qna.files.parliament.ukqna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/178764/original/feasibility study for...
TRANSCRIPT
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)
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)
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 &
subsistence/artisanal
fishing
Unknown Previously inhabited;
temporary
coconut/copra
plantation &
subsistence/artisanal
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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),
Birds (1), Fish (3),
Invertebrates (4)
Corals/reefs (4), Birds
(2), Fish (3),
Invertebrates (4).
Most southerly limit
of Indian Ocean
mangroves
Corals/reefs (5), Birds
(3), Fish (3),
Invertebrates (5).
Mangroves – most
southerly limit of Indian
Ocean
Corals/reefs (5),
Birds (1), Fish (4),
Invertebrates (5)
(No records: rapid
environmental
assessment)
Corals/reefs (3), Birds
(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
(0), Solid waste/beach
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
(0), Solid waste/beach
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)
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)
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
Bank) 14. Diego Garcia
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 &
subsistence/artisanal
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
Bank) 14. Diego Garcia
(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
Bank) 14. Diego Garcia
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
Bank) 14. Diego Garcia
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),
Birds (2), Fish (3),
Invertebrates (3)
Corals/reefs (4),
Birds (2), Fish (4),
Invertebrates (3).
Very dense
populations of sea
cucumbers (H.
atra) (5/m2where
present)
(No rapid
environmental
assessment records)
Corals/reefs (4),
Birds (4), Fish (4),
Invertebrates (5)
Island rarely
visited; very rich
in bird life
Corals/reefs (4),
Birds (1), Fish (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
2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009).
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
2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009).
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
Bank) 14. Diego Garcia
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
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.
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
Boddam (Salomon atoll)
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
Boddam (Salomon atoll)
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
or fragile) Fragile Don't know
Diego Garcia
Notes/reasons
Robust/resilient
Neutral (neither
robust/resilient
or fragile) Fragile Don't know
Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos
atoll)
Notes/reasons
Robust/resilient
Neutral (neither
robust/resilient
or fragile) Fragile Don't know
Boddam (Salomon atoll)
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
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
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
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
Detailed coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus
sedimentation rates).
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
27
Censuses of reef sharks
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
Censuses of other reef fish.
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
Censuses of turtles and their nesting sites
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Notes (if you tick 'Agree')
Estimate of annual costs involved.
(Please put costs in GBP)
28
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
Censuses of marine alien invasive species
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
Censuses of birds
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
29
Terrestrial censuses/surveys, including alien invasive species.
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
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
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
Field data on sea level, coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation.
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Notes (if you tick 'Agree')
Estimate of annual costs involved.
(Please put costs in GBP)
30
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
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)
Resettlement option Frequency
Modern lifestyle 2
Subsistence lifestyle 9
Eco-village 9
Scientific research station 15
Island unsuitable for resettlement 15
Don’t know 10
Non-response 12
N.B. respondents able to record more than one option.
Table 3.3.9: c) Boddam (Salomon atoll)
Resettlement option Frequency
Modern lifestyle 4
Subsistence lifestyle 10
Eco-village 12
35
Resettlement option Frequency
Scientific research station 15
Island unsuitable for resettlement 12
Don’t know 8
Non-response 14
N.B. respondents able to record more than one option.
