BIOT Resettlement Policy Review: Summary of Responses

BIOT Resettlement Policy ReviewSummary of
Responses to Public Consultation

Background
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office conducted a public consultation about a potential
resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) between 4 August 2015 and 27
October 2015. The consultation sought the views of Chagossians and others on three
questions: the likely demand for resettlement; the UK Government‟s assessment of the
likely costs and liabilities to the UK taxpayer; and alternative options not involving
resettlement that could respond to Chagossian aspirations. A direct questionnaire was also
used to obtain further information on these issues. The consultation emphasised that the
description of resettlement was not a statement of UK Government policy but represented
the most realistic scenario in which resettlement might take place. This document
summarises the responses received as Ministers prepare to take a decision on whether to
permit some form of resettlement.

2
30%
60%
10%
Heritage of Chagossian respondents who wish
to resettle (this distribution is broadly the
same across total Chagossian respondents)
1st Generation
2nd Generation
Said they were not born
on BIOT, nor was one of
parents born on BIOT
87%
13%
0%
Age of Chagossian respondents who wish to
resettle (this distribution is broadly the same
across total Chagossian respondents)
Between 18-65
Not between 18-
65
Unknown
Types of responses
During the consultation period, we received 844 individual responses from Australia,
Belgium, Canada, France, Mauritius, Reunion Island, Seychelles, Switzerland, Thailand, the
USA and the UK. 832 (98%) of the individual respondents described themselves as
Chagossians, with 11 other responses from other individuals. In addition to these 844
returns from individuals, 6 replies were received from organisations including the UK Foreign
Affairs Committee, and 1 from a foreign Government – the Government of Mauritius.
Government Officials held 5 meetings with Chagossians in group settings in Mauritius,
Seychelles, Manchester and London.

Individual responses from Chagossians
Chagossian respondents
The majority of Chagossians who responded are currently living in Mauritius.

Most Chagossian respondents are of working age and have a connection to BIOT through
their parents (what we define as “2nd Generation” in the table below) rather than having
been born there themselves.

67%
21%
10%
2%
Current place of abode of Chagossian respondents
Mauritius
UK
Seychelles
Other

3
Views on resettlement
Though the vast majority of Chagossians were in favour of resettlement in principle, there
were more nuanced views about the scenarios that were presented in the consultation
document as the most realistic description of how it might work.

Employment opportunities in any resettlement
Around half of Chagossians who wanted to return are currently in employment (see chart
overleaf). Of those who responded to the questionnaire, over 1,000 additional dependents
were indicated, though it is impossible to determine whether some of these dependents are
also respondents themselves.

Most respondents who were in favour of resettling said they would be inclined to seek jobs
either on the military facility or with the BIOT Administration.

25%
67%
6%
2%
Chagossian respondents views on resettlement
In favour of resettlement,
and content with realistic
scenarios
In favour of resettlement,
but not clear if content
with realistic scenarios
In favour of resettlement
but not content with
realistic scenarios
against resettlement
51%
19%
19%
11%
Current employment status of
Chagossian respondents
Employed
Retired
Unemployed
Other 70%
30%
Inclination of Chagossian respondents
who wish to resettle to work on military
facility or with BIOT Administration
Would seek
employment on
military facility
or with BIOT
Administration
Would not seek
employment on
military facility
or BIOT
Administration

4
A range of practical skills were declared by Chagossians in their responses, though many
indicated they would seek training in other areas including tourism, environmental
management, and Territory administration.

1

Alternatives to resettlement
Responses from Chagossians indicated a degree of uncertainty about alternatives to
resettlement while around a third were clear they would not wish to participate in such
options.

1 Note that some Chagossian respondents declared multiple skills, so total skill responses do not sum to total Chagossian responses; Officials have consolidated skill
descriptions used by Chagossians into broad subjects to provide meaningful statistical analysis
2 Skills recorded as “Other” are: Agriculture, Cashier, Community support, Secretarial skills, Student, Tailor, Copra Industry, Dressmaker, Languages, Maintenance.
Police, Textile, Training, Beauty, Cabin Crew, Communications skills, Crane operator, Decorator, Forklift Driver, Handicraft, HR, Nursing, Receptionist, Sewing, Shipping,
Social work, Solderer, Air freight, Blacksmith, Building draughtsman and Quantity Surveyor, Caretaker, Childcare, Commercial, Containering, Counselling, Draftman,
Factory worker, Fish processing, Fishing, Good communication skills, Health & Safety, Housekeeping, Lawyer, Licence, Loader, Meteorologist, Musician, Planning and
Development Surveyor, Port worker, Printing agent, Professional Sega Dancer, “Ratbun” maker, Skill worker, “Supenser”, “Caussten”, Supervisor, Taxi Driver,
Technician, Telephonist, Textile, Transport, Waitress
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cleaner
Other
Catering
Fishing
Mason
Construction
Administration
Housekeeping
Tourism
Maid
Driver
Childcare
Machinist
Mechanic
Hairdresser
Customer Service
Environmental …
Management
Retail
Security
Electrician
Plumber
Seaman
Dock worker
Gardener
Health care
Nursing
Painter
Carpenter
Welder
Accounting
Armed forces
IT
Social care
Teacher
Skills of those Chagossian respondents who said they were in
favour of, or were undecided about resettlement1, 2
8%
29%
63%
Chagossian respondent attitudes to options that did not
involve permanent resettlement
Interested
Not interested
Undecided

5
Responses from non-Chagossian individuals
All non-Chagossian responses from individuals came from yachters who had some
experience of passing through BIOT‟s outer islands for the purposes of safe passage
(tourism is not permitted). Overwhelmingly, they said they supported resettlement but also
the idea of some form of Chagossian engagement in limited tourism of the outer islands and
restoration of historic structures on these islands.

