetty head is usually smaller in length than the length of ships to be berthed and may require

breasting and/or mooring ‘dolphins’48

.

‘Roll-on roll-off terminals are dependent on being located in reasonably calm waters. In more exposed

locations it is very difficult to ensure that wave action will not give rise to unsafe and unacceptable

working conditions’49

.

Loads

A wide range of forces act on marine structures, and detailed design would have to take account of

all possibilities. Broadly the loads can be divided into two categories:

I. Natural loads (wind, snow, ice, waves, and earthquake/tsunami).

II. Operational loads (berthing, mooring, cargo storage and handling).

Within the above two broad groupings, loads may be categorised into five general types:

a) Dead load (effective weight of the materials and parts of the structure that are structural

elements);

b) Superimposed dead load (weight of all materials loading the structure that are not structural

elements – and the variability expected is an important design consideration);

c) Imposed load (static and long-term cyclic; cyclic; impulsive; and random);

d) Soil and differential water load (dominant issues in the stability of an earth-retaining structure);

e) Environmental load (some are long-term cyclic viz. current, tide & time-averages wind; others can

be cyclic, impulsive or random, e.g. temperature, snow, ice, waves).

Fendering

Fender systems are designed to protect both the vessel and the breasting structure from damage

caused by berthing impacts. They range from timber rubbing-strips attached to a quay face to

specialised free-standing energy-absorbing structures.50

Light to general cargo forces are typically 5-

20 kN/m2, container ships range from 15-30kN/m

2, paper and timber product-carrying ship fendering

requirements are 55-80kN/m2, and coal and ore-carrying ship requirements range between 100-

300kN/m2.

The berthing force is often the predominant lateral load being imposed on a quay or jetty structure,

and its effect is largely controlled by the fender system adopted. Detailed design factors to be

48 A Breasting Dolphin is an isolated structure designed to (a) absorb the kinetic energy of the berthing vessel and (b) assist in

restraining the vessel at the berth. They may be rigid (massive structure with fenders) or flexible (e.g. parallel flexing steel tubes).

The choice is determined by the depth of water, foundation conditions and forces anticipated. Mooring Dolphins are isolated

structures to which mooring lines are attached to restrain the ship. They must be able to resist the horizontal loads expected

over a wide angle of arc and be capable of handling uplift forces from the mooring lines. They are usually rigid piled structures.



Heinemann, pp26/12.


th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth

Heinemann, pp26/1-16.

85

considered will include the calculation of energy to be absorbed, options for energy adsorption,

structural design force-resisting requirements and the selection of detached (e.g. a row of free-

standing piles in front of the face of the main structure) or attached fender systems (e.g. hollow

cylindrical rubber). The ability of the ship hull to withstand these forces is also a critical matter.

To provide for a margin of safety for abnormal impact (e.g. if a mooring line breaks), the ultimate

capacity of the fenders should be double that calculated for normal impacts.

Maintenance & Durability

The marine environment presents severe weathering and corrosion threats to structures. Accordingly

these need to be robust in design, thick in cross-section with ‘cathodic protection’ and/or suitable

anti-corrosion coating over metal elements. Most severe erosion or corrosion occurs in the tidal and

splash zone. With steel piles, concrete muffs are sometimes provided from the underside of the deck

to just below low-water level, steel short-piling is frequently encased in concrete from cope level to

below low-water level.

Design and maintenance schedules should focus on preventive approaches, and simplicity of access

and application for remedial work.

BIOT maritime structures

The feasibility study visited four principal maritime structures, two on Diego Garcia and one each on

Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos) and Ile Boddam (Salomon Atoll). Table 6.4.2 provides a brief summary of

their key features, past and present use and current condition.

Table 6.4.2 Key maritime structures BIOT

Maritime Structure Past & Present Use Current condition

DG Harbour: Quay & Jetty

(western arm)

30 years of oil tendering, US NSF

use & also BIOTA Fisheries Patrol

Vessel berth.

Wooden fenders in poor repair; overall pier

structure, whilst significantly better

functionally than any ‘historic’ structures,

requires considerable strengthening and

refurbishment; needs cathodic anti-corrosion

protection; and handrails should be installed51

.

DG Old Plantation Jetty

(eastern arm)

19 Century Copra production

shipping & other passenger & cargo

movements. Not in use.

In complete disrepair – beyond remediation –

a complete re-build would be required.

Ile du Coin, Peros Banhos 19 Century Copra production

shipping & other passenger & cargo

movements. Not in use.

Original length approximately 180m – only

remnants of jetty piles remain. Pier head

concrete mass remains. Additional close

inspection would be required to examine the

re-usability of the pier head – other elements

will require a complete re-build.

Ile Boddam, Salomon Atoll Shoreline ‘Quay’, used by occasional

yacht crews to land ashore (with

permit).

Poor jetty head, & approach 5m of solid

‘causeway’ in very poor condition. Substantial

re-conditioning required. Not suitable for

anything other than small boats. Dangerous to

hull coral up-thrusts near surface on quay

approach.

51 Design for remediation complete, US Navy financial allocation of US$28.4M to undertake the work.

86

Photo 1. DG Quay & Pacific Marlin berth zone

Photo 2. DG Jetty

87

Photo 3. DG Plantation Disused Jetty

Photo 4. Ile du Coin, (Peros Banhos) jetty – copra processing

88

Photo 5. Ile Boddam, Salomon Atoll, – overnight/short-stay yacht landing.

Pier & Jetty Costs

The UK National Piers Society web Information about the many UK national and other country piers

may be found though site52

provides information about the many UK national and other country piers.

Maintenance requirements for such marine structures are continuous, and there will be catastrophic

loss from time to time.

Table 6.4.3 provides illustrative examples of the costs of a range of piers & harbours from different

countries. Repairs to DG’s NSF pier run to US$28.4M this year, and the range of costs depends on

location, weather, tidal forces, specification and ground and substrate geology. Detailed underwater

geotechnical survey work would be required to provide accurate costings for piers and jetty

structures in BIOT for all but the lightest of vessels.

52 UK National Piers Society, 2014, http://www.piers.org.uk/

http://www.piers.org.uk/

89

Table 6.4.3 Range of pier and jetty costs

Pier/Jetty features Capital53

& Operational Costs Comment & References

DG US NSF. 30 year-old

wooden petroleum, oil and

lubricant pier requiring

replacement of misc.

structural elements and

wooden fender system to

accommodate Fuel Tankers.

US$28.4 million allocated for

refurbishment 2014.

New deep-water harbour,

Peterhead, Scotland, UK.

Suitable for deep-sea fishing

vessels typically 80m in

length.

£35.5 million capital costs; 2009-2010

most work undertaken.

The 10m deep quay is also required to

accommodate offshore energy and

cargo ships up to 160m in length.

Extensive mathematical and physical

scale-modelling was required. Massive

breakwater required. A total of

81,750m3 of seabed material was

dredged, of which 8540m3 was

relatively hard rock requiring blasting54

.

New dock with three

section pier, Stromness,

Orkney, UK. Specified to

accommodate ships (up to

3000 gross tonnes) with

equipment to service the

potential offshore

renewables market. 8m

wide deck of approach

pier.8.0M

£8.0 million capital costs; 2014

completion.

Includes a new 500m x 6.25m (with

2m hard shoulder) services road.

Substantial tidal range. Some

conceptual similarities to BIOT, in that

there was no pre-existing dock capable

of handling ships to carry the

equipment required to undertake the

build55

.

St Helena, OTD Approximate cost of wharf development

£16 million.

2014, OTD Eng. advice to KPMG

Monserrat, OTD Breakwater £52 million – 320metres long

on – 6m contour.

Dredging £6.5 million.

Port – £21 million

Various port buildings – £5.8 million

2014, OTD Eng. advice to KPMG

N. W. Trinidad,

Chaguaramas, Unpermitted

Pier 2 Jetty (short,

concrete), 2014.

US$0.5 million; Demolition of structure

ordered by Chaguaramas Development

Authority, monthly pier lease charges of

US$24.9, 000.

Designed to service the landing needs

of a party boat (Harbour Master)

registered in Barbados56

.

Singapore, Bedok Jetty

(1966-present) (250m,

concrete).

S$1.5 million capital cost; operational cost

unknown.

Now managed by ‘MinDef’57

53 Original costs, unadjusted for inflation

54 2011, Nov, New Deepwater Quay, Proceedings of ICE, Civil Engineering 164, 162-170.

55 2013, New Civil Engineer, Stromness harbour Expansion, Orkney, 07.11.13, p16-18.

56 Trinidad, Chaguaramas, Pier 2 Jetty, 2012,

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Chaguaramas_body_orders_firm_to_demolish___5m_jetty-151272115.html

57 Bedok Jetty, Singapore, 2012, http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/jetties-and-piers-of-singapore/

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Chaguaramas_body_orders_firm_to_demolish___5m_jetty-151272115.html

http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/jetties-and-piers-of-singapore/

90

6.5 Building Costs

United Kingdom House Building Costs

RICS provides guidance58

on UK benchmarking data, covering maintenance and operational costs.

BCIS Running Costs Online is an estimating expenditure tool for facilities managers; BCIS Building

Running Costs Indices Online, a monthly update of maintenance indices; the BCIS Schedule of Rates

(ORDB) – for Building Maintenance; and the ‘Price Book’ which contains the latest labour, materials

and plant (equipment) hire costs for maintenance work, repairs and rehabilitation. These products are

available for a fee.

Table 6.5.1 below, is based on information supplied by the Build Cost Information Service (part of the

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), and has been helping self-build beginners get an idea of

their potential costs for many years. The figures are in £/Square Metre.

Table 6.5.1 Homebuilding & Renovating Build Cost Guide (excl. VAT) 2013 (Greater London, Good

Standard)

Sub-Contractors. Builder/Sub-Contr. Main Contractor

Single Story

> 90m2 1343 1418 1492

91 – 160m2 1290 1362 1434

161m2+ 1242 1311 1380

Two Story

90-130m2 1293 1364 1436

131 – 220 m2 1139 1202 1266

221m2+ 1111 1173 1235

Typical new build projects take between 9-15 months on site. In the UK it is advisable to allow

several months from plot purchase for design, planning permission, finding contractors and other

service providers and sourcing materials.

A wide range of UK prices for typical building construction and repair can be found on a webpage

with links to pages with cost estimates for all kinds of building work in the UK (e.g. for 2014:

repointing: £3600/item; bricklaying for a wall £900/item; Roof repair: £2,600; plastering: £250; single

story extension £17,500/item). These ranges are indicative of the information available59

. Table 6.5.5

(at end of this Annex) provides indicative day-rates for construction industry personnel based on a

2011 baseline. On-line updated data sets can be purchased from Construction rates.co.uk60.

58 2013 RICS, Maintenance, http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/bcis/about-bcis/maintenance/

59 2014 Building – Cost and Estimates including House Building, Roofing, Garages and Conservatories

http://www.whatprice.co.uk

60 2014, Construction Rates for Prime Cost of Daywork, UK Construction Industry,

http://www.constructionrates.co.uk/construction_rates_schedule_with_live-up-date.htm

http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/bcis/about-bcis/maintenance/

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/building/#ixzz3GXWhtQMG

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/

http://www.constructionrates.co.uk/construction_rates_schedule_with_live-up-date.htm

91

USA House-building Costs

From the United States, The Washington DC-headquartered National Association of Home Builders

provides a comprehensive array of data sets on standard and typical building element prices. Table

6.5.2 is a typical example.

Table 6.5.2: USA House Building Costs

Average Lot Size: 20,614 sq. ft.

Average Finished Area: 2,311 sq. ft.

I Sale Price Breakdown Average Share of Price

A. Finished Lot Cost (including financing cost) $67,551 21.7%

B. Total Construction Cost $184,125 59.3%

C. Financing Cost $6,669 2.1%

D. Overhead and General Expenses $16,309 5.3%

E. Marketing Cost $4,645 1.5%

F. Sales Commission $10,174 3.3%

G. Profit $21,148 6.8%

Total Sales Price $310,619 100.0%

II. Construction Cost Breakdown Average

Share of

Construction Cost

Building Permit Fees $3,107 1.7%

Impact Fee $2,850 1.5%

Water and Sewer Inspection $2,952 1.6%

Evacuation, Foundation and Backfill $17,034 9.2%

Steel $1,012 0.5%

Framing and Trusses $24,904 13.4%

Sheathing $2,142 1.2%

Windows $6,148 3.3%

Exterior Doors $2,150 1.2%

Interior Doors and Hardware $2,883 1.6%

Stairs $1,052 0.6%

Roof Shingles $5,256 2.8%

Siding $8,739 4.7%

Gutters and Downspouts $870 0.5%

Plumbing $10,990 5.9%

Electrical Wiring $8,034 4.3%

Lighting Fixtures $2,193 1.2%

HVAC $8,760 4.7%

Insulation $3,399 1.8%

Drywall $8,125 4.4%

92

II. Construction Cost Breakdown Average

Share of

Construction Cost

Painting $6,005 3.2%

Cabinets and Countertops $10,395 5.6%

Appliances $3,619 2.0%

Tiles and Carpet $8,363 4.5%

Trim Material $3,736 2.0%

Landscaping and Sodding $6,491 3.5%

Wood Deck or Patio $1,918 1.0%

Asphalt Driveway $2,729 1.5%

Other $19,487 10.5%

Total $185,343 100.0%

Data from 2011, the USA National Association of Home Builders.

Australian House Building Costs

From the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors and a range of contractors, typical 2011 building

costs are as set out in Table 6.5.3. Costs relate to level plots and exclude additional service, drainage

and road connections that may be required61

.

Table 6.5.3: Australian Building Cost Calculation Guide (AUD$)

D10 SMALL LOT HOUSINGS 1 STOREY (basic construct.): PER M2 1,220

D11 DUAL OCCUPANCY 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 1,220

D12 STD PROJECT HOME – WEATHER BOARD/SIMILAR 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 810

D13 STD PROJECT HOME – BRICK VENEER 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 850

D14 PREMIUM PROJECT HOME 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 1,100

D15 OWNER/BUILDER – WEATHER BOARD/SIMILAR 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 1,050

D16 OWNER/BUILDER – BRICK VENEER 1 & 2 STOREY: PER M2 1,100

D17 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 1 STOREY ONLY: PER M2 1,500

D18 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OVER 400M2

FLOOR AREA OR 2 STOREYS: PER M2 1,450

D19 SPECULATIVE PROJECT HOMES BY PROJECT BUILDER (MAX M2 =350) 1 & 2

STOREY ($550 M2)

1,100

AUD$10.0 = approx. UK£6.39 (Sept 2014)

Benchmarking data relevance

These data sets provide a guide to relative skills and types of build comparisons and costs. In BIOT,

costs will be higher, in uncertain ways, owing to high transport costs, access issues, the absence of

energy and basic service provision, and a very different labour force, supply chain and contracting

arrangements. Simple cost multipliers to take account of terrain, distance and other variables, which

might be applied to a mainland scenario with a ‘normal’ service industry and supply chain cannot be

used to calculate actual costs62

.

61 2014, Building Cost Calculation Guide, Blue Mountain City Council, NSW Australia,

http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/sustainableliving/developingland/buildingcostcalculator/

62 For example, the replacement cost of a single, one-off, approximately 1.0m

2 window pane could be as high as US$6000

(BIOT DG per. Comm.)

http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/sustainableliving/developingland/buildingcostcalculator/

93

Alternative sources for comparative prices are other Indian Ocean islands, and Mauritius and

Maldives are considered below.

Mauritius Construction Costs

Mauritius (pop. 1.2 million) is a small island nation in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar and

mainland Africa. It has a relatively strong economy and a stable democracy. It has one of the highest

standards of living in Africa.

The World Bank/IFC Doing Business 201463

reports data for Mauritius. The first table lists the overall

‘Ease of Doing Business’ rank (out of 189 economies) and the rankings by each topic. It also lists the

economy’s distance to frontier (DTF) measure. The rest of the tables summarise the key indicators

for each topic and benchmark against regional and high-income economy (OECD) averages. Overall,

Mauritius ranks at No.20 in the sub-Saharan Africa regional score, and is classified as an upper middle

income category population with a GNI per capita of US$8,570. On dealing with construction permits,

Mauritius scores at 123 compared with 170 in Zimbabwe and 27 in the UK64

. The Central Statistics

Office provides charts and tables about many sectors of the Mauritian economy, including costs of

building materials, wages, etc65

. A range of companies offer advice and services on construction

matters in Mauritius, and their web-links are cited in the report endnotes66,67

.

Maldives

The 2006 census recorded a total population of approximately 300,000 with approximately 46,200

households and annual inflation of 14.7%. The 2012 4th quarter GDP was 20,461 million Rufiyaa

(approximately US$1,331; approximately UK£836), significantly lower than for Mauritius. The

Infrastructure Map includes island level information on various infrastructure and economic activities.

It includes existing and selected planned developments of key economic, social, and utility

infrastructure. For development and administrative purposes, the country is divided into seven

provinces68

. The Maldives comprises 1,192 islands in the Indian Ocean.

The Maldives are particularly at risk from sea level-rise with some 80% of the land mass being less

than one metre above mean sea level. The Hulumale island experiment has raised and reclaimed the

island using sand, concrete and shingle – arguably with significantly adverse local ecological impacts.

In time, some proponents of resistance to sea level rise are arguing for big islands (up to 3 metres

height) in seven different parts of the country69

. Within 5-10 years some 30,000 people will be living

on Hulumale (450-acres). A first cluster of 1,500 people live there now. By 2020, the target was

50,000 people, some 15% of the mostly Sunni Muslim inhabitants of the Maldives70

. An article in

1989 documents some of the challenges and actions proposed to address sea level rise in the

Maldives71

. The use of coral rock as building material has been considered decades ago72,73

.

63 World Bank and IFC (2014) Doing business 2014.

64 2014 World Bank Group, Doing Business (Mauritius data), 110pp,

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/mauritius

65 http://statsmauritius.gov.mu/

66 2014, Mauritius Housing Construction advice, http://www.lexpressproperty.com/en/fact-sheets/construction-guide-a48

67 2014 Mauritius Housing Company Ltd, http://www.mhc.mu/

68 2011 Infrastructure Map, Republic of Maldives, 2pp, http://www.planning.gov.mv/en/npc/Infrastructure-Map-4th-Edition-

(30.05.2011).pdf

69 2009 BBC, 17 March, Chris Morris, Maldives rises to climate challenge,

http://journalisted.com/article/s8a1?sim_showall=yes

70 2012, 14 April, Simon Gardner, New Maldives Island rises from the depths,

http://www.rense.com/general60/newmaldivesisland.htm

71 1989, Nov 14-18, Titus, J G, Policy Implications of Sea Level Rise: The Case of the Maldives. Proceedings of the Small

States Conference on Sea Level Rise. Male, Republic of Maldives, Ed. Hussein Shihab. 6pp, http://papers.risingsea.net/

72 1952, South Pacific Commission, Technical Paper No.28, Social development Notes No.10, July, 8pp.

73 1974, Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, The Use of Coral as an Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete

Structure, AD-784-092, June, NTIS, US dept. of Commerce, 42pp.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/mauritius

http://statsmauritius.gov.mu/

http://www.lexpressproperty.com/en/fact-sheets/construction-guide-a48

http://www.mhc.mu/

http://www.planning.gov.mv/en/npc/Infrastructure-Map-4th-Edition-(30.05.2011).pdf

http://www.planning.gov.mv/en/npc/Infrastructure-Map-4th-Edition-(30.05.2011).pdf

http://journalisted.com/article/s8a1?sim_showall=yes

http://www.rense.com/general60/newmaldivesisland.htm

http://papers.risingsea.net/

94

However, the mining of coral rock has had significant adverse impacts on coral diversity and

abundance. FAO reported that little recovery was seen at sites which had been mined 16 years

previously74

. Over-use of groundwater resulting in saline intrusion in the Maldives is a noteworthy

issue to guard against for BIOT too.

Luxury Island Resort Developments

The Tourism Development section considers these in some detail, also giving room rate prices. The

Indian Ocean islands feature prominently as regions where entrepreneurs and governments have

seized upon the tourism potential of these areas to raise revenue. Table 6.5.4 gives a range of capital

cost and rental rates for luxury island resorts used by celebrities and/or the extremely wealthy.

Table 6.5.4 Luxury Island Resort Developments – Examples & Costs/Prices

Island/Location Comments Prices & References

Vamizi Island,

Quirimbas

archipelago, off coast

of Northern

Mozambique, Indian

Ocean

With a surface area of almost 2,500 acres, Vamizi is a

tropical island which, so far, has had a minimum of

development, mainly in the form of a five-star hotel –

the Vamizi Island Lodge, voted best beach property in

the Good Safari Guide 2011 Awards.

Several of the first villas have

already been completed, and

there is an optional rental

scheme. Prices begin at

£2.5million.

www.vamiziprivatevillas.com

Mauritius Various 3-4 Bed & 3-4 Bath Luxury villas.

A 500-sq. m property in Port Louis can produce income

from rent of around 6.17% per annum. The general

rule here is that the smaller the property, the lower the

yields. With a 200-sq. m property, the yield can go

down to about 4.5%.

US$2.0-3.5 million

http://www.countrylife.co.uk/inte

rnational-property-

sale/mauritius?buyOrLet=buy&a

mp;orderby=price-high-

low&page=1

Property prices are around

US$700 to US$850 per sq. m.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.

com/Africa/Mauritius

Maldives, Amaillarah

Island, Indian Ocean.

Five minutes by

speedboat from the

capital, Male.

2012 plans for 43 floating islands and 200 villas which

will be moored to the seabed using cables, with a golf

course(s) accessed by a tunnel on the seabed, with an

underwater clubhouse. Possibility of islands being built

in India or Middle East and towed to the Maldives.

Approximately US$500M initial

estimates.

http://www.dutchdocklands-

maldives.com/

Maldives, the North

Male atoll, 20 minutes

by boat from the

capital of Male and

the international

airport.

The Ocean Flower, is the first of five oceanfront

developments in the Maldives. The Masterplan ‘The 5

Lagoons’ is being developed by Dutch Docklands

International in a joint venture with the government of

the Maldives.

http://www.dutchdocklands-

maldives.com/The-Ocean-

Flower/Exclusive-experience-

Movie

Prices from US$1.4 million/plot.

Maldives, Velaa

Private Island resort,

southern Noonu Atoll.

Under construction, completion due by end 2014. Top-

end luxury resort. Velaa’s exclusive over-water villas

resemble the head of a turtle with the island forming

the body.

Rooms/villas US$1,900-$30,000

per night.

http://www.velaaprivateisland.co

m/

Maldives, Shangri-La

Villingili Resort and

Spa, Addu Atoll. 70

minutes from Male

Constructed 2007 – 2009 and comprises 142 villas of

varying luxury with pools.

Reputed to cost US$150Million

to build.

http://www.shangri-

la.com/male/villingiliresort/

74 2000, Naseer, A, Paper 5: Status of Coral Mining in the Maldives: Impacts and Management Options, Workshop on

Integrated Reef Resources Management in the Maldives, Marine Research Section, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Malé,

Republic of Maldives, http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5623e/x5623e0o.htm

http://www.vamiziprivatevillas.com/

http://www.countrylife.co.uk/international-property-sale/mauritius?buyOrLet=buy&orderby=price-high-low&page=1





http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Africa/Mauritius

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Africa/Mauritius

http://www.dutchdocklands-maldives.com/

http://www.dutchdocklands-maldives.com/

http://www.dutchdocklands-maldives.com/The-Ocean-Flower/Exclusive-experience-Movie




http://www.velaaprivateisland.com/

http://www.velaaprivateisland.com/

http://www.shangri-la.com/male/villingiliresort/

http://www.shangri-la.com/male/villingiliresort/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5623e/x5623e0o.htm

95


Intl Airport by

seaplane.

Tetiaroa a collection

of 12 motus, or islets,

protected by a coral

reef, Society Islands,

French Polynesia,

South Pacific ocean.

50km off Tahiti (20

mins by air/turboprop)

35 Villas, 200 staff & guests.

The atoll stretches on a total surface of 2.3 square

miles (6 square km); approximately 1,445 acres

(585 hectares) of sand are divided in 12 motus (islets)

with varying surface areas. The lagoon is

approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) wide and 100 feet

(30 meters) deep. The atoll has no reef opening,

making access by boat nearly impossible. A biofuel

thermal power station, uses coconut oil and there are

banks of solar panels. Seawater air conditioning uses

chilled seawater drawn up from 935m.

Villas approximately €3,000 per

night.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3c6

ca6e-3da3-11e4-8797-

00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=

uk

http://www.maxim.com/movies/l

ast-tango-brando-island

Mark Zuckerberg,

Kauai, Hawaiian

Island.

700-acre piece of land on Kauai, the fourth largest of

the Hawaiian islands, purchased in 2014. Includes

pristine beaches, old sugar plantation buildings and

land on which there are plans for an organic farm.

$100 million (£63 million).

Sir Richard Branson

Necker Island, British

Virgin Islands.

Purchased 74-acres for $180,000 (£113,000) in 1978

and, as a condition of sale, agreed to build a luxury

resort. Two private beaches, pools, tennis courts, and

team of 60 staff.

Sleeps 28 people in 10 rooms,

and rents for $62,000 (£39,000)

a day.

Leonardo DiCaprio,

Blackadore Caye,

Belize.

Purchased 104 acre island in 2005. Planning to build an

eco-friendly resort island near the barrier reef off the

coast of Belize. Resort will be open to the public as an

example of sustainable tourism, with eco-tours of the

island.

US$1.75million (£1.1M)

Jonny Depp, Little

Hall’s Pond,

Bahamas.

Purchased in 2004, 45 acres. The island has six

beaches and uses solar power for its energy supply.

approximately US$3.6 million

David Copperfield,

Musha Cay and the

Islands of Copperfied

Bay, Bahamas.

11 islands including the largest, Musha Cay, 85 miles

from Nassau in the Bahamas.

£_unknown

Celine Dion, Ile

Gagnon, Quebec.

Situated on the Iles River, in state of Quebec in

Canada, 19-acre island bought in 2001.

Ile Gagnon was put on the

market for $29.6 Canadian

dollars (£18.6) in 2012 but has

yet to find a buyer.

Ted Turner, St Phillips

Island, South Carolina.

Bought in 1979, the 5,000-acre St Phillips Island has

two miles of beaches, maritime forests and lagoons.

US$2.0 (£1.3M)

Mel Gibson, Mago

Island, Fiji.

Purchased 2005. At 8.5 square miles, Mago is one of

the largest private islands in the South Pacific.

Bought for US$15M (£9.4M)

from a Japanese company.

Eddie Murphy,

Rooster Cay,

Bahamas

Purchased 15 acre island situated five minutes off the

coast Nassau in 2007.

$15 million (£9.4 million)

Larry Ellison,

Lana'i, Hawaii,

Since 2012, 98 per cent of Lana’i, the sixth largest of

the Hawaiian islands at 140.5 square miles, has been

owned by Larry Ellison, the head of Oracle. Also

known as Pineapple Island.

Ellison is said to have paid

between $500 million (£314

million) and $600 million (£377

million) for it and is planning to

invest another $500 to improve

its infrastructure .

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3c6ca6e-3da3-11e4-8797-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk




http://www.maxim.com/movies/last-tango-brando-island

http://www.maxim.com/movies/last-tango-brando-island

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/33945/lanai-hawaiis-serene-and-sustainable-private-island.html






96


Athina Kennedy,

Scorpios, Greece

Attempt to sell island for $300

million (£188 million) in 2013

held up by the Greek

government.

Inundation Innovation

It is almost certain that at various points in the future, all the islands in BIOT will experience some

degree of ocean inundation. Only on Diego Garcia does the present level of investment, and possible

future resettlement, warrant extensive sea defences. Even so, even on DG, buildings should be built

with substantial plinths, and/or on ‘stilts’. On other islands, historic buildings’ plinth heights indicate

an element of prevention of routine inundation. A number of alternative ‘innovative’ floating home

options have been tried in developed countries and these remain a possibility for pilot trials on some

islands in BIOT in the future. Certainly, building the ability to float (albeit with adequate

‘dolphins’/vertical stabilising & guiding structures or anchors) may be the more economic option

compared with elaborate sea defences. Such ‘managed retreat’, would, however, have the

consequence of restricting the type of agriculture possible, and would have adverse consequences

for saline intrusion into groundwater lens reservoirs.

Table 6.5.5: UK Construction Labour Rates Construction Rates for Prime Cost of Daywork – UK

Construction Industry (6th April 2011)

£/Hour

Senior Craftsperson (RAS + RAW) 17.81

Craftsperson (+2RA) 15.83

Installer 13.14

Junior Mate 16-17 5.02

Junior Modern Apprentice 7.10

Intermediate Modern Apprentice 9.97

Senior Modern Apprentice 13.13

Fore

person Senior Skilled Installer

Promulgated hourly rate 15.00 13.93 12.40 10.31

Annual standard earnings excluding all holidays 45.8 weeks x 38

hours

25,992 24,137 21,487 17,865

Junior Intermediate Senior

Promulgated hourly rate 5.64 7.84 10.31

Annual standard earnings excluding all

holidays 45.8 weeks x 38 hours

9,773 13,585 17,865

Employers' national insurance

contributions

612 1,102 1,652

Annual holiday credit and welfare stamp

52 weeks

1,878 2,530 3,163

97

Annual prime cost of labour 12,306 17,276 22,759

Hourly base rate of prime cost 7.10 9.97 13.13

98

6.6 Energy & Electricity

Electricity Consumption

Figure 6.6.1 illustrates the approximately 2014 range of consumptions patterns around the world75

Figure 6.6.1: (Kg of oil equivalent)

Electricity Generation Option Comparisons

Comparing electricity generating option costs is a complex task. A useful guide to the issues was

provided by John Hynes in 200976

. Key issues are:

■ Load factor – the percentage of hours that a power plant operates at its maximum capability in a

given time period. This can be base load (75-98%), Intermediate load (40-60%) and peak load (5-

15%);

■ Capacity – this is measured in kW or MW. ‘Energy’ is measured in kWh. The larger the power

plant’s capacity, the more energy the facility can deliver (to the grid) in one hour; and

■ Costs – these are both fixed and variable. A fixed cost is an expense that does not vary with

revenue or volume. A variable expense alters with revenue or time. Operating and Maintenance

(O&M) costs are not generally considered to be variable costs. ‘State of the Art Power Products’

offers details on how to calculate 12 categories of costs in both year and US dollar amounts77

.

Diego Garcia has diesel generating capacity, some of which is undergoing refit and upgrade, and a PV

solar array is proposed. The key issues are power-purchasing principles and arrangements between

US State/Navy and FCO/BIOT, and local governance and metering and charging arrangements for any

75 Data source: World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE

76 2009, Hynes, J., How to Compare Power Generation Choices, Renewable Energy World.com, 26 April, 15pp,

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/how-to-compare-power-generation-choices

77 2013, SOAPP-EPRI, O&M Cost Estimator, http://soapp.epri.com/soapp/productframeset.htm

205482 614 721 857

1,371

2,029

2,7572,997

3,6103,811 3,868

5,113

7,032

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Energy Use Per Capita

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/how-to-compare-power-generation-choices

http://soapp.epri.com/soapp/productframeset.htm

99

additional civilian population in the first instance. For additional developments on other islands, a

range of possibilities would need to be considered, depending on the energy demands anticipated.

Reviews of electricity generating costs include those by the Royal Academy of Engineering78

79

, and

more recently (2011) by DECC-AREP80

, from which the tables below are taken.

Table 6.6.1 Categories of Energy Reviewed

Technology family

Sub-categories by:

Technological/fuel/geography/resource Installed capacity

Onshore wind Average wind speed (low, high) Micro (Less than 50,000W)

Small (50,000 W-5 Million W)

Medium (5-10 million W) Large (10-

50MW) Very large (greater than

50MW)

Offshore wind Average wind speed (low, high) Small (less than 100 Million W)

(taking into account

OFTO regime)

Distance from shore Medium (100-50 million W)

Large (500-1000 million W) Very

large (greater than 1000 million W)

Water depth

Round 2, Round 3, Scottish Territorial Waters

(STW) (all using MW weighted average

conditions)

Hydro Very small (less than 1 million W)

Small (1 million W – 5 million W)

Medium (5-10 million W) Large

(greater than 10 million W)

Wave Nearshore, offshore

Low, medium, high resource

Tidal stream Shallow, deep

Low, medium, high resource

Tidal range Site-specific estimates/low, medium, high

resource

Tidal barrages, tidal lagoons, tidal reefs

Geothermal With/without Combined Heat and Power

(CHP)

Geopressure With/without CHP

Solar PV

(photovoltaics)

Solar intensity levels (north/south variation); Micro (less than 50,000 W)

Small (50,000 W-5 million W)



Dedicated Biomass Regular biomass; energy crops Virgin wood (e.g.

forestry residues) Waste wood

Micro (less than 50,000 W)

78 2004, The Royal Academy of Engineering, A study carried out by PB Power, The Costs of Generating Electricity, 60pp

http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report2.pdf

79 2004, Royal Academy of Engineering, Commentary on PB Power Costs of Generating Electricity Study, 7pp,

www.raeng.org.uk

80 2011 DECC_ARUP, Department of Energy and Climate Change Review of the generation costs and deployment

potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK, Study Report, ARUP, REP001, Final, 315pp, Updated October 2011,

315pp,

http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report2.pdf

http://www.raeng.org.uk/

100

Technology family

Sub-categories by:

Technological/fuel/geography/resource Installed capacity

(Solid) Perennial energy crops (e.g. SRC willow,

miscanthus)

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (including a

proportion of Commercial and Industrial waste)


Medium (5-50 million W) Large (50-

100 million W) Very large (greater

than 100 million W)

For non-waste feedstock, different sustainability

levels greater than 50%, 60%, 70% and 80%

GHG (greenhouse gas) savings.

Dedicated Biogas Anaerobic digestion

Feedstock: food waste; whole food crops (with

sustainability levels); manures and slurries

(assumptions on various levels of energy crops

use will be provided)





Landfill gas

Dedicated Diesel generator versus steam boiler Micro (less than 50,000 W)

Bioliquids Conversion existing diesel generator versus

new build




Made from: food crops waste, e.g. cooking oil

Should also specify different sustainability levels

(greater than 35%, greater than 50%, greater

than 60% GHG savings) in line with RED

Advanced Conversion

Technologies

Standard gasification Micro (less than 50,000 W)




Advanced gasification

Standard pyrolysis

Advanced pyrolysis

Co-firing of biomass

and fossil fuel (retrofit

onto existing fossil

fuel capacity)

Up to 4% biomass by energy content; 4-20%;

20%+

Full conversion of existing fossil fuelled

generation to dedicated biomass.

Fuel: Gas vs Coal; biomass fuel type including

torrification/pre-treatment of biomass

Renewable Combined

Heat and Power (CHP)

All biomass/bioliquid technologies listed plus

geothermal/geopressure



Medium (5-50 million W)

Large (50-100 million W)

Very large (greater than 100 million

W)

Waste combustion with combined heat and

power (RO definition)

Co-firing with CHP, separate boilers

Heat to power ratios

Steam revenue e.g. industrial vs district, avoided

heat generation costs (onsite use)

Marine technologies (tidal range, tidal stream and wave) have been included

101

Wind Energy – Capital costs

‘Capital costs for micro-wind systems range from £2.8m/MW to £4.3m/MW, with a median of

£3.8m/MW (DECC-ARUP study). The range in costs is due to site location, turbine type, the

technology used and variation in size. The variability in site conditions, particularly in urban

environments, results in inconsistent capacity factors and project payback periods vary accordingly.

Small-scale wind capital costs range from £1.2m/MW to £1.9m/MW with a median cost of

£1.5m/MW, while large-scale wind capital costs are between £1.2m/MW and £1.8m/MW with a

median cost of £1.5m/MW. Site characteristics appear to be primarily responsible for cost variations

at both these scales. Project costs are dependent on many factors including the distance to the grid,

environmental mitigation, wind speeds, access routes, soil composition and insurance.’81

Capital cost elements are listed in Table 6.6.2.

Table 6.6.2: Offshore wind – capital cost breakdown82

Capital cost item %

Pre-development 2%

Construction 91%

Non-OFTO grid costs 2%

Other infrastructure 5%

Operational Costs – Wind

‘Operational costs varied between £100,000/MW/year and £167,000/MW/year for the less than

100MW scale and from £117,000/MW/year to £184,000/MW/year for the greater than 100MW

scale. The variation at both these scales is born out of the asset specific nature of operational

expenditure for offshore wind, with contract costs depending on the overall site characteristics. It is

estimated that operating costs for Round 3 wind projects will be between £221,000/MW/year

and £110,000/MW/year. The large range is again primarily due to site-specific characteristics, but

is also accentuated by stakeholder uncertainty over future costs.’ 83

Wave & Tidal Stream generation

‘Wave and tidal stream offshore and nearshore technologies have yet to be commercialised.

Engineering innovation is still required to develop commercial – scale technologies and the associated

infrastructure to deploy them. The practical wave resource that can be exploited for electricity

generation has been estimated to be in the order of 50TWh/yr. The practical tidal stream resource

has been estimated to be in the order of 18TWh/yr. Over the period to 2030, the practicably

extractable wave and tidal stream resource will not be a constraint on installed capacity.

Tidal range resource is site-specific. The highest resource sites around the UK are those with the

largest tidal range. The Severn is the highest resource site with an estimated 17TWh/yr of potentially

extractable energy. Tables 6.6.3 & 6.6.4 give capital and operating cost ranges.’84



pp. 18-19 .

82 Ibid. pp. 45,

83 Ibid. pp. 47,

84 Ibid. pp. 71-72

102

Table 6.6.3: Tidal Range capital cost estimates

£’000/MW

Low 2,000

Medium 2,750

High 3,450

Table 6.6.4: Tidal Range operating cost estimates

£’000/MW

Low 46.8

Medium 37.2

High 27.7

Solar PV

The following Solar PV section is taken from DECC (2011)85

Module costs, inverters and mounting systems are the most significant elements of capital

expenditure. Grid connection, where applicable, makes up the majority of the remaining costs.

Pre-development costs for projects greater than 50kW varied between £14,000/MW and

£27,000/MW, with a median cost of £20,000/MW. These costs include pre-licensing, planning (for

ground mounted solar) and site surveys. The variation in costs is due to the specifics of the project

and the selected site, with planning issues typically causing higher pre-development costs. At the

less than 50kW scale prices per MW are significantly higher, predominantly due to the smaller scale

of the installations. The costs are approximately £500 for a typical 2.5kW domestic rooftop solar

installation.

