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
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.
1
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
2
3.1 Environmental data set from BIOT field visit
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Day/Date Thurs Thurs Thurs Fri Fri Sat Sat 15.05.14 15.05.14 15.05.14 16.05.14 16.05.14 17.05.14 17.05.14 Latitude (S) & 6o40’ x 71o22’ 6o11’ x 5o20’ x 71o51’ Longitude (E) at 71o20’ central point Distance from 73nm 77nm 94.5nm 88nm 119nm 128nm 130nm DG (direct) Distance from 82nm 82nm (same 110nm 109nm 127.5nm 136.5nm 131nm DG anchorage as for Sudest) Surface Area 98.02 46.21 243.5 8.0 (6.0 N; 23.0 S) 127.5 150.0 88.5 (ha) 255.4 + 36.4 130.1 145.8 1 105.5 1 Max. Length 2.2 1.1 2.5 0.25 1.65 1.95 1.1 (nm) & (NW-SE) (N-S) (NE-SW) (Circular or Square) (WNW-ESE) (NNE-SSW) (NE-SW) orientation Approx. approximately 2.0- approximately 2- approximately 2.0-2.5 approximately 2.5-3.0m approximately 1.75- approximately approximately 1.75- observed Max. 2.5 3.5 (approximately 2m; (1.0-1.2 m; Sheppard, 2.0 1.75-2.0 2.0 Height (m) (less than 2 m; (less than 1 m; Sheppard, 2002)i 2002)i Sheppard, 2002)3 Sheppard, 2002)i
2 Klaus, (Unpublished)
3 Sheppard, 2002.
3
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Prev. habitation No dwellings No dwellings Yes, on highest part No dwellings Yes, substantial No dwelling Yes, but transient & dwellings? seen – some seen/found. of island; 4-5 seen/none colony. ‘Main road’ seen/found. population, some remnants dilapidated layout; wells reported; no reported. habitation(s) seen. approximately 150 dwellings seen/found. Only vertical walls graves (many small survive. 3-4 buildings’ children); Manager’s ‘plinths’ seen. 3 house substantial, reported graves at roof now collapsed. shoreline – no Other buildings, headstones remain. large metal water Main graveyard tank, WC, wall approximately 80m separating inland. processing area Previous Unknown Unknown Previously inhabited; Unknown Previously inhabited: Unknown Previously inhabited; population & coconut/copra & coconut/copra & temporary livelihood subsistence/artisanal subsistence/artisanal coconut/copra fishing fishing plantation & subsistence/artisanal fishing? Anchorage 3km offshore; 3km offshore; East better 2.5nm; W 2.5nm, Great Chagos 1.5nm lagoon-side 0.5nm lagoon-side 0.5nm lagoon-side narrow ledge only narrow ledge only less than 300m Bank (approximately 30m depth), small ships only. Sea depth greater than 100- greater than 100- greater than 100- greater than 100-2000+ greater than 100- greater than 100- greater than 100- beyond reef (m) 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ Atoll area (km2) 40 (Egmont) 18,000 (Gt. Chagos Bank) 463 (Peros Banhos) % atoll rim 35 (Egmont) 35 (Egmont) less than 5 (Gt. less than 5 (Gt. Chagos 65 (Peros Banhos) enclosed by Chagos Bank) Bank) islands & reef Channel cut in reef on flats NW side – dangerous entry
4
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Approach & 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 ease of access 1 = Relatively Lagoon-side; Lagoon-side; 5. Ocean-side Oct- 1.Middle Island – 1. OK at High Tide – 1.Lagoon-side Lagoon-side (SE easy to get limited reef; easy more reef & May always accessible (but Lagoon-side; Beach access at corner only). small craft near at High Tide; OK outcrops – harder big surf on approach); Disused jetty – High Tide – but 1.High Tide shore. at Low Tide. landing than 2. Oct-May Lagoon- unusable. Former only across E 3.Low Tide (small 5 = Extremely Sudest. side 3.South – weather – ‘railway’ tracks corner. channel; many reefs; difficult visible. Long walk/wade dependent; wading, access quite at Low Tide. 4. Other months – 3. Low Tide more tricky) SW winds create 5. North – cliffs & surf 4. Low Tide – difficult – long hazard severe. swim/wade wade/walk required. (awkward – shallow, many Lagoon-side; wade & Lagoon-side; reefs) swim required at high Substantial dead reef to tide 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 Jetty need & Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential issues approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m deep approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m deep water @ 300 deep water @ 300 deep water @ 50 m water @ 3 m from deep water @ 180 m deep water @ 120 deep water @ 60m m from shore m from shore from shore shore (ship cannot from shore m from shore (N), 120m (S), from anchor – coral blasting shore required); Coral reef outcrops suddenly upthrusting en-route to 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)
5
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Shoreline: sand 10-30; Classic 10-30; Approximately 2.0- Approximately 2.0-3.0; Approximately 2.0- Approximately Approximately 3.0- width (m) heaped sandy NB v narrow 3.0; Outcropping upthrust 5.0; Typical coral 2.0-5.0; 5.0; Coconut & Description coral lip and then Island Range of rounded island with ‘domed’ atoll x-section but Coconut & Scaevola lower inland approximately coral boulders. inland cross-section – some elevated area; Scaevola saucer; 300m across. Elevated eroded sea- with pitting – small Coconut & Scaevola impenetrable Relatively wall foundations depressions. mostly coconut & impenetrable falling into sea. Coconut & Scaevola some fringe fringe coconut & Coconut & Scaevola Scaevola Scaevola Inland Impenetrable Younger Mixed mature Less dense Coconut, some Some old Fallen coconuts soft, vegetation & without machete, vegetation; vegetation; v little undergrowth; lack of citrus, thinner plantation trees rotten inside (only ease of access mostly extreme smaller trees & ‘undergrowth’ Much young shoots – being undergrowth, Diamont); moderately proliferation of evidence of of island cleared – eaten Scaevola & relatively easily dense vegetation coconut; regular inundation easier access to heliotrope/hardwood penetrated inside; Pisonia. hard walking – strewn & centre of island, cf Undulating terrain (the flattened boughs Sudest and Sipaille). most uneven island) & debris Small mangrove area and central inland on boggy depression ground
Soil (humic 4’ humic layer, Approximately 2- 6-8’ humic layer 4-6’ sand & limited Greater than 12’ Greater than 12’ Approximately 8’ matter) depth then sand 4’ sandy & dark (moderate organic humic matter – not soil humic layer/OM; rich humic layer; humic layer: dry inland layer with limited matter – worms soil – unique moderate OM – sand/OM (10-12’) organic material present) 50:50 sand soil and humic layer (like Ile du Coin) GW lens/depth Exists; surface Exists; no Exists; Probably; unknown, Exists; central boggy Exists (?FW up to Exists; of water ponding in centre ponding; 2.5m Square (French?) though FW at area. Round (British) 1.5 m depth Boggy centre; Wells surface below – to approximately depth to closer to wells. GW 0.5 – 1.5m approximately 1 m wells. GW 0.5-1.5m below surface; 1.5-1.0 depth. ground. 1.5m depth est. surface in centre depth. depth; no boggy central depth – deeper at lip influenced by tidal depression, but debris cycle and rock around centre of island porosity); Small mangrove area (= how far SW comes depression in inundates in; significant for centre, but not agriculture & re- boggy; No wells settlement)
6
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Inundation 5 4 5 1 5 1 4 risk? High – Centre can Over-topping, ≥ 2 x Floods regularly 1.= Low flood at high tide per year (Oct/Apr); 5.=High causes seawater flooding soil & agriculture (damage) Geology Upthrust raised limestone reef; limestone beach rock Wildlife Rats; Rats; ‘Super Rats’ (2010 No Rats. Range of Rats; land & coconut Rats; Rats; eradication effort crabs including coconut crabs; v many land & coconut & failed); Large coconut crabs. midges & ‘white’ hermit (robber) crabs Birgus mosquitoes. crabs (distinctive latro; chickens/jungle – coloured on
fowl; spiders; other islands) significant number of midges & mosquitoes. Seabirds Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g.tern Seabirds: e.g. Sooty Seabirds: e.g. Fairy Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: Red-footed nesting habitat terns, boobies, Fairy and other sp(p) terns; Fairy terns, terns Red-footed boobies, Fairy terns, noddies terns, noddies Trees: Coconut Lesser frigate birds, Trees: As above, boobies plus Frigate birds Trees: Coconut Trees: Coconut palms, Scaevola Red footed boobies; plus ‘Ironwood’ Trees: Coconut Trees: As above palms, Scaevola, palms, Scaevola Common noddies; trees palms, Scaevola other sp (p.) Trees: Coconut palms (tall or short); Brothers have most grasses, herbs etc. cf other BIOT islands
7
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Marine Ecology Corals/reefs (3), Corals/reefs (1), Corals/reefs (4), Birds Corals/reefs (5), Birds Corals/reefs (5), (No records: rapid Corals/reefs (3), Birds (0-6 log Birds (3), Fish (4), Birds (1), Fish (3), (2), Fish (3), (3), Fish (3), Birds (1), Fish (4), environmental (2), Fish (4), abundance Invertebrates (5) Invertebrates (4) Invertebrates (4). Invertebrates (5). Invertebrates (5) assessment) Invertebrates (5) scale (Rapid Most southerly limit Mangroves – most Environ-mental of Indian Ocean southerly limit of Indian Assessment, mangroves Ocean 2010)4 Coastal Construction (0), Construction (0), Construction (0), Construction (0), Construction (3), (No records: rapid Construction (0), disturbances Fishing (0), Fishing (0), Fishing (0), Beach Fishing (0), Beach oil Fishing (0), Beach environmental Fishing (0), Beach and impacts5 Beach oil Beach oil oil (0), Solid waste/beach oil assessment) oil (0), Solid (0), Solid (0), Solid waste/beach rubbish (4) (0), Solid (0), Solid waste/beach waste/beach waste/beach rubbish (5) waste/beach rubbish rubbish (3) rubbish (4) rubbish (4) (3) Infrastructure Debris indicates Not a practicable Complete habitation Patches of extensive Disused jetty Undulating terrain (the Potential & periodic flooding option for regular rebuild(s) required. open spaces approximately 180m most uneven island) Challenges to centre of island & safe habitation. New buildings need (accessible for re- long; end pier-block – raised plinths Raised to be greater than 2m settlement) still intact; linking required for any foundations off ground (platform platform collapsed; infrastructures – needed for any or pilings old trolly axles & flood risk high buildings approximately 1m inland 3 derelict down to rocks) railway lines remain; NB some white asbestos corrugated sheeting materials to be disposed of safely
4 Estimated log abundance, i.e. no. of individuals or area in m2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999 etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m2 (500 m x 500 m); see Price & Harris, 2009. 5 Estimated log magnitude, i.e. no. of items or area in m2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999 etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009).
8
4a,b,c. Three Brothers 1. Sudest 2. Sipaille 3. Eagle (Great (Middle visited) (+N&S) 5. Ile du Coin 6. Ile Pierre 7. Ile Diamant ITEM/Island (Egmont Atoll) (Egmont Atoll) Chagos Bank) (Gt Chagos Bank) (Peros Banhos) (P.B.) (P.B) Agriculture Limited potential. v.v. limited Tarrow plant former Possible. Coconut Soil good for potential & Coconut possible potential – staple processing (former carrots? challenges overtopping likely. coconut plantations); Coconut possible. Guava, bread fruit – unique to Ile de Coin, Tara (only island with citrus fruits) Other Subsistence Various (Heavy sea livelihood possible cucumber options poaching, at least formerly)
9
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia Day/Date Sat Sat Sun Sun Sun Mon Tues-Wed 13- 17.05.14 17.05.14 18.05.14 18.05.14 18.05.14 19.05.14 14.05.14 Latitude (S) & 5o20’ x 72o15’ 7o2’ x Longitude (E) at 72o26’ central point Distance from DG 130nm 127nm 120nm 120nm 118nm 102nm 0 (direct) Distance from DG 135nm 133.5nm 124.5nm 124.5nm 124.5nm (same 100.5nm 0 anchorage as for Ile Fouquet) Surface area (ha) 43.5 58.5 44.0 39.5 108.5 81.0 2719.5 (DG/main 74.0 6 47.3 1 47.1 (Klaus, 117.4 1 123.3 1 island) unpublished) Max length (nm) & 0.75 0.8 0.65 0.8 1.25 0.7 approximately 15.5 orientation (E-W) (NNW-SSE) (NW-SE) (NE-SW) (NW-SE) (E-W) with ‘dog-legs’ (NW-SE & NE-SW) Max Ht (m) approximately 1.5- approximately 2.5- approximately 2.0- approximately approximately 2.0-2.5 approximately 3.5- 6.7 (mean: 1.2 m 2.0 3.0 2.5m 1.75-3.0 (uneven) 4.5+ above mean SL)7 Population now approximately 3,500-5000 Prev. habitation Yes, transient, no No dwellings Yes, some ground Yes, some ground Yes, extensive No dwellings Yes, extensively & dwellings? dwelling seen/found plinths reported plinths reported. habitation in complete found, but some populated seen/found (Island farmed, disrepair found. rumoured & historically not settled, Remnants of many chickens present. (coconut/copra & previously) buildings (school, (shark-infested subsistence/artisan police, jail, shop – reef/lagoon). al fishing) and corrugated roof and presently by UK & raised on concrete US military & plinth, church etc) & support & admin. graveyards personnel.
