Comments on the KPMG BIOT Resettlement Feasibility Study process and Draft Report
Dr Laura Jeffery and Dr Rebecca Rotter, University of Edinburgh

Background
We write this Comment in our capacity as professional Social Anthropologists with extensive experience in qualitative research methodologies combined with extensive knowledge of the Chagossian community. Dr Laura Jeffery has worked with the Chagossian community in Mauritius, Seychelles, and the UK since 2002. She conducted a household survey of Chagossians in Mauritius in 2003–2004, and has a sound grasp of the kinds of methods likely to be appropriate to and effective with the community. She has published widely on her research with the Chagossian community in an academic monograph and journal articles. Dr Rebecca Rotter has worked with the Chagossian community in the UK since 2011, as Research Assistant on Laura’s ESRC Research Fellowship.
Between us we attended the KPMG ‘pre-consultation’ event in Crawley on 2 July, two face-to-face meetings in Crawley Library on 3 July, and the ‘pre-consultation’ event in London on 4 July 2014, and we also received written commentary on the ‘pre-consultation’ event in Manchester on 5 July 2014. We have followed the Chagossian community’s response to the Feasibility Study process through meetings with community members and leaders. The KPMG consultants have explicitly recognised the importance of the consultation process, particularly in light of the fact that this is the first time community members have had the opportunity to register their perspectives on resettlement, and we strongly agree that this is an extremely important element in the Feasibility Study. Nevertheless, some aspects of the conduct of the process, and of the reporting of that process, have raised our concerns. We intend for our comments to be read in a spirit of constructive criticism.
Comments on the consultation process
Insufficient notice given to study participants
We recognise that the Feasibility Study is being conducted within a strict timeframe and that as a result, some activities have had to be arranged at late notice. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the Chagossian community has received very limited notice as to the timing of the pre-consultation and consultation events. On 29 May 2014 a BIOTA official emailed community leaders to inform them that consultation events would likely take place during the week 27 June–4 July. However, it was not until 27 June, 5 days before the first pre-consultation event, that BIOTA announced the actual dates on which events would be held. BIOTA did not confirm the actual times and venues for the events until 30 June, 2 days before the first pre-consultation event. Again, KPMG informed the community only in December that the study team would be returning to meet with them in early January. We understand that the team faces difficulties in planning precise dates and times in advance, but community members equally face difficulties in rearranging schedules and work shifts at the last minute, and many take the opportunity to travel to Mauritius or Seychelles during the Christmas and New Year break.
Delays in monthly updates
KPMG has provided monthly reports to stakeholders updating them on their progress and planned activities, which has been much appreciated. However, the reports have been consistently late, emailing reports for June and July in September, for August and September at the end of October, and for October and November in mid-December. While we understand that it may take some time to compile a report at month-end, delays of 2-3 months are significant in a process with such a short overall timeframe. Delays give the impression of a lack of organisation and produce difficulties for stakeholders in planning and thus assisting KPMG. 
Questions about the study team’s independence 
Both FCO and KPMG stressed that the Feasibility Study was to be conducted in an impartial manner by an independent, objective party. We regard this position – and the visible demonstration of this position – as vitally important given the history of the Chagossian community and the mistrust which characterises the community’s relationship with the UK government. We were therefore concerned to see, particularly in the initial stages of the study, a lack of distinction between the FCO and KPMG. For example, the venues for the community pre-consultation events were booked (and in some cases signed) under the name of FCO/BIOT, which gave the impression that the FCO and not KPMG was running the events. Initially BIOTA rather than KPMG emailed the KPMG monthly reports to stakeholders. Given the history of Chagossian mistrust of the UK government, opaqueness regarding the role and affiliation of the KPMG team risks limiting community participation in the process.
Challenges during the pre-consultation phase
The KPMG May monthly report stated that the consultations with the Chagossian community would include: a series of community meetings, gender focus groups, key stakeholder meetings and one-on-one interviews, plus the use of a socio-economic questionnaire, and the elicitation of written submissions and emails. The June monthly report stated that further consultation work was expected to take place from June–September, including discussions with community leaders to explore how to continue the consultation process, and focus group meetings.