The capital costs of solar PV at the less than 50 kW scale vary between £2.7m/MW and £5.1m/MW,

with a median of £3.3m/MW. The characteristics of specific projects at the micro-scale can have a

sizeable impact on costs. The type of technology used is a major cause of the price variation; thin film

PV is cheaper than the more efficient crystalline technologies. The price per MW for installing a single

domestic rooftop solar PV system is larger than the cost of installing larger units on commercial

rooftops, or a widespread roll out across numerous domestic houses. On average 97% of capital

costs at this scale are construction and installation costs, of which a large percentage is due to the

price of the modules and inverters.

Table 6.6.5: Solar PV capital costs

£’000/MW less than 50kW 50kWgreater than

High 5,080 3,736

Medium 3,339 2,710

Low 2,732 1,873

85 Ibid.,

103

Table 6.6.6: Solar – operating cost projections at financial close dates (real) (less than 50kW)

Operating cost/MW per year

(£000) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

High 71 71 71 71 71

Median 25 25 25 25 25

Low 17 17 17 17 17

Table 6.6.7: Solar – operating cost projections at financial close dates (real) (greater than 50 kW)

Operating cost/MW per year

(£000) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

High 27 27 27 27 27

Median 21 21 21 21 21

Low 16 16 16 16 16

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

A 2009 DFID report covers the key CSP technologies, concentrating photovoltaics, solar parabolic

troughs, linear Fresnel collectors, solar power tower, dish Stirling engines, updraft towers and the

integration into conventional power plants86

. First Conferences Company also prepared an overview

of CSP in Europe and middle east North Africa regions in 200887

.

World Bank 1999 estimates gave total power generation costs between €0.07 – 0.10/kWh (US$0.09

– 0.13) for purely solar plants and less than €0.07/kWh (US$0.09) for hybrid ISCC plants88

. For Trough

Technologies (parabolic and Fresnel) Sargent and Lundy 2003 & 2005 estimated that the LEC would

drop to US$0.065/kWh by 2020 from US$0.11/kWh, expressed in year 2005 US dollars. This drop in

cost is due to technical improvements, economies of scale, volume production and development of a

thermal storage system. For Solar Tower plants they estimated that the LEC should drop to

approximately $0.057/kWh, expressed in year 2005 US dollars. There is more uncertainty surrounding

the cost estimates for this type of technology due to the lack of commercial scale Solar Tower plants

that had been built by 200589

90

.

A report by Black and Veach (2006) gives a LEC in 2005 dollars of US$0.157 in 2007 reducing to

US$0.103 in 2015 for parabolic trough CSP. These results are of a similar magnitude to those from

the Sargent and Lundy report, although as the boundary conditions are not known a direct

comparison cannot be made. Black and Veach also made a comparison of LEC of CSP using gas to

generate electricity, as the same methodology was used for all the calculations this allows

comparison of the cost of CSP against gas. For gas generation they calculated LEC for 2007 was

between US$0.119 for a simple cycle turbine and US$0.168 for a combined cycle turbine.

86 2009 DFID-TI-UP, IT Power Report, Concentrating Solar Power in Africa, 37pp

87 2008, An Overview of CSP in Europe and MENA http://www.csptoday.com/reports/CSPinEU&MENA.pdf 64pp

88 World Bank (1999) Cost Reduction Study for Solar Thermal Power Plants, World Bank, Washington DC, USA

89 Sargent & Lundy (2003) Assessment of Concentrating Solar Power Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts, NREL,

Chicago, USA

90 Sargent & Lundy (2005) Assessment of Concentrating Solar Power Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts, NREL,

Chicago, USA

http://www.csptoday.com/reports/CSPinEU&MENA.pdf

104

A more recent 2012 B&V study indicates solar field costs of US$4.9K/m2 without storage and

US$7.1K/m2 with energy storage

91.

Biomass

‘The key cost items within biomass relate to boiler costs, turbine costs, fuel handling infrastructure,

civils, grid infrastructure and civil works.

Pre-development costs for biomass vary on the success rate received by different parties. The mid-

range for a sub-50MW plant is at £92,000/MW, whilst for an over-50MW plant is £27,000/MW

suggesting substantial economies of scale in the permitting process.

Capital costs for a sub-50MW plant range from £2.6m/MW to £3.9m/MW with a median of

£3.3m/MW. This range reflects the variations in fuel type and configuration. As with other biomass

technologies the variation in capital cost often reflects a lower cost fuel/operating expenditure.

Capital costs for an above 50MW plant range from £2.3m/MW to £2.8m/MW with a median of

£2.4m/MW. The smaller range reflects the more similar technologies and fuel that is being proposed

for the larger plants.

The dataset suggests a strong relationship between the size of the asset and its cost per MW. This

is not considered to be an effect which solely relates to the economies of scale of the plant. The

lower grade fuel type normally used in the smaller plants (e.g. waste wood) also drives up cost per

MW through requiring different technology solutions which are potentially more costly e.g. Waste

Incineration Directive (WID) compliance, wider firing windows.’92

Table 6.6.8: Dedicated Biomass – capital costs (financial close 2010)

£’000/MW less than 50MW greater than 50MW

High 3,871 2,801

Medium 3,342 2,417

Low 2,607 2,258

Operating Costs – Biomass

The key cost items within biomass relate to the O&M contract, grid costs, rent, and insurance.

Fuel costs have been excluded from this study at the request of DECC.

A relatively large range is seen between the high and low relating to the variation discussed in

capital costs and site specific factors (e.g. rental agreements). There are some scale effects

noticeable between the sub-50MW and above 50MW scales with a 14% decrease between small

and large scales. Overall operating costs equate to between 5% and 6% of the capital cost of the

assets.

91 2012, Black & Veach, Cost and Performance Power Generation technologies, 106pp, http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-

cost-report.pdf



pp.119-120

http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf

http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf

105

Table 6.6.9: Dedicated Biomass – operating costs (financial close 2010)

£’000/MW Less than 50MW Greater than 50MW

High 253.5 217.6

Medium 168.1 144.3

Low 123.2 105.7

Heat Sinks

Ground source heat pumps

Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) use pipes that are buried in the ground to extract heat from the

ground. Unlike gas and oil boilers, heat pumps deliver heat at lower temperature over much longer

periods. In a UK household heated by a range of fossil fuels, GSHPs can make 1.8 – 11.1 tonnes of

CO2 savings per year (£395 – £1,215) and have a renewable heat incentive (RHI) value that varies

from £2,325 – £3,690 annually93

.

Small Island States – Renewable Energy Potential

The potential for renewable energy use on small islands is considerable. Many small islands in every

region in the world use or propose to use renewable energy: the Azores and Canary islands in the

North Atlantic, Gotland and Samsoe in the Baltic, Sardinia and Sicily in the Mediterranean, Mauritius

and Reunion in the Indian Ocean, Fiji and the Hawaiian islands in the Pacific, as well as Dominica and

the Guadeloupe islands in the Caribbean. Many small islands have achieved their goal of transitioning

to renewable energy.

The potential for producing non-fossil fuel cleaner energy is substantial and includes the full array of

wind, wave, and tidal power, as well as solar, hydro, geothermal, and bio-mass. These potentially

abundant sources can be used in tandem on islands for days when sunshine is lower or wind velocity

is calm. Available technologies for biomass conversion enable us to derive energy from almost any

natural source, such as sugar cane or algae for bio-fuels. In terms of general costs, a one-megawatt

wind turbine might cost anywhere from £0.64 million and £1.92m, and every watt of solar capacity

can cost roughly £7. Costs vary depending on local circumstances. With planning based on these

kinds of comparisons, the right renewable technology source can be implemented. But when

comparing renewable energy versus fossil fuels, then issues of available required standing capacity,

security of supply, and supporting peak load capability need to be factored into investment decisions.

A detailed 2008 comparison of the renewable energy potential of Small Island States was undertaken

by the Global Energy Network Institute. For the Indian Ocean, data are available for Maldives,

Mauritius and Reunion94

.

The IPCC third assessment commented on the adverse implications of fossil fuels on small island

states (Box 6.6.1)95

.

93 2014, Ground Source heat Pumps, http://www.energysavingtrust.org/uk/layput/set/print/Generating%20-energy/

94 GENI (2008) Renewable Energy Potential of Small Island States, 64pp, http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-

articles/generation/small-island-nations/renewable-energy-potential-of-small-island-

states/Renewable%20Energy%20Potential%20of%20Small%20Island%20States1.pdf

95 IPCC Third Assessment, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap17.pdf

http://www.energysavingtrust.org/uk/layput/set/print/Generating%20-energy/

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/generation/small-island-nations/renewable-energy-potential-of-small-island-states/Renewable%20Energy%20Potential%20of%20Small%20Island%20States1.pdf



http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap17.pdf

106

Box 6.6.1: Small Island States renewable Energy Use.

IPCC Chapter 17 Small Island States Third assessment report:

‘Box. (reproduced) Renewable Energy Use in Small Island States: A ‘Win-Win’ Strategy

Most small islands are heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels for the majority of their energy

requirements, particularly transport and electricity production. This is clearly demonstrated in the

case of the Caribbean and Pacific islands, where petroleum imports are responsible for more than

75 and 88per cent, respectively, of primary energy demand. The cost of fossil fuel imports also

places a considerable economic burden on small island states, accounting on average for almost 15

per cent of all imports in these countries. In addition, the cost of electricity production (US$0.10–

0.15 and 0.20 kWh-1 for the Caribbean and the Pacific, respectively) can be as much as three to

four times higher than in developed countries.

In many islands, the high unit cost of conventional power production versus the increasingly

competitive cost of renewable energy technologies (especially solar and wind), make the latter

economically viable and environmentally friendly options.

For these reasons, several small island states are making a significant contribution to global

utilisation of renewable energy resources. These include, inter alia, the following countries:

■ Barbados, where approximately 33 per cent of all households use solar water heaters

■ La Desirade, Guadeloupe, where more than 75 per cent of all electricity is generated from wind

power

■ Fiji and Dominica, where hydropower accounts for more than 30 per cent of electricity

production

■ Tuvalu, where photovoltaics supply 45 per cent of the electricity

■ Reunion, where almost 20per cent of the electricity is biomass-generated (from bagasse, a by-

product of sugarcane);

Bagasse also is becoming increasingly important as an energy source in Jamaica and Fiji.’

Sources: Jensen, 1999; Ellis and Fifita, 1999.

The 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment concluded that total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is

2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than

during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than that

reported in AR4 for the year 200596

. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most

greenhouse gas concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net

cooling effect (negative RF)97

.

96 IPCC 2013, Fifth Assessment Report, 2013, p29 of 1552pp, https://ipcc.ch/

97 The strength of drivers is quantified as Radiative Forcing (RF) in watts per square metre (W m–2) as in previous IPCC

assessments. RF is the change in energy flux caused by a driver, and is calculated at the tropopause or at the top of the

atmosphere. In the traditional RF concept employed in previous IPCC reports all surface and tropospheric conditions are kept

fixed. In calculations of RF for well-mixed greenhouse gases and aerosols in this report, physical variables, except for the

ocean and sea ice, are allowed to respond to perturbations with rapid adjustments. The resulting forcing is called Effective

Radiative Forcing (ERF) in the underlying report. This change reflects the scientific progress from previous assessments and

results in a better indication of the eventual temperature response for these drivers. For all drivers other than well-mixed

greenhouse gases and aerosols, rapid adjustments are less well characterised and assumed to be small, and thus the

traditional RF is used.

https://ipcc.ch/

107

For continental USA scenarios, the Brookings Institute, in 2014, published The Net Benefits of Low

and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies which states that ‘The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro,

and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants’,

with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power98.

The SIDS DOCK initiative

Called SIDS DOCK because it is designed as a ‘DOCKing station,’ to connect the energy sector in

SIDS with the global market for finance, sustainable energy technologies and with the European

Union (EU) and the United States (US) carbon markets, and able to trade the avoided carbon

emissions in those markets. Estimates place the potential value of the US and EU markets between

USD 100 to 400 billion annually. The programme is sponsored by UNDP and the World Bank99

.

Costs of Fossil-Fuel Generation

Pacific Island States

Based on returns from 22 participating utility companies, the average (and median) of 3.8kWh per

litre has remained unchanged since 2002. The EDT (Tahiti) and TPL (Tonga) are the only utilities

generating over 4.0kW per litre of fuel.

In 2002 it was reported that the average selling price of electricity to all consumers was US$0.154

per kWh, ranging from US$0.03 to US$0.42. In 2010 the reported average selling price was

US$0.394 per kWh with a median value of US$0.38 and range US$0.07 to US$1.00 (uninflated). The

2011 average is reported at US0.459 per kWh, and a range from US$0.18 to US$0.79. The price

charged by the utility does not necessarily cover the costs for that utility, since most Pacific utilities

charge consumers less than the full cost of supply100

.

Around 75 per cent of generation is from petroleum fuels (light and heavy fuel combined). About 25

per cent is from renewable energy sources, overwhelmingly through hydroelectric power – which is

not a practical option in BIOT.

Emergency Stand-by Generation

Emergency diesel generator rental in the continental USA ranges in monthly price from 15kW running

continuously (US$2,420), to 2000kW running continuously (US$48,180). With variable initial tank fill

loads, fuel is charged at US$3.50/gallon101

.

Aggreko is typical of global larger generator rental companies. It can supply portable, or semi-

permanent leased units to suit almost any location (which has transport links and/or berthing facilities)

occasion and requirement, ranging from standby or peak power for large cities or events such as the

Olympics. Their web-site offers a generator sizing calculator which can be used before a request for a

price quotation is made. These quotations are tailored to specific circumstances and there is not

really a ‘typical’ price102

.

98 2014 Frank, C., The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies, May 20

th, 38pp,

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/low-carbon-electricity-technologies-frank

99 2014, SIDS DOCK energy initiative, http://www.sidsnet.org/news/first-sids-dock-pacific-meeting-reviews-progress

100 2013 March PRIF, Pacific Power Association, Pacific Power Utilities Benchmarking Report, 2012, 71pp

https://www.scribd.com/doc/152796170/Pacific-Power-Association-Benchmarking-Report-2012

101 https://www.generatorjoe.net/

102 2014, Aggreko, http://www.aggreko.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_carbon_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_carbon_power

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/low-carbon-electricity-technologies-frank

http://www.sidsnet.org/news/first-sids-dock-pacific-meeting-reviews-progress

https://www.scribd.com/doc/152796170/Pacific-Power-Association-Benchmarking-Report-2012

https://www.generatorjoe.net/

http://www.aggreko.com/

108

7.1 Fisheries

1. Introduction

This annex addresses the background and issues relating to fisheries in BIOT, with special reference

to the prospects for establishing sustainable fishing activities under each of the prospective

resettlement options.

The annex is presented in six sections:

■ Information and data sources

■ Regional and small island fisheries

■ General fisheries background – BIOT

■ Livelihood options in fisheries and related activities

■ Potential training requirements

■ Issues and challenges

2. Information and Data Sources

The main information and data sources are as follows:

■ Regular reports and data prepared by MRAG on: (i) inshore and recreational fisheries; and (ii)

offshore fisheries.

■ Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago, Phase II-b, Fisheries Resources

Assessment, Posford Haskoning Limited, June 2002.

■ Fisheries information for islands in the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean & UK’s Overseas Territories.

■ The Creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: A Fisheries Perspective, Dunne et al, 2014

■ FAO and other international sources (note: FAO publishes fisheries profiles for most countries)

3. Regional and Small Island Fisheries

This section reviews available indicators and data for fisheries on a number of small islands – many in

isolated geographic locations, with small populations, some with limited natural resources and limited

infrastructure, especially transport access. Basic data are presented in three tables in Appendix A for

the following islands:

■ Indian Ocean: Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles (Appendix A, Table 1).

■ Pacific Ocean: Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and

Tuvalu (Appendix A, Table 2).

■ UK Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Falklands, Montserrat, St Helena and Turks & Caicos Islands

(Appendix A, Table 3).

Key indicators are highlighted below for each of the island groups:

General economic indicators (mainly data for 2012)

■ Indian Ocean islands: (i) modest populations ranging from 92,000 in Seychelles to 1.2 million in

Mauritius; (ii) per capita GDP ranging from US$ 858 (£530) in the Comoros Islands to US$ 11,164

(£6,900) in Seychelles; and (iii) trade balances were all negative, with low export levels except for

Mauritius.

109

■ Pacific Ocean islands: (i) generally small populations ranging from 1,000 in Niue and 10,000 in

Nauru to 875,000 in Fiji; (ii) per capita GDP ranging from US$ 1,745 (£1,100) in Kiribati to US$

3,300 to US$ 4,500 (£2,000 to £2,800) in Micronesia, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga and

Fiji, and US$10,000 to US$ 12,000 (£6,200 and £7,400) in Palau and Nauru; and (iii) trade balances

were all negative, all with low export levels.

■ UK Overseas Territories: (i) small populations ranging from 2,900 in the Falklands to 31,500 in the

Turks and Caicos Islands; (ii) per capita GDP ranging from £4,000 in St Helena to £13,200 in

Anguilla and £34,000 in the Falklands; and (iii) trade balances were all negative, with the probable

exception of the Falklands (note: no data are available on the Falklands Government website).

Fisheries (mainly data for 2011) (note: fisheries data can vary significantly from year to year)

■ Indian Ocean islands: (i) national production ranged widely from 8,400 tonnes in Mauritius to

25,000 tonnes in Comoros and 95,000 tonnes in the Maldives (mainly tuna, of which 50% is

exported); (ii) fish imports were only significant in Seychelles (52,000 tonnes) and Mauritius

162,000 tonnes (mainly tuna from French and Spanish vessels for local processing and export); (iii)

exports ranged from 53,000 tonnes in Maldives to 115,000 tonnes in Mauritius; (iv) local per capita

fish consumption ranged from 23kg in Mauritius to 59kg in Seychelles and 164kg in the Maldives;

(iv) GDP contribution by the fisheries sector is generally low and declining (1% to 2% in Mauritius

and 10% in Seychelles), with the exception of Comoros; (v) estimates of employment in the

fisheries sector are modest ranging from 11,000 (Mauritius) to 24,000 (Comoros), generally

accounting for less than 15% of the labour force; (vi) data on artisanal fishing are limited, but

fisheries country profiles (cf. FAO) indicate that local coastal communities are heavily dependent

on this activity; and (vii) reliable data on local fish prices are limited, but available information

indicate ranges of US$2 to 4 (£1.2 to £2.5) per kg.

■ Pacific Ocean islands: (i) national production ranged widely from less than 1,000 tonnes in Nauru,

Niue and Palau to 11,000 tonnes in Samoa and Tuvalu and more than 40,000 tonnes in Fiji, Kiribati

and Marshall Islands (mainly tuna vessels); (ii) fish imports were less than 5,000 tonnes in all

islands, with the exception of Fiji (48,000 tonnes, mainly tuna from foreign vessels); (iii) exports

(mainly processed tuna) were only significant in Micronesia (22,000 tonnes), Marshall Islands

(46,000 tonnes) and Fiji (58,000 tonnes); (iv) local per capita fish consumption ranged from 18kg in

Marshall Islands to 30kg in Tonga, 74kg in Kiribati and 113kg in Niue; (iv) GDP contribution by the

fisheries sector is generally in the range of 2% to 10%, except Tuvalu with 25% and Marshall

Islands with 27%; (v) estimates of employment indicate that less than 10% of the labour force are

employed full time in the fisheries sector; (vi) reported artisanal fish catches ranged from 1,000

tonnes or less in Nauru, Niue, Palau and Tuvalu to 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes in Marshall Islands,

Samoa and Tonga, and more than 10,000 tonnes Fiji, Kiribati and Micronesia; (vii) most coastal

communities are directly engaged in artisanal fishing for sustainable family livelihoods; and (viii)

reliable data on local fish prices are limited, but available information indicate ranges of US$ 3 to 4

(£1.9 to £2.5) per kg.

■ UK Overseas Territories: (i) annual production for Anguilla, Montserrat and St Helena was less

than 1,000 tonnes, followed by the Turks and Caicos Islands with 5,000 tonnes, and the Falklands

with more than 100,000 tonnes (as high as 200,000 tonnes in some years, 75% squid mostly

exported to Europe and Asia); (ii) fish imports were negligible in four of the islands, except in TCI

which imported about 1,000 tonnes; (iii) exports were only significant in the Falklands, except St

Helena that has several small fish processing facilities (mainly tuna and related species); (iv) per

capita fish consumption is quite high, ranging from 26kg in Montserrat to 37kg in the Falklands,

and 45kg to 50kg in Anguilla, St Helena and TCI; (iv) GDP contribution by the fisheries sector is

very small, with the exception of 50% in the Falklands; (v) estimates of employment indicate less

than 3% of the labour force are employed full time in the fisheries sector; (vi) artisanal fish

catches are probably very small, with the exception of some recreational fishing for personal

consumption.

110

In the context of the Overseas Territories, there are a number of other facts that are worth

mentioning:

■ Falklands – is now the only Overseas Territory that derives significant revenue from fishing

licences, currently £12 to £20 million per year.

■ Pitcairn (located in the South Pacific Ocean) – with about 50 permanent residents, fishing is on a

subsistence basis to satisfy family needs, plus some for bartering with visiting cruise ships.

■ Tristan da Cunha (located in the South Atlantic Ocean) – with about 270 permanent residents,

lobster fishing and processing has been the economic mainstay of the island since the 1950s. The

lobster fishery is operated under concession by a South African company. Annual lobster catch

averages 400 tonnes year, of which about 180 tonnes (45%) are processed in the industrial

processing facility on the island which employs 23 islanders on a permanent basis and 120 part-

time.

4. General Fisheries Background – BIOT

4.1 Introduction

The main information and data sources for BIOT fisheries are provided under contract by the Marine

Resources Assessment Group (MRAG). The main context for their services is as follows: a 200

nautical mile Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone (FCMZ) was declared around BIOT by

BIOTA on 1st October 1991, resulting in the establishment of a fisheries regime for all BIOT waters.

This was followed on 1st April 2010 by a ‘no take’ Marine Protected Area (MPA), which covers the

territorial sea extending to three (3) nautical miles from each island in the Chagos Archipelago

(covering approx. 640,000 km²). The MPA lies within the FCMZ. In addition, fishing for personal

consumption is permitted anywhere in BIOT water as laid down in the Fisheries Ordinance 2007.

The background and main responsibilities of MRAG are described briefly as follows:

Prior to the declaration of the MPA, MRAG was responsible for general and specific advice on: (i)

status and management of tuna and tuna like species; (ii) daily operations and negotiation of fish

license agreements; (iii) monitoring control and surveillance licensing; (iv) science and management

services; (v) regular preparation and presentation of data and reports; and (vi) representation of BIOT

with the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the British/Seychelles Fisheries Commission

(BSFC) and the British/Mauritius Fisheries Commission (BMFC – note: the latter ceased in 1999).

These activities enabled BIOTA to properly manage the fisheries within its jurisdiction.

Specific services provided by MRAG Ltd included:

■ Management of administration and documentation, provision of technical support and personnel

management.

■ Negotiation of licenses, administering licensing system, and management of communications.

■ Information management of: (i) commercial, observer and research data; (ii) maintenance of the

BIOT database; and (iii) preparation of regular reports for BSFC, IOTC and BIOT.

■ Organisation, logistical support and procurement for observer programmes and surveillance

platforms.

■ Surveillance and compliance control.

■ Provision of scientific advice on key exploited species and by-catch species.

■ Management of fisheries observers and scientific collection programmes.

■ Technical advice on implementation of BIOT fishery management regime and representation at

regional inter-governmental bodies e.g. IOTC.

Subsequent to the MPA declaration (April 2010), many of these tasks have continued with increased

emphasis on monitoring, surveillance and technical advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area

111

Between 1991 and 2010, three fisheries were monitored within the BIOT FCMZ: (i) inshore –

commercial reef and bank associated fisheries; (ii) recreational fishery (immediate area surrounding

Diego Garcia and visiting yachts); and (iii) offshore – pelagic fishery for tuna and related tuna species.

General information for these fisheries are summarised in the following sub-sections. The base data

are derived from the regular reports prepared by MRAG.

From 2010, reported fisheries focus exclusively on recreational fishing (Diego Garcia and visiting

yachts) for personal consumption – as no other fishing is permitted within the MPA. This has led to

heightened emphasis on: (i) fisheries protection and monitoring; (ii) increased patrols by the Pacific

Marlin (vessel under contract to BIOT from the Swire Pacific Offshore Group – 4 year contract

January 2011 to January 2015 – see: Sub-Section 4.5); and (iii) growing concern over the issue of IUU

(illegal, unregulated and unreported) fishing activities.

4.2 Inshore Fisheries

The commercial inshore fishery (prior to 2010) was conducted almost exclusively by Mauritian

registered vessels who had fished in BIOT since the beginning of the last century. Since 1991, the

vessels were licensed and recorded, but no license fee was charged.

The basic management policy for the inshore fishery was threefold: (i) maintain the stability of fish

stocks; (ii) conserve bio-diversity; and (iii) appropriate resource management for the long term.

Control was implemented through limited licensing, closed seasons and restricted fishing areas,

including:

■ Up to six (6) licences for 80 days per season.

■ Fishing permitted from 1st April to 31

st October, only with hooks and lines.

■ Fishing prohibited within any lagoons. However, it has been stated that this does not apply to the

designated ‘strict nature reserves’ specified in Table 7.1.1 (source: ES Appendix 6-2 in: The

Creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: A Fisheries Perspective, Dunne et al, 2014).

■ Licences included stipulations on: (i) types of fishing activity; (ii) prohibited fishing locations; (iii)

reporting requirements; and (iv) presence of on-board of observers.

The inshore fishery targeted demersal fish, specifically snappers, emperors and groupers. The

vessels were largely refrigerated mother ships (250 to 350 GRT and 40 to 55m in length), with

capacity to freeze and store about 10 tonnes per day. Fishing was carried out by dories launched

from the mother vessel (up to 20 per vessel – shallow draft boats of 5 to 7m in length), each crewed

by three fishermen using hand-lines on the submerged banks and reefs of the atolls (less than 50m

deep). In more recent years, some smaller vessels were deployed with hydraulic lifting gear.

Statistical data for the inshore fisheries is summarised in Table 7.1.1, with further details in Appendix

A, Table 4. Over the 19-year period, the figures indicate a general decline in annual catches due to

less fishing in BIOT waters:

■ Fishing licences – ranged from 1 to 6 (1997) per year, with an average of 3 per year.

■ Days in BIOT waters – ranged from 120 in 1991 (163 in 1997) declining to less than 50 in recent

years, with an overall average of 90 days per year.

■ Man days fishing (from dories) – ranged from a high of 7,884 days in 1992 to less than 1,800 in

2006.

■ Fish catches – ranged from 200 to 300 tonnes per year in the 1990s, 200 tonnes per year in the

early years of the last decade, before declining to between 130 and 160 tonnes per year since

2004. The total reported catch over the 19 years amounted to nearly 3,700 tonnes.

■ Location of catches – the area around the Great Chagos Bank (GCB) accounted for 60% of the

reported catches and the Other Banks 40% (mainly Speakers Bank, Peros Banhos & Pitt Bank).

112

■ Average catches per person day – despite the decline in the total catch, the average catches have

remained relatively robust at 45 to 60 kg/person/day – with a high of 80 kg/person/day in 2006.

It should be noted that estimated by-catches or discards may add another 15% to 25% to the annual

catch totals.

Table 7.1.1 Inshore Fisheries – Fishing Licences, Days in BIOT Waters & Reported Catches

Note: there was no inshore fishing reported for 2005 and 2008.

Year

Fishing

Licences

(nos.)

Days in

BIOT

Waters

(days)

Man Days

Fishing

(days)

Fish Catches – Reported (tonnes)

Average

Catch

(kg/man/day)

Great

Chagos

Bank

Other

Banks Unknown Total

1991 3 120 5,603 58.8 22.5 217.9 299.2 53.4

1995 3 117 4,569 166.0 51.5 2.4 217.5 47.6

2000 2 104 4,184 177.9 111.1 0.0 289.0 69.1

2001 4 97 3,058 n.a. n.a. n.a. 218.8 71.5

2002 2 106 4,113 144.7 74.1 2.2 221.0 53.7

2003 2 111 4,269 180.9 56.2 9.5 246.6 57.8

2004 3 96 2,009 77.8 45.8 3.8 127.4 63.4

2006 1 44 1,755 80.5 55.6 4.9 141.0 80.4

2007 1 47 1,937 67.8 48.0 2.9 118.7 61.3

2009 4 109 3,561 70.6 91.3 0.0 161.9 45.5

Total(1)

54 1,720 64,965 2,186 1,001 260 3,667 56.4

Note: (1) total includes all years from 1991 to 2009 (see: Appendix A, Table 4).

Source: Appendix A, Table 4.

The reported inshore fish catches can also be compared with the estimated annual sustainable yields

by location within BIOT. Table 7.1.2 presents the relevant estimates that were prepared and

published in 1999 – see also: Figure 1.

The inshore fishing area for BIOT is estimated at 8,926 km², 96% with depths of less than 70 meters

and 4% with depths of 70 to 150 metres. The main points to note are as follows:

■ Great Chagos Bank is the largest inshore fishing area – accounting for 70% of the total, with the

main areas in the north and south of the GCB.

■ Other Banks (OB) – account for 30%, mainly in Pit Bank, Speakers Bank and Peros Banhos.

■ Sustainable annual yields – range from 859 tonnes (0.1 t/km²) to 1,889 tonnes (0.22 t/km²) per

year at depths of less than 70 metres, with GCB accounting for 70% of the totals. At greater

depths (70 to 150m), the estimated sustainable yield ranges from 243 to 466 tonnes per year.

113

Table 7.1.2 Inshore Fishing Areas and Estimated Annual Sustainable Yields by Location

Note: the location codes are shown at the bottom of the table.

Location

(code)

Area by Depth (km²) Estimated Annual Sustainable Yield (tonnes p.a.)

less than

70m 70 – 150m Total

less than 70m 70 – 150m

0.1 t/km² 0.168 t/km² 0.22 t/km² 0.716 t/km² 1.375 t/km²

Great Chagos Bank (GCB)

NCH

NEL

SCH

SEC

WCH

ECH

CH1

CH2

1,343

1,181

1,181

895

662

445

262

75

25

40

23

15

30

57

1,368

1,221

1,204

910

92

502

262

75

134.3

118.1

118.1

89.5

66.2

44.5

26.2

7.5

225.6

198.4

198.4

150.4

111.2

74.8

44.0

12.6

295.5

259.8

259.8

196.9

145.6

97.9

57.6

16.5

17.9

28.6

16.5

10.7

21.5

40.8

34.4

55.0

31.6

20.6

41.3

78.4

Sub-total 6,044 190 6,234 604 1,015 1,330 136 261

Other Banks (OB)

PIT

SPK

PBA

CAU

EGM

BLE

CEN

VIC

SAL

GAN

COL

1,296

562

442

56

48

42

29

21

17

16

14

49

27

25

7

6

7

6

5

7

4

6

1,345

589

467

63

54

49

35

26

24

20

20

129.6

56.2

44.2

5.6

4.8

4.2

2.9

2.1

1.7

1.6

1.4

217.7

94.4

74.3

9.4

8.1

7.1

4.9

3.5

2.9

2.7

2.4

285.1

123.6

97.2

12.3

10.6

9.2

6.4

4.6

3.7

3.5

3.1

35.1

19.3

17.9

5.0

4.3

5.0

4.3

3.6

5.0

2.9

4.3

67.4

37.1

34.4

9.6

8.3

9.6

8.3

6.9

9.6

5.5

8.3

Sub-total 2,543 149 2,692 254 427 559 107 205

Total 8,587 339 8,926 859 1,443 1,889 243 466

Source: Commercial Inshore Fishing Activity in the British Indian Ocean Territory, C.C Mees et al, Chapter 24 – Ecology of The

Chagos Archipelago, eds. C. Sheppard and M Seaward, Linnean Society Occasional Papers 2.

Code Location Code Location Code Location

BLE Blenheim Reef

CAU Cauvin Bank

CEN Centurion Bank

CH1 Central Great Chagos Bank 1

CH2 Central Great Chagos Bank 2

COL Colvocorresses Reef

ECH Eastern Great Chagos Bank

EGM Egmont Islands

GAN Ganges Bank

NCH North Great Chagos Bank

NEL Nelson Island

PBA Peros Banhos

PIT Pitt Bank

SAL Salomon Islands

SCH South Great Chagos Bank

SEC Southeast Great Chagos

Bank

SPK Speakers Bank

VIC Victory Bank

WCH West Great Chagos Bank

114

Reported catches have also been matched with the estimates of sustainable yields – in order to

provide an indication of the extent to which the inshore fish resources were being exploited. Table

7.1.3 presents the results by location for the year 2000, which had the highest reported catch in the

last decade at 289 tonnes (note: the BSFC report for that year noted that the unusually high catch

rates were achieved while fishing and Peros Banhos on what was considered to be a spawning

ground of the serranid – epinephelus microdon). The figures are presented for two scenarios:

■ Scenario 1 – low sustainable yields: (i) Banks: 0.1 t/km² at less than 70m depth; and (ii) Drop-offs:

0.716 t/km² at 70-150m depth.

■ Scenario 2 – high sustainable yields: (i) Banks: 0.22 t/km² at less than 70m depth; and (ii) Drop-

offs: 1.375 t/km² at 70-150m depth.

The results indicate low sustainable catch ratios for the archipelago as a whole, but significant

variations between different islands and atolls:

■ Scenario 1 – totals: 31% for the banks, 9% for the drop-offs and 26% overall. However, the

overall catch ratios were higher in certain locations at between 30% and 99% in Northern Chagos

Bank, Nelson Island, Central Chagos Bank 2, Speakers Bank, Peros Banhos, Centurion Bank,

Victory Bank and Colvocresses Reef. With regard to the banks only, high catch ratios were

recorded for Central Chagos Bank 2 (70%), Speakers Bank (76%), Peros Banhos (113%), Victory

Bank (162%) and Colvocresses Reef (169%).

■ Scenario 2 – totals were significantly lower: 14% for the banks, 5% for the drop-offs and 12%

overall. High overall catch ratios were only recorded for Central Chagos Bank 2 (45%), Speakers

Bank (27%), Peros Banhos (38%) and Victory Bank (30%). For the Banks only, higher catch ratios

were recorded for Central Chagos Bank 2 (32%), Speakers Bank (35%), Peros Banhos (51%),

Victory Bank (74%) and Colvocresses Reef (81%).

Table 7.1.3 Inshore Fisheries – Reported Catches as % of Sustainable Yield by Location in 2000

SCENARIO 1 – Sustainable yields: (i) Banks: 0.1 t/km² at less than 70m depth; and (ii)

Drop-offs: 0.716 t/km² at 70-150m depth.

Location and code

Reported Catch (tonnes)

Catch as % of Sustainable

Yield

Banks Drop-off Total Banks Drop-off Total

Great Chagos Bank

NCH

NEL

SCH

SEC

WCH

ECH

CH 1

CH 2

67.5

53.7

2.5

6.7

16.0

5.2

4.8

5.3

2.1

1.1

1.6

3.7

2.6

2.3

0.7

2.1

69.6

54.8

4.1

10.4

18.6

7.5

5.5

7.4

50.3%

45.5%

2.1%

7.4%

24.2%

11.6%

18.3%

70.1%

11.7%

3.8%

9.7%

35.0%

12.1%

5.7%

n.a.

n.a.

45.7%

37.4%

3.0%

10.4%

21.2%

8.8%

21.0%

98.7%

Sub-total – Great Chagos Bank 161.6 16.3 177.9 26.7% 12.0% 24.0%

Other Banks

PIT

SPK

PBA

CAU

EGM

BLE

CEN

VIC

3.7

42.9

49.8

0.9

1.7

1.5

3.4

0.8

2.1

0.9

0.9

4.5

42.9

49.8

3.0

2.6

2.4

3.4

2.8%

76.3%

112.7%

16.6%

40.9%

53.0%

161.9%

2.3%

41.4%

17.7%

20.1%

2.7%

56.8%

80.2%

28.3%

28.3%

33.3%

59.6%

115

Location and code



Yield


SAL

GAN

COL

2.5

2.5

178.6%

43.9%

Sub-total – Other Banks 106.5 4.6 111.1 41.9% 4.3% 30.8%

Total 268.1 20.9 289.0 31.3% 8.6% 26.2%

SCENARIO 2 – Sustainable yields: (i) Banks: 0.22 t/km² at less than 70m depth; and (ii)

Drop-offs: 1.375 t/km² at 70-150m depth.

Location



Yield


Great Chagos Bank

NCH

NEL

SCH

SEC

WCH

ECH

CH 1

CH 2

67.5

53.7

2.5

6.7

16.0

5.2

4.8

5.3

2.1

1.1

1.6

3.7

2.6

2.3

0.7

2.1

69.6

54.8

4.1

10.4

18.6

7.5

5.5

7.4

22.8%

20.7%

1.0%

3.4%

11.0%

5.3%

8.3%

31.8%

6.1%

2.0%

5.1%

18.2%

6.3%

3.0%

21.1%

17.4%

1.4%

4.8%

10.0%

4.3%

9.5%

44.8%

Sub-total – Great Chagos Bank 161.6 16.3 177.9 12.2% 6.2% 11.2%

Other Banks

PIT

SPK

PBA

CAU

EGM

BLE

CEN

VIC

SAL

GAN

COL

3.7

42.9

49.8

0.9

1.7

1.5

3.4

2.5

0.8

2.1

0.9

0.9

4.5

42.9

49.8

3.0

2.6

2.4

3.4

2.5

1.3%

34.7%

51.2%

7.6%

18.7%

24.0%

73.9%

80.6%

1.2%

21.6%

9.2%

10.4%

1.3%

26.7%

37.8%

13.7%

13.8%

16.3%

29.6%

21.9%

Sub-total – Other Banks 106.5 4.6 111.1 19.0% 2.3% 14.5%

Total 268.1 20.9 289.0 14.2% 4.5% 12.3%


The values and ratios indicated above are important in the context of potential resettlement locations

and the fishing opportunities for subsistence and/or commercial exploitation. For the potential

resettlement of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and the Salomons, Table 7.1.4 summarises the inshore

fishing areas, plus the low and high sustainable annual yields. The figures yield the following results:

■ Diego Garcia – inshore fishing area of 156 km², with potential sustainable yields ranging from 24.6

tonnes to 51.1 tonnes per year.

■ Peros Banhos – inshore fishing area of 467 km², with potential sustainable yields ranging from

62.1 tonnes to 131.6 tonnes per year.

116

■ Salomons – inshore fishing area of 24 km², with potential sustainable yields ranging from 6.7

tonnes to 13.3 tonnes per year.

The resettlement and fishing implications of these figures are discussed in Section 5. If the

sustainable fishing values for Peros Banhos and the Salomons are insufficient, then other locations

would need to be considered: (i) to the north – Speakers Bank and Blenheim Reef; and (ii) to the

south – Victory Bank, Nelson Island and northern areas of the Great Chagos Bank.

