Judgement postponed

R (Bancoult) v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Divisional Court, 21 November 2012: read judgment. (T)the Divisional Court was due to hear the Chagossians’ challenge to the designation of the waters around the islands as a Marine Protected Area, which prohibited all fishing. They said that this designation was motivated by a decision to stymie any remaining economic viability which the islands may have – the Chagossians’ traditional livelihood arose out of fishing. The main hearing of this challenge was due this week. The Court has now adjourned it, to be heard sometime in the New Year.

Rest of the story.

Beware of "independent studies"

A supposedly independent study on the feasibility of letting the exiled Chagos islanders go back to their homes was manipulated to reflect the British Government’s opposition to their return, a Times investigation has revealed.

The 2002 feasibility study lies at the centre of the Government’s case to the European Court of Human Rights on the islanders’ right to return to the archipelago four decades after they were deported from Diego Garcia to make way for an American military base.

In its submission to the court the Government contended that the study, “which was prepared and adopted by all the independent experts involved, clearly indicated that resettlement is not feasible”. However, one of those independent experts, Stephen Akester, said his conclusions that the islands could be resettled were erased from the study amid political pressure.

Further reading.

Environmental protection of bases?

David Vine
Just weeks before today’s Earth Day, and for the second time in little more than a year, environmental groups have teamed with governments to create massive new marine protection areas across wide swaths of the world’s oceans. Both times, however, there’s been something (pardon the pun) fishy about these benevolent-sounding efforts at environmental protection.

Most recently, on April 1, the British government announced the creation of the world’s largest marine protection area in the Indian Ocean’s Chagos Archipelago, which would include a ban on commercial fishing in an area larger than California and twice the size of Britain. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called it “a major step forward for protecting the oceans.

A representative for the Pew Charitable Trusts—which helped spearhead the effort along with groups including the Marine Conservation Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Greenpeace—compared the ecological diversity of the Chagos islands to the Galapagos and the Great Barrier Reef. The Pew representative described the establishment of the protected area as “a historic victory for global ocean conservation.” Indeed, this was the second such victory for Pew, which also supported the creation, in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, of three large marine protection areas in the Pacific Ocean, around some of the Hawai’ian islands and the islands of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan.

The timing of the announcements for both the Indian Ocean and Pacific marine protection areas—on the eve of upcoming British parliamentary elections and in the days before Bush left office when he was trying to salvage a legacy—suggests that there’s more here than the celebratory announcements would suggest.

Further reading.

Unfortunately, protection of "nature", "environment" or "wild animals" commonly implies suppression and even deportation of local human population. See Botswana these days, read Colin Turnbull The mountain people or George Monbiot No man's land.