Far from the cosseted corridors of the House of Lords where the final battle royal of the Chagos legal saga will soon be played out, it seems that the servants of academe are also engaging in a little melee of their own. Earlier this year, the UK Chagos Support Association published Returning Home: A Proposal for the Resettling of the Chagos Islands by Dr John Howell and the Chagos Refugee Group (CRG).

As its title indicates, the document argued strongly in favour of the viability of a permanent return to the islands in Peros Banhos and Salomon. But, as anyone who has followed this highly emotional issue will know, nothing concerning the archipelago goes uncontested for very long. A team of scientists has just published a highly critical evaluation of the Howell Report.

Returning Home proposes that the first resettlement wave take place on the three islands in Peros Banhos: Ile du Coin, Ile Anglais and Ile Pierre. These will house 150 homes, an up-market resort and an airport, respectively. ?In the process, we conclude that there are no valid environmental or economic reasons that stand in the way of the resettlement of a relatively small number of Chagossian families on the islands in Peros Banhos and Salomon. The environmental risks described in the earlier feasibility studies cannot be regarded as insuperable given the willingness of Chagossians to contribute to conserving the assets on which their livelihood and long-term survival on the island, will depend,? Returning Home concluded.

Written by ?an expert group of scientists and specialists? led by Dr John Turner, a senior lecturer in marine biology at the School of Ocean Sciences of Bangor University, the evaluation of Returning Home is considerably more dubious about the feasibility of any long-term resettlement. ?The report makes proposals for a non-Chagossian driven commercial and extractive development on a scale, which seems incompatible with conservation and the globally important environment of Chagos. Of particular concern is the creep of harmful development and future expansion of activity.?

<B>Impact on the environment</B>

According to the evaluation, the report also ?fails to emphasise that any resettled community will be at risk in the short and medium term due to flooding and freshwater depletion, and development impact are likely to exacerbate these effects of climate?. Admittedly, excessive construction can indeed lead to flooding although this is true for most regions where rainfall is abundant and not specific to the Chagos. The problem of water depletion is also a global one. Yet if hotel-islands in the Maldives are able to meet their water needs by using desalination plants, then so too should the Chagos.

In addition, the evaluation posits that the locations of the proposed airport and tourist facility are ?inappropriate?. It goes on to opine that Returning Home ?seriously underestimates the costs of resettlement, both in terms in capital costs and operational cost?. It takes issue, for example, with the Howell Report?s cost estimate of £4 million for the airport, which it describes as ?especially modest?. ?The cost of the runway with turns at each end alone (without airport facilities) is estimated at nearly US$100 m (£50 m) because costs rise steeply with category of airport to be used. A further US$15m (£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.? It puts annual operating costs at £4 million.

The most problematic aspect of resettlement and its adjacent activities will probably be its impact on the natural, and especially marine, environment. ?What makes the reefs of the Chagos so different from most reefs worldwide is the fact that they have not been heavily fished, and reef food chains remain functional. Great care must be taken or the reliance placed on fish and fishing will be a limitation, not an asset,? the evaluation rightly points out.

The ardent and, more often than not, genuine desire expressed by many of the older islanders to resettle in the Chagos is easily understandable in the light of all the hardship and misery they have had to endure since they were unceremoniously dumped on the docks of Port Louis and Mahé. More importantly still, the wound created by being so cruelly torn from their homeland continues to fester.

The younger generations were brought up on tales of the beauty and abundance of the islands, a stark contrast with their living conditions in their countries of birth. When judging the relative merits of Returning Home one should thus take into account this emotional aspect, as well as the more concrete ones of tourism and fishing.

Whatever the scientific merits of the competing documents, it is evident that the last thing the Chagos needs is unplanned and unsustainable development. Not only will this harm the islands and their fragile ecosystems, it will also render any long-term resettlement all but impossible.

If the Law Lords rule in their favour (or, more appropriately, against the British government) later this year, the Chagossians will have earned the immutable right to resettle in the archipelago. It will then be up to them to ensure that their return does not harm the islands they so dearly love. One way to achieve this would be to embrace the evaluation?s valid criticism of the Howell Report rather than reject it.