Table 7.1.4 Inshore Fisheries – Sustainable Yields for Potential Resettlement Locations

Component Unit Diego Garcia Peros Banhos Salomons

Area

Banks (less than 70m

depth)

Drop-Off (70-150m depth)

km²

km²

141.2

14.6

442

25

17

7

Total – Area km² 155.8 467 24

Low Sustainable Yield

Banks

Drop-Off

tonnes per year

tonnes per year

14.12

10.45

44.2

17.9

1.7

5.0

Total – Low Sustainable

Yield

tonnes per

year

24.57

62.1 6.7

High Sustainable Yield

Banks

Drop-Off

tonnes per year

tonnes per year

31.06

20.07

97.2

34.4

3.7

9.6

Total – High Sustainable

Yield

tonnes per

year

51.13 131.6 13.3

Source: Tables 4.2 and 4.6

117

Figure 7.1.1: Chagos Archipelago – Location of Main Atolls and Islands

4.3 Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing is permitted on: (i) Diego Garcia from shore and boat-based under licence

operated by the Marine Welfare and Recreation (MWR) service on the island; and (ii) visiting yachts

with agreed permits. It should be noted that the sea area of three (3) nautical miles around Diego

Garcia (470 km²) are formally exempt from the BIOT MPA. The fishing targets pelagic and reef

associated species e.g. blue marlin, dolphin fish, kawakawa, rainbow runner, sailfish, wahoo,

dogtooth tuna, skipjack tuna, yellow fin tuna, emperor, snapper, grouper, trevally and others.

Between 1994 and 2002, available estimates indicate catches ranging from 88 tonnes to more than

150 tonnes per year, including estimates of shore-based fishing. However, concern has been

118

expressed as to their accuracy, because of the lack of detailed records and log sheets. No

information is available for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Reporting and records improved from September 2006, when the MWR office introduced an

improved record system that now records the following information: type of craft, number of

passengers, number of lines, location, hours fished and catch weight. However, statistics for shore-

based fishing on Diego Garcia and fishing by visiting yachts in BIOT are still modest.

For Diego Garcia, the MWR office records recreational fishing for three vessel types: (i) Mako – small

craft used for pleasure trips and fishing, mainly within the lagoon; (ii) Ocean Master – larger ocean-

going recreational fishing vessels targeting oceanic pelagic species; and (iii) Landing Craft (known as

LCMs) – fishing with hand lines on the outer reef drop off. In addition, the licence for these

recreational vessels stipulates the permitted fishing areas around Diego Garcia as follows: (i) Mako –

‘…restricted to designated areas within the lagoon that are specified on the Vessel Sport Fishery log

sheet’; and (ii) Ocean Master and LCM – ‘…restricted to the reef periphery and ocean waters outside

the lagoon.’

It should be noted that from 1971 until 2008, there was no restriction on catch; but in 2008 all

recreational fishing was required to be for ‘a reasonable amount for personal consumption within 3

days’ (Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2007).

Table 7.1.5 illustrates the recreational fishing as recorded by the MWR office as reported by vessel

type from 2007 to 2012:

■ Mako (hire charge US$ 5 or £3 per hour) – 402 to 677 trips per year, with catches ranging from 3

tonnes (9% of total) to 6.1 tonnes (29%) per year.

■ Ocean Master (hire charge US$ 200 or £123 for 4 hours) – 376 to 884 trips per year, with catches

ranging from 10.9 tonnes (52% of total) to 40 tonnes (86%) per year.

■ Landing Craft – 27 to 122 trips per year, with catches ranging from 1.3 tonnes (3% of total) to 4.7

tonnes (13%) per year.

■ Total – 976 to 1,568 trips per year, with catches ranging from 21.1 tonnes to 46.2 tonnes

per year.

In addition, the reports indicate that tuna and tuna-like species accounted for 65% to 75% of the

reported catch, but dropped below 50% in 2012.

The lower catch reported for 2012 followed a fatal accident that resulted in: (i) the closure of

recreational fishing for three months (September to November 2011); and (ii) restrictions in the

fishing area, which is now not permitted south of 7° 23´ on the east side or south of 7° 24´ on the

west side of Diego Garcia. In addition, vessels are not permitted to go to sea when winds are greater

than 17 knots.

Table 7.1.5 Recreational Fisheries: Diego Garcia – Reported Activity and Catches by Boat Type

Year

Mako Ocean Master Landing Craft Total

Trips

(nos.)

Persons

(nos.)

Catch

(tonnes)

Trips

(nos.)

Persons

(nos.)

Catch

(tonnes)

Trips

(nos.)

Persons

(nos.)

Catch

(tonnes)

Trips

(nos.)

Persons

(nos.)

Catch

(tonnes)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

647

654

630

508

402

677

2,181

2,245

2,132

1,649

1,317

2,292

3.8

3.0

4.9

4.9

3.4

6.1

803

683

792

884

547

376

2,665

2,758

3,598

3,229

1,964

1,470

27.7

28.0

40.0

35.7

26.1

10.9

118

87

39

47

27

122

1,383

1,238

506

731

420

894

4.7

3.4

1.3

1.8

1.4

4.1

1,568

1,424

1,481

1,439

976

1,175

6,239

6,241

6,236

5,609

3,701

4,656

36.1

34.4

46.2

42.5

30.8

21.1


119

Unit catch rates vary according to the type of fishing vessel:

■ Mako: 4.6 to 9.7 kg per trip and 1.3 to 3 kg per person – with 3 to 4 people on board.

■ Ocean Master: 29 to 50 kg per trip and 7.4 to 13.3 kg per person – with 4 to 5 people on board.

■ Landing craft: 34 to 50 kg per trip and 2.5 to 4.6 kg per person – with 7 to 15 people on board.

With regard to yield sustainability, various MRAG reports note that: ‘these levels of catch, based on

past analyses, do not pose a threat to the sustainability of the fishery’. Nevertheless, it is useful to

include an indicative estimate of sustainable annual yields for Diego Garcia, based on the parameters

set out in Table 7.1.2. The results are illustrated in Table 7.1.6. The figures indicate sustainable yields

ranging from 25 to 51 tonnes per year. These figures imply that the annual reported catches have

been in excess of the low yields sustainable estimate, but below the high yield sustainable estimate.

In addition, recent studies have indicated a discernable impact of recreational fishing on fish

populations around Diego Garcia.

Table 7.1.6 Diego Garcia – Estimated Annual Sustainable Yields

Depth Area (km²)

Low Yield Estimate High Yield Estimate

Yield (t/km²) Total (tonnes p.a.) Yield (t/km²) Total (tonnes p.a.)

greater than

70 metres

70 to 150

metres

141.2

14.6

0.1

0.716

14.12

10.45

0.22

1.375

31.06

20.07

Total 155.8 24.57 51.13

Source: The Creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: A Fisheries Perspective, Dunne et al, 2014.

Reported fishing by visiting yachts throughout BIOT has been very limited. Some improvements

were made in the reporting format in 2010, but reasonably accurate returns are still inadequate.

Historically, yachts issued with a permit to stay in BIOT waters were also given log sheets to record

any fish catches (as with the MWR fishery, they can only catch what they can consume within 3

days). The log sheets should be placed in boxes left on the islands to be collected by the FPO. MRAG

notes that very few yachts completed the returns. Available data in MRAG reports on visiting yachts

are as follows:

■ Most fishing by yachts takes place around the Salomon Atoll which provides the best anchorage

and protection from adverse weather.

■ Estimates for the 1990s indicate yacht visits of 30 to 50 per year, with an average length of stay

of 65 to 70 days and total fish catches not exceeding 2 tonnes.

■ 2010 – 58 yachts entered BIOT waters, 79 permits were issued, but 34 of these were not used

until 2011 and 13 yachts entered whose permits were issued in 2009. The average stay was 51

days. However, only five (5) reporting forms were returned.

■ 2011 – 75 yachts entered BIOT waters, 47 permits were issued, and four of these were not used

until 2012 and 31 yachts entered whose permits were issued in 2010. The average stay was 49

days.

MRAG reported that incentives and penalties to encourage the return of log sheets were being

considered – but the current status of this proposal is not known.

It should be noted that visiting yachts are permitted to fish in any location, except the Strict Nature

Reserves as listed in Table 7.1.7.

120

Table 7.1.7 BIOT – Strict Nature Reserves (since November 1998)

Location Area (km²) IUCN Category

Cow Island

Danger Island

Eastern Peros Banhos

Nelson Island

Three Brothers and Resurgent Island

112.7

133.0

822.9

118.9

186.9

II

II

II

II

II

Total 1,374.4


4.4 Offshore Fisheries

Over the last 19 years (1991 to 2010), the offshore fisheries was focused on longline and purse seine

fishing within the 200 nautical mile FCMZ that was declared around BIOT by BIOTA on 1st October

1991. The official licenced offshore fisheries ceased in 2010 with the establishment of the ‘no take’

MPA (1st April 2010).

In terms of the current study, this development has three important impacts: (i) loss of significant

income from fishing licences; (ii) affords some protection and conservation to the marine resources

of the archipelago; (iii) potential increases in IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and the

costs of security patrols and surveillance; and (iv) some consequences for potential future livelihoods.

The loss of income from fishing licences is illustrated and discussed in Section 4.5 below.

Offshore fishing was conducted by two vessel types:

■ Longline – vessels mainly from Taiwan and Japan, plus others from China, Seychelles, Philippines,

and occasionally from Belize and Honduras.

■ Purse Seine – vessels mainly from Spain and France, plus others from Seychelles, Japan and Italy.

Table 7.1.8 summarises the recorded offshore fisheries within the FCMZ in terms of vessels,

licences, days fished, total catch and licence fees from 1999/2000 to 2009/10 when the ‘no-take’

MPA was implemented. Further details are presented in Appendix A, Table 7:

■ Longline fishing – vessel numbers ranged from 22 to 64 per year and licences from 26 to 91 per

year. Over the decade, both indicators declined somewhat with the increase in average vessel

size and the adverse impact of piracy off the East African – although numbers did increase in

2007/08 and 2009/10. Reported annual catches ranged from a low of 371 tonnes in 2008/09 to

nearly 2,000 tonnes in 1999/00. The highest reported catch in the last 20 years was 2,393 tonnes

in 1997/98.

■ Purse Seine fishing – vessel numbers ranged from 17 to 54 per year, but were generally about 50

per year. Licences generally matched the vessel numbers. Reported annual catches varied widely

from 95 tonnes in 2006/07 to 5,795 tonnes in 2001/02, 14,962 tonnes in 2008/09 and 23,515

tonnes in 2004/05. The tonnage variations are directly related to the number of days fished in the

FCMZ (see: Appendix A, Table 7). The highest reported catch in the last 20 years was 31,719

tonnes in 1993/94.

■ Total – vessel numbers in the FCMZ ranged from 60 to more than 110 per year. While the total

catch ranged from less than 700 tonnes (2006/07) to nearly 24,800 tonnes (2007/08). The highest

reported catch in the last 20 years was 32,051 tonnes in 1993/94.

In terms of the fish caught: (i) longliners targeted yellowfin and bigeye tuna, which accounted for

more than 80% of the catch; and (ii) purse seiners targeted yellowfin and skipjack tuna, which

accounted for more than 85% of the catch.

121

In addition, it is reported that offshore fishing in the FCMZ accounted for less than 3% of the annual

catch in the Indian Ocean.

Table 7.1.8 Offshore Fisheries – Longline and Purse Seine Fishing 1999/00 to 2009/10

Year

Vessels

(nos.)

Licences

(nos.)

Days Fished

(nos.)

Total Catch

(tonnes)

Licence Fees

(£ 000)

Longline

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

49

64

36

37

38

32

24

26

41

22

33

62

91

49

51

54

52

27

34

75

26

57

1,661

2,052

901

1,379

1,060

624

1,207

1,147

1,508

571

2,379

1,939

1,828

1,034

1,467

1,162

730

916

590

1,366

371

1,503

342

349

316

267

286

258

163

170

350

132

431

Purse Seine

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

17

48

50

54

52

52

54

52

54

43

36

19

48

50

54

53

56

56

53

57

45

37

122

109

379

62

104

991

394

27

1,294

424

293

3,145

1,064

5,795

722

1,320

23,515

13,865

95

23,418

14,962

5,255

357

427

537

350

250

425

527

671

681

643

463

Total

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

66

112

86

89

90

84

78

78

95

65

69

81

139

99

105

107

108

83

87

132

71

94

1,783

2,161

1,280

1,441

1,164

1,615

1,601

1,174

2,802

995

2,672

5,084

2,892

6,829

2,189

2,482

24,265

14,781

685

24,784

15,333

6,758

699

866

853

617

536

683

689

842

1,030

775

894


4.5 Income and Costs of Fisheries Operations

This section reviews the income and costs of the fisheries operations in terms of: (i) income from the

licencing of fishing vessels operating in the Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone (FCMZ) –

primarily the offshore fisheries; and (ii) operational costs of the patrol vessel and associated

administrative expenditure.

122

Table 7.1.10 summarises the reported annual income and expenditure associated with the fisheries

operations in BIOT from 1995/96 to 2013/14. Further details are presented in Appendix A, Tables 8

and 9. The figures are presented for two scenarios:

■ Scenario 1 – total figures as presented by British Indian Territory Administration.

■ Scenario 2 – expenditure figures adjusted to take account of the cost distribution between Fishery

Patrols and British Operations Patrols. The distribution between these two components is based

on the allocation of days between the main activities undertaken by the Pacific Marlin between

2006 and 2011. The results in Table 7.1.9 indicate that 67.6% of the main activities were allocated

to Fishery Patrols.

Table 7.1.9 Pacific Marlin – Patrol Duties and Tasks: 2006 to 2011

Component Days Distribution (%)

Main Activities

Fishery Patrols

British Operations Patrols

BIOTA:

Projects

Tasking

984.4

338.0

4.0

129.2

67.6%

23.2%

0.3%

8.9%

Sub-total – Main Activities 1,455.6 100.0%

Shared Activities

Crew Changes, etc.

Miscellaneous

Maintenance

Bunkers

229.4

69.0

28.0

24.0

Total – All Activities 1,806.0


The reported income and expenditure under the two scenarios is summarised as follows:

Scenario 1:

■ Income – has fluctuated significantly from £1.5 to £2 million per year in the mid to late1990s,

followed by £500,000 to £1 million per year during the last decade. These variations were due to

the number of longline and purse seine fishing vessels applying for a licence (see: Appendix A,

Table 5 for the vessel numbers under each category).

■ Expenditure – reported expenditure has increased significantly since the patrol vessel was

introduced, from £757,000 in 1994/95 to between £1.5 to £1.9 million per during the last decade.

Up to the declaration of the MPA (April 2010), approximately 73% of the expenditure was

attributable to the contract for the patrol vessel and 27% for the administration. However, over

the last four years, reported annual expenditure has increased again to £2.1 million in 2010/11 and

£2.6 million for 2013/14.

■ Surplus/Deficit – in the six years from 1993/94 to 1998/99, the figures indicate a surplus ranging

from £166,000 to nearly £1.9 million per year. For all of the subsequent years, the account has

always been in deficit of between £600,000 and £1.4 million per year prior to the declaration of

the MPA and £2.1 to £2.6 million per year in the four years since the declaration.

Scenario 2:

■ Income – same as Scenario 1

■ Expenditure – adjusted expenditure attributable to fisheries operations was approximately 32%

lower: (i) 1993/94 to 1998/99 – increased from £142,000 to £928,000 per year; (ii) 1999/00 to

123

2009/10 – rose further to between £1 and £1.3 million per year; and (iii) since 2010, the adjusted

expenditure increased to £1.4 and £1.8 million per year.

■ Surplus/Deficit – in the six years from 1993/94 to 1998/99, the figures indicate a surplus ranging

from £611,000 to £2.1 million per year. Again the following years have all recorded a deficit of: (i)

prior to the MPA declaration of £73,000 to £780,000 per year; and (ii) post MPA declaration,

deficits of £1.4 to £1.8 million per year.

In relation to the recurring annual deficits since 2010, it is reported that some support funds have

been provided by the Bertarelli Foundation and the Blue Marlin Foundation. However, no details were

available as to the value of this support and how long it would continue.

Table 7.1.10 Fisheries Patrols and Protection – Reported Income and Expenditure (£ 000)

Year

Scenario 1 – Total Figures Scenario 2 – Adjusted Figures

Income Expenditure Surplus/Deficit Income Expenditure Surplus/Deficit

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2,008

2,613

1,406

2,280

1,539

2,197

699

866

853

617

536

683

689

848

1,031

775

896

nil

nil

nil

nil

201

757

921

1,036

1,373

1,105

1,710

1,560

1,438

1,624

1,947

1,900

1,885

1,667

1,633

1,790

1,658

2,110

2,224

2,461

2,642

1,798

1,856

485

1,244

166

1,093

(1,011)

(694)

(586)

(1,008)

(1,410)

(1,217)

(1,196)

(819)

(602)

(1,015)

(762)

(2,110)

(2,224)

(2,461)

(2,642)

2,008

2,613

1,406

2,280

1,539

2,197

699

866

853

617

536

683

689

848

1,031

775

896

nil

nil

nil

nil

142

511

622

700

928

747

1,156

1,054

972

1,098

1,316

1,284

1,274

1,127

1,104

1,210

1,121

1,427

1,503

1,664

1,786

1,866

2,101

783

1,579

611

1,450

(457)

(188)

(120)

(481)

(780)

(602)

(585)

(279)

(73)

(435)

(225)

(1,427)

(1,503)

(1,664)

(1,786)


Table 7.1.11 summarises the total values for the periods 1996/97 to 2009/10 and 2010/11 to 2013/14.

The results indicate the following:

Total values:

■ 1996/97 to 2009/10 (14 years): (i) income of £14.5 million; (ii) expenditure of £22.3 million; and (iii)

deficit of £7.8 million.

■ 2010/11 to 2013/14 (4 years): (i) income – nil; (ii) expenditure of £9.4 million; and (iii) deficit of £9.4

million.

■ Total (18 years): (i) income of £14.5 million; (ii) expenditure of £31.7 million; and (iii) deficit of £17.2

million.

Adjusted values:

■ 1996/97 to 2009/10 (14 years): (i) income of £14.5 million; (ii) expenditure of £15.1 million; and (iii)

deficit of £0.6 million.

124

■ 2010/11 to 2013/14 (4 years): (i) income – nil; (ii) expenditure of £6.4 million; and (iii) deficit of £6.4

million.

■ Total (18 years): (i) income of £14.5 million; (ii) expenditure of £21.5 million; and (iii) deficit of £7.0

million.

Table 7.1.11 Fisheries Patrols & Protection – Total Values: 1996/97 to 2009/10 & 2010/11 to 2013/14

(£ million)

Component

Values (£ 000) Distribution (%)

1996/97 to

2009/10

2010/11 to

2013/14

Total 1996/97 to

2009/10

2010/11 to

2013/14

Total

Total figures

Income

Fishing Licences

Longline

Purse Seine

4.0

10.5

nil

nil

4.0

10.5

28%

72%

nil

nil

28%

72%

Total – Income 14.5 Nil 14.5 100% Nil 100%

Expenditure

Patrol Vessel

Administration

16.3

6.0

8.5

0.9

24.8

6.9

73%

27%

90%

10%

78%

22%

Total –

Expenditure

22.3 9.4 31.7 100% 100% 100%

Surplus (Deficit) (7.8) (9.4) (17.2)

Adjusted figures

Income

Fishing Licences

Longline

Purse Seine

4.0

10.5

nil

nil

4.0

10.5

28%

72%

nil

nil

28%

72%

Total – Income 14.5 Nil 14.5 100% Nil 100%

Expenditure

Patrol Vessel

Administration

11.0

4.1

5.8

0.6

16.8

4.7

73%

27%

90%

10%

78%

22%

Total –

Expenditure

15.1 6.4 21.5 100% 100% 100%

Surplus (Deficit) (0.6) (6.4) (7.0)


5. Livelihood Options in Fisheries and Related Activities

5.1 Introduction

This section outlines the potential livelihood options in fisheries and related activities for resettled

Chagossians, in terms of:

■ Inshore fishery for subsistence and possible sale to: (i) the Community Store; (ii) BIOTA; (iii)

contract workers on Diego Garcia; and (iv) catering division of the US Naval Support Facility Diego

Garcia (NSFDG).

■ Mariculture opportunities

■ Sport fishing and diving – this option is addressed in the Tourism Annex (see: Annex 7.2, Section

6.4).

125

■ Environmental activities related to fisheries conservation and protection in BIOT.

The potential training requirements associated with these options are addressed in Section 6.

It should be emphasised that most of the activities outlined above would require amendments to: (i)

The Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2007 (amended: 8th

December 2008; and

25th

October 2013); and (ii) the ordinance or law for the Marine Protected Area when it is finalised.

In the past, it is reported that the Chagossians did fish in the vicinity of specific islands in order to

supplement their diets, but there are no records as to how much fish was caught. Fishing was

conducted within the lagoons and at sea with handlines, baskets and net fishing in and around the

three occupied atolls of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon Islands.

5.2 Inshore Fishery

As in most small islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, it is anticipated that the Chagossians would

engage in artisanal fishing as the main source of food and protein. Fish and fishery products

represent a valuable source of fundamental importance for diversified and healthy diets. The other

important factors are: (i) fish consumption per capita tends to be much higher in coastal areas and

small island states; (ii) basis for food security; and (iii) platform for development and diversification.

Yet, these factors need to be managed in a sustainable manner that will ensure appropriate medium

to long term community viability.

Table 7.1.12 presents estimates of the potential annual catch for each of the defined resettlement

options. The indicative figures of fish consumption per capita are based on similar recent figures for

islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and UK Overseas Territories, as follows:

■ Indian Ocean: (i) Comoros 25 kg/year; (ii) Maldives 164 kg/year; (iii) Mauritius 23 kg/year; and (iii)

Seychelles 59 kg/year (see: Appendix A, Table 1).

■ Pacific Ocean: (i) Fiji 34 kg/year; (ii) Kiribati 74 kg/year; (iii) Marshall Islands 18 kg/year; (iv)

Micronesia 49 kg/year; (v) Nauru 20 kg/year; (vi) Niue 113 kg/year; (vii) Palau 56 kg/year; (viii)

Samoa 48kg/year; (ix) Tonga 31 kg/year; and (x) Tuvalu 43 kg/year (see: Appendix A, Table 2).

■ UK Overseas Territories: (i) Anguilla 50 kg/year; (ii) Falklands 37 kg/year; (iii) Montserrat 26 kg/year;

(iv) St Helena 51 kg/year; and (v) Turks and Caicos Islands 46 kg/year (see: Appendix A, Table 3).

Other indicators are much lower. For 2009 it is reported that average world fish consumption per

capita was 18kg/year, EU 25 kg/year, east Asia and south-east Asia 32 to 35 kg/year (source: The

State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, FAO).

Based on an average per capita consumption of 75 kg/year, the estimates yield annual fish catch

requirements of: (i) Option 1: 113 tonnes per year for a population of 1,500; (ii) Option 2: 38 tonnes

per year for a population of 500; and (iii) Option 3: 11 tonnes per year for a population

of 150.

Table 7.1.12 Subsistence Inshore Fishing – Estimated Fish Catch by Resettlement Option

Fish Consumption

(kg per capita)

Subsistence – Fish Catch (tonnes p.a.)

Option 1

Population 1,500

Option 2

Population 500

Option 3

Population 150

50 kg

75 kg

100 kg

75

113

150

25

38

50

8

11

15

Source: Study estimates.

126

Table 7.1.13 compares the annual sustainable yield (see: Table 7.1.2) and the estimated fish catches

by option for the prospective resettlement islands of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos (Ile de Coin) and

Salomon (Boddam) – based on average consumption per capita of 75 kg/year. The results reveal the

following preliminary conclusions:

■ Diego Garcia: ((i) Option 1 exceeds both the minimum and maximum sustainable yields by a

significant margin; and (ii) Options 2 and 3 are both within the sustainable yield estimates.

■ Peros Banhos (Ile du Coin): (i) Option 1 exceeds both the minimum and maximum sustainable

yield; and (ii) Options 2 and 3 are both within the sustainable yield estimates.

■ Salomon (Boddam): catch requirements exceed the minimum and maximum sustainable yield

estimates for all three options.

The potential implications of these results are as follows:

■ Diego Garcia: under Option 1 (population of 1,500) additional fishing would be needed at Cauvin

Bank (22 nm, approx.) and/or Pitt Bank (54 nm, approx.).

■ Peros Banhos (Ile du Coin): under Option 1 (population of 1,500) additional fishing would be

needed at Speakers Bank (32 nm, approx.) and/or Nelson Island (54 nm, approx.).

■ Salomon (Boddam): under all three options, additional fishing would be needed at Speakers Bank

(22 nm, approx.) and/or Nelson Island (22 nm, approx.).

Table 7.1.13 Subsistence Inshore Fisheries – Comparison of Sustainable Yield & Fish Catch by

Option: Based on Consumption per Capita of 75 kg/year

Resettlement

Location (1)

Sustainable

Yield (tpa)

Option 1

Population 1,500

Option 2

Population 500

Option 3

Population 150

Diego Garcia

Minimum

Maximum

24.6

51.1

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield

Within sustainable yield



Peros Banhos

Minimum

Maximum

62.1

131.6

> sustainable yield






Salomon

Minimum

Maximum

6.7

13.3

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield

> sustainable yield


Note: (1) (a) minimum = 0.1 t/km² at less than 70m depth + 0.715 t/km² at 70-150m depth; and (b) maximum = 0.22 t/km² at

less than 70m depth + 1.375 t/km² at 70-150m depth.

Sources: Table 7.1..2 and Table 7.1.12.

With regard to the legal aspects for fishing around Diego Garcia, it is appropriate to quote the relevant

sections of The Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2007 (with further

amendments dated: 8th

December 2008 and 25th

October 2013). These are as follows:

‘(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to fishing, by persons who are lawfully present in the Territory,

including but not limited to United States personnel and United Kingdom personnel lawfully present

in Diego Garcia, if the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The fishing is, or is to be, for a reasonable amount for personal consumption within 3 days by the

person fishing, and not for sale, barter or other profit;

b) The fishing is, or is to be, carried out by an attended line (whether or not with a rod);

127

c) There is, or there is to be, at any one time no more than two such lines in use under the control of

any one person, each line having no more than three hooks attached to it (or such other lesser

number of hooks as may, for that occasion, have been specified to that person by a Fisheries

Protection Officer);

d) The fishing is not, or is not to be, carried out in any area of the Territory which is specified, by a

notice signed by the Commissioner and published in the Gazette, to be an excepted area for the

purposes of this subsection; and

e) Any shark or other large game fish caught while fishing is released live into the fishing waters,

save that ‘game fish’ for these purposes does not include species of Tuna and Wahu whenever

such fish are intended for the personal consumption of the person fishing and result from fishing

in accordance with the other provisions of section 7(10).

(11) (a) The exception to subsection (1) that is provided by subsection (10) does not apply to any

fishing boat (other than one based in and operating out of Diego Garcia in circumstances

where the persons fishing from the boat have paid, or have contracted to pay, for the right

to do so or to be on board the boat); and any boat that is being used in such circumstances

is deemed to be a fishing boat for the purposes of that subsection.

(b) No fish caught by fishing in accordance with the provisions of subsection 10 may be

frozen, and the burden of proving that frozen fish was not caught within the fishing waters

of the Territory or was caught from a licensed fishing boat shall lie on the person in

possession of such frozen fish.’

If resettlement was to proceed, then the Fishing Ordinance and regulations relating to the MPA

would need to be amended in order to permit the levels of fishing required to provide for sustainable

livelihood options in terms of: (i) subsistence/artisanal fishing; (ii) commercial fishing for sale to the

Community Store, contract workers on Diego Garcia, BIOTA and catering division NSFDG; (iii)

possible fish processing factory; (iv) possible mariculture opportunities; and (v) sport fishing.

Artisanal fishing

Artisanal fishing will require: fishing gear; suitable fishing boats; and chest freezers for storage. The

ownership and payment for this equipment will need to be agreed before possible resettlement

proceeds. The options could be: (i) individual ownership by Chagossians who choose to work as

fishermen; and/or (ii) formation of a fishing cooperative with links to the proposed Community Store.

Table 7.1.14 illustrates the general dimensions and indicative costs (current purchase price and sea

freight transport from the UK via Singapore to Diego Garcia) for a Dory type fishing boat and those

used by the US military. The indicative costs (cif) range from £7,000 to £9,000 for the Dory type

fishing boat to £14,000 to £30,000 for the Mako fishing boat and £64,000 to £99,000 for the Ocean

Master. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Dory type fishing boats would be used by

the Chagossians.

128

Table 7.1.14 Fishing Boats – General Dimensions and Indicative Costs

Boat Type

General Dimensions Indicative Costs (£ 000)

Length (m) Beam (m) Draft (cm) Weight (kg) Purchase Freight (4) Total

Dory Type 5 to 7 1.5 to 1.8 20 300 to 400 4 to 6 3 7 to 9

Boats used by US Military on Diego Garcia

Mako (1)

Pro 16 Skiff CC

Pro 17 Skiff CC

18 LTS

21 LTS

4.8

5.3

5.6

6.4

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.5

20

20

28

30

793 (2)

839 (2)

1,315 (2)

1,501 (2)

8.0 (3)

8.9 (3)

13.9 (3)

21.0 (3)

6

7

7.5

9

14

15.9

21.4

30

Ocean Master 31 CC 9.3 3.1 41 2,950 40 to 75 (3) 24 64 to 99

Notes: (1) includes trailer and outboard motor; (2) approximate package weight, including trailer and outboard motor; (3) prices

converted from US dollars at £1 = US$ 1.6203; and (4) sea freight costs based on shipment from UK via Singapore at cost of

£8,400 per 20ft container (source: FCO).

Source: web-based search.

Indicative capital costs for Dory type fishing boats, fishing equipment and chest freezers for each of

the resettlement options are presented in Table 7.1.15 – based on per capita consumption of 100 kg

per year and average catches per boat of 50 kg per day. The results indicate the following:

■ Option 1 (population of 1,500) – requirement for 13 fishing boats and equipment, with indicative

capital costs of £152,000 to £201,000.

■ Option 2 (population of 500) – requirement for 5 fishing boats and equipment, with indicative


■ Option 3 (population of 150) – requirement for 3 fishing boats and equipment, with indicative


In addition, it should be noted that under Options 1 and 2, where more distant fishing grounds need

to be accessed – and then a fishing boat larger than a dory may be required.

Table 7.1.15 Indicative Capital Costs – Subsistence Fishing by Option

Component Unit

Option 1

Population 1,500

Option 2

Population 500

Option 3

Population 150

Fish Consumption (based on 100kg per capita/year)

Annual Requirement

Daily Requirement

tonnes per year

kg per day

113 tonnes

310 kg

38 tonnes

105 kg

11 tonnes

30 kg

Fish Catch and Fishing Boats required

Average Catch per Boat

Fishing Boats Required

Basic

Standbys (20%)

Total

kg per day

nos.

nos.

nos.

30 kg

11 nos.

2 nos.

13 nos.

30 kg

4 nos.

1 nos.

5 nos.

30 kg

2 nos.

1 nos.

3 nos.

Capital Costs –

indicative

Dory type fishing boats

Fishing Equipment (1)

Chest Freezers (1)

£ 000

£ 000

£ 000

91 to 117

18 to 23

18 to 23

35 to 45

7 to 9

7 to 9

21 to 27

4 to 5

4 to 5

Total

Contingencies (20%)

£ 000

£ 000

127 to 163

25 to 33

49 to 63

10 to 13

29 to 37

6 to 7

Total Capital Costs £ 000 152 to 196 59 to 76 35 to 44

Note: (1) assumed 20% of fishing boat costs.

Source: Table 7.1.13 and study estimates.

129

5.3 Other Mari-Culture Options

There are a number of other mariculture options that might be explored in the future. However, such

developments would depend on specific amendments to the environmental and ‘no take’ conditions

of the Marine Protected Area (MPA).

The other mariculture options that might be considered in the future include:

■ Seaweed cultivation and harvesting

■ Sea cucumber harvesting – high prices (e.g. US$ 10 to 300 per kg, depending on type and quality

in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan)

■ Pearl cultivation (cf. Marquesas Islands in French Polynesia)

■ Aquaculture e.g. prawns and other shell fish

■ Aquarium fish – capture and export (cf. Marine Aquarium Council)

Each of these activities would require specific training and expertise, plus appropriate harvesting and

storage facilities, transport capability and recognised export markets. These opportunities would have

to be studied in more detail before an investment decision could be made.

5.4 Sport Fishing and Diving

This topic is addressed in the Tourism Annex (Annex 7.2, Section 6.4)

5.5 Environmental Activities Related to Fisheries Conservation and Protection

Given the importance of environmental and fisheries conservation and protection in BIOT in the

future, it would be appropriate to engage resettled Chagossians in a full range of environmental and

fisheries activities. These could involve paid employment in the following:

■ Environmental monitoring activities – these could be based on prescribed series of tasks and data

logging activities set by: (i) BIOTA’s environmental adviser; (ii) MRAG; and (iii) requests from

scientific researchers with direct interests in BIOT, the impacts of climate change, etc. The

activities could be carried out on the resettled island(s), adjacent islands and participation in the

regular patrols of the Pacific Marlin, including periodic longer stays on specific islands.

■ Accompany and assist the Fisheries Protection Officer (FPO) in the execution of his duties in

island visits and data collection.

■ Accompany and assist scientific and research expeditions to BIOT.

■ Environmental conservation and protection activities on the resettled island(s).

At this stage, it is estimated that these activities could involve the regular employment of 5 to 6

Chagossians for an average of 100 to 150 days per year. The estimated cost could amount to

£26,000 to £47,000 per year (based on £52 per day, based on current UK minimum wage). The

Chagossians involved in these activities would require specific training and instructions, which may

increase the daily rate depending on the level of expertise required.

6. Potential Training Requirements

This section provides indicative cost estimates of the training that may be required by any resettled

Chagossians who engage in: (i) fishing for personal and/or commercial reasons; and (ii) environmental

activities related to fisheries protection and conservation.

The fisheries training would be required to ensure that: (i) current and potential future ordinances,

licences and regulations are understood and enforced: and (ii) Chagossians develop the necessary

skills for: (a) boat handling, operation and maintenance, (b) appropriate fishing methods, (c)

completion of all log sheets, (d) reporting of any illegal fishing activity; etc. If commercial fishing is re-

130

instated on Diego Garcia, then it would be expected the private sector partner would be directly

involved in the training programme.

The fisheries training could be undertaken by: (i) individual fisheries training specialist; (ii) fisheries

training company; or (iii) one of the three island fisheries training centres in the Indian Ocean region

(i.e. (a) Maldives – Maldives Fisheries Training Centre; (b) Mauritius – Fisheries Training and Extension

Centre; or (c) Seychelles – Maritime Training Centre). The three regional centres have not been

reviewed or assessed by the study team.

Training in environmental activities related to fisheries protection and conservation would include

instruction in: (i) collecting and reporting fish catch and effort data; and (ii) environmental monitoring

to determine if fishing results in significant decline in target/other species or changes in species

composition. For example, heavy targeting of certain herbivorous fish (e.g. parrotfish) can result in

algal overgrowth on coral and reduced reef health. Further details are given in Annex 5.3 and the

Environmental Questionnaire results (Annex 5.6).

Table 7.1.16 presents an indicative cost estimate for the prospective training requirements that may

be required under each resettlement option. The figures indicate a cost estimate of £140,000 that

would involve specialists working with the Chagossians on the island(s) for a period of up to seven (7)

months. It is expected that finalisation of the training requirements would depend on: (i) assessment

of the relevant skills and experience of the Chagossians; (ii) details of any proposed resettlement

programme; and (iii) proposed procurement and payment obligations for the fishing boats and

equipment.

Table 7.1.16 Training Requirements – Indicative Cost Estimates

Fisheries

Unit Cost

(£ 000/month) (1) Months

Total Indicative Cost

(£ 000)

Artisanal Fishing

Commercial Fishing

20

20

3

2

60

40

Environmental Fisheries Protection &

Conservation

20 2 40

Total 7 140


7. Issues and Challenges

The potential future development and exploitation of fisheries resources (artisanal and commercial) to

address the sustainable livelihood needs of Options 1, 2 and 3 will require key decisions and action

on a number of important issues and challenges. Some of the factors are outlined below, which will

need to be incorporated into a phased action plan:

■ Potential amendments to fisheries policy, ordinances and regulations.

■ Skill base, aptitude and willingness of the potential resettled Chagossians.

■ Fisheries training of the potential resettled Chagossians.

■ Fish resources management and data recording.

■ Training in environmental conservation and protection of marine resources.

■ Operational issues relating to maintenance of fishing assets, fuel cost, etc.

■ Possibilities for the establishment of a fish processing facility in partnership with the private sector

■ Access to a potential fisheries loan fund to finance: (i) fishing boats; (ii) fishing equipment; (iii) ice

making equipment and chest freezers; etc.

131

■ Transport and market access to supply the requirements of NSFDG & future tourism

developments

132

Supplementary Tables

This appendix presents the following supplementary tables:

Summary Economic Information – Islands in: Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean & UK Overseas

Territories

Table 1 Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles

Table 2 Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Is., Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu

Table 3 Anguilla, Falklands, Montserrat, St Helena and Turks & Caicos Islands

Chagos Archipelago – Fisheries Data 1991 to 2013/14 –

Table 4 Inshore Fisheries – Fishing Licences, Days in BIOT Waters and Reported Catches

Table 5 Inshore Fisheries – Fishing Areas, Estimated Sustainable Yields, Reported Catches

and Percentages for 1995, 200 and 2009 – by Scenario

Table 6 Recreational Fisheries – Reported Trips, Persons and Catches

Table 7 Offshore Fisheries – Vessels, Licences, Days Fished, Reported Catches & Licence Fees

for Longline and Purse Seine Fishing Vessels

Table 8 Offshore Fisheries – Annual Income & Expenditure Reported by BIOT: Scenarios 1& 2

Table 9 BIOTA – Income and Expenditure Statements 1993/94 to 2013/14

Table 1 Summary Economic Information – Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius & Seychelles

Indicator Unit Comoros Maldives Mauritius Seychelles

General (all year 2012)

Land area

EEZ

Population

Pop. Growth rate

Pop. Density

GDP

GDP growth

GDP per capita

Labour force participation

Male

Female

Trade balance

Exports

Imports

Balance

km²

km² million

000

% p.a.

per km²

US$ million

% p.a.

US$ p.a.

%

%

US$ million

US$ million

US$ million

2,235

n.a.