6 Klaus (Unpublished) 7 www.as39.navy.mil/download%5CWELCOMETODIEGOGARCIA.doc
10
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia Prev. Popln & Unknown Unknown Previously Previously Previously populated; Unknown Previously livelihood populated; populated; coconut/copra & populated; coconut/copra & coconut/copra & subsistence/artisanal coconut/copra & subsistence/artisan subsistence/artisa fishing subsistence/artisan al fishing Previously nal fishing al fishing camp for sea cucumber poachers Anchorage 0.5nm lagoon-side None; Anchor at 3km (S); Great 1nm offshore Manorel – 1.5nm. Chagos Bank (lagoon) Sea depth beyond greater than 100- greater than 100- 102-2000+ 102-2000+ 102-2000+ greater than 100- greater than 100- reef (m) 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ 2000+ Atoll area km2 463 38 (Salomon) 18,000 (Gt. 250 Chagos Bank) % rim enclosed by 65 (Peros Banhos) 85 (Salomon) less than 5 (Gt. 97% (Diego Garcia) islands & reef flats Chagos Bank) Approach & ease 2 1 1 1 1 4 [1] – of access 1.High tide Lagoon-side. Lagoon-side – Lagoon-side – Lagoon-side – beach Ocean-side. Subject to USA-UK 1 = Relatively Easy 3.Low tide – long Low tide or High beach landing from beach landing landing from ship in Difficult Oct – Agreement(s). to get small craft wade/walk; tide OK. ship in Lagoon at from ship in Lagoon at both High May; near shore. extensive coral/algal both High tide or Lagoon at both tide or Low tide (but Substantial Jetty 5 = Extremely Low tide (sand, high tide or Low caution needed due to reef flat noted. Easiest of all Not High tide access Exits on Western difficult some coral tide sudden coral bommies, exposed to SE only ‘arm’ – as well as bommies) 2-3m, in otherwise winds; island well airport facilities. deep water) protected by reef Derelict E arm jetty extending exists – old approximately 5 Plantation miles Jetty need & Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Existing issues approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m approximately 5m deep approximately 5m approximately 5m deep water @ 60 m deep water @ 150 deep water @ 200 deep water @ 100 water @ 120 m from deep water @ 80 deep water. from shore m from shore m from shore (but m from shore shore m from shore environment very dynamic in places)
11
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia (Ship cannot anchor – coral blasting required for channel) Rainfall (mm/yr) 3,999 (Peros Banhos) 3751 2599 Shoreline: sand Approximately 2.5- Approximately 1.75- Approximately 2.5- Approximately Approximately 1.0-6.0; Approximately Variable width (m) 3.0; Coconut & 2.0 (very steeply 3.0; 2.5-3.0; Coconut Significant height 3.5-5.0; Uplifted; Description Scaevola inclining); Coconut Coconut & Scaevola & Scaevola Limestone cliffs & Scaevola Coconut & Scaevola at either end with heavy sand fill/beach in between. Coconut & Scaevola Inland vegetation Dense vegetation, Big, very open Scaevola and Vegetation mod. Mod. thick Mod. dense Scaevola and & ease of access but some openings; spaces (some 150 coconut palms, dense, but undergrowth, except vegetation over coconut palms; Pisonia; Birds’ nest m x 60 m); no hardwoods (e.g. walkable (mostly areas formerly roads. much of island; much cleared fern (big leaves). depressions in Takamaka), Pisonia without machete); Undulating terrain & coconut trees, especially on W Mangrove (swamp, centre of island (dominant), Birds veg waste ht. and mounds, central island Scaevola & side 600m x 300 m, very (unique). Scaevola nest fern. coconut trees depression, always heliotrope; SE end boggy; water shore fringe and Moderately open either big or small; damp and sometimes of island cover of (unusually) seeps inland & Pisonia areas Pisonia; Birds nets floods these low & low from under fern scrub mangrove
Soil (humic Approximately 2’ Approximately 4-8’ Greater than 12’ Greater than 8-12’ Approximately 12-14’ Approximately 6- Variable matter) depth humic material humic layer near humic layer – v humic layer – v humic layer – v sandy 8’ organic layer – inland (deeper in some island edge/lip sandy loam OM sandy loam; loam did not smell areas) (smells of soil); in (some humus OM/sand 50:50 strongly of humic clear inland areas smell) (smells of materials (pure only surface moss soil/humus) OM/’compost’ then sand (no texture, little or no OM/humus). sand)
12
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia GW lens/depth of Exists; boggy & Exists; No boggy Exists; Some Boggy Exists; Some Exists; Boggy centre; Exists; No boggy Exists; aquifer lens water surface substantial area; area – up to 0.5m boggy area at one 1.5m. area; centre of sufficient for below ground. mangrove area – Arid Surface; Sandy tidal inundation end; 1.5-2.0. No Well ‘1’: circular island depressed, resident population which at HT substrate; est. 2.0- depth – evidenced boggy area in (British), within square but no (desalination not inundates 2.5m depth by tide-mark on centre – no water; Well ‘2’: overtopping by necessary) ‘vertically’ to 0.5m coconut trees. 1.5 m to water surface; SW, though soil depth Est 1.5-1.0m GW Well ‘3’: 1.7 m to water felt spongy or soft depth (sq. well) surface on foot
(No central Est. 3-5m depth depression; overtopping by sea water rare & area – 10 m x 10 m) Inundation risk? 4-5 1 3 2 4 1 4-5 1.= Low In places In places 5.=High Geology No central depression (tilts longitudinally) Wildlife Rats; Rats; Rats; Rats; Rats; Rats absent; Rats; Chickens; Chickens Gammant Lizards Seabirds nesting Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Seabirds: e.g. Red Seabirds: e.g. habitat Boobies nesting in Boobies and tropic Boobies, tropic Red-footed Madagascar fodies, footed & brown Frigate birds, fairy mangrove swamp birds – nesting birds, fodies, boobies and Fairy terns, boobies boobies; Lesser terns (plus various Trees: As above Trees: As above noddies, fairy terns lesser noddies, Trees: frigate, petrels, land birds); Trees: as above Frigate birds lesser noddies Trees & Ground (by Trees: as above (nest in cliffs, cf non-piscivorous Pisonia trees in Cattle Egret) other islands), greater crested terns; fairy terns. Trees: as above
13
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia Marine ecology (0- Many sea Environmentally Corals/reefs (3), Corals/reefs (4), (No rapid Corals/reefs (4), Corals/reefs (4), 6 log abundance cucumbers significant island; Birds (2), Fish (3), Birds (2), Fish (4), environmental Birds (4), Fish (4), Birds (1), Fish (4), scale (Rapid (Stichopus (Pisonia/big trees). Invertebrates (3) Invertebrates (3). assessment records) Invertebrates (5) Invertebrates (5) Environ-mental chloronotus) & (No rapid Very dense Assessment, morays near shore. environmental populations of sea Island rarely 2010)8 Most southerly assessment cucumbers (H. visited; very rich water-ingressed records) atra) (5/m2where in bird life mangrove in Indian present) Ocean – biogeographic significance; very distinctive flora (No rapid environmental assessment records) Coastal (No rapid (No rapid Construction (0), Construction (0), (No rapid Construction (0), Construction (5), disturbances and environmental environmental Fishing (0), Fishing (0), environmental Fishing (0), Fishing (0), impacts9 assessment assessment Beach oil (0), Beach oil (0), assessment records) Beach oil (0), Beach oil (0), records) records) Solid waste/beach Solid waste/beach Solid waste/beach Solid waste/beach rubbish (4) rubbish (3) rubbish (4) rubbish (2) Infrastructure No/little clearance potential & needed for challenges resettlement and infrastructures; relatively easy to get equipment & materials in Agriculture Extent of former Former coconut potential & coconut operations: plantations challenges Diego Garcia greater than Boddam greater than Ile du Coin
8 Estimated log abundance, i.e. no. of individuals or area in m2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999, etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009). 9 Estimated log magnitude, i.e. no. of items or area in m2 (1 = 1-9, 2 = 10-99, 3 =100-999, etc) within estimated quadrat area of 250,000 m2 (500 m x 500 m; see Price & Harris, 2009).
14
8.Ile 9. Ile Yeye (P.B) 13. Ile Nelson Moresby (& New Pacific 10. Ile Takamaka 11. Ile Fouquet 12. Ile Boddam Great Chagos ITEM/Island (P.B) Marlin Island =9b) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) (Salomon Atoll) Bank) 14. Diego Garcia Other livelihood Island used by Visited by yachts; Various potential options visiting yachts; barbecue area; volley options (all subject barbecue area ball to USA-UK Agreement(s)
15
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'.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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
19
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.)
Pilot resettlement employment Scientific Island Modern Subsistence (Diego Garcia research unsuitable for lifestyle lifestyle Eco-village only) station 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).
20
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.)
Neutral (neither robust/resilient 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).
21
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).
Neutral (neither robust/resilient 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
22
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).
23
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?
Neutral (neither robust/resilient Robust/resilient or fragile) Fragile Don't know
Diego Garcia
Notes/reasons
Neutral (neither robust/resilient Robust/resilient or fragile) Fragile Don't know Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos atoll)
Notes/reasons
Neutral (neither robust/resilient 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).
24
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
25
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
26
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)
27
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
28
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)
29
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.
30
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
31
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.
32
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.
33
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
34
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.
35
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)
36
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
Neutral (neither Robust/ robust/resilient Island Resilient or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response Diego Garcia 11 9 13 3 15 Ile du Coin (Peros 2 3 24 7 15 Banhos atoll) Boddam 2 6 17 8 18 (Salomon atoll)
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
Neutral Robust/ (neither robust/ Island resilient resilient or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response Diego Garcia 14 5 14 3 15 Ile du Coin 2 27 2 4 16 (Peros Banhos atoll) Boddam 2 25 2 4 18 (Salomon atoll)
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).
37
Table 3.3.15: Carrying capacity a) Subsistence lifestyle
Carrying capacity Carrying capacity Carrying capacity Island minimum maximum mean Diego Garcia 0 3000 383 (based on 17 responses) Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos 0 200 65 atoll) (based on 11 responses) Boddam (Salomon atoll) 0 200 79 (based on 9 responses)
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
Carrying capacity Carrying capacity Carrying capacity Island minimum maximum mean Diego Garcia 0 5000 1427 (based on 16 responses) Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos 0 400 60 atoll) (based on 10 responses) Boddam (Salomon atoll) 0 300 63 (based on 9 responses)
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.
38
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
Neutral (neither Robust/ robust/resilient Island resilient or fragile) Fragile Don’t know Non-response Diego Garcia 7 7 17 5 15 Ile du Coin (Peros 5 17 4 6 19 Banhos atoll) Boddam 4 17 4 6 20 (Salomon atoll)
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 27 2 8 14 remote sensing Aerial monitoring – using 25 4 2 20 aerial photography Abundance of major 23 1 8 19 ecosystems (Rapid environmental assessment) Coral reef surveys 27 0 4 20
39
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 25 0 4 20 invasive species Censuses of birds 25 0 6 19 Terrestrial Censuses 23 1 8 19 Sampling and analysis of 23 1 6 21 selected contaminants Field data on sea level, 25 1 6 19 coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation
Table 3.3.19: Environmental monitoring - costs
Estimated annual cost Estimated annual cost Estimated annual cost Type of environmental GBP GBP GBP monitoring (mean) (minimum) (maximum) Aerial monitoring – using 353,333 10,000 1,000,000 remote sensing (based on 3 responses) Aerial monitoring – using 243,333 30,000 600,000 aerial photography (based on 3 responses) Abundance of major 17,500 10,000 25,000 ecosystems (Rapid environmental assessment) (based on 2 responses) Coral reef surveys (based on 186,667 10,000 300,000 3 responses) Censuses of reef sharks 110,000 5,000 300,000 (based on 3 responses) Censuses of other reef fish 135,000 5,000 300,000 (based on 3 responses) Censuses of turtles (based on 135,000 5,000 300,000 3 responses) Censuses of marine alien 27,500 5,000 50,000 invasive species (based on 2 responses) Censuses of birds (based on 2 17,500 10,000 25,000 responses) Terrestrial Censuses (based 5,000 5,000 5,000 on 1 response) Sampling and analysis of 40,000 30,000 50,000 selected contaminants (based on 2 responses)
40
Field data on sea level, 12,500 5,000 20,000 coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation (based on 2 responses)
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 9 13 5 23 remote sensing Aerial monitoring – using 9 12 6 23 aerial photography Abundance of major 13 6 7 24 ecosystems (Rapid environmental assessment) 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 15 5 8 22 invasive species Censuses of birds Terrestrial censuses 22 1 8 19 Sampling and analysis of 6 12 9 23 selected contaminants Field data on sea level, 12 6 7 25 coastal erosion & accretion and seawater inundation
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.
41
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.
42
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.
43
4.1 BIOT environmental conventions
Date of extension of Environmental conventions applying to BIOT ratification Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other 17.11.1975 Matters (Adopted, 13/11/1972) (amendments not extended to BIOT) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 2.8.1976 1973 See also items (12) and (14): Amendments both extended to BIOT 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 8.9.1998 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) Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer 1987 (amendments 16.12.1988 not extended to BIOT) 1992 Protocol to amend the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution 20.2.1998 damage of 29.11.1969 1992 Protocol to amend the international convention on the establishment of an 20.2.1998 international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage of 18.12.1971 (subsequent Protocols not extended to BIOT) 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in force 16 November 1994 25.07.1997 Accession to the Convention by the UK, on 25 July 1997, was expressly extended Fish Stocks: 3.12.1999 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. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (2/12/1946) (ICRW), in force 17.06.1947 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. Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), 31.03.1995 (Approved, 25/11/1993), in force 27 March 1996
Amendment to Article XI paragraph 3(a) of the Convention on International Trade in 28.11.1980 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed at Washington.
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.
44
Date of extension of Environmental conventions applying to BIOT ratification Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 3.03.1973, Adopted at Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at Washington D.C. 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 Extended to BIOT 9 Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (concerning Incineration at Sea) March 1979 Resolution to amend Articles XI, XIV and XV of the Convention on the Prevention of Extended to BIOT 21 Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 29 December 1972 March 1980 (adopted by the Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties at London on 12 December 1978)
45
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).
46
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.
47 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 2 6.10, Sold000 Waste: km ofAsh, reef Groundwaters (Fig 1). and It Leachateis the s itqualitye of t monitoringhe greates (numeroust marine volatile biodiv organics,ersity in the UK andinorganics its Ter andritor physicalies, an parameters).d it is the most remote reef system in the Indian Ocean. The near-absence of direct, local, human impacts and their overall condition has Notesident onified environmental them as a monitoringkey scient andific costsrefere nce site, and has led to their inclusion in the 1 EIAPe andw Tenvironmentalrusts Ocea monitoringn Legacy should series begin of fatour least loc 1at yearions before of m infrastructureajor globa lconstruction importanc e . begins, and continue every year after construction is completed, over a 20-yr period; Capex and Opex needThis to pareflectper this;acc EIAom andpanies monitoring a mor aree geseenne asral an c ointegrallour d andoc uonm-goingent des process.igned to promote awareness of the need to conserve and protect Chagos, a need which has become Monitoringurgent in costs a pe arerio relativelyd of globa highl forenv variousironm reasons;ental det theer scaleiorat requiredion an isd notcli masat fore ac hasingleng e. It project or site – BIOT resettlement could represent a potentially expanding set of facilities and activitiespresent ins an a area sel ecequivalenttion of toex at racsizablets tportionaken fofro Englandm over – 1substan00 paptiallyers more publis if thehe MPAd by area mo isre than also50 considered scientist s(see. I tmap dem below).onstrat Aeriales tphotographyhe importa ofnc BIOTe of would unde bers tvaluable,anding butthe would scienc be ecostly of a. However,region afcostsfec cannotted by yet cli bem atdetermined.e change In only the absence, without of aeriallocal photography, developm entuse wouldimpac needts. to It beide madentif iesof satellite immedi imageryate r esalone.earc h targets to improve the knowledge base.
Fig 1. Left. Site map and location of Chagos. Atolls and banks with land are in bold, Left.rem Siteain dmaper a andre slocationhallow ofan Chagos.d subm Atollserge dand re ebanksfs. R withight land: Th aree r einla bold,tive sandize the of Cremainderhagos a arend the UK. shallow and submerged reefs. Right: The relative size of BIOT and the UK.