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
(Based on 4 responses)
Estimated capital costs of research station – sourcing from public funds
Mean £2,543,359
Median £130,000
Minimum £3
Maximum £10,000,000
(Based on 6 responses)
Estimated operational costs of research station – sourcing from public funds
Mean £1,000,000
Median £500,000
Minimum £500,000
Maximum £2,000,000
(Based on 3 responses)
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
Diego Garcia 14 5 14 3 15
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
Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos
atoll) (based on 11
responses)
0 200 65
Boddam (Salomon atoll)
(based on 9 responses)
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
(based on 16 responses)
0 5000 1427
Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos
atoll)
(based on 10 responses)
0 400 60
Boddam (Salomon atoll)
(based on 9 responses)
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
Diego Garcia 7 7 17 5 15
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 monitoring – using
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
Type of environmental
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
Type of environmental
monitoring
Estimated annual cost
GBP
(mean)
Estimated annual cost
GBP
(minimum)
Estimated annual cost
GBP
(maximum)
Aerial monitoring – using
remote sensing (based on 3
responses)
353,333 10,000 1,000,000
Aerial monitoring – using
aerial photography (based on
3 responses)
243,333 30,000 600,000
Abundance of major
ecosystems (Rapid
environmental assessment)
(based on 2 responses)
17,500 10,000 25,000
Coral reef surveys (based on
3 responses)
186,667 10,000 300,000
Censuses of reef sharks
(based on 3 responses)
110,000 5,000 300,000
Censuses of other reef fish
(based on 3 responses)
135,000 5,000 300,000
Censuses of turtles (based on
3 responses)
135,000 5,000 300,000
Censuses of marine alien
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
Sampling and analysis of
selected contaminants (based
on 2 responses)
40,000 30,000 50,000
41
Field data on sea level,
coastal erosion & accretion
and seawater inundation
(based on 2 responses)
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
Aerial monitoring – using
remote sensing
9 13 5 23
Aerial monitoring – using
aerial photography
9 12 6 23
Abundance of major
ecosystems (Rapid
environmental assessment)
13 6 7 24
Coral reef surveys 13 9 4 24
Censuses of reef sharks 19 4 6 21
Censuses of other reef fish
Censuses of turtles
Censuses of marine alien
invasive species
15 5 8 22
Censuses of birds
Terrestrial censuses 22 1 8 19
Sampling and analysis of
selected contaminants
6 12 9 23
Field data on sea level,
coastal erosion & accretion
and seawater inundation
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.
Censuses of reef sharks
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
Censuses of other reef fish
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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.)
Runway Construction (New, 100’ width) $1,800 per linear foot
Taxiway Construction (New) $22 per square foot
Ramp/Apron Construction (New) $22 per square foot
Terminal Structure (New) $250 per square foot
Slab Replacement (Standard 12.5’ x 20’ slab) $3,200 per slab
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.)
Runway Construction (New, 100’ width) $2,200 per linear foot
Taxiway Construction (New) $28 per square foot
Ramp/Apron Construction (New) $28 per square foot
Terminal Structure (New) $250 per square foot
Slab Replacement (Standard 12.5’ x 20’ slab) $4,500 per slab
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.
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)
Runway Construction (New, 75’ width) $1,200 per linear foot
Taxiway Construction (New) $16 per square foot
Ramps/Apron Construction (New) $16 per square foot
Terminal Structure (New) $250 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)
Runway Construction (New, 100’ width) $1,700 per linear foot
Taxiway Construction (New) $17 per square foot
Ramp/Apron Construction (New) $17 per square foot
Terminal Structure (New) $250 per square foot
Resurfacing (4’, 100’ width) $360 per linear foot
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
Taxiway Construction (New) $21 per square foot
Ramp/Apron Construction (New) $21 per square foot
Terminal Structure (New) $250 per square foot
Resurfacing (4’, 100’ width) $360 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
200,000 Gallon Tank (39’ diameter x 24’ height) $480,000
500,000 Gallon Tank (47’ diameter x 40’ height) $780,000
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.
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
79
Location & Costs Date & Comments Reference(s)
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
80
Location & Costs Date & Comments Reference(s)
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.
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.
47 Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, 4
th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch. 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth
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.
49 Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, 4
th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch. 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth
Heinemann, pp26/12.
50 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.
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/
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/
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
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.)
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.
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
95
Island/Location Comments Prices & References
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 .
96
Island/Location Comments Prices & References
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
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)
Medium (5-10 million W) Large
(greater than 10 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,
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)
Small (50,000 W-5 million W)
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)
Micro (less than 50,000 W)
Small (50,000 W-5 million W)
Medium (5-10 million W) Large
(greater than 10 million W)
Landfill gas
Dedicated Diesel generator versus steam boiler Micro (less than 50,000 W)
Bioliquids Conversion existing diesel generator versus
new build
Small (50,000 W-5 million W)
Medium (5-10 million W) Large
(greater than 10 million W)
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)
Small (50,000 W-5 million W)
Medium (5-10 million W) Large
(greater than 10 million 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
Micro (less than 50,000 W)
Small (50,000 W-5 million W)
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
81 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,
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
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
92 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,
pp.119-120
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
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.