At the so-called ‘pre-consultation’ meeting in Crawley (and earlier, in Mauritius) the consultants attempted to introduce the socio-economic questionnaire without clearly explaining what information was being sought, or to what ends it would be used. Some community members were very concerned and reluctant to participate; this response must be understood in light of the perception that in the past information provided to authorities has been used to disadvantage and deprive the community. Laura attempted to clarify this issue at the event in Crawley, and again through email correspondence on 3 July. She suggested that the income question in the questionnaire could become acceptable if it was made clear why this information was required. She also suggested depersonalising this information, for example by asking simply for a household’s total monthly income rather than asking for income by individual and disaggregated by type (e.g. salary/benefits). Despite the willingness of community leaders to collaborate with KPMG to produce an acceptable questionnaire (which we are notified was communicated to KPMG by email), KPMG abandoned the questionnaire altogether.   
The community also objected to the plan to conduct women’s focus groups at the exclusion of men’s focus groups because they were concerned that this was a method for ‘divide and rule’. We were informed that this issue would be raised at a face-to-face meeting with the consultants in Crawley Library; Laura emailed the consultants on 3 July suggesting that holding a constructive solution could be to also hold men's focus groups to discuss resettlement issues that might disproportionately affect men (with regard, for instance, to predominantly men’s employment opportunities such as physical labour on the US military base or in the fisheries industry). However, KPMG abandoned the plan to run focus groups. 
Misleading commitments to subsequent consultations
The consultants described the ‘pre-consultation meetings’ in Crawley on 2 July and London on 4 July as ‘the first round’ of consultations. Matthew Boyle explained that they were an opportunity for him to give a brief introduction to the study team and the work being undertaken, for Nancy Laatunen to lead a discussion around the kinds of concerns and issues that are likely to be involved in the resettlement process, and for community members to ask questions of the team and to raise any issues or any concerns about KPMG’s work and the resettlement process. As Matthew Boyle stated in Crawley, “today, for us, this is pre-consultation – this is our first opportunity to meet with you – and there will be a lot more follow-up work to take place in the coming weeks ahead.” At the London event, one Chagossian man emphasised that there needed to be “more discussion” with the Chagossian community. Matthew Boyle handed out his business cards and welcomed further communication.
The following extracts from ‘pre-consultation meetings’ give a sense of the commitments that KPMG made to move beyond the so-called ‘pre-consultation’ phase and provide the community with the opportunity to share their views and information:
Matthew Boyle [in Crawley]: our team is always available should you wish to talk to us. We are happy to come down and spend as much time in Crawley as is necessary in the coming weeks, so please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
Nancy Laatunen [in London]: as Matt mentioned, this is the first round. We call them pre-consultation meetings. Matt has formally introduced what KPMG is doing on this project for the next few months and I’m sure you’d like to meet with some of my other colleagues that are responsible for some of the technical aspects like environment, like economics.
Matthew Boyle [in London]: this consultation process, this will carry through until November so there is plenty of time I think for us to spend more time with you and to get your views and to make sure that they are heard as part of this process.
Nancy Laatunen [in London]: these consultations, informal and formal, will proceed, some of them with smaller working groups that we’re going to meet up until the end of November.
However, with the exception of the aforementioned face-to-face meetings in Crawley on the day following the pre-consultation event, the consultants did not in fact return to conduct follow-up consultations. From mid-July until December communication with the community was sporadic. We attended multiple community group meetings at which Chagossian leaders informed us that KPMG had not responded to emails (including the invitation to update the socio-economic questionnaire to make it more appropriate to community). Rebecca emailed Nathan Hill in November enquiring as to when the next consultations with the Chagossian community might take place, but did not receive a response. KPMG did not inform the community that the further consultations previously promised for autumn 2014 would not take place. We regard both the lack of promised consultation and the lack of communication to this effect as fundamental shortcomings of the process.