GivenPub ltheish eglobald by significanceChagos C oofn stheer vChagosation Tr Nou-sTaket, 20 MPA,09. ht thetp: /expectatio/www.chang (asos -seentrus tby.o rtheg/ outside world) will be for FCO to demonstrate that resettlement is not having detrimental environmental effects;a Univ erextensivesity of W monitoringarwick UK ,and b Ac resourcesademia Sareini cnecessarya Taiwan ,for c Ch this,ag oands Co forn sdeterminingervation Tr uthest, degree d Jame ofs Cook complianceUniversity withAus tenvironmentalralia, e Naval Fleagislationcilities E andngineer BIOTing ordnances. 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. 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
48
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.
49
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 – 190,000 one per year. New imagery would add £128,000) Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using remote sensing (10 10,000 days x £1,000) Aerial monitoring of islands, reefs and other key habitats, plus erosion – using aerial photography12 10,000 (10 days x £1,000) Other environmental assessment: abundance of major ecosystems and species groups & 25,000 magnitude of coastal uses/pressures (25 days x £1,000) Detailed coral reef surveys (reef cover, species richness/biodiversity, algal cover, plus 100,000 sedimentation rates & turbidity 100 days x 1,000) 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 30,000 pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, antifouling paint residues) – 30 days x 1,000 Transport of 400 samples to lab. 25,000
Lab analysis of selected contaminants (e.g. nutrients, O2, faecal coliforms/biomarkers of sewage 300,000 pollution, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, antifouling paint residues) – 200 samples x 2 per year x 750 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.
50
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 3 Construction construction, (1) Environmental carrying capacity of reefs and island prior to resort construction; operation and (2) limiting solid structures (e.g. breakwaters, jetties, which restrict circulation and human/tourism can increase erosion); (3) minimising access routes from blasting reefs and sand; activities (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 1 Cost a major issue, but important that environmental issues not overlooked. energy Diesel generators likely to be main source of energy; fuel and overall efficiency of generation 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 1 Above remarks on power efficiency and solar power apply here also. Other energy beneficial energy-saving measures include: low-energy light bulbs, and electricity conservation 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 1 A range of measures should be in place for collection and use of rainwater. production Importance of minimising contamination of aquifers (see below). Missing significant items should lead to a marking down. 14
Method of water 1 One should look for several approaches: (1) use of recycled water (e.g. from conservation 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.
51
Item Scores Comments and guidance on mitigation Method of 1 At least 1ry and 2ry treatment and use of advanced technologies (e.g. Sequencing sewage Batch Reactor) is important; a related issue is the capacity and adequacy of septic treatment and tanks. One should also look for environmentally friendly ways of using sludge disposal (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 1 Mix of technologies is desirable. One would check for correct procedures, e.g. for waste collection burning (plastics can emit toxic substances) and dumping (should be far out to and disposal 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 1 Stated conservation measures should comply with national and international flora and fauna 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).
52
5.5 Environmental concerns in the 16 Maldives (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.
53
5.6 Island environment factors (Used for comparative evaluation of island options)
Diego Garcia Ile du Coin Boddam ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR Value (High, Units Value Units Value Units Certainty (e.g. Information sources Med, Low if (High, Med, (High, Med, H/M/L & notes) qualitative) Low if Low if qualitative) qualitative)
1. Carrying capacity, life support systems (self-sufficiency) Rainfall 2,599 mm/y mm/y 3,751 mm/y H/M Topp & Sheppard 3,999 (1999) Sustainable aquifer yield 2,350 m3/day m3/day 140 m3/day H; data for East Hunt (1997); Posford Point, DG; H/M Haskoning (2002), data for resident Phase 2; poplulation and not including any non-residential use (tourism, irrigation, fish processing etc.) 290 Soil quality & agro-forestry potential H M M Annex 5.7; Posford M Haskonig (2002) Coral reef fish abundance c. 1,200 kg/ha c. 9,000 kg/ha c. 4,000 H Graham et al. (2013) (total fish (total fish (total fish biomass), biomass, biomass, 600 7,900 3,000 (targeted (targeted (targeted fish fish fish biomass) biomass){Pe biomass){Sa ros Banhos) loman)
Food from local or external sources H/M H (transport) H Building materials from local or H/M H external sources H Previous human population size 200-619 individuals 60-346 individuals 89-219 individuals M Wenban-Smith (in (Peros (Saloman) press) Banhos)
2. Other natural assets and environmental significance Naturalness Med High High; but factor can Various; direct be applied in observation. High alternative ways. Scientific importance for research and Med High High Various monitoring High 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 Dunne (2014) altimetry measurements; tidal gauge data available only for Diego Garcia). Island size H M M H (but Annex 5.7 interpretation of information not straightforward, as noted in Final Report). 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 M H H General observations diving H Ecotourism value of island for land & H M M Various inshore recreation M
54
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
55
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
56
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.
57
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.
58
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
59
************************************************************************** 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.
60
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
61
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.
62
(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. **************************************************************************
63
(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.’
64
][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
65
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
66
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 & 6.3 6.9 6.6 7.8 maintenance costs Annual government revenue1 19 101 50 19 Est. annual operating + Maintenance 34 7 13 40 costs as a % of govt. revenue (%)
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
67
26.
Table 6.2.2: Indicative Life-cycle Costs of an Infrastructure Asset per $100 of Investment
20 year Rate Construct/Supp + Other Maintenance5 Stage (%) ly only ($) Up-front ($) ($) 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
68
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
69
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
70
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 Risk-Based Decision Making: ■ Improve standardisation, data access, safer and Build on safety management principles to and modelling integration smarter proactively address emerging safety risk by using ■ Enhance decision making process consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-level, risk-based decisions ■ Redefine oversight model for industry
Deliver benefits National Airspace System (NAS): ■ Focus to achieve the benefits of through Lay the foundation for the NAS of the future by NextGen technology and achieving prioritised NextGen benefits, integrating ■ Integrate new user entrants infrastructure new user entrants, and delivering more efficient, (unmanned aircraft and commercial streamlined services space) ■ Right-size the NAS
Enhance global Global Leadership: ■ Transform our internal structure leadership Improve safety, air traffic efficiency, and ■ Develop an integrated, data-driven environmental sustainability across the globe approach to international activities through an integrated, data-driven approach that shapes global standards, enhances collaboration ■ Ensure global interoperability of and harmonisation, and better targets FAA NextGen resources and efforts ■ Place international resources strategically
Empower and Workforce of the Future: ■ Leadership Development innovate with Prepare FAA’s human capital for the future, by ■ Skills Identification the FAA’s identifying, recruiting, and training a workforce people with the leadership, technical, and functional skills ■ Skills Development to ensure the U.S. has the world’s safest and ■ Attracting Talent most productive aviation sector
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/
71
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
72
Item Reference (See most recent version)
State Standards for Non-primary AC 150/5100-13 Airports
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 aggregate base course COURSES crushed aggregate base course
caliche base course
73
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 plant mix bituminous pavements COURSES
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 airport obstruction lights INSTALLATION
74
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.
75
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 $2,000 per linear foot and blast pavement.) 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.
76
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.
77
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, 2014; This appointment is by GADL International on http://www.theconstru US$368 Million behalf of GMR and MAHB consortium, which was ctionindex.co.uk/news/ (£229.9 Million) awarded the 25 year development and operating view/mott-macdonald- concession for the airport. The project includes the scoops-maldives- development of a new terminal, ancillary buildings and airport-role support facilities. and for views of the The expansion and modernisation of the airport will allow airport: it to cater for the projected future growth of air traffic as http://mauritius- to meet and maintain international safety standards. The airport.atol.aero/inside- expansion programme will make MIA the primary the-terminal/services 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. Mauritius, Plaine 1993-1998; Starter extension of 330m to existing 2600m http://www.gibbmauriti Magnien, runway to enable take-off of B747-400 aircraft. us.com/port_airport.ht MUR 380 Million m (£7.57 Million)
78
Location & Costs Date & Comments Reference(s) Madagascar, 10 2002; Technical Audit costs. airports, Euro 11 Million (£8.60 Million) Mahe, Seychelles, 2002-2004; Design, Build & Operate Consortium. MUR2.5 Billion (£49.77 Million) Rodrigues, Plaine 2000-2003; Aircraft Parking Apron, Taxiway, Runway Corail, MUR145 extension. Million (£2.89 Million) Panama, Rio Hato, 2013-14; This airport is being constructed in Rio Hato http://www.panamaqm (US$60-80 Million) where there currently exists a landing strip built by the agazine.com/2011_May (£37.5-50.0 Million). US armed forces. This spot was chosen based on a study /airport%20Rio%20Hat by the Andean Corporation for Promotion (CAF, acronym o.html in Spanish) which indicated that the existing landing strip would reduce the costs. The location is also quite close and update: to the tourism development cluster created by the new http://tropicaldaily.com/ hotels that have opened up in the area. panama/panamas-rio- Rio Hato airport will be able to serve 300 passenger hato-airport-nears- (arrivals and departures) and allow the landing of Boeing completion/ 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. NSW, Australia, 2014; Orange City Council is proposing a partnership http://www.orange.nsw Orange County between the State Government, the Federal Government .gov.au/site/index.cfm? Airport Expansion and the private sector. display=308357 (AUD18.9 Million) Federal funding worth $4.9 million was announced 6 (£10.3 Million) 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. Sri Lanka, … 2012; This project is intended to respond to the sharp rise http://www.jica.go.jp/e Bandaranaike in air passenger demand and enhance convenience and nglish/our_work/evaluat International Airport safety by expanding and improving passenger terminal ion/oda_loan/economic Development buildings and the aircraft parking apron, etc. of _cooperation/c8h0vm0 Project Phase 2; Bandaranaike International Airport. (NB: the total cost of 00001rdjt- JICA loan (28,969 the improvement will be 36,016 Million Japanese Yen). att/srilanka120328_01.p million yen) (£158.9 df Million)
79
Location & Costs Date & Comments Reference(s) Cape Verde, Praia 2013-2016; The project to expand and modernise the http://www.afdb.org/en Airport, (Euro 32.794 Praia Airport, whose initial construction was co-financed /documents/document/ Million) (£25.78 by ADB, has been designed based on a feasibility study cape-verde-praia- Million) completed in February 2013 and funded by the African airport-expansion-and- Development Bank and the Government. This project will modernisation-project- address the air transport demand, especially those needs pemap-appraisal-report- relating to economic activity and tourism. To address the 31741/ 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.
Note: The matter of an airport facility is also discussed in Annex 7.2 in connection with tourism opportunities and costs.
80
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, 4th 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
81
Table 6.4.1 Cargoes & Ships
Cargo Type Description Typical vessels General non-unitised (break Small consignments, requiring individual General Cargo (2000 –30,000 bulk) handling; labour demand high. DWT45) General unitised Pre-packaged small units (including sawn Container (150-4000 TEU) – timber) bundled into larger groups. approximately 70,000+ DWT. 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. Bulk Cargoes Dry (e.g. grain, mineral ores, timber, sugar) Bulk Cargo (specialised to the Liquid (e.g. vegetable oils, mineral oil, product carried) 20,000- petroleum products, liquid chemicals, approximately 60,000+ DWT liquefied petroleum gases LPG). Some hazardous and extremely flammable and require specialised storage and handling. Miscellaneous other Various: (e.g. specialised motor vehicle Various (including Ro for shorter carriers; refrigerated fisheries/other crossings) perishables).
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).
82
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, 4th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch. 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth Heinemann, pp26/9.
83
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/m2, 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, 4th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch. 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth Heinemann, pp26/12. 50 Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, 4th Edition, Ed L S Blake, 1998 et seq., Ch 26, Ports and Maritime Works, Butterworth Heinemann, pp26/1-16.
84
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 30 years of oil tendering, US NSF Wooden fenders in poor repair; overall pier (western arm) use & also BIOTA Fisheries Patrol structure, whilst significantly better Vessel berth. functionally than any ‘historic’ structures, requires considerable strengthening and refurbishment; needs cathodic anti-corrosion protection; and handrails should be installed51. DG Old Plantation Jetty 19 Century Copra production In complete disrepair – beyond remediation – (eastern arm) shipping & other passenger & cargo a complete re-build would be required. movements. Not in use. Ile du Coin, Peros Banhos 19 Century Copra production Original length approximately 180m – only shipping & other passenger & cargo remnants of jetty piles remain. Pier head movements. Not in use. 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 Poor jetty head, & approach 5m of solid yacht crews to land ashore (with ‘causeway’ in very poor condition. Substantial permit). 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.
85
Photo 1. DG Quay & Pacific Marlin berth zone
Photo 2. DG Jetty
86
Photo 3. DG Plantation Disused Jetty
Photo 4. Ile du Coin, (Peros Banhos) jetty – copra processing
87
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/
88
Table 6.4.3 Range of pier and jetty costs
Pier/Jetty features Capital53 & Operational Costs Comment & References DG US NSF. 30 year-old US$28.4 million allocated for wooden petroleum, oil and refurbishment 2014. lubricant pier requiring replacement of misc. structural elements and wooden fender system to accommodate Fuel Tankers. New deep-water harbour, £35.5 million capital costs; 2009-2010 The 10m deep quay is also required to Peterhead, Scotland, UK. most work undertaken. accommodate offshore energy and Suitable for deep-sea fishing cargo ships up to 160m in length. vessels typically 80m in Extensive mathematical and physical length. 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 £8.0 million capital costs; 2014 Includes a new 500m x 6.25m (with section pier, Stromness, completion. 2m hard shoulder) services road. Orkney, UK. Specified to Substantial tidal range. Some accommodate ships (up to conceptual similarities to BIOT, in that 3000 gross tonnes) with there was no pre-existing dock capable equipment to service the of handling ships to carry the potential offshore equipment required to undertake the renewables market. 8m build55. wide deck of approach pier.8.0M St Helena, OTD Approximate cost of wharf development 2014, OTD Eng. advice to KPMG £16 million. Monserrat, OTD Breakwater £52 million – 320metres long 2014, OTD Eng. advice to KPMG on – 6m contour. Dredging £6.5 million. Port – £21 million Various port buildings – £5.8 million N. W. Trinidad, US$0.5 million; Demolition of structure Designed to service the landing needs Chaguaramas, Unpermitted ordered by Chaguaramas Development of a party boat (Harbour Master) Pier 2 Jetty (short, Authority, monthly pier lease charges of registered in Barbados56. concrete), 2014. US$24.9, 000. Singapore, Bedok Jetty S$1.5 million capital cost; operational cost Now managed by ‘MinDef’57 (1966-present) (250m, unknown. concrete).
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/
89
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
90
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%
Share of II. Construction Cost Breakdown Average 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%
91
Share of II. Construction Cost Breakdown Average 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 1,100 STOREY ($550 M2) 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 1.0m2 window pane could be as high as US$6000 (BIOT DG per. Comm.)
92
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.