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
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.
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
Reported Catch (tonnes)
Catch as % of Sustainable
Yield
Banks Drop-off Total Banks Drop-off Total
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
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
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%
Source: Appendix A, Table 5.
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
Source: Appendix A, Table 6.
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
Source: The Creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: A Fisheries Perspective, Dunne et al, 2014.
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
Source: Appendix A, Table 7.
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
Source: The Creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: A Fisheries Perspective, Dunne et al, 2014.
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)
Source: Appendix A, Table 8.
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)
Source: Appendix A, Table 8.
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
Within sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Peros Banhos
Minimum
Maximum
62.1
131.6
> sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Within sustainable yield
Salomon
Minimum
Maximum
6.7
13.3
> sustainable yield
> sustainable yield
> sustainable yield
> sustainable yield
> sustainable yield
Within 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
capital costs of £59,000 to £76,000.
■ Option 3 (population of 150) – requirement for 3 fishing boats and equipment, with indicative
capital costs of £35,000 to £42,000.
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
Source: Study estimates.
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
Artisanal Fish Catch
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
Artisanal Fish Catch
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:
■ Information and data sources
■ Regional and small island tourism
■ Previous reports
■ Tourism potential of BIOT
■ Tourism development opportunities
■ Potential training requirements
■ Issues and challenges
2. Information and Data Sources
The main information and data sources are as follows:
■ 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
■ Indian Ocean islands: (i) modest populations ranging from 92,000 in Seychelles to 1.2 million in
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.
■ Some island resorts have larger chalets and villas with 2 or 3 bedrooms.
■ 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.
■ Most resort bills are subject to the addition of VAT – currently 15%.
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:
■ 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
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.
■ 40 room resort – indicative lower estimate of US$ 46.5 million (£28.7 million), and upper estimate
of US$ 52.9 million (£32.6 million), with the main resort construction accounting for 65% of the
total. The average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 1.16 million (£720,000) per room to US$
1.32 million (£815,000) per room.
■ 50 room resort – indicative lower estimate of US$ 53.7 million (£33.2 million), and upper estimate
of US$ 61.3 million (£37.9 million), with the main resort construction accounting for 65% of the
total. The average unit investment cost ranges from US$ 1.07 million (£660,000) per room to US$
1.23 million (£755,000) 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.
■ 40 room resort – 132 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$2.1million (£1.3million) p.a.
■ 50 room resort – 160 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$2.5million (£1.5million) p.a.
Initially, it is anticipated that prospective employment opportunities for resettled Chagossians would
be in the category of ‘All Other Staff’ – depending on their relevant skills, experience and training
(see: Section 7). At this early stage, it is assumed that 40% to 60% of ‘All Other Staff’ could be
allocated to resettled Chagossians. These percentages would have the following implications for
each resort size:
■ 30 room resort – employment of 34 to 50 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$
408,000 (£250,000) to US$ 600,000 (£370,000) p.a.
■ 40 room resort – employment of 45 to 67 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$
540,000 (£330,000) to US$ 804,000 (£495,000) p.a.
■ 50 room resort – employment of 56 to 84 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$
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
US$ million £ million (1)
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.
■ 40 room resort – FIRR ranges from 9.7% for the upper capex estimate to 11.5% for the lower
capex estimate.
■ 50 room resort – FIRR ranges from 11.1% for the upper capex estimate to 13.1% for the lower
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
Upper capex estimate
Lower capex estimate
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
Upper capex estimate
Lower capex estimate
Room Rate: US$ 2,000/£1,235 per day
Upper capex estimate
Lower capex estimate
Room Rate: US$ 2,500/£1,545 per day
Upper capex estimate
Lower capex estimate
%
%
%
%
%
%
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
US$ million £ million (1)
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
US$ million £ million (1)
10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets
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.