718

2.4%

321

616

2.5%

858

80%

35%

12.6

181.5

-168.9

300

0.86

338

1.9%

1,128

2,606

13.5%

7,700

77%

56%

161.6

1,554.5

-1,392.9

1,969

1.9

1,240

0.4%

630

11,452

3.2%

9,238

74%

44%

2,257.7

5,772.0

-3,514.3

456

1.3

92

0.6%

202

1,031

2.8%

11,164

n.a.

n.a.

326.6

986.4

-659.8

Fisheries – 2011 figures

Production

Non-Food Uses

Imports

Exports

tonnes 000

tonnes 000

tonnes 000

tonnes 000

25.1

9.0

1.6

94.9

2.2

53.1

8.4

27.0

162.0

114.9

87.4

29.9

51.6

103.6

133

Indicator Unit Comoros Maldives Mauritius Seychelles

Total Food Supply

Per Capita Supply

tonnes 000

kg

17.7

25.2

54.4

164

28.4

23.0

5.5

59.3

Other Fisheries Data

GDP contribution

Employment

All Fishery Activities

Artisanal Fishery

Artisanal Fish Catch

Local Fish Prices

Sport Fishing

%

000 or % of total

000

Tonnes 000 p.a.

US$ per kg

yes/no

50%

(agric.+fisheries)

24

8.5

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

6%

14 (11%)

n.a.

4 to 5

4 to 5

yes

1% to 2%

11

2.3

n.a.

4 to 5.5

yes (400 tpa)

10% to 15%

15%

n.a.

4 to 5

2 to 4

Yes

Sources: (i) World Statistics Pocketbook 2014 edition, Small Island Developing States, UN, 2014; (ii) FAO Yearbook of Fishery

and Aquaculture Statistics 2012; and (iii) country sources and FAO country profiles.

Table 2 Summary Economic Information – Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue,

Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu

Indicator Unit Fiji

Kiribat

i

Marshal

l Is.

Micro-

nesia Nauru Niue Palau Samoa Tonga Tuvalu

General (year 2012)

Surface area

EEZ

Population

Pop. Growth rate

Pop. Density

GDP

GDP growth

GDP per capita

Lab. force part.

Male

Female

Trade balance

Exports

Imports

Balance

km²

Km² mil.

000

% p.a.

per km²

US$ mil.

% p.a.

US$ p.a.

%

%

US$ mil.

US$ mil.

US$ mil.

18,272

1.29

875

0.7%

48

3,999

1.5%

4,572

72%

37%

1,221

2,253

(1,032)

726

3.55

101

1.5%

139

176

3.0%

1,745

n.a.

n.a.

5.8

108.6

(102.8)

181

2.13

53

0.2%

290

198

1.9%

3,773

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

702

2.98

103

0.2%

147

327

1.4%

3,165

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

21

0.43

10

0.2%

478

121

20.2%

12,022

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

260

0.39

1

(2.9)%

5

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

459

0.63

21

0.8%

45

213

(2.5)%

10,271

n.a.

n.a.

9.0

141.9

(132.9)

2,842

0.13

189

0.8%

66

681

0.8%

3,607

54%

23%

76.1

345.5

(269.4)

747

0.7

105

0.4%

140

465

0.9%

4,429

75%

53%

15.6

199.2

(183.6)

26

0.9

10

0.2%

379

40

2.6%

4,042

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

26.5

n.a.

Fisheries – 2011

Production

Non-Food Uses

Imports

Exports

t 000

t 000

t 000

t 000

41.6

3.0

47.9

57.7

40.6

21.4

1.1

13.1

46.2

3.1

1.0

45.5

30.9

6.1

2.3

22.1

0.2

0.1

1.0

0.4

0.2

11.5

7.2

5.7

1.9

2.1

1.8

0.8

11.1

5.9

0.1

4.9

Total Food Supply

Per Capita Supply

t 000

kg

29.4

33.8

7.3

74.1

0.9

17.7

5.0

48.7

0.2

20.0

0.1

113.0

1.2

55.9

8.9

47.5

3.2

30.5

0.4

43.3

Other Fisheries

Data

GDP contribution

Employment

All Fish Activities

Artisanal Fishery


Local Fish Prices

Sport Fishing

%

000 or %

000 or %

T 000 p.a.

US$/kg

yes/no

2%

9 (4%)

5.1

17

3 to 4

Yes

9%

n.a.

40%

14

3 to 4

yes

27%

6%

3%

3

3 to 4

yes

14%

5%

n.a.

10

3 to 4

Yes

10%

4.5

n.a.

0.2/0.4

2.5/3.5

yes

4%

1%

n.a.

0.1

5 to 6

some

6%

9%

7%

1.3

3 to 4

yes

6%

43%

42%

4.5

4 to 5

some

4%

3%+

n.a.

2.8

3 to 4

yes

25%

n.a.

most

1

3 to 4

some

Sources: (i) World Statistics Pocketbook 2014 edition, Small Island Developing States, UN, 2014; (ii) FAO Yearbook of Fishery

and Aquaculture Statistics 2012; (iii) The World Factbook, CIA, 2014; and (iv) country sources and FAO country profiles.

134

Table 3 Summary Economic Information – UK Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Falklands,

Montserrat, St Helena and Turks & Caicos Islands

Indicator Unit Anguilla Falklands Montserrat St Helena TCI

General (year 2012)

Surface area

EEZ

Population

Pop. Growth rate

Pop. Density

GDP

GDP growth

GDP per capita

Employment

Total

% of population

Trade balance

Exports

Imports

Balance

km²

km² 000

000

% p.a.

per km²

£ million

% p.a.

£ p.a.

nos.

%

£ million

£ million

£ million

90

92

13.4

2.9%

150

177

(2.9)%

13,200

6,500

49%

4.4

91.2

(86.8)

12,000

551

2.9

0.1%

0.2

100

n.a.

34,000

1,723

59%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

104

7.6

5.0

0.5%

47

39

(0.7)%

7,900

n.a.

n.a.

1.2

23.0

(21.8)

122

445

4.1

1%

34

16 (2009)

(8)%

4,000 (2009)

2,819 (2009)

68% (2009)

0.9

13.0

(12.1)

948

154

31.5

3.5%

33

490 (2009)

(10.5)%

14,300 (2009)

20,700 (2007)

59% (2007)

10 (2010)

186 (2010)

(176) (2010)

Fisheries (2011)

Production

Non-Food Uses

Imports

Exports

t 000

t 000

t 000

t 000

0.7

99.6

0.2

0.1

99.6

0.02

0.1

0.9

…

0.7

5.4

4.6

1.1

0.4

Total Food Supply

Per Capita Supply

t 000

kg

0.7

50.1

0.1

36.9

0.12

25.8

0.2

51.1

1.5

45.9

Other Fisheries Data

GDP contribution

Employment

All Fish Activities

Artisanal Fishery


Local Fish Prices

Sport Fishing

%

000 or %

000 or %

T 000 p.a.

£/kg

yes/no

2%

3%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

50% to 60%

3.4%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.3%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2 to 2.5

some

0.4% (2009)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Sources: (i) Government statistics for each island; (ii) FAO Yearbook of Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2012; (iii) East

Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB); and (iv)The World Factbook, CIA, 2014.

135

7.2 Tourism

1. Introduction

This annex addresses the background and issues relating to potential Tourism development in BIOT.

The annex is presented in seven sections:


■ Regional and small island tourism

■ Previous reports

■ Tourism potential of BIOT

■ Tourism development opportunities





■ Tourism information for islands in the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean & UK’s Overseas Territories

■ Returning Home – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands, March 2008

■ An Evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands

(Howell Report), Dr J R Turner et al, June 2008

■ Tourism development costs – information and estimates provided by: (i) Rider Levett Bucknall

(independent global property and construction practice); and (ii) BDO – Hotels, Leisure and

Hospitality, Travel and Tourism Division

■ World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and other international sources (note: WTO publishes tourism

data for most countries)

3. Regional and Small Island Tourism

This section reviews available indicators and data for tourism on a selection of small islands – many in

isolated geographic locations, with small populations, some with limited natural resources and

dependence on air access to service the local tourism industry. The review includes reference to the

main tourism indicators and air transport access – which is a key factor for all isolated islands. Basic

data have been reviewed for the following islands:

■ Indian Ocean: Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles.

■ Pacific Ocean: Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu.

■ UK Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Falklands, Montserrat, St Helena and Turks & Caicos Islands.

Key tourism related indicators for 2012 are summarised in Table 7.2.1, with further details for the

years 2008 to 2013 in Appendix A, Tables 1, 2 and 3. A brief review of the main results is presented

below:

136

General economic indicators


Mauritius; (ii) indicative estimates of tourism as a percentage of GDP ranged from 6% in Comoros

to 16% in Mauritius, 28% in the Maldives and 40% in Seychelles.

■ Pacific Ocean islands: (i) generally small populations ranging from 1,000 in Niue to 10,000 in Nauru

and 875,000 in Fiji; (ii) tourism as a percentage of GDP ranged widely from 6% in Tonga to 10% in

Kiribati, 25% in Samoa, 36% in Fiji and 60% in Palau.

■ UK Overseas Territories: (i) small populations ranging from 2,900 in the Falklands to 31,500 in the

Turks and Caicos Islands; (ii) tourism as a percentage of GDP ranged from an estimated 4% in St

Helena to 9% in Montserrat, 35% in Turks and Caicos Islands and 40% in Anguilla.

With regard to tourism as a percentage of GDP, the estimates should be regarded as indicators only.

The publications of the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) indicate that percentages for most

of the small islands could be much higher when full account is taken of ‘direct, indirect and induced’

factors.

Tourism (mainly data for 2012)

■ Indian Ocean islands: (i) stayover arrivals – Comoros received 15,000 in 2012; whereas the figures

for the three other islands groups were much higher at 208,000 for Seychelles, 958,000 for

Maldives and 965,000 for Mauritius – average growth (2008-2012) was modest for Mauritius at

0.9% p.a., compared to 6.9% p.a. for Seychelles and 8.8% p.a. for Maldives; (ii) arrivals by

transport mode – predominantly by air; although there were small numbers of cruise ship visitors

to Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles (see: Appendix A, Table 1); (iii) average stay ranged from

6.7 to 9.8 days; (iv) room occupancy was in the range of 60% to 71%; and (v) reported tourism

expenditure in 2012 ranged from the low level of US$ 39 million for the Comoros to US$ 310

million for Seychelles and US$ 1.8 to 1.9 billion for Mauritius and Maldives – following the

international financial crisis in 2008, tourism expenditure has remained relatively stable, with the

exception of Maldives where receipts increased by an average of 5% p.a. between 2008 & 2012.

■ Pacific Ocean islands: (i) stayover arrivals – these ranged widely from only 1,000 to 6,000 in

Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Niue and Tuvalu to about 120,000 for Palau and Samoa, and 661,000 for

Fiji – some of the islands experienced moderate growth rates in tourist arrivals (2008 to 2012):

3.1% p.a. for Fiji, 5.9% p.a. for Kiribati, 6.8% p.a. for Niue and 10.8% p.a. for Palau (see: Appendix

A, Table 2); (ii) arrivals by transport mode – predominantly by air; although there were significant

numbers of cruise ship visitors to Fiji (80,000 in 2012) and much smaller numbers for Samoa and

Tonga (see: Appendix A, Table 2); (iii) average stay ranged from 5 to 9.6 days; (iv) room occupancy

data was only available for Fiji at 47%; (v) reported tourism expenditure in 2012 ranged from the

low level of US$ 2 to 4 million for the Marshall Islands and Niue to US$ 41 million for Tonga, US$

150 to 160 million for Palau and Samoa, and US$ 987 million for Fiji.

■ UK Overseas Territories – tourism is only significant in Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands –

both were affected by the international financial crisis in 2008, but have the major advantage of

close proximity to the North American market:

– Anguilla: (i) stayover arrivals have ranged between 58,000 and 69,000 p.a.; (ii) arrivals by

transport mode – only 25% to 30% arrive by air, with the major percentage arriving via the

short ferry link to/from the adjacent island of Saint Martin; (iii) average stay was 7.7 days; and

(iv) reported tourism expenditure ranged between US$ 94 and US$ 122 million p.a.

– Turks & Caicos Islands: (i) stayover arrivals have ranged between 291,000 and 354,000 p.a.

(mostly to Providenciales, where most tourism facilities are located); (ii) transport mode – most

stayover visitors arrive by air; and (iii) cruise ships – TCI also receives 400,000 to 780,000

cruise-passengers p.a. at the cruise ship terminal on Grand Turk.

The other Overseas Territories require separate comments:

Falklands (located in the South Atlantic Ocean) – the majority of visitors arrive by cruise ship (60,000

p.a. reported by the Government website). The ships anchor offshore for less than 12 hours and are

137

usually en route to Antarctica or round-the-world voyages. Land-based tourism accommodates about

1,600 visitors p.a., who travel via the RAF air-bridge from the UK. Visitors come for the unique

environment, landscape, fauna and flora. Accommodation is provided by two small hotels in Port

Stanley, tourist lodges, guest houses, self-catering and homestays.

Pitcairn (located in the South Pacific Ocean) – vessels anchor offshore. Visitors come by: (i) cruise

ships – 8 to 10 ships p.a. (average 600 to 700 passengers), some may land passengers for a few

hours, depending on prevailing sea conditions; (ii) charters and yachts (10 to 15 p.a.) with 50 to 80

visitors, staying 3 to 5 days; and (iii) contract shipping service – 12 visits p.a. (4 from New Zealand

and 8 to/from French Polynesian island of Mangareva) transporting 50 to 60 visitors per year, some of

whom are tourists staying for 3 to 10 days or several months. Land-based tourists are

accommodated by homestays with the Islanders at US$ 70 per night.

St Helena (located in mid-Atlantic Ocean) – current access is by sea, RMS St Helena which conducts

17 voyages p.a. between Cape Town, Ascension Island and St Helena. Over the last six years, visitor

numbers have been relatively stable at between 2,350 and 2,700 p.a. – of whom 600 to 1,000 could

be classed as tourists. Accommodation: (i) hotels – 3 at £100 to £300 per room/night; (ii) self-catering

– 32 units at £15 to £35 per night; and (iii) bed & breakfast – 3 units at £58 to £140 per room/night.

Tristan da Cunha (located in the South Atlantic Ocean) – access is by sea only and vessels anchor

offshore: (i) South African company operating the lobster concession – provides 10 to 12 round trips

p.a. for passengers and cargo in two fishing vessels to/from Cape Town; (ii) passenger numbers

range from 150 to 200 p.a. (islanders, officials and some tourists); (iii) small cruise ships – 4 to 7 p.a.,

which may allow ashore a total 100 to 400 p.a. for a few hours; (iv) visitor accommodation is by

homestays or a small self-catering units.

Table 7.2.1: Tourism – Summary Data 2012: Islands in Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Overseas

Territories

Island

Pop.

(000)

Tourism

as % GDP

Arrivals (000) Accommodation (nos.) Indicators Tourism

Expenditure

(US$ million) Stayover By Air Hotels, etc. Rooms

Av. Stay

(days)

Occupanc

y (%)

Indian Ocean

Comoros

Maldives

Mauritius

Seychelles

718

338

1,240

92

6%

28%

16%

40% (1)

15

958

965

208

15

958

948

207

51 (1)

354

117

225

311 (1)

14,060

12,527

3,100

7.0

6.7

9.4

9.8

n.a.

71%

62%

60%

39

1,898

1,778

26 (?)

Pacific Ocean

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall Is.

Niue

Palau

Samoa

Tonga

Tuvalu

875

101

53

1

21

189

105

10

36%

10%

n.a.

n.a.

60%

25%

6%

n.a.

661

5

5

6

119

126

49

1

642

5

5

6

119

132

49

1

167

38

17

27

40

107

100

6

10,136

n.a.

n.a.

71 (2)

1,419

1,512 (2)

n.a.

n.a.

9.6

n.a.

4.9 (1)

8.5 (2)

n.a.

n.a.

7.0

n.a.

47%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

987

n.a.

4 (1)

2 (1)

164

148

41

Overseas Terr.

Anguilla

Falklands

Montserrat

St Helena

TCI

13.4

2.9

5.0

4.1

31.5

40%

n.a.

9%

4% (3)

35% (3)

65

1

7

1

299

15

1

5

none

n.a.

50

n.a.

9

7

73

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

7.7

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

113

n.a.

5

n.a.

n.a.

Notes: (1) 2011; (2) 2010; and (3) 2009.

Source: Appendix A, Tables 1, 2 and 3.

138

One of the key factors in modern tourism is convenient air access. This is crucial for small island

nations that have become heavily dependent on international tourism as a key sector in the national

economy and a major source of employment. Table 7.2.2 illustrates the number and general

characteristics of the international and domestic airports and airstrips on each of the selected islands

in the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean and the Overseas Territories. The main results are as follows:

■ All islands have at least one international airport that can accommodate most wide-bodied

passenger aircraft. The only exceptions are in the Overseas Territories: (i) Anguilla and Montserrat

– serviced by links to neighbouring Antigua; and (ii) St Helena – new airport is under construction

and scheduled for completion by February 2016 (runway length 1,550 metres).

■ Most of the island nations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans have a number of domestic airstrips

that provide air services in small aircraft to outlying islands. These are particularly important in the

Maldives, Seychelles and many islands in the Pacific Ocean, where tourism is continuing to grow

■ Other facts that are important for domestic airports/airstrips: (i) runway surfaces range from grass

to gravel (coral) and paved; (ii) operation and ownership is both public and private, especially in the

Maldives and Seychelles; (iii) scheduled and non-scheduled services; (iv) generally no night landing

or refuelling facilities; (v) most have limited terminal facilities; and (vi) many of the domestic

airstrips on the Pacific Islands were constructed by the US military in 2nd

World War, and the main

construction costs were not incurred by the islands themselves.

For the other Overseas Territories, the following is worth noting in terms of transport access:

■ Pitcairn (located in the South Pacific Ocean) – too small and insufficient land area to construct an

airstrip. Transport access is by chartered ship that provides scheduled passenger services to/from

one of the outer islands of French Polynesia.

■ Tristan da Cunha (TdC – located in the South Atlantic Ocean) – too small and insufficient land area

to construct an airstrip. Transport access is by fishing vessels (operated by the lobster

concessionaire) that include scheduled passenger services to/from Cape Town.

Table 7.2.2 Airports – Islands in Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean & Overseas Territories: International

and Domestic

Island

Figures for 2012 Airport Characteristics

Population

(000)

Tourist

Arrivals by

Air (000) Nos. Runway (m) Surface Aircraft Type

International

Indian Ocean

Comoros

Maldives

Mauritius

Seychelles

718

338

1,240

92

15

958

948

207

1

4

1

1

2,900

1,800 to 3,200

3,370

2,987

paved

paved

paved

paved

B737 & B767

A320 & B747

B767 & A320

B767 & A320

Pacific Ocean

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall

Islands

Nauru

Niue

Palau

Samoa

Tonga

Tuvalu

875

101

53

10

1

21

189

105

10

642

5

5

n.a.

4

119

132

49

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1,868 & 3,273

2,011 & 2,103

2,407

2,150

2,335

2,195

3,000

2,681

1,524

paved

paved

paved

paved

paved

paved

paved

paved

paved

B737 & B747

B737 & ATR 72

A320 & B737

B737

A320 & B737

A320 & B737

A320 & B737

B767

B737 & ATR 42

139

Island

Figures for 2012 Airport Characteristics

Population

(000)

Tourist

Arrivals by

Air (000) Nos. Runway (m) Surface Aircraft Type

Overseas Terr.

Anguilla

Falklands

Montserrat

St Helena

TCI

13.4

2.9

5.0

4.1

31.5

15

2

5

nil

299

1

2

1

none

2

1,665

918 & 2,590

553

n.a.

1,939 & 2,807

paved

paved

paved

n.a.

paved

ATR 42 & 72

B747

Britten Norman Isl.

n.a.

B757 & A321

Domestic

Indian Ocean

Comoros

Maldives

Mauritius

Seychelles

718

338

1,240

92

15

958

948

207

3

6

1

14

1,300 to 1,355

1,189 to 1,250

1,030

478 to 1,405

paved

paved

paved

paved & grass

BAe 146 & Emb 120

DHC-6 & ATR 42

ATR-42 & 72

DHC-6 Twin Otter

Pacific Ocean

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall

Islands

Nauru

Niue

Palau

Samoa

Tonga

Tuvalu

875

101

53

10

1

21

189

105

10

642

5

5

n.a.

4

119

132

49

1

27

21

31

none

none

2

4

5

2

762 to 1,000

885 to 1,899

747 to 1,524

n.a.

n.a.

1,828 & 2,133

670 & others

685 to 1,705

abandoned

gravel & paved

gravel & paved

grass, gr. &

paved

n.a.

n.a.

gravel & paved

paved & others

gravel & paved

n.a.

ATR 42

DHC-6 Twin Otter

DHC 6 & Dornier

228

n.a.

n.a.

Britten Norman Is.

DHC 6, BNI &

Cessna

Jetstream 32

n.a.

Overseas Terr.

Anguilla

Falklands

Montserrat

St Helena

TCI

13.4

2.9

5.0

4.1

31.5

15

2

5

nil

299

none

28

none

none

6

none

n.a.

none

none

750 to 1,826

none

airstrips

none

none

paved

none

n.a.

none

none

BN Is. & Beechcraft

Sources: (i) registered airports & airstrips by island country – web-based search; (ii) population 2012, Appendix A, Tables 1, 2 &

3; & (iii) Tourist arrivals by air 2012, Appendix A, Tables 1, 2 & 3.

The Study Team also carried out a broad review of competing Island Resorts in the Maldives and

Seychelles. The main results are presented in Appendix A (Tables 4 and 5), including: (i) names; (ii)

number of rooms, chalets or villas; (iii) distance from the main international airport; (iv) mode of

transport from the main international airport; and (v) range of room prices. The results indicate the

following:

Maldives:

■ Two categories: (i) 10 resorts with reported active environmental management policies; and (ii) 25

resorts with 50 or less rooms, chalets or villas.

■ All island resorts can be accessed by: (i) speedboat or seaplane from Malé International Airport; or

(ii) domestic flight to more distant northern atolls from Malé International Airport, then by speed

boat.

140

■ Seaplane flights are operated by Trans Maldivian Airways, which operates a fleet of 44 DHC-6

Twin Otter aircraft (18 passengers) from a custom-built terminal adjacent to Malé International

Airport.

■ Time and costs of transfers, depending on resort location: (i) seaplane: 15 to 90 minutes, return

trip cost of US$ 150 to US$ 350 per passenger; and (ii) speedboat: 10 to 45 minutes, return trip

cost of US$ 50 to US$ 150 per passenger.

■ Many island resorts have jetty facilities to accommodate seaplane and speedboat transfers.

■ Many island resorts have: (i) proportion of their rooms/chalets on stilts over the sea; and (ii)

restaurant facilities on stilts over the sea.

■ Some island resorts have larger chalets and villas with 2 or 3 bedrooms.

■ Room rates are generally in the range of US$ 750 to US$ 1,500 per room/night for 2 adults,

including breakfast. There are some with lower rates and others with much higher rates –

generally for larger chalets or villas with 2 or more bedrooms. The prices do not include transfers

by seaplane or speedboat.

■ Some room rates can be subject to discounting of up to 25% on some websites.

■ Most resort bills are subject to the addition of VAT – currently 15%.

Seychelles:

■ 13 island resorts can be accessed by: (i) plane or helicopter from Mahé International Airport;

and/or (ii) taxi and boat from the main islands (Mahé, Praslin, La Digue).

■ Plane and helicopter flights are operated by: (i) Air Seychelles, which operates 6 DHC-6 Twin Otter

aircraft (18 passengers); and (ii) ZilAir, which operates 3 Eurocopters (EC120 B) and a Beechcraft

250.

■ Time and costs of domestic flight transfers, depending on resort location: (i) time: 15 to 90

minutes; and (ii) cost: return trip cost US$ 200 to US$ 530 per passenger.

■ Some island resorts have private jetty facilities and one has a private airstrip.


■ Room rates show a wide range related to the quality of the facilities and exclusivity of each resort.

Rates range from US$ 400 to US$ 3,500 per room/night for 2 adults, including breakfast. There

are also much higher rates – generally for larger chalets or villas with 2 or more bedrooms. The

prices do not include transfers by plane, helicopter or boat.

■ Room rates can be subject to discounting of up to 25% on some websites.


The key conclusions of the review are as follows:

■ Most of the island resorts operate at the upper end of the tourism market, with exclusive facilities

on small islands.

■ All transfers from the main international airport involve transport by seaplane, plane, helicopter

and/or speedboat – which are not included in the resort prices.

■ Resort prices are generally high, reflecting the geographic location, high investment costs and

service exclusivity.

Finally in the context of the present study, it is also useful to have some idea of the future growth

and opportunities offered by the world-wide tourism sector. These indicators are available in the

forecast publications of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and the World Travel and Tourism

Council (WTTC).

141

Over previous decades, tourism has experienced continued expansion and diversification, becoming

one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors in the world. Despite occasional shocks, international

tourist arrivals have increased by more than 300% over the last three decades – from 277 million in

1980 to 940 million in 2010, and exceeding more than 1,000 million in 2013. Table 7.2.3 summarises

some key figures from the WTO’s latest projections by region to 2020 and 2030. The regional

projections include most of the island nations that have been highlighted in this section (see: note to

the table).

Strong and sustained growth is forecast for the regions of East Africa, Southern Africa and South Asia

– with growth rates of 4.5% to 6.8% p.a. from 2010 to 2020; and 4.1% to 5.4% p.a. from 2020 to

2030. These regions include important tourist destinations in the Indian Ocean of Maldives, Mauritius

and Seychelles – and potentially BIOT.

Table 7.2.3 WTO – Tourist Arrivals: Actual and Forecasts by Region 2020 and 2030

Region

Actual (million) Forecasts (million) Growth Rates (% p.a.)

1980 1995 2010 2020 2030 1980-95 1995-10 2010-20 2020-30

East Africa (1)

Southern Africa (2)

South Asia (3)

Oceania (4)

Caribbean (5)

1.2

1.0

2.2

2.3

6.7

5.0

4.3

4.2

8.1

14.0

12.1

12.6

11.1

11.6

20.1

22

20

21

15

25

37

29

36

19

30

10.1%

10.1%

4.3%

8.7%

5.0%

6.1%

7.4%

6.6%

2.4%

2.4%

6.2%

4.5%

6.8%

2.9%

2.4%

5.4%

4.1%

5.3%

2.0%

1.7%

World

Advanced

Economies

Emerging

Economies

194

83

334

193

498

442

643

717

772

1,037

3.7%

5.8%

2.7%

5.7%

2.6%

4.9%

1.8%

3.8%

World Total 277 528 940 1,360 1,809 4.4% 3.9% 3.8% 2.9%

Notes: Regions include: (1) Seychelles; (2) Comoros and Mauritius; (3) Maldives; (4) Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau,

Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu; & (5) Anguilla and Turks & Caicos Islands.

Source: UNWTO Tourism Highlights – 2014 Edition, World Tourism Organisation.

Recent studies by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) also forecast significant annual

growth rates in the tourism sector’s contribution to GDP, employment and visitor expenditure. The

forecasts are summarised in Table 7.2.4 for selected islands.

142

Table 7.2.4 WTTC – Island Forecasts: Tourism Contribution to GDP, Employment and Tourist

Expenditure 2014 to 2024

Island

Forecast Growth Rates in Tourism Contribution (% p.a.)

GDP Employment Visitor Expenditure

Indian Ocean

Comoros

Maldives

Mauritius

Seychelles

3.5% p.a.

4.2% p.a.

4.4% p.a.

4.3% p.a.

3.0% p.a.

1.8% p.a.

2.5% p.a.

1.8% p.a.

3.0% p.a.

4.4% p.a.

4.7% p.a.

4.4% p.a.

Pacific Ocean

Fiji

Kiribati

Tonga

5.1% p.a.

3.0% p.a.

5.2% p.a.

3.3% p.a.

2.5% p.a.

3.2% p.a.

5.4% p.a.

5.1% p.a.

5.5% p.a.

UK Overseas Territory

Anguilla

4.4% p.a.

2.1% p.a.

4.3% p.a.

Source: Economic Impact Studies by Country 2014, World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).

4. Previous Reports

4.1 Introduction

This section reviews two reports with references to tourism development and air access:




It should be noted that none of the previous studies have presented: (i) a review of the tourism

development potential of the Chagos Islands; (ii) the views of the Chagossians; or (iii) the need to

associate with a private resort development company to invest in and promote an appropriate

tourism package. These aspects are addressed further in Sections 5 and 6.

4.2 Returning Home – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands,

March 2008

The report (also known as The Howell Report) outlines the following proposed tourism development:

■ 50 chalet hotel on Île Anglais (Peros Banhos group, 9.6km² )

■ Support facilities and infrastructure, including:

■ Staffing – 150 nos. (70% for resettled Chagossians)

■ Air access:

– Proposed site: Île Pierre (In Peros Banhos group, 150ha and 3.6km)

– Runway length: 1,100 metres (possible minimum of 800 metres) for short haul aircraft (e.g.

ATR42 – 42 passengers) with link to Maldives, Mauritius and/or Seychelles.

– Infrastructure and facilities required to satisfy IATA operational and safety regulations, terminal

building, power supplies, refuelling requirements, plus immigration and customs, etc.

Table 7.2.5 summarises the indicative costs of the proposed investments. The figures indicate capital

costs of £ 29 million (86% for the 50 chalet hotel development) and annual O&M costs of £ 5 million

– for the hotel development only. No recurrent estimates were given for the airstrip. However, it

should be noted that the air access facility would also serve other demands (i.e. movement of

Chagossians and others, plus imports and exports requiring air transport).

143

Table 7.2.5 Howell Report – Estimated Costs for Tourism Development and Air Access

Component

Cost Estimates

(£ million) (1) Stated Sources

Capital Cost Estimates

Tourism Development – 50 chalet

hotel

Air Access

25.0

4.0

Two property development companies in

Mauritius

Civil engineers in South Africa

Total – Capital Costs 29.0

Annual O&M Cost Estimates

Tourism Development – 50 chalet

hotel

Air Access

5.0

not given

Companies engaged in resort development

Total – Annual O&M Costs 5.0

Note: (1) Estimates in 2008 prices.

Source: Returning Home – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands, March 2008.

The Howell Report also presents estimates of the indicative financial performance for the 50 chalet

hotel. The figures indicate:

■ Annual income of £7.5 million – equates to £630 per chalet/day, based on 65% occupancy

■ Annual expenditure of £5 million – of which 15% to 20% would be paid in salaries/wages to 105

Chagossians (70% of total staff of 155), resulting in average wages of £150 to £200 per week.

■ Net annual income of £2.5 million – which represents a basic return of 10% on the initial capital

investment.

Table 7.2.6 Howell Report – 50 Chalet Hotel: Indicative Financial Performance

Component

Estimates

(£ million p.a.) (1) Remarks

Annual Income

Predicted Income

7.5 Based on 65% occupancy, equates to av. rates of

£630 per chalet/day

Annual Expenditure

O&M Expenditure

of which:

105 Chagossians (70%

of total staff of 150)

5.0

0.75 to 1.0

Total estimate with 150 staff

Implies salaries/wages of £7,140 to £9,500, or

£150 to £200 per week

Net Annual Income 2.5

Note: (1) Estimates in 2008 prices.

Source: Returning Home – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands, March 2008.

General comments on tourism development estimates presented in Howell Report:

■ Capital costs:

– Hotel and air access – probably a considerable under-estimate, given: (i) isolated location; (ii)

high mobilisation, access and shipping costs; (iii) initial development of completely greenfield

site; (iv) costs of environmental impact assessment and monitoring; (v) high environmental

safeguards and requirements; and (vi) costs of sea defence infrastructure.

■ Annual income:

– Occupancy rate – 65% is reasonable.

– Average rate (£630 per chalet/day) – on the low side for a prestige unique resort development.

144

■ Annual expenditure:

– O&M costs – may under-estimate the costs of: (i) energy supplies; (ii) water and waste

disposal requirements; (iii) foreign staff of 45 nos. (i.e. 30% of 150); etc.

■ Annual financial return:

– Estimates do not take account of: (i) contingencies; (ii) financing costs; (iii) fees and

government charges; (iv) depreciation charges; etc.

– Annual return of 10% – too low for high cost and high risk investment. Private resort

developers are likely to require an annual financial return of 25% p.a. + within a period of 5 to

10 years, depending on their perceived risk profile and alternative investment opportunities.

4.3 An Evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the

Chagos Islands, June 2008

This report highlights the following main comments and observations on the tourism development

proposals set out in the Howell Report:

■ With regard to potential tourism development, the report makes a number of key statements:

– ‘The location of the proposed airport and tourist facility are inappropriate, and the airport design

parameters, and thus costs, are incorrect.’ (Abstract, page 1)

– ‘There needs to be a greater exploration of a solution lying somewhere between permanent

substantial resettlement, expensively supported by tourists and an airport, and briefer visits

perhaps wanted by many. A solution of simple facilities for essentially vessel-based visits (but

well short of expensive hotels for wealthy, air-borne clientele) might offer an affordable and

desired (by the majority) way forward.’ (page 4, top)

– ‘The development model proposed requires a large number of non-Chagossians to be resident

to construct facilities, support and complement original Chagossians for many years, with a

disproportionate benefit to them. The report emphasises the crucial role of outside commercial

interests as the key to development of the tiny islands on the proposed scale and indicates

that non-Chagossians would be responsible for most management and services and would

have better paid jobs. The report is generally less clear about the relative balance of benefits

accruing to the Chagossians versus the outside interests.’ (page 5, point 5)

– ‘Various aspects and issues raised in the report would benefit from further consultation with

people familiar with the present state of the islands. For example, the locations suggested for

the airport and the hotel are amongst the roughest lagoonal locations in the Indian Ocean.’

(page 6, point 7)

– ‘Some key costs appear significantly under-estimated: the airport is a particular example.’ (page

6, point 9)

■ Airport – major comments for the proposed siting of an airport on Île Pierre (Peros Banhos) for

flight connections to Mauritius:

– ‘The type and range of aircraft proposed (ATR42) are inadequate, and alternatives are needed

by a commercial operator (e.g. B737s or Airbus 320s). These require a substantially longer

runway of at least 2590 m (8500 ft), rather than the 1615 m (5300 ft), based on the

recalculated Howell Report figures for takeoff (for the 1100 m presented is incorrectly

calculated, being based on landing.’ (page 14, section 2.5, 2nd

para.)

– Île Pierre is inappropriate for the airport site for the following reasons: (i) ‘lies almost exactly

cross wind for much of the year’; and (ii) ‘to make a runway into wind would require substantial

landfill…and cannot be done from Île Pierre because of the depths of the water.’ (page 14,

section 2.5, 3rd

para.)

– Even a runway joining the islands of Grand and Petit Soeur (with more appropriate alignment

characteristics) would require substantial elevation and shoreline armouring, plus incremental

landfill in the central depressions (page 16)

■ Hotel and tourism – major comments:

– Howell Report ‘…does not appear to appreciate that development of a resort and transport

infrastructure can quickly destroy the unique, pristine environment and destroys the rich

145

source of biodiversity, thus reducing the value of all further tourism to that place.’ (page 18,

section 2.6, 1st

para.)

– ‘…lagoon-facing shores of the western side of the atoll (where the airport and the hotel are

proposed) receive relatively high wave energy’ (page 18, section 2.5, 2nd

para.)

– ‘Beach-based tourism will not be successful for the 5-6 months of the year when 10-20 knot

winds constantly strike a hotel facing this beach. The lagoon side is benign for the rest of the

year (November-April), but note the 65% occupancy rates required in the Howell proposal.’

(page 19, 2nd

para.)

– ‘In almost all respects, the much smaller and more sheltered Salomon atoll is really the only

one which should be contemplated for tourism (though structures are similarly derelict there

also) and there is even less space for an airport.’ (page 21, 2nd

para.)

– ‘Revenue from tourism is seen as essential to the success of settlement, and its integration

with the settlement, its supply with energy and transport, is equally key. Any problems here

may undermine the economic base of resettlement. …There is doubtless scope for some very

high-end tourism, and this may be largely ship-based rather than airport supplied…Tourism

developers would have to be invited to look at the feasibility in conjunction with issues of

transport, climate and weather.’ (page 21, 4th

para.)

■ The BIOT Environment – the report makes a number of statements that are important to the

unique environmental status of BIOT; but are equally significant in the context of appropriate and

sensitive tourism development; These are:

– ‘Probably the most pristine tropical marine environment surviving on the planet.’

– ‘The world’s healthiest coral reefs and the world’s largest coral atoll.’

– ‘Wildlife biodiversity is very rich.’

– ‘The archipelago is isolated and at the centre of the Indian Ocean where it acts as an ‘oasis’ for

marine and island species…’

– Most of the Chagos is uninhabited…where human pressures do not conflict with

environmental needs and lead to degradation and impoverishment.’

– ‘…the Chagos provides a scientific benchmark for ecosystems in the absence of direct human

impacts.’ (page 22, section 3.2)

■ A New Strategy (page 24, section 3.4)

– The report supports an alternative ‘….resettlement approach in which the Chagossians engage

in active conservation through protection and also possibly rehabilitation of island

ecosystems….Livelihoods could be available for a small scale community of Chagossians to

act as guides, assist with research and enforce protection.’ (page 24, section 3.4, 1st para.)

– ‘A small community (10s to 100s) would stand a good prospect of success within such a

framework of environmental protection for the precious and delicate islands, on which the

community would depend for its survival.’ (page 24, section 3.4, 4th

para.)

■ Costs of Resettlement (page 27, section 5)

– ‘The costs are probably out by an order of magnitude or more, if shoreline protection, a

properly costed appropriate airport facility, needed landfill for the latter, impact of mitigation

and other aspects noted….are taken into account.’ (page 27, section 5, 1st para.)

– ‘The cost estimate of the airport in the Howell Report is especially modest….The cost of the

runway with turns at each end alone (without other airport facilities) is estimated at nearly US$

100 m (£50 m) because cost rise steeply with the category of aircraft to be used. This sum

does not include structures on the airport, nor substantial landfill, nor shoreline armouring, nor

landing or port areas to get airport construction equipment ashore. A further US$ 15 m (£7.5

m) is required for essential navigational equipment and taxiways, and more will be required for

buildings, fuel storage, emergency vehicle and so forth. Operating costs will be over US$ 8 m

per year (£4 m).’ (page 28, 2nd

para.)

■ Conclusion

– ‘The likelihood of self-sufficiency is questioned, suggesting the necessity to import food.’