93
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, With a surface area of almost 2,500 acres, Vamizi is a Several of the first villas have Quirimbas tropical island which, so far, has had a minimum of already been completed, and archipelago, off coast development, mainly in the form of a five-star hotel – there is an optional rental of Northern the Vamizi Island Lodge, voted best beach property in scheme. Prices begin at Mozambique, Indian the Good Safari Guide 2011 Awards. £2.5million. Ocean www.vamiziprivatevillas.com
Mauritius Various 3-4 Bed & 3-4 Bath Luxury villas. US$2.0-3.5 million http://www.countrylife.co.uk/inte A 500-sq. m property in Port Louis can produce income rnational-property- from rent of around 6.17% per annum. The general sale/mauritius?buyOrLet=buy&a rule here is that the smaller the property, the lower the mp;orderby=price-high- yields. With a 200-sq. m property, the yield can go low&page=1 down to about 4.5%. Property prices are around US$700 to US$850 per sq. m. http://www.globalpropertyguide. com/Africa/Mauritius Maldives, Amaillarah 2012 plans for 43 floating islands and 200 villas which Approximately US$500M initial Island, Indian Ocean. will be moored to the seabed using cables, with a golf estimates. Five minutes by course(s) accessed by a tunnel on the seabed, with an http://www.dutchdocklands- speedboat from the underwater clubhouse. Possibility of islands being built maldives.com/ capital, Male. in India or Middle East and towed to the Maldives. Maldives, the North The Ocean Flower, is the first of five oceanfront http://www.dutchdocklands- Male atoll, 20 minutes developments in the Maldives. The Masterplan ‘The 5 maldives.com/The-Ocean- by boat from the Lagoons’ is being developed by Dutch Docklands Flower/Exclusive-experience- capital of Male and International in a joint venture with the government of Movie the international the Maldives. airport. Prices from US$1.4 million/plot. Maldives, Velaa Under construction, completion due by end 2014. Top- Rooms/villas US$1,900-$30,000 Private Island resort, end luxury resort. Velaa’s exclusive over-water villas per night. southern Noonu Atoll. resemble the head of a turtle with the island forming http://www.velaaprivateisland.co the body. m/ Maldives, Shangri-La Constructed 2007 – 2009 and comprises 142 villas of Reputed to cost US$150Million Villingili Resort and varying luxury with pools. to build. Spa, Addu Atoll. 70 http://www.shangri- minutes from Male 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
94
Island/Location Comments Prices & References Intl Airport by seaplane. Tetiaroa a collection 35 Villas, 200 staff & guests. Villas approximately €3,000 per of 12 motus, or islets, The atoll stretches on a total surface of 2.3 square night. protected by a coral miles (6 square km); approximately 1,445 acres http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3c6 reef, Society Islands, (585 hectares) of sand are divided in 12 motus (islets) ca6e-3da3-11e4-8797- French Polynesia, with varying surface areas. The lagoon is 00144feabdc0.html?siteedition= South Pacific ocean. approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) wide and 100 feet uk 50km off Tahiti (20 (30 meters) deep. The atoll has no reef opening, http://www.maxim.com/movies/l mins by air/turboprop) making access by boat nearly impossible. A biofuel ast-tango-brando-island thermal power station, uses coconut oil and there are banks of solar panels. Seawater air conditioning uses chilled seawater drawn up from 935m. Mark Zuckerberg, 700-acre piece of land on Kauai, the fourth largest of $100 million (£63 million). Kauai, Hawaiian the Hawaiian islands, purchased in 2014. Includes Island. pristine beaches, old sugar plantation buildings and land on which there are plans for an organic farm. Sir Richard Branson Purchased 74-acres for $180,000 (£113,000) in 1978 Sleeps 28 people in 10 rooms, Necker Island, British and, as a condition of sale, agreed to build a luxury and rents for $62,000 (£39,000) Virgin Islands. resort. Two private beaches, pools, tennis courts, and a day. team of 60 staff. Leonardo DiCaprio, Purchased 104 acre island in 2005. Planning to build an US$1.75million (£1.1M) Blackadore Caye, eco-friendly resort island near the barrier reef off the Belize. coast of Belize. Resort will be open to the public as an example of sustainable tourism, with eco-tours of the island. Jonny Depp, Little Purchased in 2004, 45 acres. The island has six approximately US$3.6 million Hall’s Pond, beaches and uses solar power for its energy supply. Bahamas. David Copperfield, 11 islands including the largest, Musha Cay, 85 miles £_unknown Musha Cay and the from Nassau in the Bahamas. Islands of Copperfied Bay, Bahamas. Celine Dion, Ile Situated on the Iles River, in state of Quebec in Ile Gagnon was put on the Gagnon, Quebec. Canada, 19-acre island bought in 2001. market for $29.6 Canadian dollars (£18.6) in 2012 but has yet to find a buyer. Ted Turner, St Phillips Bought in 1979, the 5,000-acre St Phillips Island has US$2.0 (£1.3M) Island, South Carolina. two miles of beaches, maritime forests and lagoons. Mel Gibson, Mago Purchased 2005. At 8.5 square miles, Mago is one of Bought for US$15M (£9.4M) Island, Fiji. the largest private islands in the South Pacific. from a Japanese company.
Eddie Murphy, Purchased 15 acre island situated five minutes off the $15 million (£9.4 million) Rooster Cay, coast Nassau in 2007. Bahamas Larry Ellison, Since 2012, 98 per cent of Lana’i, the sixth largest of Ellison is said to have paid Lana'i, Hawaii, the Hawaiian islands at 140.5 square miles, has been between $500 million (£314 owned by Larry Ellison, the head of Oracle. Also million) and $600 million (£377 known as Pineapple Island. million) for it and is planning to invest another $500 to improve its infrastructure .
95
Island/Location Comments Prices & References Athina Kennedy, Attempt to sell island for $300 Scorpios, Greece 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 25,992 24,137 21,487 17,865 hours
Junior Intermediate Senior Promulgated hourly rate 5.64 7.84 10.31 Annual standard earnings excluding all 9,773 13,585 17,865 holidays 45.8 weeks x 38 hours Employers' national insurance 612 1,102 1,652 contributions Annual holiday credit and welfare stamp 1,878 2,530 3,163 52 weeks
96
Annual prime cost of labour 12,306 17,276 22,759
Hourly base rate of prime cost 7.10 9.97 13.13
97
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)
Energy Use Per Capita 8,000 7,032 7,000
6,000 5,113 5,000
3,811 3,868 4,000 3,610 2,997 3,000 2,757 2,029 2,000 1,371 721 857 1,000 482 614 205 0
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
98
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
Sub-categories by:
Technology family 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 Distance from shore Medium (100-50 million W) OFTO regime) Large (500-1000 million W) Very Water depth large (greater than 1000 million W) 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 Solar intensity levels (north/south variation); Micro (less than 50,000 W) (photovoltaics) 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. Micro (less than 50,000 W) forestry residues) Waste wood
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,
99
Sub-categories by:
Technology family Technological/fuel/geography/resource Installed capacity (Solid) Perennial energy crops (e.g. SRC willow, Small (50,000 W-5 million W) miscanthus) Medium (5-50 million W) Large (50- Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (including a 100 million W) Very large (greater proportion of Commercial and Industrial waste) 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 Micro (less than 50,000 W) Feedstock: food waste; whole food crops (with Small (50,000 W-5 million W) sustainability levels); manures and slurries Medium (5-10 million W) Large (assumptions on various levels of energy crops (greater than 10 million W) use will be provided) Landfill gas Dedicated Diesel generator versus steam boiler Micro (less than 50,000 W) Bioliquids Conversion existing diesel generator versus Small (50,000 W-5 million W) new build 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 Standard gasification Micro (less than 50,000 W) Technologies Small (50,000 W-5 million W) Advanced gasification Medium (5-10 million W) Large Standard pyrolysis (greater than 10 million W) Advanced pyrolysis Co-firing of biomass Up to 4% biomass by energy content; 4-20%; and fossil fuel (retrofit 20%+ onto existing fossil Full conversion of existing fossil fuelled fuel capacity) generation to dedicated biomass. Fuel: Gas vs Coal; biomass fuel type including torrification/pre-treatment of biomass Renewable Combined All biomass/bioliquid technologies listed plus Micro (less than 50,000 W) Heat and Power (CHP) geothermal/geopressure Small (50,000 W-5 million W) Medium (5-50 million W) Waste combustion with combined heat and power (RO definition) Large (50-100 million W) Very large (greater than 100 million Co-firing with CHP, separate boilers W) 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
100
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
101
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.,
102
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
103
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 storage91.
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
104
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
105
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.
106
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 20th, 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
107
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.
108
■ 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.
109
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.
110
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 31st 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).
111
■ 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.
Fish Catches – Reported (tonnes) Days in Fishing BIOT Man Days Great Average Licences Waters Fishing Chagos Other Catch Year (nos.) (days) (days) Bank Banks Unknown Total (kg/man/day) 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.
112
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.
Area by Depth (km²) Estimated Annual Sustainable Yield (tonnes p.a.) less than 70m 70 – 150m Location less than (code) 70m 70 – 150m Total 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 1,343 25 1,368 134.3 225.6 295.5 17.9 34.4 NEL 1,181 40 1,221 118.1 198.4 259.8 28.6 55.0 SCH 1,181 23 1,204 118.1 198.4 259.8 16.5 31.6 SEC 895 15 910 89.5 150.4 196.9 10.7 20.6 WCH 662 30 92 66.2 111.2 145.6 21.5 41.3 ECH 445 57 502 44.5 74.8 97.9 40.8 78.4 CH1 262 262 26.2 44.0 57.6 CH2 75 75 7.5 12.6 16.5 Sub-total 6,044 190 6,234 604 1,015 1,330 136 261 Other Banks (OB) PIT 1,296 49 1,345 129.6 217.7 285.1 35.1 67.4 SPK 562 27 589 56.2 94.4 123.6 19.3 37.1 PBA 442 25 467 44.2 74.3 97.2 17.9 34.4 CAU 56 7 63 5.6 9.4 12.3 5.0 9.6 EGM 48 6 54 4.8 8.1 10.6 4.3 8.3 BLE 42 7 49 4.2 7.1 9.2 5.0 9.6 CEN 29 6 35 2.9 4.9 6.4 4.3 8.3 VIC 21 5 26 2.1 3.5 4.6 3.6 6.9 SAL 17 7 24 1.7 2.9 3.7 5.0 9.6 GAN 16 4 20 1.6 2.7 3.5 2.9 5.5 COL 14 6 20 1.4 2.4 3.1 4.3 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 EGM Egmont Islands SAL Salomon Islands CAU Cauvin Bank GAN Ganges Bank SCH South Great Chagos Bank CEN Centurion Bank NCH North Great Chagos Bank SEC Southeast Great Chagos CH1 Central Great Chagos Bank 1 NEL Nelson Island Bank CH2 Central Great Chagos Bank 2 PBA Peros Banhos SPK Speakers Bank COL Colvocorresses Reef PIT Pitt Bank VIC Victory Bank ECH Eastern Great Chagos Bank WCH West Great Chagos Bank
113
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.
Catch as % of Sustainable Reported Catch (tonnes) Yield Location and code Banks Drop-off Total Banks Drop-off Total Great Chagos Bank NCH 67.5 2.1 69.6 50.3% 11.7% 45.7% NEL 53.7 1.1 54.8 45.5% 3.8% 37.4% SCH 2.5 1.6 4.1 2.1% 9.7% 3.0% SEC 6.7 3.7 10.4 7.4% 35.0% 10.4% WCH 16.0 2.6 18.6 24.2% 12.1% 21.2% ECH 5.2 2.3 7.5 11.6% 5.7% 8.8% CH 1 4.8 0.7 5.5 18.3% n.a. 21.0% CH 2 5.3 2.1 7.4 70.1% n.a. 98.7% Sub-total – Great Chagos Bank 161.6 16.3 177.9 26.7% 12.0% 24.0% Other Banks PIT 3.7 0.8 4.5 2.8% 2.3% 2.7% SPK 42.9 42.9 76.3% 56.8% PBA 49.8 49.8 112.7% 80.2% CAU 0.9 2.1 3.0 16.6% 41.4% 28.3% EGM BLE 1.7 0.9 2.6 40.9% 17.7% 28.3% CEN 1.5 0.9 2.4 53.0% 20.1% 33.3% VIC 3.4 3.4 161.9% 59.6%
114
Catch as % of Sustainable Reported Catch (tonnes) Yield Location and code 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.
Catch as % of Sustainable Reported Catch (tonnes) Yield Location Banks Drop-off Total Banks Drop-off Total Great Chagos Bank NCH 67.5 2.1 69.6 22.8% 6.1% 21.1% NEL 53.7 1.1 54.8 20.7% 2.0% 17.4% SCH 2.5 1.6 4.1 1.0% 5.1% 1.4% SEC 6.7 3.7 10.4 3.4% 18.2% 4.8% WCH 16.0 2.6 18.6 11.0% 6.3% 10.0% ECH 5.2 2.3 7.5 5.3% 3.0% 4.3% CH 1 4.8 0.7 5.5 8.3% 9.5% CH 2 5.3 2.1 7.4 31.8% 44.8% Sub-total – Great Chagos Bank 161.6 16.3 177.9 12.2% 6.2% 11.2% Other Banks PIT 3.7 0.8 4.5 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% SPK 42.9 42.9 34.7% 26.7% PBA 49.8 49.8 51.2% 37.8% CAU 0.9 2.1 3.0 7.6% 21.6% 13.7% EGM BLE 1.7 0.9 2.6 18.7% 9.2% 13.8% CEN 1.5 0.9 2.4 24.0% 10.4% 16.3% VIC 3.4 3.4 73.9% 29.6% SAL GAN COL 2.5 2.5 80.6% 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.
115
■ 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 km² 141.2 442 17 depth) km² 14.6 25 7 Drop-Off (70-150m depth) Total – Area km² 155.8 467 24 Low Sustainable Yield Banks tonnes per year 14.12 44.2 1.7 Drop-Off tonnes per year 10.45 17.9 5.0 Total – Low Sustainable tonnes per 24.57 62.1 6.7 Yield year High Sustainable Yield Banks tonnes per year 31.06 97.2 3.7 Drop-Off tonnes per year 20.07 34.4 9.6 Total – High Sustainable tonnes per 51.13 131.6 13.3 Yield year
Source: Tables 4.2 and 4.6
116
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
117
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
Mako Ocean Master Landing Craft Total Trips Persons Catch Trips Persons Catch Trips Persons Catch Trips Persons Catch Year (nos.) (nos.) (tonnes) (nos.) (nos.) (tonnes) (nos.) (nos.) (tonnes) (nos.) (nos.) (tonnes) 2007 647 2,181 3.8 803 2,665 27.7 118 1,383 4.7 1,568 6,239 36.1 2008 654 2,245 3.0 683 2,758 28.0 87 1,238 3.4 1,424 6,241 34.4 2009 630 2,132 4.9 792 3,598 40.0 39 506 1.3 1,481 6,236 46.2 2010 508 1,649 4.9 884 3,229 35.7 47 731 1.8 1,439 5,609 42.5 2011 402 1,317 3.4 547 1,964 26.1 27 420 1.4 976 3,701 30.8 2012 677 2,292 6.1 376 1,470 10.9 122 894 4.1 1,175 4,656 21.1
Source: Appendix A, Table 6.