Inattention to confidentiality of information
As noted above, the KPMG consultants held face-to-face meetings with Chagossian community members in Crawley Library on 3 July. Laura accompanied community members to two such meetings and observed the consultants disclose details of what two other community members had said previously during their own private meetings. This was inappropriate, especially as the consultants were not at all familiar with community relations and tensions, and it ran the risk of undermining the community’s ability to trust and be open with the consultants. Laura communicated this point to Matthew Boyle by email on 3 July, but again received no response.
Comments on the Draft Report
Questions about the study team’s Independence 
Some of the language KPMG uses in the report – such as referring to the Chagossians as ‘former workers’ (Section 1.1.2) – appears to adopt the UK government’s position rather than that of external, independent consultants. In particular, note Section 2.1: “We do not seek to justify those actions or excuse the conduct of an earlier generation. What happened was clearly wrong, which is why substantial compensation was rightly paid. Both the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has been paid in full and final settlement.”
Misrepresentation of the consultation process
Section 2.1.2 is the first time the report refers to the team having run ‘structured consultation events’. As noted above, KPMG previously referred to these events as ‘pre-consultation meetings’. This change in terminology is not justified in the report.
Section 2.3 states: “the team began the main phase of the study, the aim of which was to consult with the Chagossians and to gather relevant data on the population...” It then refers to the fact that desk-based research (such as the Howell report) was used to get an idea of the numbers who wish to return. We note that the Howell report was published in 2008. Thus, as reported, the data on which estimates of the size of a returning population is based is more than 7 years old and cannot be regarded as an accurate reflection of the current situation.
Section 2.3 continues: “the fieldwork was, nevertheless, critical, and involved face-to-face consultation events and the use of structured questionnaires to survey the Chagossians resident in the UK, Seychelles and Mauritius.” As outlined above, the socio-economic questionnaire was not used in the UK, and so we regard this statement as a misrepresentation of the process. Likewise, section 3.2.1. states “Socio-economic questionnaire: the questionnaire was designed to capture information about the Chagossian community on employment, views on education, health and the environment, and expectations about what resettlement might look like. This information obtained would enable the study team to better understand the Chagossian community and their expectations regarding resettlement”. Although, strictly speaking, the paragraph is correct as it describes the intended rather than actual use of the questionnaire, we regard it as misleading as it does not acknowledge that the questionnaire was abandoned in practice.
Section 2.3 states: “having gathered relevant data through desk research and consultations, the team reconfirmed, cross-checked and verified information such as those wishing to return as well as undertaken [sic] a detailed analysis of the prospects for an economically self-sustaining community on BIOT.” It is not clear what is meant by “reconfirmed, cross-checked and verified information”, particularly given that the community was not re-consulted, as noted above.  
Section 3.2.1 states: “Gender focus group guide: recognising the diverse needs and experiences of women and trying to establish an environment in which women are as comfortable to be as open as possible, a gender focus group guide was developed. Due to the communities’ [sic] belief that men and women shouldn’t be interviewed separately, the offer of the gender focus group meeting was declined.” This is not an accurate reflection of the community’s message to the consultants, which was rather that they were concerned that conducting focus groups with women only constituted a ‘divide and rule’ approach. Community members suggested instead that men’s focus groups could be held alongside women’s, but as noted above, the consultants did not pursue this suggestion.
Conclusions on the relationship between the consultation process and the draft report
We are concerned about the broader implications of a lack of adequate consultation with the Chagossian community for the draft report. Firstly, the content of the report may not be accurate. For example, it is stated that Chagossians wish to have a modern standard of living on a resettled Chagos, yet very few questions were put to them about this, and very limited responses were elicited. Additionally, without a comprehensive survey of the community it is impossible to ascertain the numbers of people wishing to return, and their socio-economic profile (skills base, educational and health needs, age, etc.). We note that the economic analysis of the resettlement options does not appear to actually depend upon this kind of data. Our fear is that what Chagossian community ‘pre-consultation’ has taken place hitherto may not have been a genuine exercise in fact-finding and community engagement.

Dr Laura Jeffery and Dr Rebecca Rotter
University of Edinburgh
19 December 2014