Organisational Responses and Meetings
Government of Mauritius
The Government of Mauritius told the UK Government that it rejected the consultation
exercise on the basis that it felt it was the only party which had the lawful authority to
determine and discuss issues relating to the Chagos Archipelago, including resettlement.

UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee
The Foreign Affairs Committee confirmed that it did not intend to provide a response to the
public consultation.

UK Chagos Support Association (UKChSA)
UKChSA said that the consultation document failed to provide enough information for
Chagossians to make a fully informed choice on return. And that the consultation document
did not offer a „meaningful choice‟ due to the closed questions in the questionnaire.

As follow-up, officials met with six Chagossian representatives, including the UKChSA to
explain, as they had in other meetings, and subsequently by letter circulated to all
stakeholders, that the consultation document and the questionnaire sought qualitative views
on all aspects of the scenarios, and responses need not be limited to binary responses.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
RSPB said that they took no view on the policy question of potential resettlement but
expressed the need for comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments, and a Strategic
Environmental Assessment as appropriate, to be undertaken prior to any detailed planning
of a resettlement. They stated that the costs of carrying out such assessments and funding
any mitigation that they identify must be properly built into the cost projections for all
infrastructure development.

Chagos Refugees Group (CRG)
CRG believed that there is a lack of clarity in the consultation about most of the basic
requirements of a settled community, including jobs, employment conditions, salaries,
housing, pensions, education, visits from wider family members, and transport.

CRG suggested that current and expected returnees exceeds the Medium Option of 500
people, and therefore more land will be required than is provided for in that option. CRG
suggests that further planning must include Diego Garcia and Peros Banhos/Salomon
Groups.

6
CRG state that the capital costings in the consultation document ignore the availability of
alternative funding from sources such as the European Development Fund, the USA,
sovereign wealth funds and partnership funding from commercial enterprises.

Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT)
CCT commented on the need to conduct environmental assessments of all construction
work that might be done before construction commenced. They said that neglect of these
and of the ability of such assessments to direct impact-free constructions is the main cause
of tropical coastal environmental degradation worldwide, to the detriment of people.

CCT pointed out that even low level reef fishing causes damage to coral reef fish biomass
and reef health and that climate change consequences must be taken into account if
substantial cost later on is to be avoided. They recommend that well-documented scientific
findings regarding climate change and sea level rising in BIOT, food sustainability and
potential damage from construction are used for decision making.

The Linnean Society of London
The Society response was to endorse the comments from the Chagos Conservation Trust.

United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA)
UMMOA urged the United Kingdom to try to make right the wrongs that were done against
the Chagossians, and allow them to return. They also hoped that sustainable fishing by
Chagossians would be allowed as part of managing the Marine Protected Area in the future.

BIOT Deputy Commissioner meeting with Chagossians in Mauritius
Chagossians at the meeting expressed unhappiness with the consultation document and the
options outlined. However, the Deputy Commissioner assessed that Chagossians wanted to
engage in the consultation.

First generation Chagossians expressed a desire to spend time on the islands they were
born on and conclude their lives there. The potential security restrictions on visits by friends
and family to Diego Garcia were deemed unacceptable by the Chagossians.

There was a low degree of interest in employment opportunities on the military facility
because wages might be lower than on Mauritius and there was a high likelihood they could
have to leave family and friends behind.

BIOT Deputy Commissioner meeting with Chagossians in Seychelles
Chagossians suggested developing a tourist industry on the outer islands and that heritage
visits are crucial.

BIOT Administrator meeting with Chagossians in Crawley
Chagossians expressed anxiety about the length of time that resettlement could take. Those
who want to go back did not want to wait several years without any change to their situations
in the UK, which they consider to be unacceptable.

Chagossians were keen to know more about employment on BIOT, including the training
that would be made available. They were also keen to know how issues like citizenship

7
would be addressed, though as the consultation document says, this was not possible
before a decision in principle on resettlement by Ministers.

BIOT Administrator meeting with Chagossians in Manchester
The Chagossians were keen that a decision account for the fact that there was no “one size
fits all” for the community. Some would want to return and some would not, and they wanted
a decision that was not one or the other.

There was some anxiety about the need to leave families behind in any model, particularly a
pilot. Many Chagossians were interested in training, both for resettlement or in the UK as an
alternative to it. Chagossians were keen to create a sustainable economy and not remain
dependent on UK taxpayers.

Chagossians were very keen to conserve the culture of the Chagossians, and protecting the
“relics” in the Territory so they were not lost to time. They thought this was important as part
of any heritage activity even if a resettlement did not take place.

The Chagossians were worried about the prospect of Mauritius taking on the islands in the
future, after they had resettled. Several criticised Mauritius for their current situation.

There was determination that resettlement should not be focussed entirely on those who
were born in the Territory, but other generations should have the chance to return.