118
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
Low Yield Estimate High Yield Estimate Depth Area (km²) Yield (t/km²) Total (tonnes p.a.) Yield (t/km²) Total (tonnes p.a.) greater than 70 metres 141.2 0.1 14.12 0.22 31.06 70 to 150 14.6 0.716 10.45 1.375 20.07 metres 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.
119
Table 7.1.7 BIOT – Strict Nature Reserves (since November 1998)
Location Area (km²) IUCN Category Cow Island 112.7 II Danger Island 133.0 II Eastern Peros Banhos 822.9 II Nelson Island 118.9 II Three Brothers and Resurgent Island 186.9 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.
120
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
Vessels Licences Days Fished Total Catch Licence Fees Year (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (tonnes) (£ 000) Longline 1999/00 49 62 1,661 1,939 342 2000/01 64 91 2,052 1,828 349 2001/02 36 49 901 1,034 316 2002/03 37 51 1,379 1,467 267 2003/04 38 54 1,060 1,162 286 2004/05 32 52 624 730 258 2005/06 24 27 1,207 916 163 2006/07 26 34 1,147 590 170 2007/08 41 75 1,508 1,366 350 2008/09 22 26 571 371 132 2009/10 33 57 2,379 1,503 431 Purse Seine 1999/00 17 19 122 3,145 357 2000/01 48 48 109 1,064 427 2001/02 50 50 379 5,795 537 2002/03 54 54 62 722 350 2003/04 52 53 104 1,320 250 2004/05 52 56 991 23,515 425 2005/06 54 56 394 13,865 527 2006/07 52 53 27 95 671 2007/08 54 57 1,294 23,418 681 2008/09 43 45 424 14,962 643 2009/10 36 37 293 5,255 463 Total 1999/00 66 81 1,783 5,084 699 2000/01 112 139 2,161 2,892 866 2001/02 86 99 1,280 6,829 853 2002/03 89 105 1,441 2,189 617 2003/04 90 107 1,164 2,482 536 2004/05 84 108 1,615 24,265 683 2005/06 78 83 1,601 14,781 689 2006/07 78 87 1,174 685 842 2007/08 95 132 2,802 24,784 1,030 2008/09 65 71 995 15,333 775 2009/10 69 94 2,672 6,758 894
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.
121
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 984.4 67.6% British Operations Patrols 338.0 23.2% BIOTA: Projects 4.0 0.3% Tasking 129.2 8.9% Sub-total – Main Activities 1,455.6 100.0% Shared Activities Crew Changes, etc. 229.4 Miscellaneous 69.0 Maintenance 28.0 Bunkers 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
122
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)
Scenario 1 – Total Figures Scenario 2 – Adjusted Figures Year Income Expenditure Surplus/Deficit Income Expenditure Surplus/Deficit 1993/94 2,008 201 1,798 2,008 142 1,866 1994/95 2,613 757 1,856 2,613 511 2,101 1995/96 1,406 921 485 1,406 622 783 1996/97 2,280 1,036 1,244 2,280 700 1,579 1997/98 1,539 1,373 166 1,539 928 611 1998/99 2,197 1,105 1,093 2,197 747 1,450 1999/00 699 1,710 (1,011) 699 1,156 (457) 2000/01 866 1,560 (694) 866 1,054 (188) 2001/02 853 1,438 (586) 853 972 (120) 2002/03 617 1,624 (1,008) 617 1,098 (481) 2003/04 536 1,947 (1,410) 536 1,316 (780) 2004/05 683 1,900 (1,217) 683 1,284 (602) 2005/06 689 1,885 (1,196) 689 1,274 (585) 2006/07 848 1,667 (819) 848 1,127 (279) 2007/08 1,031 1,633 (602) 1,031 1,104 (73) 2008/09 775 1,790 (1,015) 775 1,210 (435) 2009/10 896 1,658 (762) 896 1,121 (225) 2010/11 nil 2,110 (2,110) nil 1,427 (1,427) 2011/12 nil 2,224 (2,224) nil 1,503 (1,503) 2012/13 nil 2,461 (2,461) nil 1,664 (1,664) 2013/14 nil 2,642 (2,642) nil 1,786 (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.
123
■ 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)
Values (£ 000) Distribution (%) 1996/97 to 2010/11 to Total 1996/97 to 2010/11 to Total Component 2009/10 2013/14 2009/10 2013/14 Total figures Income Fishing Licences Longline 4.0 nil 4.0 28% nil 28% Purse Seine 10.5 nil 10.5 72% nil 72% Total – Income 14.5 Nil 14.5 100% Nil 100% Expenditure Patrol Vessel 16.3 8.5 24.8 73% 90% 78% Administration 6.0 0.9 6.9 27% 10% 22% Total – 22.3 9.4 31.7 100% 100% 100% Expenditure Surplus (Deficit) (7.8) (9.4) (17.2) Adjusted figures Income Fishing Licences Longline 4.0 nil 4.0 28% nil 28% Purse Seine 10.5 nil 10.5 72% nil 72% Total – Income 14.5 Nil 14.5 100% Nil 100% Expenditure Patrol Vessel 11.0 5.8 16.8 73% 90% 78% Administration 4.1 0.6 4.7 27% 10% 22% Total – 15.1 6.4 21.5 100% 100% 100% Expenditure 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).
124
■ 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
Subsistence – Fish Catch (tonnes p.a.) Fish Consumption Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (kg per capita) Population 1,500 Population 500 Population 150 50 kg 75 25 8 75 kg 113 38 11 100 kg 150 50 15
Source: Study estimates.
125
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 Sustainable Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Location (1) Yield (tpa) Population 1,500 Population 500 Population 150 Diego Garcia Minimum 24.6 > sustainable yield > sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Maximum 51.1 > sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Peros Banhos Minimum 62.1 > sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Maximum 131.6 Within sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Within sustainable yield Salomon Minimum 6.7 > sustainable yield > sustainable yield > sustainable yield Maximum 13.3 > 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);
126
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.
127
Table 7.1.14 Fishing Boats – General Dimensions and Indicative Costs
General Dimensions Indicative Costs (£ 000) Boat Type 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 4.8 1.8 20 793 (2) 8.0 (3) 6 14 Pro 17 Skiff CC 5.3 2.0 20 839 (2) 8.9 (3) 7 15.9 18 LTS 5.6 2.3 28 1,315 (2) 13.9 (3) 7.5 21.4 21 LTS 6.4 2.5 30 1,501 (2) 21.0 (3) 9 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
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Component Unit Population 1,500 Population 500 Population 150 Fish Consumption (based on 100kg per capita/year) Annual Requirement tonnes per year 113 tonnes 38 tonnes 11 tonnes Daily Requirement kg per day 310 kg 105 kg 30 kg Fish Catch and Fishing Boats required Average Catch per Boat kg per day 30 kg 30 kg 30 kg Fishing Boats Required Basic nos. 11 nos. 4 nos. 2 nos. Standbys (20%) nos. 2 nos. 1 nos. 1 nos. Total nos. 13 nos. 5 nos. 3 nos. Capital Costs – indicative £ 000 91 to 117 35 to 45 21 to 27 Dory type fishing boats £ 000 18 to 23 7 to 9 4 to 5 Fishing Equipment (1) £ 000 18 to 23 7 to 9 4 to 5 Chest Freezers (1) Total £ 000 127 to 163 49 to 63 29 to 37 Contingencies (20%) £ 000 25 to 33 10 to 13 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.
128
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-
129
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
Unit Cost Total Indicative Cost Fisheries (£ 000/month) (1) Months (£ 000) Artisanal Fishing Commercial Fishing 20 3 60 20 2 40 Environmental Fisheries Protection & 20 2 40 Conservation 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.
130
■ Transport and market access to supply the requirements of NSFDG & future tourism developments
131
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 km² 2,235 300 1,969 456 EEZ km² million n.a. 0.86 1.9 1.3 Population 000 718 338 1,240 92 Pop. Growth rate % p.a. 2.4% 1.9% 0.4% 0.6% Pop. Density per km² 321 1,128 630 202 GDP US$ million 616 2,606 11,452 1,031 GDP growth % p.a. 2.5% 13.5% 3.2% 2.8% GDP per capita US$ p.a. 858 7,700 9,238 11,164 Labour force participation Male % 80% 77% 74% n.a. Female % 35% 56% 44% n.a. Trade balance Exports US$ million 12.6 161.6 2,257.7 326.6 Imports US$ million 181.5 1,554.5 5,772.0 986.4 Balance US$ million -168.9 -1,392.9 -3,514.3 -659.8 Fisheries – 2011 figures Production tonnes 000 25.1 94.9 8.4 87.4 Non-Food Uses tonnes 000 9.0 27.0 29.9 Imports tonnes 000 1.6 2.2 162.0 51.6 Exports tonnes 000 53.1 114.9 103.6
132
Indicator Unit Comoros Maldives Mauritius Seychelles Total Food Supply tonnes 000 17.7 54.4 28.4 5.5 Per Capita Supply kg 25.2 164 23.0 59.3 Other Fisheries Data GDP contribution % 50% 6% 1% to 2% 10% to 15% Employment (agric.+fisheries) All Fishery Activities 000 or % of total 24 14 (11%) 11 15% Artisanal Fishery 000 8.5 n.a. 2.3 n.a. Artisanal Fish Catch Tonnes 000 p.a. n.a. 4 to 5 n.a. 4 to 5 Local Fish Prices US$ per kg n.a. 4 to 5 4 to 5.5 2 to 4 Sport Fishing yes/no n.a. yes yes (400 tpa) 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
Kiribat Marshal Micro- Indicator Unit Fiji i l Is. nesia Nauru Niue Palau Samoa Tonga Tuvalu General (year 2012) Surface area km² 18,272 726 181 702 21 260 459 2,842 747 26 EEZ Km² mil. 1.29 3.55 2.13 2.98 0.43 0.39 0.63 0.13 0.7 0.9 Population 000 875 101 53 103 10 1 21 189 105 10 Pop. Growth rate % p.a. 0.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% (2.9)% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% Pop. Density per km² 48 139 290 147 478 5 45 66 140 379 GDP US$ mil. 3,999 176 198 327 121 n.a. 213 681 465 40 GDP growth % p.a. 1.5% 3.0% 1.9% 1.4% 20.2% n.a. (2.5)% 0.8% 0.9% 2.6% GDP per capita US$ p.a. 4,572 1,745 3,773 3,165 12,022 n.a. 10,271 3,607 4,429 4,042 Lab. force part. Male % 72% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 54% 75% n.a. Female % 37% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 23% 53% n.a. Trade balance Exports US$ mil. 1,221 5.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 76.1 15.6 n.a. Imports US$ mil. 2,253 108.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 141.9 345.5 199.2 26.5 Balance US$ mil. (1,032) (102.8) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (132.9) (269.4) (183.6) n.a. Fisheries – 2011 Production t 000 41.6 40.6 46.2 30.9 0.2 0.1 1.0 11.5 2.1 11.1 Non-Food Uses t 000 3.0 21.4 3.1 6.1 7.2 5.9 Imports t 000 47.9 1.1 1.0 2.3 0.4 5.7 1.8 0.1 Exports t 000 57.7 13.1 45.5 22.1 0.2 1.9 0.8 4.9 Total Food Supply t 000 29.4 7.3 0.9 5.0 0.2 0.1 1.2 8.9 3.2 0.4 Per Capita Supply kg 33.8 74.1 17.7 48.7 20.0 113.0 55.9 47.5 30.5 43.3 Other Fisheries Data % 2% 9% 27% 14% 10% 4% 6% 6% 4% 25% GDP contribution Employment 000 or % 9 (4%) n.a. 6% 5% 4.5 1% 9% 43% 3%+ n.a. All Fish Activities 000 or % 5.1 40% 3% n.a. n.a. n.a. 7% 42% n.a. most Artisanal Fishery T 000 p.a. 17 14 3 10 0.2/0.4 0.1 1.3 4.5 2.8 1 Artisanal Fish Catch US$/kg 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 2.5/3.5 5 to 6 3 to 4 4 to 5 3 to 4 3 to 4 Local Fish Prices yes/no Yes yes yes Yes yes some yes some yes some Sport Fishing
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.
133
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 km² 90 12,000 104 122 948 EEZ km² 000 92 551 7.6 445 154 Population 000 13.4 2.9 5.0 4.1 31.5 Pop. Growth rate % p.a. 2.9% 0.1% 0.5% 1% 3.5% Pop. Density per km² 150 0.2 47 34 33 GDP £ million 177 100 39 16 (2009) 490 (2009) GDP growth % p.a. (2.9)% n.a. (0.7)% (8)% (10.5)% GDP per capita £ p.a. 13,200 34,000 7,900 4,000 (2009) 14,300 (2009) Employment Total nos. 6,500 1,723 n.a. 2,819 (2009) 20,700 (2007) % of population % 49% 59% n.a. 68% (2009) 59% (2007) Trade balance Exports £ million 4.4 n.a. 1.2 0.9 10 (2010) Imports £ million 91.2 n.a. 23.0 13.0 186 (2010) Balance £ million (86.8) n.a. (21.8) (12.1) (176) (2010) Fisheries (2011) Production t 000 0.7 99.6 0.02 0.9 5.4 Non-Food Uses t 000 0.2 4.6 Imports t 000 0.1 0.1 … 1.1 Exports t 000 99.6 0.7 0.4
Total Food Supply t 000 0.7 0.1 0.12 0.2 1.5 Per Capita Supply kg 50.1 36.9 25.8 51.1 45.9 Other Fisheries Data GDP contribution % 2% 50% to 60% 0.3% n.a. 0.4% (2009) Employment All Fish Activities 000 or % 3% 3.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. Artisanal Fishery 000 or % n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Artisanal Fish Catch T 000 p.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Local Fish Prices £/kg n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 to 2.5 n.a. Sport Fishing yes/no yes n.a. n.a. some 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.
134
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:
135
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
136
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
Arrivals (000) Accommodation (nos.) Indicators Tourism Pop. Tourism Av. Stay Occupanc Expenditure Island (000) as % GDP Stayover By Air Hotels, etc. Rooms (days) y (%) (US$ million) Indian Ocean Comoros 718 6% 15 15 51 (1) 311 (1) 7.0 n.a. 39 Maldives 338 28% 958 958 354 14,060 6.7 71% 1,898 Mauritius 1,240 16% 965 948 117 12,527 9.4 62% 1,778 Seychelles 92 40% (1) 208 207 225 3,100 9.8 60% 26 (?) Pacific Ocean Fiji 875 36% 661 642 167 10,136 9.6 47% 987 Kiribati 101 10% 5 5 38 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Marshall Is. 53 n.a. 5 5 17 n.a. 4.9 (1) n.a. 4 (1) Niue 1 n.a. 6 6 27 71 (2) 8.5 (2) n.a. 2 (1) Palau 21 60% 119 119 40 1,419 n.a. n.a. 164 Samoa 189 25% 126 132 107 1,512 (2) n.a. n.a. 148 Tonga 105 6% 49 49 100 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 41 Tuvalu 10 n.a. 1 1 6 n.a. n.a. n.a. Overseas Terr. Anguilla 13.4 40% 65 15 50 n.a. 7.7 n.a. 113 Falklands 2.9 n.a. 1 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Montserrat 5.0 9% 7 5 9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 5 St Helena 4.1 4% (3) 1 none 7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. TCI 31.5 35% (3) 299 n.a. 73 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Notes: (1) 2011; (2) 2010; and (3) 2009. Source: Appendix A, Tables 1, 2 and 3.