(page 29)

146

– ‘Proposals for an airport are problematic because the suggested location has crosswinds and

aircraft type and runway size are evidently insufficient. When these aspects are factored in, a

much more expensive development is required for which there may be no appropriate

location.’ (page 29)

– ‘Proposals for tourism are problematic because of the need for air links, and because locations

planned appear inappropriate, and because high end hotel based tourism may be short lived

once development, environmental impact and loss of uniqueness follow.’ (page 29)

■ Airport Design – Appendix 1

– ‘The Howell proposal’s airport section does not reference any established design standard. The

proposed airport siting, size, design, and operation appear to be based solely on anecdotal

stories of design elsewhere. Not examined are the isolation of the proposed airport, distances

to other suitable airports, or how air service will be obtained. The standards to which the

proposed airport must be designed, built and operated are substantially greater than stated in

the report, and will also require substantially more money.’ (page 31, 2nd

para.)

In designing a runway, the Appendix highlights two key omissions in the Howell Report: (i) distances

to connecting airports; and (ii) number of passengers/cargo for each flight – these will determine the

appropriate aircraft type and hence the runway length required. The Howell Report focuses on air

links to Mauritius – which is the most distant of all the international airports to/from BIOT.

Approximate distances to/from Peros Banhos are:

■ Mauritius international airport – 1,250 nautical miles (nm)

■ Seychelles international airport – 1,000 nm

■ Malé international airport (Maldives) – 575 nm

■ Diego Garcia airfield – 130 nm

Based on these facts, the Appendix states that the aircraft proposed by the Howell Report (ATR 42-

500 – 50 passengers or payload of 6 tonnes) has a range of 875 nm. Therefore, only Malé

international airport and Diego Garcia airfield are within range – but, a return flight to/from Malé

international airport would require refuelling at Gan international airport (runway 2,650 m, built as

British military airbase in WW II). The remaining sections of the Appendix do not examine the

implications of the Malé/Gan and Diego Garcia connections, but focus on the direct Mauritius air link

that would require larger aircraft in the future i.e. B737 or A320 and a runway length of 2,591 m for

take-off with full payload. The Appendix presents the following indicative cost estimates: (i) runway

US$ 80 to 100 million: (ii) electronic instrument landing system US$ 2.5 million; (iii) area navigation

system US$ 1.5 million; and (iv) taxiways US$ 5 million – total US$ 89 to 109 million (note: these cost

estimates are based on US prices in 2008 multiplied by 3).

In the context of the need for a tourism related airport facility, the high capital costs outlined above

indicate that more attention should be given to the two cheaper alternatives – namely an airport

linked to: (i) Malé and Gan international airports; or (ii) Diego Garcia airfield. Indeed, the latter might

be a much cheaper as a seaplane could be used for the local flights (cf. internal flight connections in

the Maldives).

5. Tourism Potential of BIOT

5.1 Introduction

BIOT is an unknown destination in the international tourism market. Nevertheless, it has unique

characteristics that could make it attractive to high-end tourism and the eco-tourism market. The

isolation, access and environmental protection/conservation issues would have to be addressed in a

manner (short, medium and long term) that preserves the unique status of the archipelago and the

Marine Protected Area (MPA); and yet offers reasonable and sustainable opportunities for resettled

Chagossians under Options 1, 2 and 3.

147

This section offers some suggestions on a constructive way forward, in terms of: (i) key factors for

tourism development; (ii) SWOT analysis; and (iii) key strategic development messages.

5.2 Key Factors for Tourism Development

Key factors for appropriate tourism development in BIOT are outlined as follows:

■ Tourism development should take full account of the need to protect and preserve the unique

environment of the Islands

■ Relationship between tourism development, the environment and BIOTA management should be

clearly set out in appropriate ordinances

■ Formulation of medium term objectives, strategy and targets

■ Action plan in partnership between BIOTA, resettled Chagossians and private sector development

companies

■ Effective human resource assessment and training programme for resettled Chagossians

■ Understanding of the tourism market in the Indian Ocean and development prospects

■ Identification and monitoring of key indicators and timelines to assess development impacts

■ Establish Project Management Unit (PMU) to provide effective management and control

■ Sustained commitment of necessary capital investment and development resources

■ Investigation of potential private sector interest

■ Private sector partnership for island resort development

■ Understanding of related risks and uncertainties

■ Effective monitoring and evaluation, especially environmental impacts

5.3 SWOT Analysis

This section presents a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of the

tourism potential in BIOT and the resulting strategic development implications.

Table 7.2.7 SWOT Analysis – Indicative Factors Related to Tourism Development

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Isolated and pristine environment

2. Small and exclusive islands, uninhabited for

more than 40 years

3. Marine Protected Area (MPA), currently one of

the largest in world

4. Unique marine environment, with extensive

atolls and lagoons

5. Limited human development

6. High demand for prestige & select tourism

developments

7. Prospect of employment opportunities for

returning Chagossians

1. Existence of major military facility on Diego

Garcia

2. Restrictions imposed by Marine Protected Area

(MPA)

3. Unknown age profile, skills and experience of

potential returning Chagossians

4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure

5. High development costs for small population

6. Problem of access to airfield and port facilities

on Diego Garcia

7. High costs of sea defences

8. Divided opinions between advocates of

resettlement and environmental

conservation/protection

148

Opportunities Threats

1. Opportunity to partner with responsible private

tourism developers with proven ‘track record’

in environmental conservation and protection

2. Opportunity to negotiate partnership use and

access to airfield and port facilities on Diego

Garcia

3. Opportunities for further tourism development:

re: Maldives model

4. Improved transport economies of scale with

further tourism development

5. Opportunity to promote two-island holidays,

similar to those combining Sri Lanka and the

Maldives

6. Opportunity to train Chagossians with

appropriate skills prior to return to the islands

1. Sea level rise and danger of increased erosion

and flooding

2. Danger of seismic events in East Indian Ocean –

causing threat to low lying islands

3. Adverse impact of general climate change to

low lying islands

4. Tourism and parallel developments may cause

incremental and long-term environmental

damage, diminishing the global significance of

the BIOT MPA

5. Risk that resettled Chagossians may not wish to

remain on the islands, especially the younger

generation

6. Risk that resettled Chagossians will become

dependent on budgetary aid and develop an

ageing population

5.4 Key Strategic Development Messages

BIOT is an inspiring destination with potential to offer a unique experience for high-end tourists and

eco-tourists – if managed appropriately and sensitively in relation to the preservation and

conservation of the Islands’ pristine environment. In this context, the strategy needs to focus on low

impact tourism in which visitors, developers, administrators and Chagossians are fully aware of their

environmental obligations in the short, medium and long term. The vulnerability and environmental

sensitivity of the outer islands, in particular, are examined further in Sections 7 and 8. Concern arises

from major tourism and supporting infrastructures that would be required (e.g.

ports/airport/accommodation), their operation and human activities. Consequential impacts,

collectively, would likely be substantial, unless considerable effort and financial resources were

deployed for prevention and/or mitigation; even this could be insufficient to prevent the outer islands

from becoming degraded like many coastal areas of the Indian Ocean. Ongoing monitoring would

need to be an integral part of any tourism development, to determine if/when acceptable

environmental thresholds are crossed and the management actions required.

All stakeholders should work closely together to ensure that a clear and consistent message is

embraced and promoted by all parties. Infrastructure development will be a major challenge, and the

first phase of development should be regarded as a key barometer that sets the tone for the future.

Consideration should be given to the establishment of a ‘Conservation Fund’ to be used for enhanced

environmental protection and conservation.

6. Tourism Development Opportunities

6.1 Introduction

This section outlines the potential livelihood options in tourism and related activities for resettled

Chagossians, in terms of:

■ Island development in form of: (i) high-end tourism development – similar to Maldives model; and

(ii) eco-tourism development to minimise the environmental impact.

■ Tourism related activities e.g. sport fishing, snorkelling and scuba diving, other water sports, and

marine and environmental tours, etc.

■ Home-stays with Chagossian families.

■ Yachting and vessel safaris

149

■ Cruise ship visits.

The training requirements for most of these potential livelihood options would have to be assessed

based on the range of skills and experience of the Chagossians wishing to resettle under Options 1, 2

or 3.

In addition, many of the tourism development opportunities may require: (i) the drafting of new

ordinances and/or amendments to existing ordinances; (ii) adherence to BIOTA’s building regulations

– if they exist, if not then specific regulations may need to be drafted; and (iii) review of the ordinance

or law for the Marine Protected Area when it is finalised.

6.2 High-End Tourism Development

This section outlines the potential opportunity to develop a high-end tourist resort on one of the

suitable islands in BIOT, and create potential employment opportunities for resettled Chagossians

under Options 1, 2 and 3. At the outset, it is important to note that several key factors remain to be

investigated before a final decision could be taken. These are:

■ Interest of potential private sector tourism developers and investors would need to be assessed.

■ Site selection of suitable island(s) on which to locate the potential development (e.g. island in the

Salomon Atoll or Diego Garcia – if Île Anglais is not suitable).

■ Transport access to/from the potential resort island (i.e. dedicated island airport or access to the

Diego Garcia airfield).

■ Training of resettled Chagossians in wide range of skills needed in high-end tourism hospitality

(see: Section 7).

In order to initiate the decision process, the Study Team has investigated the potential financial

implications and employment opportunities of a high-end tourist resort. Indicative estimates were

prepared for a resort with 30, 40 or 50 rooms in 2014 constant prices. Parameters and estimates

were discussed and assessed with well-known consultants and advisors in the tourism field.

Indicative capital costs are presented in Table 7.2.8, with further details in Appendix B. The estimates

include upper and lower estimates in US$ and £ sterling:

■ 30 room resort – indicative lower estimate of US$ 39.2 million (£24.2 million), and upper estimate

of US$ 44.3 million (£27.3 million), with the main resort construction accounting for 65% of the

total. The average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 1.3 million (£800,000) per room to US$

1.48 million (£910,000) per room.









The results indicate that the number of rooms will be important relative to the size of the selected

island.

150

Table 7.2.8 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Capital Costs (2014 constant prices)

Component

US$ million £ million (1)

30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms

Main resort construction

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

Fixtures, fittings & equipment

Landing & jetty facilities

Site, design, EIA & constr.

supervision (2)

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

30.0

26.0

4.5

1.25

40.3

35.7

36.0

31.0

5.4

1.25

48.1

42.9

42.0

36.0

6.2

1.25

55.8

48.9

18.5

16.0

2.8

0.8

24.8

22.0

22.2

19.1

3.3

0.8

29.7

26.1

25.9

22.2

3.8

0.8

34.4

30.2

Total – Base Cost Estimates

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

Physical contingencies (3)

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

40.3

35.7

4.0

3.6

48.1

42.9

4.8

4.2

55.8

48.9

5.6

4.9

24.8

22.0

2.5

2.2

29.7

26.1

3.0

2.6

34.4

30.2

3.4

3.0

Total – Cost Estimate

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

44.3

39.2

52.9

46.5

61.3

53.7

27.3

24.2

32.6

28.7

37.9

33.2

Notes: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62; (2) 15% of main resort construction costs; and (3) 10% of main resort construction

costs.

Source: Appendix B.

Indicative staffing requirements and annual costs are summarised in Table 7.2.8. Average salaries are

estimated at: (i) senior management – US$65,000 (£40,000) p.a.; (ii) middle administration –

US$23,000 (£14,200) p.a.; and (iii) all other staff – US$ 12,000 (£7,400) p.a. The results for the three

resort sizes are:

■ 30 room resort – 104 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$1.8million (£1.1million) p.a.



Initially, it is anticipated that prospective employment opportunities for resettled Chagossians would

be in the category of ‘All Other Staff’ – depending on their relevant skills, experience and training

(see: Section 7). At this early stage, it is assumed that 40% to 60% of ‘All Other Staff’ could be

allocated to resettled Chagossians. These percentages would have the following implications for

each resort size:

■ 30 room resort – employment of 34 to 50 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$

408,000 (£250,000) to US$ 600,000 (£370,000) p.a.


540,000 (£330,000) to US$ 804,000 (£495,000) p.a.


672,000 (£415,000) to US$ 1.01 million (£620,000) p.a.

These results have potentially important employment implications for resettlement Options 1, 2 and

3.

151

It is also important to note that employment would probably be on a ‘single-basis’ depending on

which island the resort might be located (i.e. employees would be under contract for specified

periods, with periodic home visits.)

Table 7.2.9 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Staffing and Cost Estimates

Staff Category

Employees (nos.) Av. Salary

US$ 000 p.a.

US$ million £ million(1)

30 r. 40 r. 50 r. 30 r. 40 r. 50 r. 30 r. 40 r. 50 r.

Senior

Management

Middle Admin. (2)

All Other Staff

8

12

84

8

12

112

8

12

140

65

23

12

0.5

0.3

1.0

0.5

0.3

1.3

0.5

0.3

1.7

0.3

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.8

0.3

0.2

1.0

Total 115 150 190

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62; and (2) Includes senior restaurant staff.

Source: Appendix B.

The indicative annual recurrent costs for each resort size are summarised in Table 7.2.10, with further

details in Appendix B:

■ 30 room resort – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 5.2 million (£3.2 million p.a.

■ 40 room resort – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 6.6 million (£4.1 million) p.a.

■ 50 room resort – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 8 million (£5 million) p.a.

Table 7.2.10 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Annual O&M Costs (2014 constant prices)

Component


30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms

Salaries & wages

Maintenance

Other Operating Costs

Supplies and Materials

Environmental Monitoring

1.8

0.4

1.1

1.7

0.1

2.1

0.5

1.5

2.3

0.1

2.5

0.7

1.9

2.9

0.1

1.1

0.2

0.7

1.1

0.1

1.3

0.3

0.9

1.4

0.1

1.5

0.4

1.2

1.8

0.1

Total 5.2 6.6 8.0 3.2 4.1 5.0

Source: Appendix B.

Based on the cost indicators outlined above, indicative financial internal rates of return (FIRR) were

calculated for each of the three resort sizes. Table 7.2.11 summarises the results, with details

presented in Appendix B.

The FIRRs based on an average room rate of US$ 1,250 (£770) per day and average room occupancy

of 70% are as follows (over a discount period of 25 years after the completion of construction:

■ 30 room resort – FIRR ranges from 7.7% for the upper capex estimate to 9.3% for the lower

capex estimate.


capex estimate.


capex estimate.

The rates of return are attractive, especially for the larger resort size (50 rooms). In addition, the rates

of return would be higher if a premium price could be charged for the exclusivity of the resort.

152

Table 7.2.11 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Financial Internal Rates of Return

Component Unit

Resort Size

30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms

Indicative Capital Cost

US$ million

Upper capex estimate

Lower capex estimate

£ million



US$ million

US$ million

£ million

£ million

44.3

39.2

27.3

24.2

52.9

46.5

32.6

28.7

61.3

53.7

37.9

33.2

Financial Internal Rate of Return

(FIRR)

Room Rate: US$ 1,500/£925 per day



Room Rate: US$ 2,000/£1,235 per day



Room Rate: US$ 2,500/£1,545 per day



%

%

%

%

%

%

3.8%

5.2%

7.7%

9.3%

11.0%

12.7%

5.8%

7.4%

9.7%

11.5%

13.1%

15.1%

7.2%

8.9%

11.1%

13.1%

14.6%

16.8%

Source: Appendix B.

In the context of the indicative costs and FIRRs outlined above, there are a number of risks and

uncertainties. The main factors are outlined below:

■ Uncertainties over the island that might be chosen and the configuration (and expense) of

transport access.

■ Leading resort development companies may require assurances on the issue of transport access

before they would be prepared to make further commitments.

■ Uncertainties concerning the effective promotion of BIOT and with a unique and unknown brand.

■ Leading resort development companies have many competing investment opportunities around

the world.

■ Uncertainties relating to: (i) cost estimates without more detailed site investigations; (ii) transport

of machinery, materials and supplies; (iii) cost over-runs; and (iv) issues relating to climate change

and sea defences.

■ Risks relating to the price that high-end tourists would be willing to pay for an isolated pristine

island resort.

■ Sustained competition from other island groups in the Indian Ocean, especially the Maldives

which continue to develop high-end tourist resorts.

■ Uncertainty concerning the average occupancy rate, especially in the early years of operation.

■ Major objections from environmental groups that may affect the investment decisions of well-

known resort development companies.

153

6.3 Eco-Tourism Development

This section addresses the potential opportunity to develop an eco-tourism facility adjacent to a

Chagossian resettlement community – in order to create direct employment opportunities and

maximise the benefits to the Chagossians themselves under Options 1, 2 and 3. At the outset, it is

important to note that several key factors remain to be investigated before a final decision could be

taken. These are:

■ Interest of private sector operators of similar eco-tourism facilities to assist, train and mentor the

Chagossians to progress and develop the proposed investment.

■ Site selection adjacent to a Chagossian resettlement community – with the necessary privacy and

access to an appropriate range of environmental and leisure activities (see: Section 6.4).

■ Transport access to/from the eco-tourism facility (i.e. same facilities used by the Chagossian

resettled community).

■ Training of resettled Chagossians in wide range of skills needed in eco-tourism hospitality (see:

Section 7).

The Study Team investigated the potential financial implications and employment opportunities of an

eco-tourism facility, based on the maximum use of the local environment and resources. Indicative

estimates were prepared for a facility with 10, 20 or 30 chalets in 2014 constant prices. Parameters

and estimates were discussed and assessed with well-known consultants and advisors in the

tourism field.

Indicative capital costs are presented in Table 7.2.12, with further details in Appendix C. The

estimates include upper and lower estimates in US$ and £ sterling:

■ 10 chalet facility – indicative lower estimate of US$ 6.6 million (£4.1 million), and upper estimate

of US$ 7.6 million (£4.7 million), with the main construction accounting for 70% of the total. The

average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 660,000 (£407,000) per chalet to US$ 760,000

(£470,000) per chalet.

■ 20 chalet facility – indicative lower estimate of US$ 13.1 million (£8.1 million), and upper estimate

of US$ 15.2 million (£9.4 million), with the main construction accounting for 70% of the total. The

average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 655,000 (£405,000) per chalet to US$ 760,000

(£470,000) per chalet.

■ 30 chalet facility – indicative lower estimate of US$ 19.7 million (£12.1 million), and upper

estimate of US$ 23.1 million (£14.3 million), with the main construction accounting for 70% of the

total. The average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 655,000 (£405,000) per chalet to US$

770,000 (£475,000) per chalet.

Table 7.2.12 Eco-Tourism Facility – Indicative Capital Costs (2014 constant prices)

Component


10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets

Main resort construction

■ Upper estimate

■ Lower estimate

Fixtures, fittings & equipment

Site, design, EIA & constr.

supervision (2)

5.3

4.5

0.4

10.5

9.0

0.7

16.0

13.5

1.0

3.2

2.8

0.2

6.5

5.6

0.4

9.9

8.3

0.6

■ Upper estimate 1.3 2.6 4.0 0.8 1.6 2.5

■ Lower estimate 1.1 2.3 3.4 0.7 1.4 2.1

154

Component



Total – Base Cost Estimates

■ Upper estimate

■ Lower estimate

Physical contingencies (3)

■ Upper estimate

■ Lower estimate

6.9

6.0

0.7

0.6

13.8

12.0

1.4

1.2

21.0

17.9

2.1

1.8

4.3

3.7

0.4

0.4

8.5

7.4

0.9

0.7

13.0

11.0

1.3

1.1

Total – Cost Estimate

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

7.6

6.6

15.2

13.1

23.1

19.7

4.7

4.1

9.4

8.1

14.3

12.1

Notes: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62; (2) 25% of main resort construction costs; and (3) 10% of main resort construction

costs. Source: Appendix C.

Indicative staffing requirements and annual costs are summarised in Table 7.2.13. Average salaries

are estimated at: (i) senior management – US$ 65,000 (£40,000) p.a.; (ii) middle administration – US$

23,000 (£14,200) p.a.; and (iii) all other staff – US$ 12,000 (£7,400) p.a. The results for the eco-

tourism sizes are:

■ 10 chalet facility – 16 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$ 340,000 (£210,000) p.a.



Initially, it is anticipated that prospective employment opportunities for resettled Chagossians would

be in the category of ‘All Other Staff’ – depending on their relevant skills, experience and training

(see: Section 7). At this early stage, it is assumed that 100% of ‘All Other Staff’ could be allocated to

resettled Chagossians. This percentage would have the following implications for each eco-tourism

facility:

■ 10 chalet facility – employment of 10 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$ 120,000

(£70,000) p.a.


(£150,000) p.a.


(£220,000) p.a.

The results have potentially important employment implications for resettlement Options 1, 2 and 3.

Table 7.2.13 Eco-Tourism Facility – Indicative Staffing and Cost Estimates

Staff Category

Employees (nos.) Av. Salary

US$ 000 p.a.


10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch. 10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch. 10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch.

Senior

Management

Middle Admin.

2

4

10

2

4

20

2

4

30

65

23

12

0.13

0.09

0.12

0.13

0.09

0.24

0.13

0.09

0.36

0.08

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.06

0.15

0.08

0.06

0.22

Total 16 26 36 0.34 0.46 0.58 0.21 0.29 0.36

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62.

Source: Appendix C.

155

The indicative annual recurrent costs for each resort size are summarised in Table 7.2.14, with further

details in Appendix C:

■ 10 chalet facility – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 750,000 (£460,000) p.a.

■ 20 chalet facility – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 1.26 million (£780,000) p.a.

■ 30 chalet facility – estimated annual recurrent costs of US$ 1.77 million (£1.1 million) p.a.

Table 7.2.14 Eco-Tourism Facility – Indicative Annual O&M Costs (2014 constant prices)

Component



Salaries & wages

Maintenance

Other Operating Costs

Supplies and Materials

Environmental Monitoring

0.34

0.06

0.17

0.17

0.02

0.46

0.12

0.33

0.33

0.02

0.58

0.17

0.50

0.50

0.02

0.21

0.04

0.10

0.10

0.01

0.29

0.07

0.21

0.21

0.01

0.36

0.11

0.31

0.31

0.01

Total 0.75 1.26 1.77 0.46 0.78 1.09

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62.

Source: Appendix C.

Based on the cost indicators outlined above, indicative financial internal rates of return (FIRR) were

calculated for each of the three eco-tourism facility sizes. Table 7.2.15 summarises the results, with

details presented in Appendix C.

The FIRRs based on an average room rate of US$ 650 (£400) per day and average chalet occupancy

of 70% (from the 3rd

year of operation) are as follows:

■ 10 chalet facility – FIRR ranges from 8.6% for the upper capex estimate to 10.5% for the lower

capex estimate.


capex estimate.


capex estimate.

These are attractive rates of return, providing the facility is promoted effectively and average

occupancy rates of 70% or more are achieved.

Table 7.2.15 Eco-Tourism Facility – Indicative Financial Internal Rates of Return

Component Unit

Facility Size

10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets

Indicative Capital Cost

US$ million

■ Upper capex estimate

■ Lower capex estimate

£ million



US$ million

US$ million

£ million

£ million

7.6

6.6

4.7

4.1

15.2

13.1

9.4

8.1

23.1

19.7

14.3

12.1

156

Component Unit

Facility Size

10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets

Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)

Room Rate: US$ 550/£340 per day









%

%

%

%

%

%

5.6%

7.3%

8.6%

10.5%

11.2%

13.4%

7.5%

9.4%

10.2%

12.3%

12.7%

15.0%

7.9%

10.0%

10.6%

12.9%

13.0%

15.6%

Source: Appendix C.

In the context of the indicative costs and FIRRs outlined above, it is also important to recognise that

there a number of risks and uncertainties. The main factors are outlined below:

■ Uncertainties concerning the appropriate skills and experience of the resettled Chagossians, and

their willingness to undertake appropriate training (see: Section 7).

■ Uncertainty as to whether the resettled Chagossian community would accept and inter-act with

an adjacent eco-tourism facility.

■ Risk that resettled Chagossians may not have the necessary skills and experience to manage and

administer the proposed eco-tourism facility. To mitigate the potential impact of this risk, it has

been assumed that expatriate management will be required for the first 3 to 5 years.

■ Uncertainties over the configuration (and expense) of transport access. This aspect is likely to be

an important factor for eco-tourists. In this context, access via the Diego Garcia airfield would be

the most cost-effective solution.

■ Uncertainties concerning the effective promotion of eco-tourism on BIOT. This would probably

require the appointment of a Tourism Marketing Representative focusing on the most appropriate

markets in Europe and Asia (cf. Pitcairn Island Tourism has recently appointed such a

representative in Sydney).

■ Uncertainties relating to: (i) cost estimates without more detailed site investigations; (ii) transport

of machinery, materials and supplies; (iii) cost over-runs; and (iv) issues relating to climate change

and sea defences.

■ Competition from other island groups in the Indian Ocean with eco-tourism facilities.

■ Uncertainty concerning the average occupancy rate, especially in the early years of operation.

■ Major objections from environmental groups that may affect investment decisions.

6.4 Tourism Related Activities

Potential employment opportunities also exist in a number of tourism related activities. These could

include:

■ Tourist and environmental guides on or to individual islands – walking or sailing. These services

could include presentations of Chagossian history and visits to old settlement sites.

■ Sport fishing – subject to the prevailing environmental, fishing and safety ordinances, and the

availability of suitable boats and equipment.

■ Snorkelling and scuba diving – subject to the prevailing environmental and safety ordinances, and

the availability of appropriate equipment.

■ All other water sports.

157

Many of these activities are likely to be offered by the high-end tourist resort(s), and could be staffed

by Chagossians employed by the resort. In the medium term, provision of these services could be

developed by entrepreneurial Chagossians keen to invest in their own future e.g. dive shops, sailing

excursions, etc. (see: Section 6.6 below).

6.5 Homestays with Chagossian Families

Homestays could be a possible small source of household income for resettled Chagossian families

in the future – mainly for visitors who would like to experience a unique lifestyle in an isolated

community. There are intrepid travellers who seek to experience faraway places that are ‘off the

beaten track’. This type of visit occurs in a number of Overseas Territories: (i) Falklands (via the RAF

air-bridge from the UK and Ascension Island); (ii) Pitcairn (via air flights to Tahiti and Mangareva, then

chartered ship to Pitcairn); (iii) St Helena (via the RMS St Helena from Cape Town or Ascension Island

– ship will cease operations in 2016 when the new airport is completed) ; and (iv) Tristan da Cunha

(via fishing vessel from Cape Town, operated by the lobster concessionaire).

6.6 Yachting and Vessel Safaris

In the medium to long term, if BIOT become an established tourism destination, then another

potential employment and/or an investment opportunity could be the introduction of charter yacht

services for cruising, sport fishing, snorkelling and diving, environmental exploration and photography

in and around the islands. These services could be offered as specific holiday options or day trips

from resort island(s). Indeed, the potential high-end tourist resort may offer some or all of these

services as part of an incremental package to attract visitors.

These services are active in the Maldives and Seychelles – according to the respective Tourism

Boards: (i) Maldives – 99 registered yachts and cruisers; and (ii) Seychelles – 13 registered companies

hiring out yachts and cruisers.

In this context it is worth quoting the following:

‘It is worth drawing attention to what is called the ‘Aldabra Solution’ as proposed by Prof. David

Stoddart of Berkeley University. In this tourism is boat based (as in Aldabra, Seychelles) where land

support exists but where expensive island infrastructure is avoided. But even in Aldabra substantial

support obtained from other Seychelles Protected Areas heavily subsidises Aldabra atoll.’ 103

Finally, it is unlikely at this stage that it will be worth considering the establishment of a chandlery,

yacht repair or other marine services.

6.7 Cruise Ships

In the medium to long term, island visits by cruise ships to the main Chagossian settlement might be

another revenue earning opportunity in terms of (i) passenger landing fees; and (ii) sales of souvenirs

and curios by the Chagossians. This would not involve the construction of an expensive cruise ship

terminal, but would be facilitated by ships’ lighters to/from the settlement’s landing jetty. These visits

are carried out successfully in a number of Overseas Territories, including the Falklands, Pitcairn and

Tristan da Cunha, plus Easter Island and the Galapagos.

Web-based research indicates that there are 20 cruise ship companies (see: Table 7.2.16) offering a

number of cruises from time to time in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf Region. Some cruises include

Southern India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius in their sea voyages.

103 Turner J et al. 2008. An Evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands (Howell

Report).

158

Table 7.2.16 Cruise Ship Companies Operating in Indian Ocean and Gulf Region

1. Azamara Cruises

2. Celebrity Cruises

3. Costa Cruises

4. Cruise and Maritime

5. Crystal Cruises

6. Cunard Cruises

7. Fred Olsen

8. Hapag Lloyd Cruises

9. Holland America Cruises

10. MSC Cruises

11. Noble Caledonia

12. Ocean Cruises

13. P&O Cruises

14. Princes Cruises

15. Regent Seven Seas Cruises

16. Royal Caribbean Cruises

17. Silversea Cruises

18. Swan Hellenic

19. Voyage of Discovery Cruises

20. Voyages to Antiquity


The active involvement of resettled Chagossians in any potential tourism developments will require:

(i) staffing requirements of the proposed tourism development(s); and (ii) active engagement with the

prospective private tourism development company or companies, relating to their needs and staffing

policies.

Examples of hospitality training centres in the region – include the following, which could be

considered in due course:

■ Maldives – (i) Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Studies (Malé); and (ii) Villa College – Faculty of

Hospitality Management and Tourism Studies.

■ Mauritius – Mauritius Institute of Training and Development; and (ii) Constance Hospitality Training

Centre.

■ Seychelles – Seychelles Tourism Academy.


The potential future development of tourism facilities (high-end tourism and eco-tourism) to support

the sustainable livelihood needs of Options 1, 2 and 3 will require key decisions and action on a

number of important issues and challenges. Some of the factors are outlined below, which will need

to be incorporated into a phased action plan:

■ Preparation of a clear tourism policy and strategy

■ Potential amendments and/or additions to ordinances and regulations

■ Skill base, aptitude and willingness of potential resettled Chagossians

■ Tourism and hospitality training of potential resettled Chagossians to standards required by resort

developers

■ Training in environmental conservation and protection of marine and land based resources

■ Engagement with potential private sector resort operators and investors in tourism development,

including negotiations to promote employment of resettled Chagossians

■ Access to a potential tourism loan fund to finance boats and related equipment to provide vacation

activities for international visitors

■ BIOT management information system that will record tourism data and information to

international standards

159

Appendix A Supplementary Tables


Summary Tourism Data 2008–2012 – Islands: Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean & UK Overseas

Territories (note: Tables A.1 – A.3 is in separate Annex Excel file Aex2)

Table A.1 Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles

Table A.2 Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu

Table A.3 Anguilla, Montserrat and Turks & Caicos Islands

Island Resorts in Maldives and Seychelles – Summary Information

Table A.4 Maldives – Island Resorts: Rooms, Passenger Transfers and Price Ranges

Table A.5 Seychelles – Island Resorts: Rooms, Passenger Transfers and Price Ranges

Notes to Table A.4 Maldives – Island Resorts:

■ Two categories: (i) resorts with reported active environmental management policies; and (ii)

resorts with 50 or less rooms, chalets or villas.

■ All island resorts can be accessed by: (i) speedboat or seaplane from Malé International Airport; or

(ii) domestic flight to more distant northern atolls from Malé International Airport, then by speed

boat.

■ Seaplane flights are operated by Trans Maldivian Airways, which operates a fleet of 44 DHC-6

Twin Otter aircraft (18 passengers) from a custom-built terminal adjacent to Malé International

Airport.

■ Time and costs of transfers, depending on resort location: (i) seaplane: 15 to 90 minutes, return

trip cost of US$ 150 to US$ 350 per passenger; and (ii) speedboat: 10 to 45 minutes, return trip

cost of US$ 50 to US$ 150 per passenger.

■ Many island resorts have jetty facilities to accommodate seaplane and speedboat transfers.

■ Many island resorts have: (i) proportion of their rooms/chalets on stilts over the sea; and (ii)

restaurant facilities on stilts over the sea.


■ Some room rates can be subject to discounting of up to 25% on some websites.


160

Table A.4 Maldives – Island Resorts: Rooms, Passenger Transfers and Price Ranges

Note: some of the higher prices are for chalets or villas that can accommodate 4 or more adults

Island Resort

Rooms

(nos.)

To/From International Airport

Room Prices

(US$/day) (1) km Transfer Mode

Island Resorts – with active environmental policies

1. Banyan Tree, Vabbinfau

2. Baros Maldives

3. Four Seasons Resort Maldives at Landaa Giraavaru

4. Four Seasons at Kuda Huraa

5. Gili Lanka Fushi

6. Huvafen Fushi by Per AQUUM

7. Kuramathi Island Beach

8. LUX Maldives

9. Reethi Beach

10. Soneva Fushi

48

75

102

96

45

44

290

193

110

65

17

16

120

20

90

24

56

40

124

113

Speedboat

Speedboat

Seaplane

Speedboat

Seaplane

Speedboat

Seaplane

Seaplane or Speedboat

Seaplane

Seaplane

1,200 to 1,400

1,100 to 2,400

1,450 to 2,850

1,100 to 1,800

2,000 to 3,000

900 to 3,000

330 to 700

400 to 2,500

540 to 730

1,000 to 1,900

Island Resorts – with 30 to 50 Rooms or Chalets

1. Angsana Ihuru

2. Asdu Sun Island

3. Banyan Tree, Vabbinfau

4. Bathala Island Resort

5. Coco Privé Kuda Hithi

6. Cocoa Island

7. Fihalhohi Island Resort

8. Gangehi Island Resort

9. Gasfinolhu Island Resort

10. Gili Lanka Fushi

11. Hideaway Beach Resort & Spa at Dhonakulhi Maldives

12. Huvadhumaafushi

13. Huvafen Fushi per AQUUM

14. Jumeirah Dhevanafushi

15. Kudarah Island Resort

16. Makanudu Island

17. Mirihi Island Resort

18. Nika Island Resort

19. Park Hyatt Maldives Hadahaa

20. Rihiveli Beach Resort

21. The Regent Maldives

22. Thundufushi Island Resort

23. Twin Island Resort

24. Vakarufalhi Island Resort

25. Zitahli Resorts and Spa, Kua-Funafaru

45

30

48

46

6

33

24

36

40

45

49

50

44

35

30

36

36

27

50

48

50

47

47

50

50

3

32

17

34

25

30

28

77

23

90

15

360

24

400

90

30

85

70

400

49

190

80

65

90

45

Speedboat


Speedboat


Speedboat


Speedboat

Seaplane

Speedboat

Seaplane

Speedboat

Dom. Flight & Speedboat

Speedboat


Seaplane


Seaplane

Seaplane


Seaplane

Seaplane

Seaplane

Seaplane

Seaplane

Seaplane

610 to 850

300

1,200 to 1,400

8,000 to 32,000

680 to 1,110

250

300 to 600

under redevelopment

2,000 to 3,000

750 to 1,450

n.a.

900 to 3,000

1,130 to 2,800

n.a.

490 to 620

under redevelopment

440 to 920

830 to 1,430

450 to 550

900 to 3,000

850 to 1,300

960 to 1,150

420 to 1,060

900 to 1,100

Note: (1) Bed & breakfast rates.

Sources: (i) Ministry of Tourism and Official Travel Guide of the Maldives.

Notes to Table A.5 Seychelles – Island Resorts:

■ All island resorts can be accessed by: (i) plane or helicopter from Mahé International Airport;

and/or (ii) taxi and boat from the main islands (Mahé, Praslin, La Digue).

■ Plane and helicopter flights are operated by: (i) Air Seychelles, which operates 6 DHC-6 Twin Otter

aircraft (18 passengers); and (ii) ZilAir, which operates 3 Eurocopters (EC120 B) and a Beechcraft

250.

■ Time and costs of domestic flight transfers, depending on resort location: (i) time: 15 to 90

minutes; and (ii) cost: return trip cost US$ 200 to US$ 530 per passenger.

■ Some island resorts have private jetty facilities and one has a private airstrip.

161


■ Room rates can be subject to discounting of up to 25% on some websites.


Table A.5 Seychelles – Island Resorts: Rooms, Passenger Transfers and Price Ranges

Note: some of the higher prices are for chalets or villas that can accommodate 4 or more adults

Island Resort

Rooms

(nos.)

To/From International Airport

Room Prices

(US$/day) (1) Km Transfer Mode

Bird Island Lodge 24 n/a Plane 510 to 610

Cerf Island Resort 24 n/a Helicopter 380 to 730

Chauve Souris Island Lodge 5 n/a Plans, Taxi and Boat 920 to 1,050

Cousine Island 6 n/a Helicopter or Boat 1,530 to 5,750

Denis Private Island 25 n/a Helicopter 1,400 to 1,980

Desroches Island Resort 6 n/a Dom. Flight, Taxi & Boat 1,280 to 2,550

Fairy Tern Island 2 n/a Boat 200

Frégate Island Resort 16 n/a Plane (2), Helicopter or Boat 3,450 to 5,600

Hilton Seychelles Labriz Resort and Spa 111 n/a Helicopter or Boat 600 to 3,800

L’Habitation ‘Cerf Island’ 14 n/a Helicopter and Lagoon Taxi 250 to 440

North Island 11 n/a Helicopter or Boat 4,500 to 8,500

Round Island Luxury Villas 4 n/a Helicopter or Boat 1,650

Sainte Anne Resort and Spa 87 n/a Boat 1,340 to 6,550

Notes: (1) Bed & breakfast rates; and (2) Island has own airstrip.

Source: (i) Seychelles Tourism Board – Accommodation Guide; and (ii) web-based research.

162

Appendix B High-End Tourist Resort Development – Costs and

FIRRs

(Note: Tables B.1 – B.6 is in separate Annex Excel file Aex2)

1. Introduction

This appendix presents the indicative costs, potential employment opportunities and financial internal

rates of return (FIRR) for high-end tourist resort development. The estimates have been prepared

from investigations by the Study Team, plus data and consultations provided by:

■ Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) – independent global property and construction practice, services

include: cost management, project management and advisory services directly related to tourist

resort development worldwide

■ BDO – Hotels, Leisure and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism Division

The main parameters, costs and FIRR calculation are presented in the six (6) attached tables (see:

separate Excel file).

All cost estimates are presented in 2014 constant prices. The exchange rate used is: £1 = US$ 1.62

(October 2014).

2. Table B.1 – Objectives, Main Parameters and FIRRs

Table B.1 sets out: (i) Objectives; (ii) Main Parameters; and (iii) a facility to vary the average room rate

to derive the resulting FIRRs.

The main parameters are based on study investigations and consultations with RLB and their

experience in Seychelles, Caribbean and to a lesser extent the Maldives.

3. Table B.2 – Indicative Capital Costs Estimates

The indicative capital cost estimates are representative figures provided by RLB based on their

international experience in tourist resort development in remote locations. The estimates are

probably conservative given the fact that no site data or physical investigations are available. At this

stage, the estimates do not include an allowance for sea defences – which could be significant, but

would require more detailed site data.