■ 20 chalet facility – 26 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$ 460,000 (£290,000) p.a.
■ 30 chalet facility – 36 staff, with an indicative annual cost of US$ 580,000 (£360,000) 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.
■ 20 chalet facility – employment of 20 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$ 240,000
(£150,000) p.a.
■ 30 chalet facility – employment of 30 resettled Chagossians, with total earnings of US$ 360,000
(£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.
US$ million £ million (1)
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
US$ million £ million (1)
10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets
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.
■ 20 chalet facility – FIRR ranges from 10.2% for the upper capex estimate to 12.3% for the lower
capex estimate.
■ 30 chalet facility – FIRR ranges from 10.6% for the upper capex estimate to 12.9% for the lower
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
■ Upper capex estimate
■ Lower capex estimate
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
■ Upper capex estimate
■ Lower capex estimate
Room Rate: US$ 650/£400 per day
■ Upper capex estimate
■ Lower capex estimate
Room Rate: US$ 750/£460 per day
■ Upper capex estimate
■ Lower capex estimate
%
%
%
%
%
%
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
6. Potential Training Requirements
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.
7. Issues and Challenges
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
This appendix presents the following 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 island resorts have larger chalets and villas with 2 or 3 bedrooms.
■ 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%.
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
Seaplane or Speedboat
Speedboat
Seaplane or Speedboat
Speedboat
Seaplane or Speedboat
Speedboat
Seaplane
Speedboat
Seaplane
Speedboat
Dom. Flight & Speedboat
Speedboat
Dom. Flight & Speedboat
Seaplane
Seaplane or Speedboat
Seaplane
Seaplane
Dom. Flight & Speedboat
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
■ Some island resorts have larger chalets and villas with 2 or 3 bedrooms.
■ 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%.
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:
■ Information and data sources
■ Coconuts – background
■ Coconuts in the region and small islands
■ International coconut market and recent developments
■ Previous reports
■ Coconut development opportunities
■ Potential training requirements
■ Issues and challenges
2. Information and Data Sources
The main information and data sources are as follows:
■ 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
■ 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
■ 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:
■ Indian Ocean islands: (i) modest populations ranging from 92,000 in Seychelles to 1.2 million in
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
■ 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
■ 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.
Source: Appendix A, Table 5.
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.
Source: Study estimates.
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.
8. Potential Training Requirements
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)
This appendix presents the following supplementary tables:
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:
■ Information and data sources
■ 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
■ Issues and challenges
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.
2. Information and Data Sources
The main information and data sources are as follows:
■ 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.
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
Source: Appendix A, Table 3.
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
Source: Appendix A, Table 6.
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
■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1)
Official
■ Adult
■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1)
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
■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1)
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
Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = NZ$ 1.955
Source: Appendix A, Table 7.
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
Note: (1) Exchange rate: £1 = NZ$ 1.955
Source: Appendix A, Table 8.
■ 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.
4. Unit capital costs per head for all three options.
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’.
2. Unit capital costs per head for all three options.
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.
■ Option 2 – potential labour force of 250, employed in: (i) community public sector 70%; (ii) US
NSFDG 25%; and (iii) other activities 4%. The total cost of training is estimated at £2.21 million.
■ Option 3 – potential labour force of 75, employed in: (i) community public sector 75%; (ii) US
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.
Source: Appendix A, Table 14.
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.
■ Option 2 – 13 professional specialists with estimated annual costs of £1.6 million.
■ Option 1 – 7 professional specialists with estimated annual costs of £0.9 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.
Source: Appendix A, Table 13.
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%
Source: Appendix A, Table 15.
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
Professional Specialists
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
Professional Specialists
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
9. Issues and Challenges
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
Table 17 Option 2 – Population, Capital Costs & Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts
Table 18 Option 3 – Population, Capital Costs & Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts
Contact us
Kru Desai
Government and Infrastructure
T +44 (0) 207 311 6417
John Burton
International Development Assistance Services
T +44 (0)207 694 5538
Nathan Hill
International Development Assistance Services
T +44 (0)207 311 428
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