137
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
Figures for 2012 Airport Characteristics Tourist Population Arrivals by Island (000) Air (000) Nos. Runway (m) Surface Aircraft Type International Indian Ocean Comoros 718 15 1 2,900 paved B737 & B767 Maldives 338 958 4 1,800 to 3,200 paved A320 & B747 Mauritius 1,240 948 1 3,370 paved B767 & A320 Seychelles 92 207 1 2,987 paved B767 & A320 Pacific Ocean Fiji 875 642 2 1,868 & 3,273 paved B737 & B747 Kiribati 101 5 2 2,011 & 2,103 paved B737 & ATR 72 Marshall 53 5 1 2,407 paved A320 & B737 Islands 10 n.a. 1 2,150 paved B737 Nauru 1 4 1 2,335 paved A320 & B737 Niue 21 119 1 2,195 paved A320 & B737 Palau 189 132 1 3,000 paved A320 & B737 Samoa 105 49 1 2,681 paved B767 Tonga 10 1 1 1,524 paved B737 & ATR 42 Tuvalu
138
Figures for 2012 Airport Characteristics Tourist Population Arrivals by Island (000) Air (000) Nos. Runway (m) Surface Aircraft Type Overseas Terr. Anguilla 13.4 15 1 1,665 paved ATR 42 & 72 Falklands 2.9 2 2 918 & 2,590 paved B747 Montserrat 5.0 5 1 553 paved Britten Norman Isl. St Helena 4.1 nil none n.a. n.a. n.a. TCI 31.5 299 2 1,939 & 2,807 paved B757 & A321 Domestic Indian Ocean Comoros 718 15 3 1,300 to 1,355 paved BAe 146 & Emb 120 Maldives 338 958 6 1,189 to 1,250 paved DHC-6 & ATR 42 Mauritius 1,240 948 1 1,030 paved ATR-42 & 72 Seychelles 92 207 14 478 to 1,405 paved & grass DHC-6 Twin Otter Pacific Ocean Fiji 875 642 27 762 to 1,000 gravel & paved ATR 42 Kiribati 101 5 21 885 to 1,899 gravel & paved DHC-6 Twin Otter Marshall 53 5 31 747 to 1,524 grass, gr. & DHC 6 & Dornier Islands 10 n.a. none n.a. paved 228 Nauru 1 4 none n.a. n.a. n.a. Niue 21 119 2 1,828 & 2,133 n.a. n.a. Palau 189 132 4 670 & others gravel & paved Britten Norman Is. Samoa 105 49 5 685 to 1,705 paved & others DHC 6, BNI & Tonga 10 1 2 abandoned gravel & paved Cessna Tuvalu n.a. Jetstream 32 n.a. Overseas Terr. Anguilla 13.4 15 none none none none Falklands 2.9 2 28 n.a. airstrips n.a. Montserrat 5.0 5 none none none none St Helena 4.1 nil none none none none TCI 31.5 299 6 750 to 1,826 paved 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.
139
■ 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).
140
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
Actual (million) Forecasts (million) Growth Rates (% p.a.) Region 1980 1995 2010 2020 2030 1980-95 1995-10 2010-20 2020-30 East Africa (1) 1.2 5.0 12.1 22 37 10.1% 6.1% 6.2% 5.4% Southern Africa (2) 1.0 4.3 12.6 20 29 10.1% 7.4% 4.5% 4.1% South Asia (3) 2.2 4.2 11.1 21 36 4.3% 6.6% 6.8% 5.3% Oceania (4) 2.3 8.1 11.6 15 19 8.7% 2.4% 2.9% 2.0% Caribbean (5) 6.7 14.0 20.1 25 30 5.0% 2.4% 2.4% 1.7% World Advanced 194 334 498 643 772 3.7% 2.7% 2.6% 1.8% Economies Emerging 83 193 442 717 1,037 5.8% 5.7% 4.9% 3.8% Economies 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.
141
Table 7.2.4 WTTC – Island Forecasts: Tourism Contribution to GDP, Employment and Tourist Expenditure 2014 to 2024
Forecast Growth Rates in Tourism Contribution (% p.a.) Island GDP Employment Visitor Expenditure Indian Ocean Comoros 3.5% p.a. 3.0% p.a. 3.0% p.a. Maldives 4.2% p.a. 1.8% p.a. 4.4% p.a. Mauritius 4.4% p.a. 2.5% p.a. 4.7% p.a. Seychelles 4.3% p.a. 1.8% p.a. 4.4% p.a. Pacific Ocean Fiji 5.1% p.a. 3.3% p.a. 5.4% p.a. Kiribati 3.0% p.a. 2.5% p.a. 5.1% p.a. Tonga 5.2% p.a. 3.2% 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).
142
Table 7.2.5 Howell Report – Estimated Costs for Tourism Development and Air Access
Cost Estimates Component (£ million) (1) Stated Sources Capital Cost Estimates Tourism Development – 50 chalet 25.0 Two property development companies in hotel Mauritius Air Access 4.0 Civil engineers in South Africa Total – Capital Costs 29.0 Annual O&M Cost Estimates Tourism Development – 50 chalet 5.0 Companies engaged in resort development hotel not given Air Access 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
Estimates Component (£ million p.a.) (1) Remarks Annual Income 7.5 Based on 65% occupancy, equates to av. rates of Predicted Income £630 per chalet/day Annual Expenditure 5.0 Total estimate with 150 staff O&M Expenditure 0.75 to 1.0 Implies salaries/wages of £7,140 to £9,500, or of which: £150 to £200 per week 105 Chagossians (70% of total staff of 150) 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.
143
■ 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
144
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)
145
– ‘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.
146
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 1. Existence of major military facility on Diego 2. Small and exclusive islands, uninhabited for Garcia more than 40 years 2. Restrictions imposed by Marine Protected Area 3. Marine Protected Area (MPA), currently one of (MPA) the largest in world 3. Unknown age profile, skills and experience of 4. Unique marine environment, with extensive potential returning Chagossians atolls and lagoons 4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure 5. Limited human development 5. High development costs for small population 6. High demand for prestige & select tourism 6. Problem of access to airfield and port facilities developments on Diego Garcia 7. Prospect of employment opportunities for 7. High costs of sea defences returning Chagossians 8. Divided opinions between advocates of resettlement and environmental conservation/protection
147
Opportunities Threats 1. Opportunity to partner with responsible private 1. Sea level rise and danger of increased erosion tourism developers with proven ‘track record’ and flooding in environmental conservation and protection 2. Danger of seismic events in East Indian Ocean – 2. Opportunity to negotiate partnership use and causing threat to low lying islands access to airfield and port facilities on Diego 3. Adverse impact of general climate change to Garcia low lying islands 3. Opportunities for further tourism development: 4. Tourism and parallel developments may cause re: Maldives model incremental and long-term environmental 4. Improved transport economies of scale with damage, diminishing the global significance of further tourism development the BIOT MPA 5. Opportunity to promote two-island holidays, 5. Risk that resettled Chagossians may not wish to similar to those combining Sri Lanka and the remain on the islands, especially the younger Maldives generation 6. Opportunity to train Chagossians with 6. Risk that resettled Chagossians will become appropriate skills prior to return to the islands 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
148
■ 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.
149
Table 7.2.8 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Capital Costs (2014 constant prices)
US$ million £ million (1) Component 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms Main resort construction Upper estimate 30.0 36.0 42.0 18.5 22.2 25.9 Lower estimate 26.0 31.0 36.0 16.0 19.1 22.2 Fixtures, fittings & equipment 4.5 5.4 6.2 2.8 3.3 3.8 Landing & jetty facilities 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.8 0.8 0.8 Site, design, EIA & constr. supervision (2) Upper estimate 40.3 48.1 55.8 24.8 29.7 34.4 Lower estimate 35.7 42.9 48.9 22.0 26.1 30.2 Total – Base Cost Estimates Upper estimate 40.3 48.1 55.8 24.8 29.7 34.4 Lower estimate 35.7 42.9 48.9 22.0 26.1 30.2 Physical contingencies (3) Upper estimate 4.0 4.8 5.6 2.5 3.0 3.4 Lower estimate 3.6 4.2 4.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 Total – Cost Estimate Upper estimate 44.3 52.9 61.3 27.3 32.6 37.9 Lower estimate 39.2 46.5 53.7 24.2 28.7 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.
150
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
Employees (nos.) US$ million £ million(1) Av. Salary Staff Category 30 r. 40 r. 50 r. US$ 000 p.a. 30 r. 40 r. 50 r. 30 r. 40 r. 50 r. Senior 8 8 8 65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 Management 12 12 12 23 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Middle Admin. (2) 84 112 140 12 1.0 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.8 1.0 All Other Staff 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)
US$ million £ million (1) Component 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms Salaries & wages 1.8 2.1 2.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 Maintenance 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 Other Operating Costs 1.1 1.5 1.9 0.7 0.9 1.2 Supplies and Materials 1.7 2.3 2.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 Environmental Monitoring 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 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.
151
Table 7.2.11 High-End Tourist Resort – Indicative Financial Internal Rates of Return
Resort Size Component Unit 30 rooms 40 rooms 50 rooms Indicative Capital Cost US$ million Upper capex estimate US$ million 44.3 52.9 61.3 Lower capex estimate US$ million 39.2 46.5 53.7 £ million Upper capex estimate £ million 27.3 32.6 37.9 Lower capex estimate £ million 24.2 28.7 33.2 Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) Room Rate: US$ 1,500/£925 per day Upper capex estimate % 3.8% 5.8% 7.2% Lower capex estimate % 5.2% 7.4% 8.9% Room Rate: US$ 2,000/£1,235 per day Upper capex estimate % 7.7% 9.7% 11.1% Lower capex estimate % 9.3% 11.5% 13.1% Room Rate: US$ 2,500/£1,545 per day Upper capex estimate % 11.0% 13.1% 14.6% Lower capex estimate % 12.7% 15.1% 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.
152
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)
US$ million £ million (1) Component 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets Main resort construction ■ Upper estimate 5.3 10.5 16.0 3.2 6.5 9.9 4.5 9.0 13.5 2.8 5.6 8.3 ■ Lower estimate 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Fixtures, fittings & equipment
Site, design, EIA & constr. supervision (2)
■ 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
153
US$ million £ million (1) Component 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets Total – Base Cost Estimates ■ Upper estimate 6.9 13.8 21.0 4.3 8.5 13.0 6.0 12.0 17.9 3.7 7.4 11.0 ■ Lower estimate
Physical contingencies (3) ■ Upper estimate 0.7 1.4 2.1 0.4 0.9 1.3 ■ Lower estimate 0.6 1.2 1.8 0.4 0.7 1.1 Total – Cost Estimate Upper estimate 7.6 15.2 23.1 4.7 9.4 14.3 Lower estimate 6.6 13.1 19.7 4.1 8.1 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
Employees (nos.) US$ million £ million (1) Av. Salary Staff Category 10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch. US$ 000 p.a. 10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch. 10 ch. 20 ch. 30 ch. Senior 2 2 2 65 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.08 Management 4 4 4 23 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 Middle Admin. 10 20 30 12 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.07 0.15 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.
154
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)
US$ million £ million (1) Component 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets Salaries & wages 0.34 0.46 0.58 0.21 0.29 0.36 Maintenance 0.06 0.12 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.11 Other Operating Costs 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.10 0.21 0.31 Supplies and Materials 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.10 0.21 0.31 Environmental Monitoring 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 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
Facility Size Component Unit 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets Indicative Capital Cost US$ million ■ Upper capex estimate US$ million 7.6 15.2 23.1 ■ Lower capex estimate US$ million 6.6 13.1 19.7 £ million ■ Upper capex estimate £ million 4.7 9.4 14.3 ■ Lower capex estimate £ million 4.1 8.1 12.1
155
Facility Size Component Unit 10 chalets 20 chalets 30 chalets Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) Room Rate: US$ 550/£340 per day ■ Upper capex estimate % 5.6% 7.5% 7.9% % 7.3% 9.4% 10.0% ■ Lower capex estimate
Room Rate: US$ 650/£400 per day ■ Upper capex estimate % 8.6% 10.2% 10.6% ■ Lower capex estimate % 10.5% 12.3% 12.9% Room Rate: US$ 750/£460 per day
■ Upper capex estimate % 11.2% 12.7% 13.0% ■ Lower capex estimate % 13.4% 15.0% 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.
156
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).
157
Table 7.2.16 Cruise Ship Companies Operating in Indian Ocean and Gulf Region
1. Azamara Cruises 8. Hapag Lloyd Cruises 15. Regent Seven Seas Cruises 2. Celebrity Cruises 9. Holland America Cruises 16. Royal Caribbean Cruises 3. Costa Cruises 10. MSC Cruises 17. Silversea Cruises 4. Cruise and Maritime 11. Noble Caledonia 18. Swan Hellenic 5. Crystal Cruises 12. Ocean Cruises 19. Voyage of Discovery Cruises 6. Cunard Cruises 13. P&O Cruises 20. Voyages to Antiquity 7. Fred Olsen 14. Princes Cruises
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
158
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%.