4. Table B.3 – Indicative Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Estimates

The indicative annual O&M costs are based on estimates assessed by BDO and the Study Team. The

estimates include an allowance for annual environmental monitoring

5. Tables B.4 to B.6 – FIRR Calculations by Resort Size

Tables B.4 to B.6 present the FIRR calculations by resort size (30, 40 and 50 rooms) for both the

upper and lower capital cost estimates.

The main assumptions in the calculations are as follows:

■ Discount period – 25 years after the completion of construction.

■ Occupancy rate – increases from 50% in Year 3 (1st year of operation) to 60% in Year 4 and 70%

thereafter.

■ Capital construction – assumed to take place in Years 1 and 2.

■ Capital refurbishment – assumed every 10 years at 20% of the initial capital costs.

Finally, it is assumed that in order to attract a private resort development company – the proposed

resort investment and operation would benefit from a ‘tax holiday’ for 5 to 10 years i.e. no land lease

charges, room tax or VAT.

163

Appendix C Eco-Tourism Facility Development – Costs and FIRRs

(Note: Tables C.1 – C.6 is in separate Annex Excel file Aex2)

1. Introduction

This appendix presents the indicative costs, potential employment opportunities and financial internal

rates of return (FIRR) for eco-tourism development. The estimates have been prepared from

investigations by the Study Team, plus data and consultations provided by:

■ Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) – independent global property and construction practice, services

include: cost management, project management and advisory services directly related to tourist

resort development worldwide

■ BDO – Hotels, Leisure and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism Division

The main parameters, costs and FIRR calculation are presented in the six (6) attached tables (see:

separate Excel file).

All cost estimates are presented in 2014 constant prices. The exchange rate used is: £1 = US$ 1.62

(October 2014).

2. Table C.1 – Objectives, Main Parameters and FIRRs

Table C.1 sets out: (i) Objectives; (ii) Main Parameters; and (iii) a facility to vary the average

occupancy rate and the average chalet rate to derive the resulting FIRRs.

The main parameters are based on study investigations and consultations with RLB, and experience

in Seychelles and the Caribbean.

3. Table C.2 – Indicative Capital Costs Estimates

The indicative capital cost estimates are representative figures provided by RLB based on their

international experience in eco-tourism development in remote locations. The estimates are probably

conservative given the fact that no site data or physical investigations are available. At this stage, the

estimates do not include an allowance for sea defences – which could be significant, but would

require more detailed site data.

4. Table C.3 – Indicative Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Estimates

The indicative annual O&M costs are based on estimates assessed by RLB, BDO and the Study

Team. The estimates include an allowance for annual environmental monitoring

5. Tables C.4 to C.6 – FIRR Calculations by Size of Eco-Tourism Facility

Tables C.4 to C.6 present the FIRR calculations by eco-tourism facility (10, 20 and 30 chalets) for both

the upper and lower capital cost estimates.

The main assumptions in the calculations are as follows:

■ Discount period – 25 years after the completion of construction

■ Occupancy rate – increases from 50% in Year 3 (1st year of operation) to 60% in Year 4 and 70%

thereafter

■ Capital construction – assumed to take place in Years 1 and 2

■ Capital refurbishment – assumed every 10 years at 20% of the initial capital costs

Finally, it is assumed that the proposed eco-tourism investment and operation would benefit from a

‘tax holiday’ for 5 to 10 years i.e. no land lease charges, room tax or VAT.

164

7.3 Coconuts

1. Introduction

This annex addresses the background and issues relating to Coconuts and the potential opportunities

for the future.

The annex is presented in eight sections:


■ Coconuts – background

■ Coconuts in the region and small islands

■ International coconut market and recent developments

■ Previous reports

■ Coconut development opportunities





■ Coconut information for islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans

■ Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago – Phase 2B, Posford Haskoning,

June 2002




■ Debates about the Feasibility of Human Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago, L Jeffrey,

undated

■ Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC)

■ FAO and other international sources

3. Coconuts – Background

3.1 Introduction

This section outlines general background information related to Coconuts in BIOT and other

indicators, including: (i) current situation; and (ii) coconut parameters and products.

3.2 Current Situation

Based on the visit to BIOT by the Study Team in May 2014, indicative estimates have been prepared

of the area covered by coconut trees on the islands visited. The estimates are presented in Table

7.3.1.

The figures indicate that more than 50% of the land area on the islands visited is covered by coconut

trees. The largest are those that were previously inhabited, namely: (i) Diego Garcia with 570 ha.

(52%) (Note: probably more, prior to the construction of NSFDG); (ii) Île du Coin with 89 ha. (8.1%);

165

and (iii) Boddam with 76 ha. (6.9%). Others with significant areas of coconut trees are Pierre, Eagle,

Sudest and Diamant.

With few exceptions, the density of coconut trees is very significant, given that the plantations were

abandoned more than 40 years ago. In the intervening years, the older trees have shed their nuts

which has increased the density and made access to the interior of many islands very difficult.

Potential rehabilitation and/or resettlement will require significant effort and cost to clear the space

necessary to permit any of the following:

■ Rehabilitation and replanting of potential coconut production areas (note: (i) optimum yield of

coconut trees is 10 to 30 years of age; and (ii) optimum planting is 158 coconut trees per ha. –

source: Coconut Development Authority, Sri Lanka).

■ Resettlement (new) – especially on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos (e.g. Île du Coin) or Salomon (e.g.

Boddam).

■ Rehabilitation of old inhabited areas – of special significance to Chagossians and as possible

tourist attractions – on Diego Garcia, Île du Coin and Boddam. For example on Diego Garcia, such

rehabilitation might include: (i) manager’s house; (ii) church; (iii) cemetery; (iv) hospital; (v) jail cells;

(vi) copra drying facilities; (vii) rail track; etc. (see: Plan of East Point Plantation, Peak of Limuria, R

Edis, Chagos Conservation Trust, 1993 – page 42).

In the context of these observations, it is worth quoting the following:

‘……Yet all would require substantial restoration of some of the plantations at least – and it must be

appreciated that the plantations are now very overgrown and virtually impenetrable. Without

mechanical equipment, the effort required to clear or restore significant coconut plantations will

require millions of person-hours. For example, it took 1000 person days to clear much less than 1%

of understorey vegetation on Eagle Island in 2006 during the rat eradication project.’104

Table 7.3.1 Chagos Islands – Land Areas and Estimated Areas Covered by Coconut Trees

Island/Atoll

Land Area Estimated Area Covered by Coconut Trees

Hectares Distribution (%) Estimated % Hectares Distribution (%)

Egmont Atoll

Sudest

Sipaille

Great Chagos Bank

Eagle

Three Brothers (Middle)

Nelson

Peros Banhos

Île du Coin

Île Pierre

Île Diamant

Île Moresby

Île Yeye

Salomon

Île Takamaka

Île Fouquet

Île Boddam

Diego Garcia

Plantation area (1)

98

46.2

245

8

81

127.5

150

88.5

43.5

58.5

44

39.5

108.5

950 (2)

4.7%

2.2%

11.7%

0.4%

3.9%

6.1%

7.2%

4.2%

2.1%

2.8%

2.1%

1.9%

5.2%

45.5%

60%

50%

25%

20%

40%

70%

50%

50%

25%

25%

40%

50%

70%

60%

59

23

61

2

32

89

75

44

11

15

18

20

76

570

5.4%

2.1%

5.6%

0.2%

2.9%

8.1%

6.8%

4.0%

1.0%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

6.9%

52.0%

Total 2,088.2 100% 52% 1,095 100%

Notes: (1) East Point Plantation area – eastern side of the atoll; and (2) estimated 35% of total land area of 2,719.5 ha.

104 Turner J et al. 2008. An Evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands (Howell

Report)

166

3.3 Coconut Parameters and Products

It is also worth noting the main production parameters and products that can be derived from

coconuts. The main production parameters are illustrated in Table 7.3.2 based on indicators used by

the Coconut Development Authority (CDA) of Sri Lanka.

Table 7.3.2 Coconut Production Parameters

Component Unit Coconuts (nos.)

Palms per Hectare

Standard Planting

Palms per Hectare

Metres

Numbers

8m x 8m

158

Coconut Conversion

Coconuts

Copra

Coconut Oil

Desiccated Coconut

Coconut Milk

Coconut Cream

Coconut Milk Powder

1 tonne

1 tonne

1 tonne

1 tonne

1 tonne

1 tonne

1 tonne

700

5,230

8,690

7,650

3,250

7,650

12,000

Source: Coconut Development Authority, Sri Lanka

In terms of products, coconut is a versatile crop that can be used and adapted for a wide range of

uses and applications – the main uses are listed below:

Food, beverages and related products:

■ Coconut – raw

■ Desiccated coconut for cooking, bakery and confectionary

■ Coconut oil for cooking and body care

■ Coconut water

■ Coconut milk, milk powder and cream

Household uses:

■ Coir mats and carpets

■ Coir brushes and brooms

■ Coir mattresses

Agricultural uses:

■ Coconut fibre for horticulture

■ Coconut pots and poles for horticulture

■ Coconut mulch

Processed uses:

■ Copra – dried meat or kernel used to extract coconut oil

■ Copra cake – animal feed

■ Coconut oil for bio-diesel (used in Marshall Islands, Philippines, Samoa and Vanuatu)

■ Coconuts shells for charcoal

167

■ Activated carbon for air and water purification

Other uses

■ Coconut ornaments and handicrafts

■ Construction materials

Many of these by-products could have beneficial applications for the future livelihoods of resettled

Chagossians, especially in terms of: (i) food, beverages and related products; (ii) household and

agricultural uses; (iii) animal feed; (iv) ornaments and handicrafts; and (v) construction materials.

Some of these items could be developed for: (a) domestic consumption and use by resettled

Chagossians; (b) domestic and eco-tourism construction; and (c) sales to NSFDG and tourists (high-

end tourists and eco-tourists – see: Annex 7.2, Section 6).

4. Coconuts in the Region and Small Islands

This section reviews available indicators and data for coconuts and coconut products on a selection of

small islands – many in isolated geographic locations, with small populations, limited natural

resources, but with sandy soils in coastal areas that are suitable for coconut cultivation. Basic data

are presented in four tables in Appendix A for the following:

■ Indian Ocean: Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles.

■ Pacific Ocean: Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu.

■ Major producing countries: Indonesia, Philippines, India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Papua & New Guinea,

Thailand and Malaysia.

No data have been included for the UK Overseas Territories because production is either very small

or non-existent.

Key production data for 2012 are summarised in Table 7.3.4, with further details in Appendix A

(Tables 1 to 4). A brief review of the main results is presented below:


Mauritius; (ii) Comoros Islands is the only island group with modest indicators: 34,000 ha.

harvested, production of 90,000 tonnes, but low yields of only 2.6 tonnes per ha.; (iii) the other

three island groups (Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles) all have small levels of production, but

higher yields of 3.2 to 4.7 tonnes per ha.; (iv) copra production is again modest in the Comoros

(5,200 tonnes in 2012), but very small in the three other islands; and (v) net domestic food

consumption of coconuts was 3.1 kg per head in Mauritius and 9.2 kg per head in the Maldives in

2011 (based on food balance sheets calculated by FAO).

■ Pacific Ocean islands:

– Populations – generally small ranging from 1,000 in Niue and 10,000 in Nauru to 875,000 in Fiji.

– Area harvested – ranged from as little as 300 ha. in Nauru to 9,300 ha. in Tonga, 30,000 ha. in

Kiribati and 65,000 ha. in Fiji. It is noteworthy that harvested areas have remained largely

unchanged over the last decade (see: Appendix A, Table 2).

– Production – similarly, reported production ranged widely from 2,600 tonnes in Nauru to

130,000 tonnes in Tonga, 170,000 tonnes in Kiribati and 244,000 tonnes in Fiji. Over the last

decade, small to modest increases in production have been recorded in Fiji, Kiribati,

Micronesia, Samoa and Tonga (see: Appendix A, Table 2).

– Yields – average yields have improved over the last decade, but still indicate wide variations,

from only 1 tonne per ha. in Niue to 3.4 tonnes per ha. in the Marshall Islands, 8.4 tonnes per

ha. in Nauru and 14 tonnes per ha. in Tonga.

– Net food consumption of coconuts in 2011 – reported food balance sheets prepared by the

FAO indicate 63 kg per head in Fiji, 123 kg per head in Kiribati and 174 kg per head in Samoa.

168

These figures imply that coconuts are an important component in food consumption on these

islands.

Table 7.3.4 Coconuts – Summary Data 2012: Islands in Indian and Pacific Oceans

Island

Pop.

(000)

Coconuts

Copra

Production

(tonnes 000)

Net Coconut

Consumption –

2011

(kg per head)

Area

Harvested

(ha. 000)

Production

(tonnes 000)

Yield

(Tonnes per

ha.)

Indian Ocean

Comoros

Maldives

Mauritius

Seychelles

718

338

1,240

92

34.0

1.1

0.5

0.6

90.0

4.1

1.6

2.8

2.6

3.7

3.2

4.7

5.2

0.2

0.06

0.01

n.a.

9.2

3.1

n.a.

Pacific Ocean

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall Is.

Micronesia

Nauru

Niue

Samoa

Tonga

Tuvalu

875

101

53

103

10

1

189

105

10

65.0

30.0

7.0

16.0

0.3

3.3

27.0

9.3

1.8

244.4

170.0

23.8

55.0

2.6

3.3

209.6

130.4

2.1

3.5

5.7

3.4

3.4

8.4

1.0

7.8

14.0

1.2

5.0

3.4

n.a.

2.9

n.a.

n.a.

5.0

1.2

0.02

62.9

123.2

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

173.8

n.a.

n.a.

Small Island States 792 3,882 4.9

World 12,137 62,140 5.1

Source: Appendix A, Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Some of the islands in the Pacific Ocean also report small to modest exports of coconut by-products,

mainly coconut oil, copra, copra cake and desiccated coconut (see: Appendix A, Table 2). However, it

should be noted that exports levels can vary quite widely from year to year, depending on local

production levels and international market conditions. Examples are:

■ Fiji – annual exports of coconut oil ranged between 1,300 and 5,000 tonnes, worth US$ 2 to 5.9

million, and unit values varying from US$ 650 to US$ 2,840 per tonne.

■ Kiribati – annual exports of: (i) coconut oil ranged from only 100 to 3,700 tonnes, worth US$ 0.2 to

5.8 million, and unit values varying from US$ 580 to US$ 2,930 per tonne; and (ii) copra ranged

from 3,000 to 6,900 tonnes, worth US$ 1.3 to 1.5 million, and unit values from US$ 215 to 465

per tonne.

■ Samoa – has had the most diverse exports of coconut by-products, including coconut oil, copra,

copra cake, coconuts and desiccated coconut. The most important has been coconut oil, with

exports of 700 to 2,700 tonnes per year, worth US$ 300,000 to 2.2 million per year, and unit

values from US$ 460 to 800 per tonne.

■ Tonga – annual exports of coconut oil ranged between 100 and 1,000 tonnes, worth about US$

0.4 million, and unit values varying from US$ 400 to US$ 1,230 per tonne.

Table 7.3.5 illustrates the movement in average coconut producer prices (i.e. farm-gate prices) in the

major producing countries from 2000 to 2012. These values are important because if coconut

cultivation is re-established in BIOT, then the international farm-gate prices provides an economic

indicator of the unit value of production on the islands.

In general, the figures indicate a general rise in unit prices over the last decade. However, in

economic terms further analysis would be required to take out the impact of: (i) local inflation; (ii)

169

exchange rate movements against the US$; and (iii) local market conditions – in order to derive

effective values in constant prices. Nevertheless, the values for 2012 provide useful indicators –

producer prices ranged from US$ 133 per tonne in the Philippines to US$ 372 per tonne in Malaysia.

The equivalent unit price per nut was US$ 0.19 (£ 0.12) in the Philippines to US$ 0.53 (£ 0.33) in

Malaysia. The relevant proximity of Sri Lanka to BIOT offers a useful price comparator of US$ 288 per

tonne or US$ 0.41 (£ 0.25) per nut.

Table 7.3.5 Coconut Producer Prices in Major Production Countries: 2000 – 2012

Year Indonesia Philippines Sri Lanka Malaysia Thailand

US$ per tonne

2000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

54.9

166.3

144.0

179.7

44.8

118.9

87.1

118.5

185.9

133.4

108.4

298.6

278.6

301.3

278.6

288.4

135.3

179.9

184.7

284.4

359.5

372.2

50.1

143.8

134.8

161.2

348.0

153.2

Av. Nuts per tonne (1) 700 700 700 700 700

US$ per nut

2000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0.08

0.24

0.21

0.26

0.06

0.17

0.12

0.17

0.27

0.19

0.15

0.43

0.40

0.43

0.40

0.41

0.19

0.26

0.26

0.41

0.51

0.53

0.07

0.21

0.19

0.23

0.50

0.22

£ per nut(2)

2000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0.05

0.15

0.13

0.16

0.04

0.10

0.08

0.10

0.16

0.12

0.10

0.26

0.25

0.27

0.25

0.25

0.12

0.16

0.16

0.25

0.32

0.33

0.04

0.13

0.12

0.14

0.31

0.14

Notes: (1) APCC; and (2) exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62.

Source: (i) FAOSTAT, FAO; and (ii) Study estimates.

Table 7.3.6 presents the latest international traded prices for coconut products. The values also

indicate the difference in international prices between the competing products of coconut oil and

palm oil.

170

Table 7.3.6 Coconut Products – International Traded Prices: November 2014

Component US$ per tonne £ per Tonne (1)

Coconut Oil

Rotterdam (cif)

Buyer

Traded

Philippines (fob)

Indonesia (fob)

1,070

1,240

1,020

1,237

660

765

630

764

Copra

Philippines (fob)

Indonesia (fob)

Sri Lanka (fob)

725

653

1,135

448

403

700

Desiccated Coconut

Philippines (fob)

Indonesia (fob)

Sri Lanka (fob)

2,535

2,100

2,408

1,565

1,296

1,486

Coconut (husked)

Philippines (fob)

Indonesia (fob)

Sri Lanka (fob)

Thailand (fob)

251

202

299

267

155

125

185

165

Coconut Shell Charcoal

Indonesia (fob)

Sri Lanka (fob)

394

413

243

255

Coir Fibre

Sri Lanka

Bristle fibre (fob)

Mattress fibre (fob)

Indonesia (raw and clean)

India (export brown)

214

555 to 669

395

280

132

343 to 413

244

173

Other Vegetable Oils

Palm Kernel Oil (cif Rotterdam)

Crude Palm Oil (cif Rotterdam)

995

750

614

463

Note: (1) £1 = US$ 1.62.

Source: Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC).

171

5. International Coconut Market and Recent Developments

This section presents a number of observations and comments on the international coconut market

and other recent developments – in order to illustrate the possible implications for potential re-

establishment of coconut cultivation on BIOT. The observations are presented as a series of bullet

points:

■ Development of substantial palm oil plantations in the 1960s, 70s and 80s (especially in Indonesia

and Malaysia) had a significant impact on the international trade in coconut oil. This lead to

increased focus on economies of scale, which in turn favoured the larger producers with more

efficient bulk of transport links. Small and isolated island producers have found it increasingly hard

to compete.

■ Most coconut growers are small farmers. The FAO estimates that about 95% of coconut trees are

harvested by small holders with low incomes and significant levels of poverty.

■ Currently, international concern has been expressed by the Asian & Pacific Coconut Community

(APCC) and the FAO that production and trade is falling behind as coconut trees continue to age

(i.e. more than 30 years old) and are not being replaced with sufficient speed, because small

farmers do not have the necessary financial resources.

■ ‘Many of the coconut farmers, especially in the top producing countries are poor to begin with, so

even if they want to replace the trees on their plot of land, they may not be able to do so.’ – R

Pastor, editor of the Southeast Asia Commodity Digest.

■ ‘Asia and the Pacific’s aging coconut trees simply can’t keep up with growing demand’ – Hiroyuki

Konuma, Assistant-Director and Regional Representative for FAO.

■ Market demand for certain coconut products (e.g. fresh coconut water and milk) are forecast to

grow steadily over the medium to long term, given the market trend in health and wellness

products (source: Euromonitor, May 2014).

Based on the general review in this section and Section 4, the main conclusions regarding the

possible re-establishment of an export-oriented coconut industry in BIOT are as follows:

■ International market for coconut products is dominated by the big producers (i.e. Indonesia,

Philippines, Sri Lanka, etc.).

■ Re-establishment of an export-oriented coconut industry would be expensive (including extensive

clearance and replanting of old and densely-packed coconut trees) and unlikely to attract a

development partner from the private sector.

■ The islands in BIOT are isolated, so that sea transport (marine facilities and shipping) would be

expensive compared to the large regional producers like Sri Lanka and India.

■ Resettled Chagossians are unlikely to have the necessary management and marketing skills, and

would probably require extensive training.

■ Rates of return in commercial small-holder coconut production are generally low and unlikely to

attract resettled Chagossians.

■ In the medium term, the prospective ‘opportunity cost of labour’ for resettled Chagossians could

have more attractive employment options in: (i) tourism sector; (ii) employment on the NSFDG

base; (iii) employment by BIOTA in the operation and maintenance of the resettled Chagossian

community; (iv) potential fish factory; (v) sustainable livelihood activities by individual households

in terms of fishing, animal husbandry and small agricultural plots; and (vi) entrepreneurial activities

developed by the Chagossians themselves.

In the context of these observations, there is scope for the resettled Chagossians to develop small

coconut plots for their own consumption and use, plus potential supply of by-products to NSFDG,

tourism developments and the construction sector.

172

6. Previous Reports

6.1 Introduction

This section reviews references to coconuts in three previous reports:

■ Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago – Phase 2B, Posford Haskoning,

June 2002




■ Debates about the Feasibility of Human Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago, L Jeffrey,

undated

It should be noted that none of the previous studies have presented: (i) economic assessments for

the potential re-establishment of coconut plantations and exports from the Chagos Islands; or (ii)

possible initiatives and views of the Chagossians.

6.2 Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago: Phase 2B,

June 2002

The Posford Haskoning Report does not discuss the potential of coconut production as a specific

economically viable crop for the future; but it does offer some useful observations relating to soils

and ‘agroforestry’ to provide for agriculture, horticulture livestock and forestry products. Some of the

useful observations in the report are summarised below:

■ ‘We suggest that the agricultural and horticultural component of the agro-forestry system should

be based on established ‘atoll agriculture’ systems. Traditional atoll agricultural practices have

been adapted through experience to the atoll social and physical environments. Systems based on

these practices provide a good basis for sustainable agricultural production in atoll environments.

We agree with Crapper et al (2000) that crop production on Peros Banhos and Salomon will only

be economic for local consumption and possibly some marketing (e.g. long-range yachts and

tourist/dive vessels).’ (Page 125, section 3.4.2, 2nd para.)

■ ‘The coconut crop is well adapted to commercial atoll agriculture and atoll soil conditions and is

agronomically the best candidate for any commercial crop enterprise. Current soil fertility

conditions suggest that at least moderate yields of copra could be achieved, especially with good

management. These yields would be an improvement on the low yields reported for the Chagos

Islands in the 1950s and 1960s when the plantations were in decline (e.g. Lucie-Smith, 1959).

However, even if yields were increased and if price revive markedly, copra production in Peros

Banhos and Salomon will not be able to compete with the large scale, more efficient producers in

India, Thailand and the Philippines who have existing surplus capacity. Thus we support the Phase

1 conclusion (Crapper et al, 2000) that coconuts are not a viable export enterprise for the

resettlement of Peros Banhos and Salomon atolls.’ (Page 125, section 3.4.2, last para.)

■ ‘Crapper et al (2000) suggest that there has never been an established food crop production

system in the Chagos Islands and quote plantation records which show that most food was

provided as imported rations.’ (Page 126, 3rd

para.)

■ ‘Phase 1 emphasised that the settlement programme should be largely self-financing (Crapper et

al, 2000). This emphasis and because imports will be relatively expensive, should mean that there

will be an economic incentive to produce as much food as possible locally. It is assumed that it

will be cost-effective to import preferred staple grains (mainly rice and wheat) and there is no

prospect of these being produced locally. Locally grown root (taro, yam and sweet potato) and

tree (breadfruit) food crops could substitute some grain imports, but this potential will depend on

the food habits of the settlers.’ (Page 126, 4th

para.)

■ ‘The major obstacles to food crop production in a Peros Banhos and Salomon resettlement

programme are identified as the agricultural knowledge and motivations of the settlers and

173

whether it will be prepared and/or able to commit the labour required. Extension programmes can,

with time, overcome gaps in agricultural knowledge but labour attitudes and availability are

determined by social and economic factors that are only marginally amenable to extension.’ (Page

126, 6th

para.)

■ ‘Plantation coconuts are the dominant vegetation of most islands – effectively a mono-cultural

agroforestry (AF) system. Conversion of these plantations to more productive multipurpose AF

systems is best done by incremental adjustments. These will be easier to manage than large and

sudden changes e.g. to clear-felling of the coconuts and planting with field crops.’ (page 127, 5th

bullet point)

■ ‘The proposed (AF) system will result in some increase in the use of groundwater through

evapotranspiration that is already occurring under the existing coconut canopy.’ (page 128, 3rd

bullet point)

The Posford Haskoning Report also identifies ‘candidate technologies’ that will need to be addressed

in order to optimise the agricultural, horticultural, livestock and forestry potential of the climate and

soils on the islands (pages 129 to 133). The suggestions cover:

■ Agroforestry – there are a number of trees and shrubs on the islands that could be used for:

compost, fuelwood, construction wood, pig fodder, human food and medicine (see: Table 3.16 on

page 130)

■ Agriculture – main candidates: root crops (e.g. taro, yams and sweet potato); banana and plantain;

breadfruit and jackfruit; and oil from copra

■ Horticulture – perennial rather than annual vegetable species (e.g. brinjal, chillies, etc.)

■ Livestock – chickens and pigs (note: these animals were raised formerly on Île du Coin and

Boddam e.g. abandoned pig sties on Boddam) and milking cattle on Diego Garcia – will require

fodder and mineral licks. Livestock are seen as a variation to the ‘main protein diet of fish’

■ Soils cultivation – techniques to overcome poor soil conditions, include: pit planting; mounding;

organic matter; composting and mulching; and shading

■ Pests and diseases – need to aware of the potential difficulties (e.g. rhinoceros beetle affecting

coconuts). (Note: this issue also implies the need for an effective ‘quarantine’ system in the event

of resettlement)

■ ‘The major risks to sustainable management of the soil resource…are:

– Lack of motivation due to the high opportunity cost of labour use in agriculture relative to

fisheries or other development work e.g. construction.

– Lack of agricultural knowledge and skills of the settlers; and

– Failure of the new agro-forestry system to deliver outputs as anticipated.’ (Page 134, 3rd para.)

In relation to the agricultural issues raised in the Posford Haskoning Report, it is worth pointing out

that if resettlement takes place then there is likely to be significant emphasis on the objective of self-

sufficiency and self-financing within a ‘reasonable’ timeframe. This implies the need for careful

assessment skills, experience and aptitudes of the Chagossians, and the extent to which various

types of agricultural training and extension services will be needed.

6.3 Returning Home – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the Chagos Islands,

March 2008

The report (also known as The Howell Report) presents a number of limited points with regard to

coconut cultivation:

■ ‘The pre-eviction economy of Chagos, at least in respect of trade, was based wholly upon coconut

production. The meat of the nut was extracted and dried with the resulting copra shipped to

Europe for oil extraction and meal residue. For the very small island coconut producers in both the

Indian and Pacific Oceans, little has changed if copra production has value, it is largely in its

processing, whether for cooking oil, shampoo, flavouring, etc.’ (Page 23, section 3.4, 1st para.)

174

■ ‘It is a similar pattern for other coconut products. Unless coconuts are grown where they are

consumed fresh, the profitability of production depends on manufacturing of coir, the canning of

milk, the conversion of oil into diesel, the manufacture of ‘bricks’ for hydroponic cultivation, hand

painting of shells, etc. None of this added value is economic for the Chagos Islands.’ (Page 23,

section 3.4, 2nd para.)

■ ‘Fresh coconut production provides a useful supplementary income for small producers in

countries such as India and Thailand, but export coconut production has become a large-scale

agro-industrial crop. As a result, small island production with only primary processing is

unprofitable especially if production costs would include major re-planting and rehabilitation

expenditure as would be the case in the Chagos Islands.’ (Page 23, section 3.4, 3rd para.)

■ ‘… (i) important component of domestic food consumption both for milk and meat’; (ii) ‘culinary

demand for fresh coconuts in the proposed resort’; (ii) ‘fresh coconuts could even be air-freighted

given imaginative marketing’; and (iv) ‘use of coconuts could be in the production of biodiesel for

powering boats’ (note: reported that some pioneering work has been done in the Marshall Islands)

(page 23, section 3.4, 4th and 5th paras.)

The points made in the Howell Report imply that export-oriented coconut production would be

uneconomic, but that production for consumption and use within the Islands would be beneficial.

6.4 An Evaluation of ‘Returning Home’ – A Proposal for the Resettlement of the

Chagos Islands, June 2008

This report makes a number of comments on the points outlined in the Howell Report regarding the

potential for re-establishing coconut cultivation in the Chagos Islands:

■ ‘Longer term exploration of several other products were suggested, some in passing but then

discounted as being useful in the Chagos. Several noted to be sources of extra income, though

not ones on which to base an economic case for resettlement. Coconut farming was assumed to

be unrealistic, but the possibility of producing biofuel with suitable grants for clean energy was

noted as a possibility. Although the report does discount large scale production in the manner of

old, it does note many lesser uses for the fibres and other products from mattresses to

hydroponic blocks. Yet all would require substantial restoration of some of the plantations at least

– and it must be appreciated that the plantations are now very overgrown and virtually

impenetrable. Without mechanical equipment, the effort required to clear or restore significant

coconut plantations will require millions of person-hours. For example, it took 1000 person days to

clear much less than 1% of understorey vegetation on Eagle Island in 2006 during the rat

eradication project.’ (Page 10, last para.)

■ ‘The suggestion that there is a ‘culinary demand for fresh coconuts in proposed resort; and fresh

coconuts could even be air-freighted given imaginative marketing’ is small in economic terms,

while distances (and therefore costs) from Chagos need greater exploration. The trouble with

many possibilities is that ready supplies of such produce already exist adjacent to airports in many

countries around the Indian Ocean. Perhaps some could be developed in Chagos also ‘with

imaginative marketing’, but it means that the possibility of doing so in any economically useful

way cannot be assumed, Coconut, for example, which was once the mainstay of the ‘Oil Islands’,

has not seen a global rise in demand for decades.’ (Page 11, 2nd para.)

The comments cited above support the general conclusion of the Howell Report that the potential re-

establishment of export-oriented coconut production in the Chagos Islands would not be a viable

proposition. In economic terms, this conclusion would be supported by the fact that investment and

operational costs would be substantial – even if the Chagos Islands could produce coconut products

at competitive international prices: (i) high capital costs of clearing and replanting old and dense areas

of coconut trees; (ii) high costs of environmentally acceptable disposal of the debris from the clearing

operation; (iii) investment in new processing and shipping facilities (note: air transport would be

prohibitively expensive); (iv) high costs of marketing and payments to commercial intermediaries; etc.

Nevertheless, modest rehabilitation of existing coconut areas could provide important supplements

175

to the household budgets of resettled Chagossians (e.g. food supplements, household utensils,

construction materials, etc.), plus potential sales to the tourist resort(s) and the NSFDG.

6.5 Debates about the Feasibility of Human Resettlement of the Chagos

Archipelago, L Jeffrey

Based on interviews with Chagossians in Mauritius, the paper includes a number of observations

with regard to coconuts, as follows:

‘Chagossians and others I interviewed in Mauritius were generally more positive about the potential

rejuvenation of the coconut plantations for four main reasons. First, coconut plantations are still

economically viable on equivalent small islands throughout the tropics, and are increasingly used to

produce biofuel. Second, every part of a coconut plant has a domestic use or export value (Jeffery

2013: 306). Third, coconut is a key ingredient in Chagossian cuisine, and thus also entails an element

of cultural heritage (Jeffrey 2011: 85). Fourth, coconuts can be used to produce handicrafts which can

be sold to tourists or exported for sale overseas’ (page 5, last para.)

These are valid points that should be focused on modest rehabilitation of plantations to supply

coconuts and coconut products to the domestic market as it develops within BIOT – with a prime

focus on the household needs of the resettled Chagossians.

7. Coconut Development Opportunities

7.1 Introduction

Coconuts and their cultivation are deeply embedded in the history of BIOT and the Chagossians

themselves, especially for the older generation. This factor should be borne in mind in any future

resettlement programme. Nevertheless, any development package should recognise that the

international market for coconuts and competing products has changed significantly over the last 40

years – favouring large producing countries with direct access to major shipping routes; while some

Pacific islands still export small to modest volumes of coconut products, the actual quantities sold

can vary significantly from year to year. In addition, the islands in BIOT have the following major

disadvantages vis à vis the international market for coconut products: (i) isolation and high shipping

costs; (ii) requirement for substantial land clearance and replanting of old coconut areas; (iii) high

investment costs in new processing and transport facilities; (iv) doubts as to whether a private agro-

based investment company would be prepared to take the risk – without the support of substantial

subsidies well into the future.

Given the scenario outlined in the previous paragraph, the Study Team recommends that any

potential re-development of coconut cultivation should focus on the needs of the resettled

Chagossian population and any incremental demand generated by the NSFDG and future tourism

development in the islands.

This section offers some suggestions on a constructive way forward, in terms of: (i) key factors for

tourism development; (ii) SWOT analysis; and (iii) key strategic development messages.

7.2 SWOT Analysis

This section presents a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) related to

potential coconut re-development in BIOT and the implications related to the three resettlement

options.

176

Table 7.3.7 SWOT Analysis – Indicative Factors Related to Coconut Re-

Development

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Existing areas of coconuts on many of the

habitable islands

2. Ability to supply own domestic needs –

individual or cooperative – with range of coconut

products that reduce need to import

3. Willingness of Chagossians to adapt to and

protect the environment from over-exploitation

4. Limited human development over last 40 years –

which offers basis for Chagossians and BIOTA to

promote rational and controlled areas of coconut

trees

5. Chagossian appreciation of coconuts as part of

their heritage and sustainability of family life

6. Dense and overgrown areas of coconut trees

that would require significant clearing operations

7. Many old coconut trees (over 40 years old) that

would require replanting

8. Clearance of large areas of coconut trees could

cause environmental damage, especially if

disposal of debris is not done effectively

9. Capital cost and time needed to carry out clearing

operations – including potential impact of using

heavy machinery and equipment

10. Some Chagossians may not have the skill and

experience to farm coconut trees efficiently

11. Divided opinions between advocates of

resettlement and environmental

conservation/protection

Opportunities Threats

1. Opportunity to supply NSFDG with fresh

coconut products e.g. coconuts, coconut water,

milk, cream etc.

2. Opportunity to supply up-market tourist resort

and eco-tourism development with fresh

coconut products, handicrafts and souvenirs

3. Potential opportunity to develop ‘niche’ market

for BIOT’s coconut water (cf. Pitcairn honey)

4. Sales opportunity through Community Store

5. Potential development of bio-fuel for Community

fishing boats

6. Opportunity to train Chagossians with

appropriate skills prior to return to the islands

7. Sea level rise and danger of increased erosion

and flooding

8. Danger of seismic events in East Indian Ocean –

causing threat to low lying islands

9. Adverse impact of general climate change to low

lying islands

10. Adverse impact of coconut re-development on

environmental conservation and protection

11. Impact of rat population on coconut farming and

other agricultural activities

12. Risk that resettled Chagossians may not wish to

remain on the islands, especially the younger

generation

13. Risk that resettled Chagossians will become

dependent on budgetary aid and develop an

ageing population (cf. Pitcairn)

7.3 Coconut Cultivation – Income & Expenditure and Areas for

Rehabilitation

Following the suggestions outlined above, this section focuses on two aspects: (i) indicative income

and expenditure per hectare for coconut cultivation; and (ii) potential areas required for coconut

rehabilitation under each of the three resettlement options.

The indicative income and expenditure estimates are useful in highlighting the operational values

involved in coconut cultivation – and, therefore, the potential impact on household budgets for the

resettled families. Table 7.3.8 summarises the indicative estimates of annual income and expenditure

per hectare for mono-crop coconut cultivation, based on parameters sourced from the Coconut

Development Authority (CDA – Sri Lanka) and study estimates. Further details, parameters and

assumptions are presented in Appendix A (Table 5).

The results are presented for two scenarios to reflect the impact alternative manpower costs, which

are the main determinants of the cost structure and hence the net returns per hectare: (i) Scenario 1

– based on the UK minimum wage of £6.50 per hour; and (ii) Scenario 2 – based on half the UK

minimum wage at £3.25 per hour. Indicative results per hectare are as follows:

177

Scenario 1 (UK minimum wage) – equivalent income in kind of £1,728 per hectare, costs of £1,979

per hectare – resulting in a negative net return of – £251 per hectare.

Scenario 2 (half UK minimum wage) – equivalent income in kind of £1,728 per hectare, lower costs of

£1,226 per hectare – yielding a positive net return of £503 per hectare.

The results indicate the impact of the unit value of labour on BIOT and the importance of the concept

of the ‘opportunity cost of labour’ vis à vis alternative activities in a development context. These

aspects (and others) will be significant for each resettled family in terms of the limited choices and

opportunities to develop sustainable livelihoods that are ‘income earning’ and/or ‘subsistence

employment’ (e.g. fishing for household consumption, coconut cultivation, and other farming/animal

husbandry activities).

Table 7.3.8 Coconuts – Estimates of Annual Income & Expenditure: Mono-Crop Cultivation

Production parameters:

■ Coconut palm trees – 158 per hectare

■ Nut production – 7,000 per year

■ Nuts per tree – 44 per year

■ Farm-gate price – US$ 0.4 (£ 0.25) per nut

Component US$ per hectare £ per hectare (1) Distribution (%)

Scenario 1 – Manpower Costs based on UK Minimum Wage

Income 2,800 1,728

Expenditure

Fertilizer application 1,260 778 39%

Cultural practices 1,577 973 49%

Harvesting 369 228 12%

Total – Expenditure 3,206 1,979 100%

Net Return -406 -251

Scenario 2 – Manpower Costs based on Half UK Minimum Wage

Income

Expenditure 2,800 1,728

Fertilizer application 829 512 42%

Cultural practices 913 564 46%

Harvesting 243 150 12%

Total – Expenditure 1,985 1,226 100%

Net Return 815 503

Notes: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = US$1.62.


Further comments on mono-crop coconut cultivation:

■ The figures outlined above do not include the following components: (i) costs of clearing potential

areas for coconut rehabilitation – the extent and cost will require further investigation (e.g.

machine-based clearance rates used by the UK Forestry Commission (August 2011) range from

£2,000 to £5,000 per ha.; comparable rates for BIOT could be at least three to four times more

178

expensive, given the machinery shipping and operational costs, (plus an additional 20% to cover

the supervision of environmentally sensitive sites); and (ii) income and expenditure will vary over

the life of the coconut tree: (a) seedlings (if these are necessary) do not bear fruit until three (3)

years of age; (b) optimum yields are generally between 10 and 30 years of age; and (c) tree

replanting generally takes place after 40/50 years.