159
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
To/From International Airport Rooms Room Prices Island Resort (nos.) km Transfer Mode (US$/day) (1)
Island Resorts – with active environmental policies 1. Banyan Tree, Vabbinfau 48 17 Speedboat 1,200 to 1,400 2. Baros Maldives 75 16 Speedboat 1,100 to 2,400 3. Four Seasons Resort Maldives at Landaa Giraavaru 102 120 Seaplane 1,450 to 2,850 4. Four Seasons at Kuda Huraa 96 20 Speedboat 1,100 to 1,800 5. Gili Lanka Fushi 45 90 Seaplane 2,000 to 3,000 6. Huvafen Fushi by Per AQUUM 44 24 Speedboat 900 to 3,000 7. Kuramathi Island Beach 290 56 Seaplane 330 to 700 8. LUX Maldives 193 40 Seaplane or Speedboat 400 to 2,500 9. Reethi Beach 110 124 Seaplane 540 to 730 10. Soneva Fushi 65 113 Seaplane 1,000 to 1,900
Island Resorts – with 30 to 50 Rooms or Chalets 1. Angsana Ihuru 45 3 Speedboat 610 to 850 2. Asdu Sun Island 30 32 Seaplane or Speedboat 300 3. Banyan Tree, Vabbinfau 48 17 Speedboat 1,200 to 1,400 4. Bathala Island Resort 46 34 Seaplane or Speedboat 5. Coco Privé Kuda Hithi 6 25 Speedboat 8,000 to 32,000 6. Cocoa Island 33 30 Seaplane or Speedboat 680 to 1,110 7. Fihalhohi Island Resort 24 28 Speedboat 250 8. Gangehi Island Resort 36 77 Seaplane 300 to 600 9. Gasfinolhu Island Resort 40 23 Speedboat under redevelopment 10. Gili Lanka Fushi 45 90 Seaplane 2,000 to 3,000 11. Hideaway Beach Resort & Spa at Dhonakulhi Maldives 49 15 Speedboat 750 to 1,450 12. Huvadhumaafushi 50 360 Dom. Flight & Speedboat n.a. 13. Huvafen Fushi per AQUUM 44 24 Speedboat 900 to 3,000 14. Jumeirah Dhevanafushi 35 400 Dom. Flight & Speedboat 1,130 to 2,800 15. Kudarah Island Resort 30 90 Seaplane n.a. 16. Makanudu Island 36 30 Seaplane or Speedboat 490 to 620 17. Mirihi Island Resort 36 85 Seaplane under redevelopment 18. Nika Island Resort 27 70 Seaplane 440 to 920 19. Park Hyatt Maldives Hadahaa 50 400 Dom. Flight & Speedboat 830 to 1,430 20. Rihiveli Beach Resort 48 49 Seaplane 450 to 550 21. The Regent Maldives 50 190 Seaplane 900 to 3,000 22. Thundufushi Island Resort 47 80 Seaplane 850 to 1,300 23. Twin Island Resort 47 65 Seaplane 960 to 1,150 24. Vakarufalhi Island Resort 50 90 Seaplane 420 to 1,060 25. Zitahli Resorts and Spa, Kua-Funafaru 50 45 Seaplane 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.
160
■ 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
To/From International Airport Rooms Room Prices Island Resort (nos.) Km Transfer Mode (US$/day) (1) Bird Island Lodge 24 n/a Plane 510 to 610 Cerf Island Resort 24 n/a Helicopter 380 to 730 Chauve Souris Island Lodge 5 n/a Plans, Taxi and Boat 920 to 1,050 Cousine Island 6 n/a Helicopter or Boat 1,530 to 5,750 Denis Private Island 25 n/a Helicopter 1,400 to 1,980 Desroches Island Resort 6 n/a Dom. Flight, Taxi & Boat 1,280 to 2,550 Fairy Tern Island 2 n/a Boat 200 Frégate Island Resort 16 n/a Plane (2), Helicopter or Boat 3,450 to 5,600 Hilton Seychelles Labriz Resort and Spa 111 n/a Helicopter or Boat 600 to 3,800 L’Habitation ‘Cerf Island’ 14 n/a Helicopter and Lagoon Taxi 250 to 440 North Island 11 n/a Helicopter or Boat 4,500 to 8,500 Round Island Luxury Villas 4 n/a Helicopter or Boat 1,650 Sainte Anne Resort and Spa 87 n/a Boat 1,340 to 6,550
Notes: (1) Bed & breakfast rates; and (2) Island has own airstrip. Source: (i) Seychelles Tourism Board – Accommodation Guide; and (ii) web-based research.
161
Appendix B High-End Tourist Resort Development – Costs and FIRRs (Note: Tables B.1 – B.6 is in separate Annex Excel file Aex2)
1. Introduction This appendix presents the indicative costs, potential employment opportunities and financial internal rates of return (FIRR) for high-end tourist resort development. The estimates have been prepared from investigations by the Study Team, plus data and consultations provided by:
■ Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) – independent global property and construction practice, services include: cost management, project management and advisory services directly related to tourist resort development worldwide ■ BDO – Hotels, Leisure and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism Division The main parameters, costs and FIRR calculation are presented in the six (6) attached tables (see: separate Excel file). All cost estimates are presented in 2014 constant prices. The exchange rate used is: £1 = US$ 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.
162
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.
163
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%);
164
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
Land Area Estimated Area Covered by Coconut Trees Island/Atoll Hectares Distribution (%) Estimated % Hectares Distribution (%) Egmont Atoll Sudest 98 4.7% 60% 59 5.4% Sipaille 46.2 2.2% 50% 23 2.1% Great Chagos Bank Eagle 245 11.7% 25% 61 5.6% Three Brothers (Middle) 8 0.4% 20% 2 0.2% Nelson 81 3.9% 40% 32 2.9% Peros Banhos Île du Coin 127.5 6.1% 70% 89 8.1% Île Pierre 150 7.2% 50% 75 6.8% Île Diamant 88.5 4.2% 50% 44 4.0% Île Moresby 43.5 2.1% 25% 11 1.0% Île Yeye 58.5 2.8% 25% 15 1.4% Salomon Île Takamaka 44 2.1% 40% 18 1.6% Île Fouquet 39.5 1.9% 50% 20 1.8% Île Boddam 108.5 5.2% 70% 76 6.9% Diego Garcia Plantation area (1) 950 (2) 45.5% 60% 570 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)
165
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 Metres 8m x 8m Palms per Hectare Numbers 158 Coconut Conversion Coconuts 1 tonne 700 Copra 1 tonne 5,230 Coconut Oil 1 tonne 8,690 Desiccated Coconut 1 tonne 7,650 Coconut Milk 1 tonne 3,250 Coconut Cream 1 tonne 7,650 Coconut Milk Powder 1 tonne 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
166
■ 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.
167
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
Coconuts Net Coconut Area Production Yield Copra Consumption – Pop. Harvested (tonnes 000) (Tonnes per Production 2011 Island (000) (ha. 000) ha.) (tonnes 000) (kg per head) Indian Ocean Comoros 718 34.0 90.0 2.6 5.2 n.a. Maldives 338 1.1 4.1 3.7 0.2 9.2 Mauritius 1,240 0.5 1.6 3.2 0.06 3.1 Seychelles 92 0.6 2.8 4.7 0.01 n.a. Pacific Ocean Fiji 875 65.0 244.4 3.5 5.0 62.9 Kiribati 101 30.0 170.0 5.7 3.4 123.2 Marshall Is. 53 7.0 23.8 3.4 n.a. n.a. Micronesia 103 16.0 55.0 3.4 2.9 n.a. Nauru 10 0.3 2.6 8.4 n.a. n.a. Niue 1 3.3 3.3 1.0 n.a. n.a. Samoa 189 27.0 209.6 7.8 5.0 173.8 Tonga 105 9.3 130.4 14.0 1.2 n.a. Tuvalu 10 1.8 2.1 1.2 0.02 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)
168
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 54.9 44.8 108.4 135.3 50.1 2008 166.3 118.9 298.6 179.9 143.8 2009 144.0 87.1 278.6 184.7 134.8 2010 179.7 118.5 301.3 284.4 161.2 2011 185.9 278.6 359.5 348.0 2012 133.4 288.4 372.2 153.2 Av. Nuts per tonne (1) 700 700 700 700 700 US$ per nut 2000 0.08 0.06 0.15 0.19 0.07 2008 0.24 0.17 0.43 0.26 0.21 2009 0.21 0.12 0.40 0.26 0.19 2010 0.26 0.17 0.43 0.41 0.23 2011 0.27 0.40 0.51 0.50 2012 0.19 0.41 0.53 0.22 £ per nut(2) 2000 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.04 2008 0.15 0.10 0.26 0.16 0.13 2009 0.13 0.08 0.25 0.16 0.12 2010 0.16 0.10 0.27 0.25 0.14 2011 0.16 0.25 0.32 0.31 2012 0.12 0.25 0.33 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.
169
Table 7.3.6 Coconut Products – International Traded Prices: November 2014
Component US$ per tonne £ per Tonne (1) Coconut Oil Rotterdam (cif) Buyer 1,070 660 Traded 1,240 765 Philippines (fob) 1,020 630 Indonesia (fob) 1,237 764 Copra Philippines (fob) 725 448 Indonesia (fob) 653 403 Sri Lanka (fob) 1,135 700 Desiccated Coconut Philippines (fob) 2,535 1,565 Indonesia (fob) 2,100 1,296 Sri Lanka (fob) 2,408 1,486 Coconut (husked) Philippines (fob) 251 155 Indonesia (fob) 202 125 Sri Lanka (fob) 299 185 Thailand (fob) 267 165 Coconut Shell Charcoal Indonesia (fob) 394 243 Sri Lanka (fob) 413 255 Coir Fibre Sri Lanka Bristle fibre (fob) 214 132 Mattress fibre (fob) 555 to 669 343 to 413 Indonesia (raw and clean) 395 244 India (export brown) 280 173 Other Vegetable Oils Palm Kernel Oil (cif Rotterdam) 995 614 Crude Palm Oil (cif Rotterdam) 750 463
Note: (1) £1 = US$ 1.62. Source: Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC).
170
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.
171
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
172
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.)
173
■ ‘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
174
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.
175
Table 7.3.7 SWOT Analysis – Indicative Factors Related to Coconut Re- Development Strengths Weaknesses 1. Existing areas of coconuts on many of the 6. Dense and overgrown areas of coconut trees habitable islands that would require significant clearing operations 2. Ability to supply own domestic needs – 7. Many old coconut trees (over 40 years old) that individual or cooperative – with range of coconut would require replanting products that reduce need to import 8. Clearance of large areas of coconut trees could 3. Willingness of Chagossians to adapt to and cause environmental damage, especially if protect the environment from over-exploitation disposal of debris is not done effectively 4. Limited human development over last 40 years – 9. Capital cost and time needed to carry out clearing which offers basis for Chagossians and BIOTA to operations – including potential impact of using promote rational and controlled areas of coconut heavy machinery and equipment trees 10. Some Chagossians may not have the skill and 5. Chagossian appreciation of coconuts as part of experience to farm coconut trees efficiently their heritage and sustainability of family life 11. Divided opinions between advocates of resettlement and environmental conservation/protection Opportunities Threats 1. Opportunity to supply NSFDG with fresh 7. Sea level rise and danger of increased erosion coconut products e.g. coconuts, coconut water, and flooding milk, cream etc. 8. Danger of seismic events in East Indian Ocean – 2. Opportunity to supply up-market tourist resort causing threat to low lying islands and eco-tourism development with fresh 9. Adverse impact of general climate change to low coconut products, handicrafts and souvenirs lying islands 3. Potential opportunity to develop ‘niche’ market 10. Adverse impact of coconut re-development on for BIOT’s coconut water (cf. Pitcairn honey) environmental conservation and protection 4. Sales opportunity through Community Store 11. Impact of rat population on coconut farming and 5. Potential development of bio-fuel for Community other agricultural activities fishing boats 12. Risk that resettled Chagossians may not wish to 6. Opportunity to train Chagossians with remain on the islands, especially the younger appropriate skills prior to return to the islands 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:
176
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
177
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 Indicative Rehabilitation Areas (hectares) (3) (nuts per capita Average Yield p.a.) (nuts per hectare) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (1) (2) 1,500 people 500 people 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.
178
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.
179
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
180
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)
181
■ 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 Levels of Complexity & Uncertainty Option 3 Levels of Complexity & Uncertainty DG &~2 DG Islands N=150-50 N=1500 ITEM(S) Access & Inter- Cost ITEM(S) Access & Inter- Cost Supply national range national range Supply Chains Standards variation Standards variation & Codes risk (%) Chains & Codes risk (%) +/- +/- Transport H H +50 Transport M H +25 & sea def. & sea def. 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).
182
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.
183
Public Sector – Government Private Sector Category 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 Median £6,500 £6,660 £6,010 £6,890 Mean £7,230 £7,410 £7,100 £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 6,364 7,375 8,249 9,382 9,666 9,675 Expenditure 17,771 18,722 21,337 23,391 26,785 28,416 Surplus/(Deficit) (11,407) (11,347) (13,088) (14,009) (17,120) (18,741)
UK Aid Budgetary Aid 6,407 7,535 8,709 7,650 12,303 12,100 Shipping Subsidy 2,560 2,582 3,080 3,390 3,897 4,750 Development Aid 1,787 5,207 8,470 7,523 15,162 6,833 Technical Cooperation 392 422 424 2,050 2,268 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).
184
■ 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 2,897 22% 728 Beverages and Tobacco 634 5% 159 Crude Materials Inedible, except Fuels 195 1% 49 Mineral Fuels, Lubricants, etc. 2,374 18% 596 Animal and Vegetable Oils and Fats 73 1% 18 Chemicals and Related Materials 791 6% 199 Manufactured Goods 1,550 12% 389 Machinery and Transport Equipment 2,985 23% 750 Misc. Manufactured Articles 1,513 12% 380 Commodities and Transactions nec. 11 Total 13,023 100% 3,272 Fuel – Value Gasoline 437 19% 110 Diesel 1,845 81% 464
185
Category: 2011-12 Value (£ 000) Distribution (%) Imports per Head (£) Total 2,283 100% 574 Fuel – Quantity Gasoline 593 tonnes 18% 149 kg Diesel 2,745 tonnes 82% 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)
Full Container Load (FCL) Cargo Break Bulk Shipper Owned Lines Unit General Cargo £170 per mᵌ £2,720 £3,070 Household & Personal Effects £116 per mᵌ £2,485 £2,836 Provisions and Foodstuffs £109 per mᵌ £2,403 £2,760 Bagged/Palletised Building Materials £124 per mᵌ £2,521 £2,913 Timber £124 per mᵌ £2,521 £2,913 Chilled/Reefer Cargo £226 per mᵌ n.a. £3,812 Hazardous Cargo £265 per mᵌ £3,305 £3,577 Empty Container £288
■ 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 12 Band 1 – less than 400 kWh 0.23 Single phase meter (unoccupied residential premises) 24 Band 2 – 401 to 1,000 kWh 0.40 Three phase meter 37 Band 3 – more than 1,000 kWh 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:
186
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 7.25 Domestic: Unoccupied residential premises 21.0 ■ Less than 15mᵌ 0.95 Commercial 21.5 1.26 ■ More than 15mᵌ Agricultural 7.3 0.63 Untreated water 2.47 Commercial
■ Agricultural: 1.25 ■ Treated water 0.63 Untreated water 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.