■ Potential ‘cost-offsets’: (i) coconut husks/wood could be dried out to less than 15% to 20%

moisture and used as heating/energy biomass for cooking; (ii) coconut wood chip mulch for use as

a soil conditioner for agricultural areas, gardens, landscaping of communal and tourist areas, etc.;

and (iii) coconut oil could be adapted as a bio-fuel to power the Community’s fishing boats, as a

cheaper alternative to the import of gasoline and diesel.

■ Coconut cultivation would generally be inter-cropped with other vegetables and fruits that are

suitable to the local soil and climate conditions, and the food preferences of the resettled

Chagossians.

■ Livestock husbandry (e.g. chickens and pigs) is a further possibility that was undertaken in the old

settlements on Diego Garcia, Île du Coin and Boddam.

The Study Team has also prepared indicative estimates of the rehabilitated areas that could be

required to satisfy potential coconut demand under the three development Options. The estimates

are based on the following assumptions:

■ FAO Food Balance Sheets for 2011 indicate the following annual unit coconut consumption for

selected countries: (i) Fiji – 62.9 kg/head (equivalent to 44 nuts, average weight per nut 1.44 kg);

(ii) Sri Lanka – 66.3 kg/head (46 nuts); (iii) Kiribati – 123.2 kg/head (85 nuts); and (iv) Samoa – 173.8

kg/head (120 nuts).

■ Resettled Chagossians – potential consumption range: 50, 100 and 150 nuts per head/year.

■ Average yield – 7,000 nuts per hectare/year.

Table 7.3.9 presents the resulting indicative areas for potential rehabilitation for each of three

Options:

■ Option 1 (1,500 people) – indicative area required: 13 to 39 hectares.

■ Option 2 (500 people) – indicative area required: 4 to 13 hectares.

■ Option 3 (150 people) – indicative area required: 1.5 to 4 hectares.

Table 7.3.9 Coconuts – Indicative Areas for Rehabilitation for Domestic Demand

Indicative Demand

(nuts per capita

p.a.)

(1)

Average Yield

(nuts per hectare)

(2)

Indicative Rehabilitation Areas (hectares) (3)

Option 1

1,500 people

Option 2

500 people

Option 3

150 people

50 7,000 13 4 1.5

100 7,000 26 9 2.5

150 7,000 39 13 4.0

Notes: (1) coconut average weight 1.44 kg per nut; (ii) see: Appendix A, Table 5; and (iii) includes additional 20% to cover

potential incremental demand.


Finally, the potential capital cost (including: clearance, replanting, etc.) should be added to the overall

investment costs of each resettlement option.

179

7.4 Environmental Impact Assessment and Monitoring Activities

It is envisaged that the potential rehabilitation of designated coconut areas would be included in the

environmental impact assessment (EIA) and future monitoring activities to ensure that mono-crop

and inter-crop cultivation conform to the required environmental standards. In this context, it is

assumed that the relevant ordinances would be amended and/or new ones drafted.


The potential rehabilitation and cultivation of old coconut areas will require a review of range of

agronomic skills and experience of the Chagossians wishing to resettle under Options 1, 2 or 3.

The possible options for training are outlined as follows:

■ Training organised by an experienced and qualified agronomic consulting company.

■ Training visits by qualified extension specialists from training centres in major producing countries

(e.g. India, Sri Lanka, etc.).

■ Training of trainers – based on selected Chagossians receiving specific training at coconut

development centres in the region e.g. Sri Lanka

■ Coconut Cultivation Board (CCB) – Coconut Training Development Center

■ Coconut Research Institute (CRI) – Technology Transfer Division - India

■ Coconut Development Board (CDB)

■ Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI)

Issues and Challenges

The potential future rehabilitation of old coconut areas (for mono-cropping and inter-cropping) to

address the sustainable livelihood needs of Options 1, 2 and 3 will require key decisions and action

on a number of important issues and challenges. Some of these factors are outlined below, which

will need to be incorporated into a phased action plan:

■ Development of necessary agronomic policy, ordinances and regulations.

■ Skill base, aptitude and willingness of the potential resettled Chagossians.

■ Appropriate agronomic training of the potential resettled Chagossians.

■ Agronomic resource management and data recording.

■ Training in relevant environmental conservation and protection of soil and land resources.

■ Appropriate capital resources to support a defined rehabilitation of old coconut areas.

■ Support in promoting coconut products to NSFDG and the prospective tourist developments.

180

APPENDIX A Supplementary Tables

(Note: Tables D.1 – D.5 is in separate Annex Excel file Aex3)


Summary Coconut Data 2000–2013: (i) Islands in Indian and Pacific Oceans; and (ii) major

producing countries in Asia (see: separate Excel file)

Table 1 Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles

Table 2 Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu

Table 3 Indonesia, Philippines, India and Sri Lanka

Table 4 Vietnam, Papua and New Guinea, Thailand and Malaysia

Coconuts – Indicative Income and Expenditure per Hectare (see: separate Excel file)

Table 5 Coconut – Indicative Estimates of Income and Expenditure per Hectare: Mono-Crop

Cultivation

Notes to Table 5:

■ Estimates based on input data from Coconut Development Authority (CDA – Sri Lanka) and study

estimates

■ Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62

■ General parameters:

– Coconut trees – 158 per hectare

– Nut production – 7,000 per hectare

– Nuts per tree – 44 per year

■ Two scenarios:

– Scenario 1 – labour inputs based on UK minimum wage of £6.50 (US$ 10.53) per hour

– Scenario 2 – labour inputs based on half UK minimum wage of £3.25 (US$ 5.27) per hour

■ Working day – 6 hours

■ Income – £0.25 (US$ 0.40) per nut (note: average farm-gate price – see: Table 7.3.5)

■ Expenditure – physical parameters and unit prices specified in Table 5

181

7.4 Resettlement Options

Costs, Income Generation and Financial Forecasts

1. Introduction

This annex brings together the data and analyses relating to the potential development of the Three

Resettlement Options.

The annex is presented in eight sections:


■ Overseas Territories – St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn

■ BIOT administration costs – current

■ Development options

■ Cost estimates – capex and opex

■ Income generation opportunities

■ Indicative financial forecasts


The Annex is also supported by a series of integrated tables that present: background data, cost

estimates, income generation projections and financial forecasts for each development option (see:

tables in separate Excel file). All cost estimates, salaries and wages, other monetary values and

financial forecasts are presented in 2014 constant prices.



■ Data sourced from UK Overseas Territories (OT), including: (i) public sector employment; (ii)

engagement of expatriates; (iii) financial profiles of Government sector operations; (iv) tax

structures; and (v) other information. The data were sourced through the active cooperation of

Programme Managers in DFID’s Overseas Territories Department (OTD) and senior managers on

the remote OTs of St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn

■ BIOT Administration data

■ Cost estimates:

– Infrastructure costs – estimates of capex and opex costs

– Environmental costs – estimates presented in Section 5 and Annex 5.3

– Other costs – presented in this annex

■ Income generation opportunities – based on estimates and analysis in annexes on Fisheries

(Annex 7.1)), Tourism (Annex 7.2) and Coconuts (Annex 7.3)

182

■ Possible employment opportunities: (i) support personnel on US Naval Support Facility Diego

Garcia (NSFDG); (ii) public sector community employment; (iii) high-end tourist resort and eco-

tourism facility, plus related activities; (iv) fisheries, environmental and agricultural activities; and

(v) entrepreneurial initiatives by resettled Chagossians.

Infrastructure cost sensitivity and uncertainty levels are assessed in Table 7.4.1.

Table 7.4.1 Infrastructure Cost Variability & Commentary

Option 1

DG &~2

Islands

N=1500

Levels of Complexity & Uncertainty Option 3

DG

N=150-50

Levels of Complexity & Uncertainty

ITEM(S) Access &

Supply

Chains

Inter-

national

Standards

& Codes

Cost

range

variation

risk (%)

+/-

ITEM(S) Access &

Supply

Chains

Inter-

national

Standards

& Codes

Cost

range

variation

risk (%)

+/-

Transport

& sea def.

H H +50 Transport

& sea def.

M H +25

Energy H H +/- 50 Energy M H +/- 25

Accomm. H H +/- 30 Accomm. M H +/- 20

Services H H +/- 50 Services L H +/- 20

Calculations for each specific item are complex, and are based upon as yet unconfirmed UK-USA

government agreement presumptions that initially substantial assistance will be permitted to be

procured via existing US NSF contractors, using existing standby machinery. Factored into the

longer-term and/or broader remit for Option 1 are presumptions that additional competent

contractor(s), including appropriate regional providers will start to take over construction, and also,

that local/regional supply chains and private sector investors will become involved. Hence costs are

subject to significant underlying uncertainties. The +/- or + (%) allocations/assessments are a broad-

based summary of those complexities.

Cost benchmarking is derived from published and unpublished and open-source unrestricted and

confidential data sets and resources.

■ Data from DFID/FCO OT sources give higher levels of certainty (approx. +/- 15%) but their

applicability to the Chagos archipelago is variable.

■ Data from US NSF are accurate, but often sub-element costs are opaque and are incorporated into

multi-year and multi-task assignments, so direct NSF costs would tend to be 200 – 300% higher

than other regional provider expectations. In general, these costs have been abated to assume a

variable degree of alternative international/regional supplier participation in the provision of

solutions.

■ Data for Maldives and Mauritius, USA, UK, Australia tend to give +/- 100-300% overall sets of

ranges, increasing the level of challenge in identifying suitable benchmarks. That is because the

possible standards and requirements vary immensely (i.e. from, say, self-build, un-air-conditioned

housing units, to extreme luxury resort-type developments).

These ranges have been taken into consideration for each element to derive a practicable and

balanced “reasonable scenario” set of costs. Additional complexity exists on DG since there are on-

going energy, drinking water, waste disposal and housing projects, all costed on the basis of existing

systems, and extending the provision being planned for was not a factor in their original costings –

and would, in any event, be subject to future UK-USA government agreements. The H, M, L

risk/challenge summary assessments take into account off-DG additional and initial basic landing and

infrastructure/machinery requirements – hence the variability in assessments between Option1 and

3.

H: High potential challenge &/or risk; M: Medium; L: Lower (although NOT LOW).

183

3. Overseas Territories – Background Data

3.1 Introduction

This section reviews comparative information and data relating to three UK Overseas Territories

(OTs), namely: St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn. These islands have comparable challenges to

those of the Chagos Islands: (i) small populations; (ii) remote ocean locations; (iii) lack of air access;

(iv) shortage of sustained employment opportunities; (v) challenges relating to education, training,

health facilities, etc.; and (vi) varying degrees of dependence on UK budgetary support. Some

comparative data were also sourced for Montserrat & Falklands (http://www.fig.gov.fk/policy/).

The reviews focus mainly on public sector issues relating to: (i) employment and wages; (ii) revenue

and expenditure; (iii) development support; (iv) taxation; (v) unemployment; (vi) pensions; (vii)

electricity and water consumption and charges; and (viii) engagement of expatriate specialists.

3.2 St Helena

The estimated population was about 4,100 in 2012 with a growth rate of 1% p.a. In 2009-10, the

island had an estimated labour force of 2,819 (including: government, private, parastatal, others not

stated, and unemployed totalling 68% of the population). Information relating to Government

employment, salaries and wages, annual revenue and expenditure, and exports and imports are

presented in four tables in Appendix A:

■ Table 1 Government Staff and Salaries/Wages by Directorate 2013-14 and Pay Grades

■ Table 2 Government Staff by Directorate 2012-13

■ Table 3 Government Revenue and Expenditure by Component: 2006-07 to 2011-12

■ Table 4 Exports and Imports by Category 2006-07 to 2011-12

According to official figures, the Government employs between 687 and 742 full-time staff (full time

equivalents), which represents 24% to 26% of the labour force and 17% to 18% of the population.

The most important directorates are: (i) health and social welfare – 208 nos., accounting for 28% of

the total; (ii) infrastructure and utilities – 146 nos., accounting for 20%; (iii) education and employment

– 122 nos., accounting for 16%; and (iv) agriculture and natural resources – 77 nos., accounting for

10%. Other Government employees are distributed between corporate services, finance, police and

security, etc.

Current Government average salaries by directorate range from £677 to £928 per month (£8,122 to

£11,140 per year), depending on the actual position, qualifications and responsibilities within each

directorate. The overall average directorate salary is £762 per month (£9,145 per year) (See Appendix

A. Table 1). In addition, the St Helena Government operates a graded pay scale system, which ranges

from an average minimum of £382 per month (£4,582 per year) to a maximum of £1,822 per month

(£21,861 per year). The figures in Appendix A (Table 1B) indicate that the majority of Government

employees are in the salary range £492 to £780 per month (£5,907 to £9,366 per year).

It is also useful to note income data from a recent report based on the processing of individual

income tax records for 2011-12 and 2012-13. The summary data indicate annual median income

levels that are quite similar between the public and private sectors of £6,010 to £6,890 per employed

person.

http://www.fig.gov.fk/policy/

184

Category

Public Sector – Government Private Sector

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13

Median

Mean

£6,500

£7,230

£6,660

£7,410

£6,010

£7,100

£6,890

£8,530

Source: Provisional Analysis of Income from Employment 2011 to 2013, Government of St Helena.

Table 3.1 summarises the Government’s financial position over the last six years from 2006-07 to

2011-12. The figures indicate substantial annual deficits, ranging from £11.4 million in 2006-07 rising

to £18.7 million in 2011-12 – equivalent to £4,600 per resident islander. Historically, the island has

been heavily dependent on UK Aid from the Department for International Development (DFID), which

has amounted to:

■ Budgetary aid and shipping subsidy – rising from £9 million in 2006-07 to £16.8 million in 2011-12

■ Development aid and technical cooperation – ranging from £2.2 million in 2006-07 to £17.4 million

in 2010-11. Much of the development aid over the last 4 to 5 years has been focused on the

development and construction contract for the new airport that is due to be completed in 2016.

The figures clearly indicate St Helena’s financial weakness and aid dependence. For the future, the

UK’s investment in the new airport is designed to provide the platform for sustained economic

growth based on the expansion of the private sector tourism industry. The primary aim is to

encourage self-sustaining growth that will reduce St Helena’s aid dependence completely over the

next 20 to 30 years.

Table 7.4.2 St Helena – Summary of Gov’t Rev. & Expenditure & UK Aid 2006-07 to 2011-12

(£ million)

Component 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Revenue

Expenditure

6,364

17,771

7,375

18,722

8,249

21,337

9,382

23,391

9,666

26,785

9,675

28,416

Surplus/(Deficit) (11,407) (11,347) (13,088) (14,009) (17,120) (18,741)

UK Aid

Budgetary Aid

Shipping Subsidy

Development Aid

Technical Cooperation

6,407

2,560

1,787

392

7,535

2,582

5,207

422

8,709

3,080

8,470

424

7,650

3,390

7,523

2,050

12,303

3,897

15,162

2,268

12,100

4,750

6,833

2,643

Total UK Aid 11,146 15,746 20,683 20,613 33,630 26,326


Other key indicators that are relevant to the potential resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago are

summarised as follows:

■ Taxation (note: direct and indirect taxes account for 47% to 59% of government revenue):

– Income tax – currently set at 25% of earnings over £7,000 per year.

– Import duties (source: Customs and Excise Ordinance – updated to 2014):

■ All goods (n.e.s) 20% of value

■ Beverages (depending on alcohol strength): (i) wines and beers £1 to £1.36 per litre; and (ii)

spirits £5.49 to £15.46 per litre.

■ Fuel: (i) gasoline £0.39 per litre; and (ii) diesel £0.27 per litre.

■ Vehicles: 15% to 45% of value (for cars – relates to CO2 emissions).

185

■ Tobacco and tobacco products: £18.21 to £224.27 per kg.

■ Baby products: 5% of value.

■ Unemployment (note: official statistics indicate that the current unemployment rate is low):

– National insurance contribution – currently none

– Unemployment benefit – currently £15.08 per week for a single person after six weeks,

providing they are actively seeking employment

■ Pensions:

– Contributory pension scheme – currently none

– Government pensions depend on length of service: (i) £24.54 per week for 20 to 25 years; (ii)

£35.80 per week for 25 to 30 years; and (iii) £49.07 per week for 30+ years

■ Health services: (i) 4 doctors (1 doctor per 1,000 people); (ii) hospital – 30 beds; and (iii) 8

outpatient clinics.

■ Education (note: figures are for 2012-13): (i) nursery units: 3 nos.; enrolment 46 nos.; and teachers

3 nos.; (ii) primary schools: 3 nos.; enrolment 279 nos.; and teachers 22 nos.; and (iii) secondary

school: 1 nos.; enrolment 245 nos.; and teachers 30 nos. (Note: pupil/teacher ratios are low

compared to UK).

■ Imports – the table below summarises imports into St Helena in 2011-12 for total value by

category, distribution and value per head of population. Additional data for the years 2006-07 to

2011-12 and presented in Appendix A, Table 4. The figures illustrate the following:

– Imports totalled £13 million (cf. £8.3 million in 2006-07), of which the most important were: (i)

food and live animals 22%; (ii) machinery and transport equipment 23%; (iii) mineral fuels and

lubricants 18%; and (iv) manufactured goods and articles 24%. However, it should be noted

that some of the machinery and transport equipment, etc. were imports related to the

construction of the new airport.

– Fuel imports have remained relatively stable over the six year period (2006-07 to 2011-12) at

3,100 to 3,400 tonnes per year (82% diesel fuel, most for the power plant at Rupert’s Bay),

with the total import value increasing from £1.1 million in 2006-07 to £2.3 million in 2011-12.

– Imports per head – (i) total costs have risen by 48% from £2,200 per head in 2006-07 to £3,272

in 2011-12; (ii) food and live animals by 27% from £575 per head in 2006-07 to £728 in 2011-

12; (iii) beverages and tobacco by 37% from £116 per head in 2006-07 to £159 in 2011-12; and

(iv) fuel by 92% from £299 per head in 2006-07 to £574 in 2011-12.

Table 7.4.3 St Helena – Imports (2011-12)

Category: 2011-12 Value (£ 000) Distribution (%) Imports per Head (£)

Imports

Food and Live Animals

Beverages and Tobacco

Crude Materials Inedible, except Fuels

Mineral Fuels, Lubricants, etc.

Animal and Vegetable Oils and Fats

Chemicals and Related Materials

Manufactured Goods

Machinery and Transport Equipment

Misc. Manufactured Articles

Commodities and Transactions nec.

2,897

634

195

2,374

73

791

1,550

2,985

1,513

11

22%

5%

1%

18%

1%

6%

12%

23%

12%

728

159

49

596

18

199

389

750

380

Total 13,023 100% 3,272

Fuel – Value

Gasoline

Diesel

437

1,845

19%

81%

110

464

186

Category: 2011-12 Value (£ 000) Distribution (%) Imports per Head (£)

Total 2,283 100% 574

Fuel – Quantity

Gasoline

Diesel

593 tonnes

2,745 tonnes

18%

82%

149 kg

690 kg

Total 3,338 tonnes 100% 839 kg

Sources: Appendix A, Table 4.

■ Sea freight charges from Cape Town – main source of imports to St Helena. The service is

provided under contract by the RMS St Helena (operator: Andrew Weir Shipping Limited). Freight

rates as of April 2014 are as follows:

Table 7.4.4 St Helena – Freight rates (April 2014)

Cargo Break Bulk

Full Container Load (FCL)

Shipper Owned Lines Unit

General Cargo

Household & Personal Effects

Provisions and Foodstuffs

Bagged/Palletised Building Materials

Timber

Chilled/Reefer Cargo

Hazardous Cargo

Empty Container

£170 per mᵌ

£116 per mᵌ

£109 per mᵌ

£124 per mᵌ

£124 per mᵌ

£226 per mᵌ

£265 per mᵌ

£2,720

£2,485

£2,403

£2,521

£2,521

n.a.

£3,305

£288

£3,070

£2,836

£2,760

£2,913

£2,913

£3,812

£3,577

■ Utility charges – electricity, water and wastewater services are provided by a parastatal company

which was established recently, with expatriate management. According to the latest information,

the Island Government provided a subsidy equivalent 24% of the 2014 O&M costs for electricity,

water and wastewater. Utility charges as of 1st April 2014 are specified below:

– Electricity charges:

Table 7.4.5 St Helena – Electricity charges (April 2014)

Standing Charge – per quarter Consumption Charge – per quarter

Meter £ per qtr. Band £ per qtr.

Single phase meter

Single phase meter (unoccupied residential premises)

Three phase meter

12

24

37

Band 1 – less than 400 kWh

Band 2 – 401 to 1,000 kWh

Band 3 – more than 1,000 kWh

0.23

0.40

0.44

Note: there are also separate charges for disconnection and reconnection.

In the three-year period (2009-10 to 2011-12), reported average domestic electricity consumption

was: (i) 3.0 to 3.1 kWh per capita/day; and (ii) 5.0 to 5.3 kWh per day per residential connection.

– Water charges:

187

Table 7.4.6 St Helena – Water charges (April 2014)

Standing Charge – per quarter Consumption Charge – per quarter

Customer Category £ per qtr. Band £ per mᵌ

Domestic

Unoccupied residential premises

Commercial

Agricultural

7.25

21.0

21.5

7.3

Domestic:

■ Less than 15mᵌ

■ More than 15mᵌ

Untreated water

Commercial

■ Agricultural:

■ Treated water

Untreated water

0.95

1.26

0.63

2.47

1.25

0.63

Note: there are also separate charges for disconnection and reconnection.

In the three-year period (2009-10 to 2011-12), reported average domestic water consumption was: (i)

131 to 133 litres per capita/day; and (ii) 238 to 245 litres per day per residential connection.

– Wastewater – levied as a standing charge per quarter: (i) domestic £11.50 per qtr. (ii)

commercial £18.15 per qtr.; (iii) septic tank emptying £100 per visit; and (iv) unblocking private

sewer lines £100 per visit.

■ Expatriates – examples include: Governor, Financial Secretary, Attorney General, Economic

Advisers, managers for public utilities, etc.

3.3 Tristan da Cunha (TdC)

The reported population on the island is 285, of whom: (i) 269 are resident islanders (94%); (ii) 10

expatriates and families (FCO and Government officials); (iii) 5 other expatriates; and (iv) 1 expatriate

islander without residence status (note: these figures exclude contractors and researchers who may

be on the island from time to time). Available figures indicate that the Government provides

employment for 151 (56% of resident islanders) – mainly on a part-time basis. In addition, the lobster

(crayfish) processing plant on the island employs 32 (20 full-time and 12 part-time). Most of the

islanders also participate in subsistence farming of their livestock and vegetable plots at ‘The

Patches’.

Information relating to government employment, salaries and wages, annual revenue and

expenditure are presented in two tables in Appendix A:

■ Table 5 Government Staff and Wages by Department 2013

■ Table 6 Government Revenue and Expenditure by Component 2012 to 2014

In 2013, the TdC Government provided employment for 151 islanders at a reported cost of £437,200

with an average wage of £241 per month (£2,900 per year). The most important departments are: (i)

public works – 56 nos., accounting for 37% of the total and average wages of £197 per month

(£2,400 per year); (ii) agriculture – 14 nos., accounting for 9% and average wages of £274 per month

(£3,300 per year); (iii) education – 13 nos., accounting for 9% and average wages of £242 per month

(£2,900 per year; and (iv) island store – 10 nos., accounting for 7% and average wages of £309 per

month (£3,700 per year).

Similar to St Helena, TdC operates a graded pay scale. Table 7.4.7 illustrates the annual, monthly,

daily and hourly pay rates for selected positions.

188

Table 7.4.7 TdC – Government Graded Pay Scale: Selected Examples – January 2013

Position Annual (£) Month (£) Daily (£) Hourly (£)

Department Head

Assistant Head of Dept.

Conservation Officer

Accountant

Secretary

Forman

Teacher

Clerk

Shop Worker

Skilled Worker

Semi-Skilled Worker

Unskilled Worker

Nurse – Overseas Trained

Play-School Teacher – Overseas Trained

Juniors – under 18 years

Youth Employment

4,981 to 7,845

3,827 to 4,765

2,965 to 3,827

2,064 to 3,364

2,064 to 3,224

2,844 to 3,091

2,321 to 3,091

2,064 to 2,965

2,064 to 2,965

2,619 to 2,843

2,321 to 2,515

2,231

2,321 to 2,729

2,145 to 2,231

1,912 to 2,145

1,840

415 to 654

319 to 397

247 to 319

172 to 280

172 to 269

237 to 258

193 to 258

172 to 247

172 to 247

218 to 237

193 to 210

186

193 to 227

179 to 186

159 to 178

153

19.2 to 30.2

14.7 to 18.3

11.4 to 14.7

7.9 to 12.9

7.9 to 12.4

10.9 to 11.9

8.9 to 11.9

7.9 to 11.4

7.9 to 11.4

10.1 to 10.9

8.9 to 9.7

8.6

8.9 to 10.5

8.3 to 8.6

7.4 to 8.2

7.1

2.8 to 4.4

2.1 to 2.7

1.6 to 2.1

1.2 to 1.9

1.2 to 1.8

1.6 to 1.7

1.3 to 1.7

1.2 to 1.6

1.2 to 1.6

1.5 to 1.6

1.3 to 1.4

1.2

1.3 to 1.5

1.2

1.1 to 1.2

1.0

Source: TdC Government.

Table 7.4.8 summarises the TdC Government’s recurrent financial position for 2012, 2013 and 2014

(budget). The figures indicate that the island has been able to maintain a small financial surplus

without the need for budgetary aid. Reported income ranged from £1.4 to £1.9 million per year, and

annual expenditure of £1.1 to £1.9 million per year (note: similar data are available for other years, if

requested). The main points to note are as follows:

■ Income:

– TdC’s reported annual income is dominated by two components: (i) Lobster Royalty –

amounting to £650,000 to £767,000 per year (33% to 54% of total); and (ii) Island Store – with

income of £475,000 to £520,000 per year (25% to 27% of total).

– Other subsidiary sources of income are: coins; stamps; vehicle & launch hire; Prince Philip Hall

(main leisure and recreational facility); and various taxes (income & medical).

– Tourism income was small, amounting to only £11,000 to £28,000 per year.

– Taxes were modest: (i) income tax – £63,000 to £69,000 per year; and (ii) medical tax –

£34,000 to £36,000 per year.

Note on Rock Lobster Fishery: operated on long-term concession by South African company

(Ovenstone Agencies – based in Cape Town). Annual catch is about 400 tonnes, fished around TdC

and the islands of Inaccessible, Gough and Nightingale. Approximately 180 tonnes is caught by

Islanders around TdC and processed by Islanders in the dedicated fish factory on the island. Under

the concession agreement, Ovenstone Agencies also provides passenger and freight services at

concessionary rates to/from Cape Town (in MV Edinburgh and MV Baltic Trader – both capable of

accommodating 12 passengers + freight for the island). TdC’s rock lobster is exported by Ovenstone

Agencies to USA, Japan and the EU. The company was awarded a Marine Stewardship Council

(MSC) certificate for sustainable and well-managed fisheries in 2011. The fish factory also supplies

energy to the island’s electricity distribution system to satisfy domestic and government demand.

■ Expenditure – dominated by three departments (components) that account for 67% to 75% of

reported expenditure:

– Public works (27% to 37% of total expenditure) – has the largest labour force and is

responsible for operating and maintaining all public sector infrastructure assets and facilities.

– Medical (10% to 20% of total expenditure) – employs eight (8) personnel with responsibility for

all medical services and operation of the small hospital/clinic on the island. The most significant

departmental expenditures are: (i) drugs and medicines amounting to £70,000 to £80,000 p.a.

189

(equivalent to £260 to £300 per resident islander); and (ii) overseas medical treatment

amounting to £70,000 to £120,000 p.a. in recent years – depending on the medical condition of

individual patients. Note: these costs are likely to increase with the ageing population.

– Miscellaneous (10% to 38% of total expenditure) – this category is dominated the costs

incurred by the Island Store.

190

Table 7.4.8 Tristan da Cunha – Summary: Gov’t Income & Expenditure 2012, 2013 and 2014

Component &

Department

£ 000 Distribution (%)

2012

Actual

2013

Revised

2014

Budget 2012 2013 2014

Income

Fishing – Lobster Royalty

Post Office & Tourism

Stamps

Coins

Handicrafts

Tourism

Others

Misc. Overseas – Interest

Misc. Local

Island Store

Vehicle & Launch Hire

Prince Philip Hall

Income Tax

Electricity

Guest House Rental

Conservation

Medical Tax

Others

766.8

179.5

76.9

67.5

6.1

27.9

1.1

26.0

446.4

99.8

63.3

47.8

52.1

35.9

147.6

692.0

200.1

65.4

112.5

9.0

11.0

2.2

40.0

983.3

475.0

89.5

54.8

65.5

54.0

45.5

40.6

34.0

124.4

650.0

194.0

58.9

107.0

8.5

18.0

1.7

38.0

1,063.7

520.0

78.3

54.8

69.0

54.0

50.2

45.1

34.0

143.1

54%

13%

5%

5%

1%

2%

…

2%

31%

7%

4%

3%

4%

3%

10%

36%

10%

3%

6%

…

1%

…

2%

51%

25%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

6%

33%

10%

3%

5%

…

1%

…

2%

55%

27%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

6%

Total – Income 1,418.8 1,915.4 1,945.7 100% 100% 100%

Expenditure

Administration

Post Office and Tourism

Public Works

Fisheries

Conservation

Medical

Education

Agriculture

Police

Telecommunications

Miscellaneous

46.6

83.3

405.6

37.4

22.1

220.8

57.5

74.3

14.9

31.8

107.1

59.4

86.0

503.9

40.7

28.8

175.5

66.5

90.2

15.8

38.9

687.5

69.6

97.3

532.3

45.7

32.5

190.2

78.1

95.7

25.7

43.5

740.1

4%

8%

37%

3%

2%

20%

5%

7%

1%

3%

10%

3%

5%

28%

2%

2%

10%

4%

5%

1%

2%

38%

4%

5%

27%

2%

2%

10%

4%

5%

1%

2%

38%

Total – Expenditure 1,101.3 1,793.1 1,950.8 100% 100% 100%

Surplus/(Deficit) 317.5 122.4 -5.1


Other notable facts from the Government accounts are as follows:

■ Net stamp income – ranged from £20,000 to £50,000 per year.

■ Net coins income – ranged from £59,000 to £102,000 per year.

■ Shipping and handling costs allocated to Government departments – amounted to £79,000 and

£126,000 per year.

■ Government staff pension payments amounted to £23,000 to £26,000 per year.

■ Net income from Island Store – figures indicate that the store is operated on a ‘no profit – no loss’

basis. According to the figures, the store made a loss of £15,000 in 2013 and was expected to

make a small profit of £26,000 in 2014.

191

Other key indicators are summarised as follows:

■ Taxation (note: accounted for only 5% to 7% of government revenue):

– Income tax – based on earnings, currently set at: (i) 0% on income less than £1,500 p.a.; (ii)

10% on £1,501 to £3,000 p.a.; and (iii) 13% on more than £3,001 p.a.

– Other taxes: (i) hospitality tax on accommodation – £10 per day; (ii) medical tax – 4% on

medicines, etc.; and (iii) community services – 3%

– Import duties – there are no import duties, with the following exceptions:

Table 7.4.9 Tristan da Cunha – Import duties

Alcohol and Cigarettes Import Levy (£) (1) Island Store Mark-up (%) (2)

Sprits (750 ml)

Martini (750 ml)

Liqueurs (750 ml)

Sherry (750 ml)

Wine (750 ml)

Wine (5 litres)

Beer and Cider (340 ml)

7.03

1.34

7.03

1.34

1.34

8.96

0.23

188%

138%

188%

138%

138%

138%

138%

Cigarettes (per packet) 5.00

Notes: (1) levies used to subsidise LPG costs; and (2) mark-ups used to cover freight and handling charges for subsidised food.

■ Employment:

– National insurance contribution – currently none.

– Government employment – all islanders of working age have found some form of employment.

■ Utility charges – current charges are: (i) electricity – £0.26 per kWh (paid to Ovenstone Agencies

who operate the service from their generators at the lobster processing plant); (ii) water – no

charge (water is supplied from the spring that emanates from the volcano close to the

settlement); (iii) telephone – standing charge of £40 per year, plus call charges; and (iv) internet

access – £5 per month.

■ Sea freight and passenger charges to/from Cape Town (services provided by the lobster

concession company – Ovenstone Agencies): (i) freight – US$ 67.5 (£42) per mᵌ up to 1,350 mᵌ

and US$ 187.5 (£116) per mᵌ above 1,350 mᵌ; (ii) passengers – see table below:

Table 7.4.10 Tristan da Cunha – Sea freight and passenger charges

Category

US$ £ (2)

Single Return Single Return

Resident Islanders

Medevac

■ Adult

■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1)

Non-Medevac

■ Adult


Official

■ Adult


Tourist

70

35

87.5

43.75

250

125

140

70

175

87.5

500

250

43

22

54

27

154

77

86

44

108

54

308

154

192

■ Adult


500

250

1,000

500

309

154

618

308

Notes: (1) Children under 2 years of age – free; and (2) Exchange rate: £1 = US$ 1.62.

■ Imports – the table below lists the main imports to TdC for 2013-14. The total value was

£780,500, of which: (i) groceries and household goods accounted for 58%; (ii) medicine and drugs

9%; (iii) mechanical tools, lubes and spares 6%; and (iv) fuel 5%. The value of imports per head is

also a useful indicator – the total was equivalent to £2,739 per head, followed by groceries and

household goods at £1,579 per head, medicine and drugs £244 per head and fuel £140 per head.

Table 7.4.11 Tristan da Cunha – Imports (2013-14)

Component Value (£ 000) Distribution (%) Imports per Head (£)

Groceries and Household Goods

Medicine and Drugs

Mechanical Tools, Lubes, Spares, etc.

Fuel

Electrical Hardware

Plumbing Hardware

General Hardware

Animal Feed, etc.

Computers and Communications Equipment

Office Equipment and Stationary

Fertilizer

Educational Material

Veterinary Supplies

450.0

69.5

50.0

40.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

8.0

3.0

57.6%

8.9%

6.4%

5.1%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.2%

2.6%

1.9%

1.3%

1.0%

0.4%

1,579

244

175

140

105

105

105

88

70

53

35

28

11

Total 780.5 100% 2,739

■ Technical assistance – technical assistance has been received from DFID to support contract

inputs (short and long term) for: Chief Executive Officer; Director of Public Works; Medical Officer

(locum doctor); and visits by an educational adviser, dentist, dental technician and training of

nurses. The reported costs are: £350,000 for 2012-13; £400,000 for 2013-14 and £490,000 for

2014-15.

■ Capacity building – DFID also finances participation for training courses in South Africa. The

reported costs were: £55,000 for 2012-13; £30,000 for 2013-14 and £76,000 for 2014-15.

3.4 Pitcairn

The current population on Pitcairn is 58, with 50 resident islanders (including 4 youngsters who are at

secondary school in New Zealand) and 8 expatriates (including: Governor’s Representative, doctor,

policeman, teacher, family/community adviser – some on single basis and others with partners). The

island has a resident work force of 30 (59% of resident islanders), who are employed in 81 part-time

positions paid by the Island Government.

Information relating to Government employment, salaries and wages, annual revenue & expenditure

are presented in two tables in Appendix A:

■ Table 7 Government Position and Wages by Department 2013-14

■ Table 8 Government Income and Expenditure by Component 2013-14

In 2013-14, official figures indicate that there were 81 part-time positions paid for by the Government.

The total wage costs were NZ$ 218,300 (£111,700), with an average wage of £115 per month

(£1,379 per year for each part-time position). The part-time positions include: (i) mayor and deputy

193

mayor; (ii) councillors; (iii) division managers; (iv) government treasurer; (v) store manager; (vi) island

auditor; (vii) pre-school teacher; (viii) postmaster; (ix) assistant nurse; (x) grocery supervisor; (xi)

machine operator; (xii) works assistant; (xiii) cemetery maintenance; (xiv) general maintenance and

cleaning; etc. Most of the employed islanders have at least two (2) part-time positions, and some

have as many as four (4) to six (6) part-time positions. With this mix of employment, effective wages

per individual range from: (i) minimum – NZ$ 960 to NZ$ 1,600 per year (£490 to £820 per year or £41

to £68 per month); (ii) middle – NZ$ 3,249 to NZ$ 6,998 per year (£1,660 to £ 3,580 per year or £138

to £298 per month); and (iii) maximum – NZ$7,821 to NZ$ 12,472 per year (£4,000 to £6,380 per or

£333 to £532 per month). In addition, islanders supplement their government wages with:

subsistence fishing; modest vegetable and fruit cultivation; beekeeping and honey production (niche

exports to Japan and the UK); handicrafts and souvenirs (sold to cruise-ship passengers, on the

vessels and ashore); bartering with cruise ships and crew; handyman services; small weekly

restaurant services; etc.

It is also useful to note the estimates of earnings for a single-person household (holding a number of

part-time positions in many cases) from a recent report on health care and social welfare provision on

the Island. The results indicate NZ$ 12,291 (£6,288) per year, of which: (i) average government

wages 50%; (ii) sale of curios 25%; and (iii) average income from letting accommodation 25%. The

figures for curios and letting accommodation were based on individual interviews.

Table 7.4.12 Pitcairn – Individual incomes

Source NZ$ £ (1)

Average Government Salary

Sale of Curios

Average Income from Letting Accommodation

6,191

3,000

3,000

3,218

1,535

1,535

Total Average 12,291 6,288

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = NZ$ 1.955

Source: Review of Quality and Cost-Effectiveness of Health Care and Social Welfare Provision for Pitcairn Island, MM-HLSP,

January 2013.

Employment data by Government division are summarised in Table 7.4.13.

Table 7.4.13 Pitcairn – Government Positions and Wages by Division 2013-14

Division

Positions Wages Average Wages (£)

Nos. % NZ$ 000 £ 000 (1) % Annual Monthly

Council

Community

Finance

Island Store

Nature

Operations

10

10

7

6

9

39

11%

12%

9%

7%

11%

48%

33.9

24.4

30.5

21.0

19.8

88.7

17.3

12.5

15.6

10.7

10.1

45.4

16%

11%

14%

10%

9%

41%

1,734

1,247

2,228

1,791

1,126

1,164

144

104

186

149

94

97

Total 81 100% 218.3 111.7 100% 1,379 115



Table 7.4.14 summarises Pitcairn’s recurrent financial position for 2013-14 – further details are

illustrated in Appendix A, Table 8. Historically, over the last 10 to 15 years, the Island has incurred a

steadily increasing financial deficit that has required substantial transfers of UK Budgetary Aid to

maintain a reasonable lifestyle for the ageing population. For 2013-14, the reported deficit had risen

to £2.8 million – equivalent to £56,000 per resident islander.