187
Table 7.4.7 TdC – Government Graded Pay Scale: Selected Examples – January 2013
Position Annual (£) Month (£) Daily (£) Hourly (£) Department Head 4,981 to 7,845 415 to 654 19.2 to 30.2 2.8 to 4.4 Assistant Head of Dept. 3,827 to 4,765 319 to 397 14.7 to 18.3 2.1 to 2.7 Conservation Officer 2,965 to 3,827 247 to 319 11.4 to 14.7 1.6 to 2.1 Accountant 2,064 to 3,364 172 to 280 7.9 to 12.9 1.2 to 1.9 Secretary 2,064 to 3,224 172 to 269 7.9 to 12.4 1.2 to 1.8 Forman 2,844 to 3,091 237 to 258 10.9 to 11.9 1.6 to 1.7 Teacher 2,321 to 3,091 193 to 258 8.9 to 11.9 1.3 to 1.7 Clerk 2,064 to 2,965 172 to 247 7.9 to 11.4 1.2 to 1.6 Shop Worker 2,064 to 2,965 172 to 247 7.9 to 11.4 1.2 to 1.6 Skilled Worker 2,619 to 2,843 218 to 237 10.1 to 10.9 1.5 to 1.6 Semi-Skilled Worker 2,321 to 2,515 193 to 210 8.9 to 9.7 1.3 to 1.4 Unskilled Worker 2,231 186 8.6 1.2 Nurse – Overseas Trained 2,321 to 2,729 193 to 227 8.9 to 10.5 1.3 to 1.5 Play-School Teacher – Overseas Trained 2,145 to 2,231 179 to 186 8.3 to 8.6 1.2 Juniors – under 18 years 1,912 to 2,145 159 to 178 7.4 to 8.2 1.1 to 1.2 Youth Employment 1,840 153 7.1 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.
188
(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.
189
Table 7.4.8 Tristan da Cunha – Summary: Gov’t Income & Expenditure 2012, 2013 and 2014
£ 000 Distribution (%)
Component & 2012 2013 2014 Department Actual Revised Budget 2012 2013 2014 Income Fishing – Lobster Royalty 766.8 692.0 650.0 54% 36% 33% Post Office & Tourism 179.5 200.1 194.0 13% 10% 10% Stamps 76.9 65.4 58.9 5% 3% 3% Coins 67.5 112.5 107.0 5% 6% 5% Handicrafts 6.1 9.0 8.5 1% … … Tourism 27.9 11.0 18.0 2% 1% 1% Others 1.1 2.2 1.7 … … … Misc. Overseas – Interest 26.0 40.0 38.0 2% 2% 2% Misc. Local 446.4 983.3 1,063.7 31% 51% 55% Island Store 475.0 520.0 25% 27% Vehicle & Launch Hire 99.8 89.5 78.3 7% 5% 4% Prince Philip Hall 54.8 54.8 3% 4% Income Tax 63.3 65.5 69.0 4% 3% 4% Electricity 47.8 54.0 54.0 3% 3% 3% Guest House Rental 52.1 45.5 50.2 4% 2% 3% Conservation 40.6 45.1 2% 2% Medical Tax 35.9 34.0 34.0 3% 2% 2% Others 147.6 124.4 143.1 10% 6% 6% Total – Income 1,418.8 1,915.4 1,945.7 100% 100% 100% Expenditure Administration 46.6 59.4 69.6 4% 3% 4% Post Office and Tourism 83.3 86.0 97.3 8% 5% 5% Public Works 405.6 503.9 532.3 37% 28% 27% Fisheries 37.4 40.7 45.7 3% 2% 2% Conservation 22.1 28.8 32.5 2% 2% 2% Medical 220.8 175.5 190.2 20% 10% 10% Education 57.5 66.5 78.1 5% 4% 4% Agriculture 74.3 90.2 95.7 7% 5% 5% Police 14.9 15.8 25.7 1% 1% 1% Telecommunications 31.8 38.9 43.5 3% 2% 2% Miscellaneous 107.1 687.5 740.1 10% 38% 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.
190
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) 7.03 188% Martini (750 ml) 1.34 138% Liqueurs (750 ml) 7.03 188% Sherry (750 ml) 1.34 138% Wine (750 ml) 1.34 138% Wine (5 litres) 8.96 138% Beer and Cider (340 ml) 0.23 138% 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
US$ £ (2) Category Single Return Single Return
Resident Islanders Medevac ■ Adult 70 140 43 86 ■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1) 35 70 22 44 Non-Medevac ■ Adult 87.5 175 54 108 ■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1) 43.75 87.5 27 54 Official ■ Adult 250 500 154 308 ■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1) 125 250 77 154 Tourist
191
■ Adult 500 1,000 309 618 ■ Child (2 to 15 years) (1) 250 500 154 308 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 450.0 57.6% 1,579 Medicine and Drugs 69.5 8.9% 244 Mechanical Tools, Lubes, Spares, etc. 50.0 6.4% 175 Fuel 40.0 5.1% 140 Electrical Hardware 30.0 3.8% 105 Plumbing Hardware 30.0 3.8% 105 General Hardware 30.0 3.8% 105 Animal Feed, etc. 25.0 3.2% 88 Computers and Communications Equipment 20.0 2.6% 70 Office Equipment and Stationary 15.0 1.9% 53 Fertilizer 10.0 1.3% 35 Educational Material 8.0 1.0% 28 Veterinary Supplies 3.0 0.4% 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
192
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 6,191 3,218 Sale of Curios 3,000 1,535 Average Income from Letting Accommodation 3,000 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
Positions Wages Average Wages (£) Division Nos. % NZ$ 000 £ 000 (1) % Annual Monthly Council 10 11% 33.9 17.3 16% 1,734 144 Community 10 12% 24.4 12.5 11% 1,247 104 Finance 7 9% 30.5 15.6 14% 2,228 186 Island Store 6 7% 21.0 10.7 10% 1,791 149 Nature 9 11% 19.8 10.1 9% 1,126 94 Operations 39 48% 88.7 45.4 41% 1,164 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.
193
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 -4.9 -2.5 -1% Domain Sales 67.5 34.5 9% Landing Fees 33.1 16.9 4% Shipping Income 389.8 199.4 52% Utility Charges Electricity 137.5 70.3 19% Telecoms 91.1 46.6 12% Others 38.8 19.9 4% Foreign Exchange Losses -10.4 -5.3 -1% Total – Income 742.5 379.8 100% Expenditure On Island Costs GPI Council 112.3 57.4 2% Community Division 160.5 82.1 3% Finance Division 160.0 81.8 3% Natural Resources Division 42.5 21.7 1% Operations Division 344.0 176.0 6% Power Generation 32.5 16.6 1% Total – On Island Costs 851.7 435.7 14% Off Island Costs Telecommunications 197.6 101.1 3% Shipping 2,528.3 1,293.3 41% Pitcairn Islands Office (Auckland) PIO Running Costs 360.4 184.3 5% PIO Support Costs 1,060.7 542.5 17%
194
Professionals – 4 on Island 919.1 653.1 17% Other Consultants 120.9 61.8 2% Total – Off Island Costs 5,367.4 2,745.5 86% Total – Expenditure 6,219.1 3,181.1 100% Surplus/(Deficit) (5,476.6) (2,801.3) UK Budgetary Aid 5,487.5 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)
Resident Households Non-Residents and Government Band (kWh/month) NZ$ per kWh £ per kWh (1) NZ$ per kWh £ per kWh (1) Less than 210 0.60 0.31 2.56 1.31 210 to 250 0.85 0.43 3.15 1.61 More than 250 0.90 0.46 3.80 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.
195
Table 7.4.16 Pitcairn – Telecommunications tariffs (2012-13)
Resident Households Non-Residents & Gov’t Category Unit NZ$ £ (1) NZ$ £ (1) Telephone Line Rental connection/month 15.5 7.9 41 21 Telephone Call Charges price per minute Internet ■ Base Rate connection/month 41 21 82 42 ■ High Usage Surcharge connection/month 82 42 163 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.
196
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
197
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.
198
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.
199
Table 7.4.17: Indicative Estimates of Potential Labour Force, Employment by Sector and Training Costs by Option
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Component Unit nos. % nos. % nos. % Population & Labour Force Population nos. 1,500 500 150 Labour Force nos. 750 50% 250 50% 75 50% Indicative Employment and Training Requirements Community – Public Sector Employment nos. 263 42% 175 70% 53 75% Requiring Training nos. 131 41% 88 71% 26 74% Training Costs (1) £ million 1.97 38% 1.31 59% 0.39 48% US NSFDG Employment nos. 263 42% 63 25% 15 21% Requiring Training nos. 131 41% 31 25% 8 23% Training Costs (1) £ million 1.97 38% 0.47 21% 0.11 14% Artisanal Fishing Training Costs (2) £ million 0.42 8% 0.35 16% 0.28 35% Tourism Developments (3) Employment nos. 76 12% 0 0% 0 0 Requiring Training nos. 38 12% 0 0% 0 0 Training Costs (1) £ million 0.57 11% 0 0% 0 0 Other Employment Activities nos. 30 5% 10 4% 3 4% Employment nos. 15 5% 5 4% 2 6% Requiring Training £ million 0.23 4% 0.08 4% 0.02 2% Training Costs (1) Total Employment nos. 631 100% 248 100% 71 100% Requiring Training nos. 316 100% 124 100% 35 100% Training Costs £ million 5.15 100% 2.21 100% 0.81 100%
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.
200
Table 7.4.18: Technical Assistance – Indicative Annual Costs by Position and Option (some of the posts would be held by expatriate staff).
Indicative Annual Costs (£ 000) Position Number Salary Other Costs (1) Total Distribution (%) Option 1 Administrator 1 120 40 160 7% Police 2 160 80 240 11% Doctor 2 250 80 330 15% Nurse Practitioner 2 160 80 240 11% Teacher 5 350 200 550 25% Family/Community 2 140 80 220 10% Adviser 2 170 80 250 11% Operations Manager 2 150 80 230 10% Utilities Manager Total – Option 1 18 1,500 720 2,220 100% Option 2 Administrator 1 120 40 160 10% Police 2 160 80 240 15% Doctor 1 125 40 165 10% Nurse Practitioner 2 160 80 240 15% Teacher 3 210 120 330 20% Family/Community 1 70 40 110 7% Adviser 2 170 80 250 16% Operations Manager 1 75 40 115 7% Utilities Manager Total – Option 2 13 1,090 520 1,610 100% Option 3 Administrator 1 120 40 160 18% Police 1 80 40 120 13% Doctor 1 125 40 165 18% Nurse Practitioner Teacher 1 70 40 110 12% Family/Community 1 70 40 110 12% Adviser 1 85 40 125 14% Operations Manager 1 75 40 115 13% Utilities Manager 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
201
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
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Component Unit nos. % nos. % nos. % Population & Labour Force ■ Population nos. 1,500 500 150 nos. 750 50% 250 50% 75 50% ■ Labour Force Total Potential Employment Community –Public Sector nos. 263 42% 175 70% 53 75% US NSFDG nos. 263 42% 63 25% 15 21% Tourism Developments ■ High-End Tourist Resort (40 rooms) nos. 56 9% nos. 20 3% ■ Eco-Tourism Facility (20 chalets) nos. 30 5% 10 4% 3 4% Other Activities Total – Potential Employment nos. 631 100% 248 100% 71 100% Percentage of Labour Force % 84% 99% 94% Total Potential Salaries and Wages Community – Public Sector £ million 1.95 42% 1.30 70% 0.39 75% US NSFDG £ million 1.95 42% 0.47 26% 0.11 21% Tourism Developments ■ High-End Tourist Resort (40 rooms) £ million 0.42 9% £ million 0.15 3% ■ Eco-Tourism Facility (20 chalets) £ million 0.22 5% 0.07 4% 0.02 4% Other Activities Total – Potential Salaries and £ million 4.69 100% 1.84 100% 0.53 100% Wages Average Salary/Wage: £/month 620 620 620 ■ Per month £ per year 7,440 7,440 7,440 ■ Per Year Source: Appendix A, Table 15.
202
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 15% 15% 15% Year 7 20% 20% 15% Year 12 25% 20% 15% Landing Fees Year 3 0% 0% 0% Year 7 5% 5% 5% Year 12 10% 10% 10% Shipping Receipts Year 3 0% 0% 0% Year 7 15% 15% 0% Year 12 25% 25% 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.
203
■ 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.
204
– 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)
Years Distr. Component 3 4 5 6 7 10 20 (%) OPTION 1 Revenue Stamps, Coins, etc. 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.25 6.3% Utility Charges 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.49 0.61 15.3% Landing Fees 1.00 25.0% Tourism 0.34 0.34 0.68 17.0% Shipping 0.38 0.63 15.6% Taxes 0.23 0.47 11.7% Miscellaneous 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.36 9.1% Total – Revenue 0.09 0.21 0.33 0.44 0.93 1.86 4.00 100% Expenditure Administration 0.34 0.56 0.77 1.09 1.33 1.33 4.8% Annual O&M Costs 3.85 7.71 11.56 15.42 19.27 19.27 69.2% Shipping Service 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 9.0% Professional Specialists 0.37 0.74 1.11 1.48 2.22 2.22 8.0% Medevacs 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.38 1.3% EIA – Annual M&E 2.17 2.17 2.17 7.8% Total – Expenditure 0.00 7.14 11.66 16.17 22.97 27.87 27.86 100% Exp. Without Airport & 0.00 4.52 6.41 8.30 12.47 14.75 14.74 Breakwater/Harbour Surplus/(Deficit) 0.09 -6.93 -11.33 -15.73 -22.04 -26.01 -23.86 Without Airport & Breakwater/Harbour 0.09 -4.30 -6.08 -7.86 -11.54 -12.89 -10.74
205
Years Distr. Component 3 4 5 6 7 10 20 (%) OPTION 2 Revenue Stamps, Coins, etc. 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.25 12.3% Utility Charges 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.21 10.3% Landing Fees 0.02 0.03 1.6% Tourism 0.34 0.34 0.68 33.3% Shipping 0.30 0.30 0.50 24.5% Taxes 0.09 0.09 0.18 9.0% Miscellaneous 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.19 9.1% Total – Revenue 0.15 0.24 0.30 0.37 1.27 1.33 2.04 100% Expenditure Administration 0.18 0.25 0.42 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.50 4.8% Annual O&M Costs 1.23 2.46 3.28 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 39.0% Shipping Service 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 19.0% Professional Specialists 0.25 0.50 0.87 1.11 1.61 1.61 1.61 15.3% Medevacs 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.2% EIA – Annual M&E 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 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. 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.25 20.5% Utility Charges 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 9.3% Landing Fees 0.01 0.02 1.3% Tourism 0.34 0.34 0.68 55.5% Shipping Taxes 0.03 0.03 0.05 4.3% Miscellaneous 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.11 9.1% Total – Revenue 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.76 0.81 1.22 100% Expenditure Administration 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 48.% Annual O&M Costs 1.23 1.84 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 33.1% Shipping Service 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 20.2% Professional Specialists 0.26 0.52 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 12.2% Medevacs 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.5% EIA – Annual M&E 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 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.
206
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.
207
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
208
Contact us
Kru Desai Government and Infrastructure T +44 (0) 207 311 6417 E [email protected]
John Burton International Development Assistance Services T +44 (0)207 694 5538 E [email protected]
Nathan Hill International Development Assistance Services T +44 (0)207 311 428 E [email protected] www.kpmg.com
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. © 2015 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in the United Kingdom. The KPMG name, logo and "cutting through complexity" are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Produced by Create Graphics/Document number: CRT033390A/150123