194

Reported income has always been weak ever since the decline in the international stamp market in

the early 1990s. In 2013-14, annual income was only £380,000 (equivalent to £7,450 per resident

islander), of which: (i) income from the subsidised shipping service accounted for 52% of the total; (ii)

utility charges (electricity and telecoms) accounted for 31%; and (iii) modest income from domain

sales and landing fees (mainly from landings of cruise-ship passengers).

Annual expenditure is divided into ‘on’ and ‘off’ island costs:

■ On Island costs – accounted for only 14% of the annual total. They cover the operating costs of

the four management divisions (community, finance, natural resources and operations), plus the

costs of the Island Council and power generation (electricity is supplied for 10 hours per day,

which also allows households to recharge their own storage batteries). The Operations Division is

the most important operational unit, responsible for the O&M of the island’s public sector assets.

■ Off Island costs – accounted for 86% of the annual total, comprising: (i) telecommunication

services provided by a New Zealand company; (ii) shipping services (passenger and freight)

provided by a New Zealand company); (iii) Pitcairn Islands Office (PIO) based in Auckland, which

provides administrative, logistical, legal, provisioning and advice services to the island; and (iv)

services of four (4) contracted expatriate professionals who are based on the island (policeman,

family/community adviser, teacher and doctor). In terms of financial costs, the following are the

most important:

– Shipping service – amounted to £1.3 million or 41% of total expenditure

– PIO (Auckland) – amounted to £727,000 or 22%, of which: ongoing legal costs accounted for

£316,000 (10%); off Island medical care £83,000 (3%); and PIO office costs £184,000 (5%)

– Expatriate professionals – amounted to £562,000 (17%).

Table 7.4.14 Pitcairn – Income and Expenditure by Component 2013-14

Component NZ$ 000 £ 000 (1) Distribution (%)

Income

Net Stamp Income

Domain Sales

Landing Fees

Shipping Income

Utility Charges

Electricity

Telecoms

Others

Foreign Exchange Losses

-4.9

67.5

33.1

389.8

137.5

91.1

38.8

-10.4

-2.5

34.5

16.9

199.4

70.3

46.6

19.9

-5.3

-1%

9%

4%

52%

19%

12%

4%

-1%

Total – Income 742.5 379.8 100%

Expenditure

On Island Costs

GPI Council

Community Division

Finance Division

Natural Resources Division

Operations Division

Power Generation

112.3

160.5

160.0

42.5

344.0

32.5

57.4

82.1

81.8

21.7

176.0

16.6

2%

3%

3%

1%

6%

1%

Total – On Island Costs 851.7 435.7 14%

Off Island Costs

Telecommunications

Shipping

Pitcairn Islands Office (Auckland)

PIO Running Costs

PIO Support Costs

197.6

2,528.3

360.4

1,060.7

101.1

1,293.3

184.3

542.5

3%

41%

5%

17%

195

Professionals – 4 on Island

Other Consultants

919.1

120.9

653.1

61.8

17%

2%

Total – Off Island Costs 5,367.4 2,745.5 86%

Total – Expenditure 6,219.1 3,181.1 100%

Surplus/(Deficit)

UK Budgetary Aid

(5,476.6)

5,487.5

(2,801.3)

2,806.9

Net Surplus/(Deficit) 10.9 5.6



■ Taxation – currently there are no income taxes or import duties. However, they have been

proposed in the past, but not implemented..

■ Employment – all resident islanders are found some form of public sector employment when they

reach working age.

■ Pensions – currently, resident islanders do not contribute to any pension scheme. At present, 11

resident islanders receive government pensions valued at £1,849 per year (£154 per month) for

each pensioner.

■ Child support – (i) on island – six (6) young children from two families receive an allowance of

£334 per year (£28 per month) per child; and (ii) off island – four (4) youngsters from two families

at secondary school in New Zealand receive an allowance of £334 per year (£28 per month) per

youngster; plus (iii) reported costs for four (4) youngsters at secondary school in New Zealand was

£17,800 for 2013-14.

■ Utility charges:

– Electricity – the energy supply operates for 10 hours per day (based on diesel generation). The

tariffs for 2012-13 are presented below. They are set at levels which will cover operations and

maintenance costs (excluding depreciation). Tariffs for resident households are set at

subsidised rates; and those for non-residents and Government at full cost recovery rates.

Table 7.4.15 Pitcairn – Utility charges (2012-13)

Band (kWh/month)

Resident Households Non-Residents and Government

NZ$ per kWh £ per kWh (1) NZ$ per kWh £ per kWh (1)

Less than 210

210 to 250

More than 250

0.60

0.85

0.90

0.31

0.43

0.46

2.56

3.15

3.80

1.31

1.61

1.94

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = NZ$ 1.955.

In the three-year period (2009-10 to 2011-12), reported electricity consumption per resident

household ranged from 8.5 to 9.4 kWh per day (monthly: 258 to 285 kWh; and annual 3,093 to

3,425 kWh).

– Telecommunications – most households have telecommunication connections (phone, TV &

internet). Tariffs for 2012-13 are illustrated below – the resulting income covered 22% of

annual O&M costs (excluding depreciation), the remaining 78% of the annual costs were

covered by Government subsidies.

196

Table 7.4.16 Pitcairn – Telecommunications tariffs (2012-13)

Category Unit

Resident Households Non-Residents & Gov’t

NZ$ £ (1) NZ$ £ (1)

Telephone Line Rental

Telephone Call Charges

Internet

■ Base Rate

■ High Usage Surcharge

connection/month

price per minute

connection/month

connection/month

15.5

41

82

7.9

21

42

41

82

163

21

42

83

Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = NZ$ 1.955.

– Water – none: all buildings have rainwater harvesting facilities.

– Solid waste – none.

■ Shipping – provided under contract by Stoney Creek Shipping Co. Ltd. NZ (vessel: MV Claymore II

– length 39 metres; 5 crew; capacity: 12 passengers and cargo for Pitcairn). Annual services: (i) 4

voyages with cargo from New Zealand; and (ii) 8 voyages with passengers to/from Mangareva in

the Gambier Islands (French Polynesia) – reached by flights from Tahiti. Subsidised shipping

charges in 2012-13 were: (i) freight from NZ: NZ$350 (£179) per mᵌ; and (ii) passengers – return

to/from Mangareva: (a) resident islanders NZ$3,000 (£1,535); (b) non-resident islander NZ$4,000

(£2,045); (c) tourist NZ$5,000 (£2,560); and (d) Government official NZ$10,000 (£5,115). Available

figures for 2012-13 imply that 82% of the shipping service costs were subsidised by UK

budgetary aid.

■ Imports – detailed import data are not maintained by the PIO.

■ Technical assistance – as highlighted in Table 7.4.6, there are four (4) contracted expatriate

specialists resident on Pitcairn (policeman, family community adviser, teacher and doctor).

Normally, the contracts are for one year.

4. BIOT Administration Costs

BIOTA’s annual administration costs from 2003/04 to 2013/14 are presented in Appendix A, Table 9

(see: separate Excel file). Key facts from the figures are as follows:

1. Income from fisheries licences ranged from £536,000 in 2003/04 to £1.03 million in 2007/08.

2. Fisheries licences ceased from April 2010 with the declaration of the ‘no take’ MPA. Therefore,

from 2010/11 to 2013/14 BIOTA has had no reported official income.

3. Reported annual expenditure has ranged from: (i) £2 to £ 2.5 million between 2003/04 to

2009/10; and (ii) rising £2.64 million in 2010/11 to £3.17 million in 2013/14. Over the last 10 years,

the reported annual expenditure increased by 48%.

4. Annual expenditure is dominated by the contracted patrol vessel (M/V Pacific Marlin, operated by

the Swire Pacific Offshore Group). The current contract is for four (4) years from 1st January 2011

and is due for renewal or renegotiation by 1st January 2015. The reported figures indicate that the

patrol vessel has accounted for 64% to 87% of annual costs, varying from: (i) £1.6 to £1.9 million

p.a. between 2003/04 to 2009/10; and (ii) rising to £2.1 million in 2010/11 and £2.64 million in

2013/14. The figures indicate that the costs of the patrol vessel have increased by 36% over the

last 10 years.

5. Other significant expenses are the DG Local Account (2% to 12%) and Travel (2% to 31%).

6. The BIOT financial account has reported continuous annual losses over the last 10 years, ranging

from: (i) £1.1 to £2.05 million p.a. between 2003/04 and 2009/10; and (ii) rising to £2.64 million in

2011/12 and £3.17 million in 2013/14.

197

5. Development Options

At the outset, it is worth restating the development options that are being considered:

■ Option 1 – possible resettlement of 1,500 Chagossians

■ Option 2 – possible resettlement of 500 Chagossians

■ Option 3 – possible resettlement of 150 Chagossians

The potential island locations for resettlement are:

■ Diego Garcia – specifically the eastern side of the atoll, beyond the ‘donkey gate’

■ Peros Banhos – specifically Île du Coin

■ Salomon – specifically Boddam

It is worth adding that consultations with the Chagossians clearly imply that resettlement on Diego

Garcia (DG) would be the preferred option. DG would be the logical choice for the following reasons:

(i) historically the most important site of Chagossian settlement; (ii) existence of old settlement

buildings (most in dilapidated state); (iii) appropriate area for resettlement and other potential

developments; (iv) reasonable separation from the US Naval Support Facility; (v) potential access to

US airfield and port facilities – currently used by BIOTA; (vi) BIOT Administration HQ is on Diego

Garcia; (vii) Diego Garcia Atoll already operates under strict environmental controls that are enforced

by BIOTA and US NSFDG; and (viii) DG is reasonably separated from the other environmentally

sensitive islands of the Chagos Archipelago.

6. Cost Estimates – Capex and Opex

6.1 Introduction

Cost estimates have been prepared by the Study Team. The estimates are presented in Appendix A

(Tables 10 to 12), including: (i) capital costs (capex) – covering the potential main programme for

infrastructure construction and environmental impact assessment (EIA); (ii) annual operating and

maintenance costs (opex) – covering appropriate annual recurrent O&M of the infrastructure, plus

annual environmental monitoring and evaluation; and (iii) other potential costs relating to training,

technical assistance, support equipment, etc.

6.2 Capital Cost Estimates

Infrastructure (Table 10 in Appendix A)

1. Estimates for Options 1, 2 and 3.

2. Estimates distributed between four main categories: (i) transport and sea defences; (ii) energy;

(iii) housing and public buildings; and (iv) utilities and services.

3. Physical contingencies of 20% have been added to the Base Costs.

4. Estimates have also been calculated for capital costs for Option 1 only: (i) without the airport; and

(ii) without the airport and breakwater/harbour.

Airport

Upgrading the existing terminal building, and making provision for enhanced air traffic handling

equipment is the reason for making £2M and £4M provision for “Airport” CAPEX in Options 3

and 2.

Jetty/Pier

198

The need for enhanced jetty/pier and sea-landing facilities on Diego Garcia for a population sited

near the Old Plantation is clear. It is unlikely that sharing the existing berthing arrangements

would be convenient. With respect to the need for customs and cargo inspection and control,

and detailed arrangements would need to be put in place. A minimal, robust arrangement is

required even for Option 3, and this would need strengthening, additional berthing provision and

enhanced handling equipment for Option 2, thus budgets of £2M and £5M are allocated. For

Option 1, then the £10M budget provision assumes the need to construct two additional

jetty/piers on other islands and provide handling equipment. Were substantially larger vessels

than the notional 5m depth allowance permitted being proposed, then these budgets would need

to rise to accommodate additional dredging/route clearance through the coral reefs.

Environmental impacts would also then rise.

Breakwater/Harbour

This kind of marine structure is not envisioned for Options 3 and 2. However, for Option 1 with

substantially more marine and air traffic, and other island developments evolving, it is highly

probable that a number of defensive marine structures will need to be constructed. The budget

provision of £50M makes no particular assumptions about whether or not one large or several

smaller structures will be built.

5. Unit capital costs per head and per household (assuming family of 4) for Options 1, 2 and 3.

Environmental Impact Assessment (Table 11 in Appendix A)

1. Estimates cover the EIA prior to the construction phase and are the same for the three options.

2. EIA costs are two-fold: (i) £2.32 million for the EIA prior to the commencement of construction

(of which 86% is for the construction of an ‘office, laboratory and sleeping accommodation’); plus

(ii) monitoring valued at £100,000 per year during actual construction.

3. Unit capital costs per head for all three options.

6.3 Phasing of Capital Costs (Table 12 in Appendix A)

1. Table 12 presents the indicative annual phasing of the capital costs: (i) Option 1 – over six (6)

years; (ii) Option 2 – over four (4) years; and (iii) Option 3 – over three (3) years.

2. The phased estimates include: (i) preparation costs – for site investigations and engineering

designs – set at 6% of infrastructure capital costs; (ii) basic infrastructure costs (civil works); (iii)

construction supervision costs – set at 5% of infrastructure capital costs; (iv) project

management unit (PMU – 3 to 4 specialists at an annual cost of £750,000 per year during the

construction period); (v) EIA costs prior to and during the construction phase; and (vi) training

costs for the Chagossians (see: Table 14).

3. Estimates have also been calculated for phased capital costs for Option 1 only: (i) without the

airport; and (ii) without the airport and breakwater/harbour.


6.4 Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs

Infrastructure (Table 10 in Appendix A))

Estimates for Options 1, 2 and 3.

1. Annual values are based on percentage (%) estimates of the capital cost of each infrastructure

component, ranging from: (i) 3% for roads, electricity transmission and distribution, community

and recreational facilities and community store; (ii) 5% for jetty/pier/wharf, solar electricity,

housing, school, medical facilities, potable water, solid waste management, etc.; (iii) 8% for

airport, sea defences and diesel generators; and (iv) 10% for support service equipment.

199

2. Estimates have also been calculated for annual opex: (i) without the airport; and (ii) without the

airport and breakwater/harbour.

3. Unit opex costs per head for all three options.

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation (Table 11 in Appendix A))

Estimates cover the requirement for annual environmental monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which

are the same for the three options.

1. The Environmental M&E costs amount to £2.17 million per year, of which 46% is for the

operation of an ‘office, laboratory and sleeping accommodation’.


6.5 Other Cost Estimates – Employment, Training and Technical Assistance

This section covers indicative cost estimates for Employment, Training and Technical Assistance. The

estimates should be reviewed thoroughly during the preparation stage – if a decision is taken to

commence a resettlement programme. The reason for this statement is the need to conduct a

Human Resources Study to establish the skills, experience, training, background details and

technical assistance requirements of prospective Chagossians wishing to resettle under each of the

three Options. The study will need to be planned carefully and address both individual and

community needs for what will be a challenging future.

Table 7.4.17 presents the indicative estimates of the labour force, potential employment by sector

and training costs by option. Further details are illustrated in Appendix A, Table 14. The estimates are

based on the following assumptions:

■ Labour force – assumed to be 50% of the population (cf. figures for the OTs, see Section 3).

■ Employment by sector – distributed between: (i) public sector employment to sustain the normal

operations of the community (based on comparative employment levels in the other OTs cited in

Section 3). It is uncertain how many of these positions could be filled by Chagossian rather than

expatriate staff; (ii) opportunities for contracted employment by G4S for the US NSFDG (note: this

could be on ‘single’ basis if potential resettlement would be located In Peros Banhos or the

Salomons); (iii) potential tourism developments in the form of a high-end tourist resort and an eco-

tourism facility (see: Annex 7.2); and (iv) other employment opportunities – assumed to modest

4% of all other activities.

■ Training costs – assumptions: (i) 50% of potential employees in each sector will require some

form of training (note: actual requirements would depend on the results of the Human Resources

Study (cited above)), if a resettlement programme were to proceed; and (ii) average training costs

of £15,000 per person (note: final estimates of the training costs may vary considerably,

depending on the type and length of training required, and the location of the most appropriate

training establishments e.g. UK, Mauritius, Seychelles, etc.).

The resulting estimates are as follows:

■ Option 1 – potential labour force of 750, employed in: (i) community public sector 42%; (ii) US

NSFDG 42%; (iii) tourism developments 12%; and (iv) other activities 5%. The total cost of

training is estimated at £5.15 million.


NSFDG 25%; and (iii) other activities 4%. The total cost of training is estimated at £2.21 million.


NSFDG 21%; and (iii) other activities 4%. The total cost of training is estimated at £0.81 million.

200

Table 7.4.17: Indicative Estimates of Potential Labour Force, Employment by Sector and Training

Costs by Option

Component Unit

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

nos. % nos. % nos. %

Population & Labour

Force

Population

Labour Force

nos.

nos.

1,500

750

50%

500

250

50%

150

75

50%

Indicative Employment and Training Requirements

Community – Public Sector

Employment

Requiring Training

Training Costs (1)

nos.

nos.

£ million

263

131

1.97

42%

41%

38%

175

88

1.31

70%

71%

59%

53

26

0.39

75%

74%

48%

US NSFDG

Employment

Requiring Training

Training Costs (1)

nos.

nos.

£ million

263

131

1.97

42%

41%

38%

63

31

0.47

25%

25%

21%

15

8

0.11

21%

23%

14%

Artisanal Fishing

Training Costs (2)

£ million

0.42

8%

0.35

16%

0.28

35%

Tourism Developments (3)

Employment

Requiring Training

Training Costs (1)

nos.

nos.

£ million

76

38

0.57

12%

12%

11%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Employment

Activities

Employment

Requiring Training

Training Costs (1)

nos.

nos.

£ million

30

15

0.23

5%

5%

4%

10

5

0.08

4%

4%

4%

3

2

0.02

4%

6%

2%

Total

Employment

Requiring Training

Training Costs

nos.

nos.

£ million

631

316

5.15

100%

100%

100%

248

124

2.21

100%

100%

100%

71

35

0.81

100%

100%

100%

Note: (1) based on average training cost of £15,000 per person; (2) see: Annex 7.2, Section 6; and (3) base on: high-end tourist

resort (40 rooms); & eco-tourism facility (20 chalets) – see: Annex 7.2.


It is also expected that professional technical assistance support will be required to sustain the

medium to long term development of potential resettlement. Table 7.4.18 summarises the estimated

requirements by position and option. The indicative estimates are based on similar information for the

OTs cited in Section 3; but, may need to be revised when the results of the Human Resources Study

are completed and reviewed. The indicative figures indicate the following:

■ Option 1 – 18 professional specialists with estimated annual costs of £2.2 million.



201

Table 7.4.18: Technical Assistance – Indicative Annual Costs by Position and Option (some of the

posts would be held by expatriate staff).

Position Number

Indicative Annual Costs (£ 000)

Distribution (%) Salary Other Costs (1) Total

Option 1

Administrator

Police

Doctor

Nurse Practitioner

Teacher

Family/Community

Adviser

Operations Manager

Utilities Manager

1

2

2

2

5

2

2

2

120

160

250

160

350

140

170

150

40

80

80

80

200

80

80

80

160

240

330

240

550

220

250

230

7%

11%

15%

11%

25%

10%

11%

10%

Total – Option 1 18 1,500 720 2,220 100%

Option 2

Administrator

Police

Doctor

Nurse Practitioner

Teacher

Family/Community

Adviser

Operations Manager

Utilities Manager

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

1

120

160

125

160

210

70

170

75

40

80

40

80

120

40

80

40

160

240

165

240

330

110

250

115

10%

15%

10%

15%

20%

7%

16%

7%

Total – Option 2 13 1,090 520 1,610 100%

Option 3

Administrator

Police

Doctor

Nurse Practitioner

Teacher

Family/Community

Adviser

Operations Manager

Utilities Manager

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

120

80

125

70

70

85

75

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

160

120

165

110

110

125

115

18%

13%

18%

12%

12%

14%

13%

Total – Option 3 7 625 280 905 100%

Note: (1) covers: recruitment expenses; travel; freight costs; service costs; etc.


7. Income Generation Opportunities

This section presents indicative estimates of the potential income that could be generated from the

employment by sector as summarised in Section 6 above. The income estimates are based on an

average salary/wage of £620 (US$ 1,000) per month, which amounts to £7,440 per year. These

figures are based on the following parameters:

■ Community public sector – average salaries/wages paid by the public sector in the three OTs cited

in Section 3.

■ US NSFDG – assumes wages paid by G4S would be US$ 1,000 (£620) per month, with the

employee living in the prospective Chagossian settlement on Diego Garcia. Under this option, G4S

would not be incurring the costs of food and accommodation, etc. for contracted employees from

202

other countries. At present, it is reported that G4S pays contracted employees a net average of

US$ 300 to US$ 350 (£185 to £216) per month.

■ Tourism developments – employees for the potential tourism development (i.e. upmarket tourist

resort and eco-tourism facility) are also assumed to earn £620 (US$ 1,000) per month (see: Annex

7.2, Section 6).

Table 7.4.19 summarises the resulting indicative annual income estimates by sector and option (all

expressed in 2014 constant prices):

■ Option 1 – potential employment is for 631 people (84% of the estimated labour force),

generating potential annual income of £4.69 million per year.

■ Option 2 – potential employment is for 248 people (99% of the estimated labour force),

generating potential annual income of £1.84 million per year.

■ Option 3 – potential employment is for 71 people (94% of the estimated labour force), generating

potential annual income of £0.53 million per year.

Table 7.4.19: Indicative Estimates of Potential Employment and Income by Sector and Option

Component Unit

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

nos. % nos. % nos. %

Population & Labour Force

■ Population

■ Labour Force

nos.

nos.

1,500

750

50%

500

250

50%

150

75

50%

Total Potential Employment

Community –Public Sector

US NSFDG

Tourism Developments

■ High-End Tourist Resort (40 rooms)

■ Eco-Tourism Facility (20 chalets)

Other Activities

nos.

nos.

nos.

nos.

nos.

263

263

56

20

30

42%

42%

9%

3%

5%

175

63

10

70%

25%

4%

53

15

3

75%

21%

4%

Total – Potential Employment

Percentage of Labour Force

nos.

%

631

84%

100% 248

99%

100% 71

94%

100%

Total Potential Salaries and Wages

Community – Public Sector

US NSFDG

Tourism Developments

■ High-End Tourist Resort (40 rooms)

■ Eco-Tourism Facility (20 chalets)

Other Activities

£ million

£ million

£ million

£ million

£ million

1.95

1.95

0.42

0.15

0.22

42%

42%

9%

3%

5%

1.30

0.47

0.07

70%

26%

4%

0.39

0.11

0.02

75%

21%

4%

Total – Potential Salaries and

Wages

Average Salary/Wage:

■ Per month

■ Per Year

£ million

£/month

£ per year

4.69

620

7,440

100% 1.84

620

7,440

100% 0.53

620

7,440

100%


203

8. Indicative Financial Forecasts

8.1 Introduction

The indicative financial forecasts for the three options are reviewed in this section. Tables 16, 17 and

18 in Appendix A present the details for a period of 26 years (i.e. 20 years after the completion of the

construction of Option 1). All the financial values are presented in 2014 constant prices.

8.2 Revenue

The revenue estimates are based on the following assumptions and parameters:

■ Sales of stamps, coins and domain registration – net annual revenue is projected to increase

steadily from £90,000 in Year 3 to £215,000 by Year 8. These estimates are based on three

factors: (i) international interest generated among collectors of stamps and coins; (ii) companies

and individuals wishing to secure unique domain registrations; and (iii) the experience of other

Overseas Territories (OTs e.g. Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn) in generating this modest income.

■ Service charges for utility services (electricity, water, wastewater and solid waste), landing fees

and shipping receipts have been set at modest levels of cost recovery (of annual O&M costs) in

order to reflect reasonable levels of affordability. These assumptions imply significant annual

subsidies for the foreseeable future. The following modest cost recovery targets have been

assumed at five-year intervals:

Table 7.4.20 Pitcairn – Cost recovery targets

Component and Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Utilities

Year 3

Year 7

Year 12

15%

20%

25%

15%

20%

20%

15%

15%

15%

Landing Fees

Year 3

Year 7

Year 12

0%

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

Shipping Receipts

Year 3

Year 7

Year 12

0%

15%

25%

0%

15%

25%

0%

0%

0%

■ Tourism – room taxes (or other forms of charges) would be the subject of negotiation with

prospective private sector tourism development companies. For the present study, it is assumed

that no taxes would be levied during the first five years of operation, followed by a room tax of

5% for years 5 to 10, and 10% thereafter

■ Income taxes – set at 5% of income from years 7 and 8, followed by 10% from years 12 and 13

■ Miscellaneous income – set at 10% of all other revenue

8.3 Expenditure

The expenditure estimates are based on the following assumptions and parameters:

■ BIOTA – annual costs transferred from Table 9 in Appendix A, and assumed to remain constant at

£3.17 million per year throughout the projection period.

204

■ Administration costs – set at 5% of all other costs for: (i) Case A – all other costs, excluding

BIOTA costs; and (ii) Case B – all other costs, excluding BIOTA costs and Option 1 – airport &

breakwater/harbour costs.

■ Indicative annual O& M costs – transferred from Table 10 in Appendix A.

■ Shipping service – based on the annual shipping costs for St Helena (Section 3.2) and Pitcairn

(Section 3.4), the following indicative costs for a shipping service have been adopted: (i) Option 1:

£2.5 million per year; (ii) Option 2: £2 million per year; and (iii) Option 3: £1.5 million per year. If

resettlement proceeds, it is expected that the prospective shipping service contract would be

subject to international competition.

■ Professional specialists – costs transferred from Table 13 in Appendix A (see: Section 6.5 and

Table 7.4.8 above).

■ Medevacs – based on average of £250 per head/year, related to comparative information for

Tristan da Cunha (Section 3.3) and Pitcairn (Section 3.4).

■ EIA annual monitoring and evaluation – costs transferred from Table 11 in Appendix A.

8.4 Revenue and Expenditure Summary

The final summary of the indicative forecasts of potential revenue and expenditure are presented in

Table 7.4.21 for each of the three options in 2014 constant prices – from Year 3 (years 1 and 2 are for

preparatory studies and investigations). Full details of the forecasts are presented in Appendix A,

Tables 16, 17 and 18. It is important to note that for Option 1 the figures include the results with and

without the annual O&M costs associated with the airport and the breakwater/harbour. The ‘without’

alternative for Option 1 has been included in order to indicate the cost impact of being able to access

the existing airfield and harbour facilities on Diego Garcia – instead of having to build completely

separate facilities.

The main results for each option are illustrated as follows:

■ Option 1:

– Revenue is projected to increase from £0.21 million in Year 4 to £ 1.86 million in Year 10 and

£4 million by Year 20. The main sources of income are expected to be utility charges, landing

fees, tourism levies, shipping receipts and income taxes.

– Expenditure is forecast to rise significantly from £7.14 million in Year 4 to £27.87 million in Year

10. Annual expenditure would be dominated by the annual O&M costs for infrastructure which

would account for 69% of the annual costs. If the annual costs of the airport and the

breakwater/harbour are excluded – then the annual cost would be halved to £14.75 million in

Year 10.

– Surplus/Deficit – results indicate that Option 1 would incur significant annual deficits: (i) with

case – deficit increases from £6.93 million in Year 4 to £26 million by Year 10; and (ii) without

case – deficit increases from £4 million in Year 4 to £12.89 million by Year 10.

– Deficit cost per islander (pop. 1,500) – in Year 10, the deficit would be equivalent to: (i) with

case: £17,350 per islander; and (ii) without case: £8,600 per islander.

■ Option 2:

– Revenue is projected to increase from £0.24 million in Year 4 to £1.33 million in Year 10 and

£2.04 million by Year 20. The main sources of income are expected to be tourism levies and

shipping receipts; followed by stamps/coins, utility charges and income taxes.

– Expenditure is forecast to double from £5.28 million in Year 4 to £10.5 million in Year 10.

Annual expenditure would be dominated by the annual O&M costs for infrastructure (39%),

followed by EIA – annual M&E (21%), shipping service (19%) and professional specialists

(15%).

– Surplus/Deficit – results indicate that Option 2 would also incur substantial annual deficits

amounting to £5 million in Year 4 and increasing to £9.2 million by Year 10.

205

– Deficit cost per islander (pop. 500) – in Year 10, the deficit would be equivalent to £8,400 per

islander.

■ Option 3:

– Revenue is projected to increase from £0.23 million in Year 4 to £0.81 million in Year 10 and

£1.22 million by Year 20. The main sources of income are expected to be tourism levies,

stamps/coins and utility charges.

– Expenditure is forecast to record a moderate increase from £6.36 million in Year 4 to £7.43

million in Year 10. Annual expenditure would be dominated by the annual O&M costs for

infrastructure (33%), followed by EIA – annual M&E (29%), shipping service (20%) and

professional specialists (12%).

– Surplus/Deficit – results indicate that Option 3 would also incur annual deficits amounting to

£6.14 million in Year 4 and increasing to £6.61 million by Year 10.

– Deficit cost per islander (pop. 150) – in Year 10, the deficit would be equivalent to £44,100 per

islander.

Table 7.4.21 Indicative Financial Forecasts by Option (£ million, 2014 constant prices)

Component

Years

3 4 5 6 7 10 20

Distr.

(%)

OPTION 1

Revenue

Stamps, Coins, etc.

Utility Charges

Landing Fees

Tourism

Shipping

Taxes

Miscellaneous

0.09

0.12

0.07

0.02

0.15

0.15

0.03

0.18

0.22

0.04

0.21

0.29

0.34

0.08

0.25

0.49

0.34

0.38

0.23

0.17

0.25

0.61

1.00

0.68

0.63

0.47

0.36

6.3%

15.3%

25.0%

17.0%

15.6%

11.7%

9.1%

Total – Revenue 0.09 0.21 0.33 0.44 0.93 1.86 4.00 100%

Expenditure

Administration

Annual O&M Costs

Shipping Service

Professional Specialists

Medevacs

EIA – Annual M&E

0.34

3.85

2.50

0.37

0.08

0.56

7.71

2.50

0.74

0.15

0.77

11.56

2.50

1.11

0.23

1.09

15.42

2.50

1.48

0.31

2.17

1.33

19.27

2.50

2.22

0.38

2.17

1.33

19.27

2.50

2.22

0.38

2.17

4.8%

69.2%

9.0%

8.0%

1.3%

7.8%

Total – Expenditure

Exp. Without Airport &

Breakwater/Harbour

0.00

0.00

7.14

4.52

11.66

6.41

16.17

8.30

22.97

12.47

27.87

14.75

27.86

14.74

100%

Surplus/(Deficit)

Without Airport & Breakwater/Harbour

0.09

0.09

-6.93

-4.30

-11.33

-6.08

-15.73

-7.86

-22.04

-11.54

-26.01

-12.89

-23.86

-10.74

206

Component

Years

3 4 5 6 7 10 20

Distr.

(%)

OPTION 2

Revenue

Stamps, Coins, etc.

Utility Charges

Landing Fees

Tourism

Shipping

Taxes

Miscellaneous

0.09

0.05

0.01

0.12

0.09

0.02

0.15

0.13

0.03

0.18

0.16

0.03

0.21

0.21

0.34

0.30

0.09

0.12

0.25

0.21

0.02

0.34

0.30

0.09

0.12

0.25

0.21

0.03

0.68

0.50

0.18

0.19

12.3%

10.3%

1.6%

33.3%

24.5%

9.0%

9.1%

Total – Revenue 0.15 0.24 0.30 0.37 1.27 1.33 2.04 100%

Expenditure

Administration

Annual O&M Costs

Shipping Service


Medevacs

EIA – Annual M&E

0.18

1.23

2.00

0.25

0.04

0.25

2.46

2.00

0.50

0.08

0.42

3.28

2.00

0.87

0.10

2.17

0.48

4.10

2.00

1.11

0.13

2.17

0.50

4.10

2.00

1.61

0.13

2.17

0.50

4.10

2.00

1.61

0.13

2.17

0.50

4.10

2.00

1.61

0.13

2.17

4.8%

39.0%

19.0%

15.3%

1.2%

20.7%

Total – Expenditure 3.69 5.28 8.84 9.99 10.51 10.51 10.50 100%

Surplus/(Deficit) -3.54 -5.05 -8.53 -9.61 -9.24 -9.18 -8.46

OPTION 3

Revenue

Stamps, Coins, etc.

Utility Charges

Landing Fees

Tourism

Shipping

Taxes

Miscellaneous

0.09

0.06

0.12

0.08

0.02

0.15

0.11

0.03

0.18

0.11

0.03

0.21

0.11

0.34

0.03

0.07

0.25

0.11

0.01

0.34

0.03

0.07

0.25

0.11

0.02

0.68

0.05

0.11

20.5%

9.3%

1.3%

55.5%

4.3%

9.1%

Total – Revenue 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.76 0.81 1.22 100%

Expenditure

Administration

Annual O&M Costs

Shipping Service


Medevacs

EIA – Annual M&E

0.15

1.23

1.50

0.26

0.02

0.30

1.84

1.50

0.52

0.03

2.17

0.35

2.46

1.50

0.78

0.04

2.17

0.35

2.46

1.50

0.91

0.04

2.17

0.35

2.46

1.50

0.91

0.04

2.17

0.35

2.46

1.50

0.91

0.04

2.17

0.35

2.46

1.50

0.91

0.04

2.17

48.%

33.1%

20.2%

12.2%

0.5%

29.2%

Total – Expenditure 3.16 6.36 7.29 7.43 7.43 7.43 7.42 100%

Surplus/(Deficit) -3.01 -6.14 -7.00 -7.10 -6.67 -6.61 -6.20

Source: Appendix A, Tables 16, 17 and 18.

207


The issues and challenges facing the potential resettlement of selected islands in the Chagos

Archipelago are very significant. The factors should not be under-estimated. They include: human,

physical (infrastructure), political, environmental, financial and economic. All parties concerned should

be under no illusions. If a decision is taken to proceed, then careful planning and consultation will be

required at every stage.

The main issues and challenges can be succinctly stated as follows:

■ Establish exactly how many Chagossians want to resettle and on what basis: (i) permanent; (ii)

provisional; (iii) periodic visits; etc. Also, including potential need to sign commitment papers.

■ Further studies and investigations will be required – these include the following:

– Human Resources Study of Chagossians proposing to resettle, covering: (i) family size; (ii) age

profile; (iii) education and employment background; (iv) skills and experience; (v) aptitude and

training potential; (vi) financial resources; etc.

– Comprehensive Training Programme based on the results of the Human Resources Study and

commitments by Chagossians wishing to resettle.

– Site investigations, engineering studies, final designs and costs – based on selected island(s).

These investigations should also focus on cost minimisation and value for money.

– Implementation and Action Plan – including procedures for appropriate consultation with

Chagossians and other stakeholders.

– Risk Management Study and Plan to address all relevant risks and uncertainties; and propose

mitigation measures to reduce their impact e.g.: (i) implementation delays; (ii) cost over-runs;

(iii) climate change issues; (iv) environmental impacts; (v) welfare for ageing population; (vi)

Chagossians who decide not to stay; (vii) limited and insufficient capital resources;

– Disaster Management and Evacuation Plan to prepare for unforeseen natural and man-made

emergencies (e.g. reported impact of tsunami on 26th

December 2004 was: (i) dead – Sri Lanka

31,000, Maldives 81 and Seychelles <10; and (ii) economic costs – Sri Lanka US$ 1.3 billion,

Maldives US$ 0.5 billion and Seychelles US$ 30 million).

■ Funding Study to identify sources of funding to support potential resettlement e.g.: (i) capital

works – FCO and DFID; EU (especially EDF funds); private national and international foundations

(e.g. Gates Foundation); public appeals; Chagossian resources and remittances; etc.; and (ii)

environmental investigations and monitoring – FCO and DFID; EU; national and international

environmental groups (e.g. Pew Foundation, Bertarelli Foundation, RSPB, universities, etc.); public

appeals; Chagossian resources and remittances; etc.

■ Prepare appropriate Constitution and management structure for potential resettlement.

■ Investigate potential opportunities for access to facilities of US NSFDG e.g.: (i) airfield and port

facilities; (ii) utilities for electricity, potable water, wastewater disposal and solid waste

management.

■ Investigate potential opportunities to provide services to US NSFDG e.g.: (i) personnel through

G4S; (ii) provision of fresh fish, coconut products and other products; (iii) small restaurant and

recreational facilities; etc.

■ Investigate and promote interest of private sector in opportunities to support potential

resettlement e.g. Upmarket Tourism Development and Eco-Tourism Development.

■ Investigate and address issues related: (i) land ownership; (ii) accommodation ownership,

mortgages and repayment; (iii) remittances; (iv) entitlement to pensions; (v) access to loans; etc.

208

APPENDIX A: Supporting Tables

This appendix presents the following supporting tables (Separate Excel File):

Table 1 St Helena – Government Staff and Salaries/Wages by Directorate 2013-14

Table 2 St Helena – Government Staff by Directorate 2012-13

Table 3 St Helena – Government Revenue and Expenditure by Category 2006-07 to 2011-12

Table 4 St Helena – Exports and Imports by Category 2006-07 to 2011-12

Table 5 Tristan da Cunha – Government Staff and Wages by Department 2013

Table 6 Tristan da Cunha – Government Income & Expenditure by Component 2011 to 2014

Table 7 Pitcairn – Government Staff and Wages by Division 2013-14

Table 8 Pitcairn – Government Income & Expenditure by Component 2013-14

Table 9 BIOTA – Income and Expenditure Statements 2003/04 to 2013/14

Table 10 Indicative Cost Estimates – Infrastructure: Capital Costs and Annual O&M Costs by

Resettlement Option

Table 11 Environmental Impact Assessment – Construction Phase and Annual Monitoring &

Evaluation

Table 12 Indicative Capital Cost Estimates – Annual Phasing by Resettlement Option

Table 13 Technical Assistance – Indicative Annual Costs by Position and Option

Table 14 Indicative Estimates of Labour Force, Employment by Sector and Training Requirements

by Resettlement Option

Table 15 Indicative Employment and Income Generation by Resettlement Option

Table 16 Option 1 – Population, Capital Costs & Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts



Contact us

Kru Desai

Government and Infrastructure

T +44 (0) 207 311 6417

E [email protected]

John Burton

International Development Assistance Services

T +44 (0)207 694 5538

E [email protected]

Nathan Hill

International Development Assistance Services

T +44 (0)207 311 428

E [email protected]

www.kpmg.com

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the

circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide

accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is

accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No

one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough

examination of the particular situation.

© 2015 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in the United Kingdom.

The KPMG name, logo and "cutting through complexity" are registered trademarks or

trademarks of KPMG International.

Produced by Create Graphics/Document number: CRT033390A/150123

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.kpmg.com/