Best Custodians?

One must hope that David Snoxell is right, but I rather doubt it:

Your report on the proposed marine protected area for the Chagos archipelago implied that the establishment of such a zone would be at odds with the aspirations of Chagossians to return to their homeland (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March). It is not.

It was a splendid idea to create an MPA around the Chagos and provide a green legacy for the prime minister. It demonstrates the government's determination to conserve the unique marine environment of this British overseas territory. How sad that the same concern could not have been shown towards the people who used to live there. To ignore this human dimension, as the foreign secretary's statement announcing the MPA did, supports the suggestion of Clive Stafford Smith, quoted in your article, that "no Chagossian has anything like equal rights with even the warty sea slug".

The islanders have long argued that they would be the best custodians of their environment. Conservation cannot exist in a vacuum in which people and politics do not impinge, especially in Chagos, where issues of human rights, sovereignty, defence and security have dominated for 45 years, and more recently rendition and conservation. An MPA needs people to enforce its regulations. So why not train returning Chagossians in this role?

Your article quotes a spokeswoman from the Pew Environment Group, saying: "The UK government agrees that a marine protection area will not create a barrier for the Chagossians to return. The two issues are separate." But human rights and conservation are not, as the government again suggested in the Commons debate on 6 April, separate issues. The most successful MPAs are those where the local population ensures the MPA's viability.

Reactions to the announcement have ranged from the euphoria of Pew to the fury of Mauritius and the bitterness of the Chagossians. But there was a simple way to make everyone happy. The Chagos Islands all-party parliamentary group proposed that the MPA should make provision for the rights of Chagossians and of Mauritius. In practice this means a zonal approach, permitting inshore fishing around the two islands where Chagossians would settle – they could hardly deplete the ocean's fish stocks! Also, arrangements would be made to give Mauritius a stake in the future of the outer islands.

So why was the MPA announced while parliament was in recess, just a week before dissolution and ahead of the decision of the European court of human rights on the Chagossians' right to return? A few more months would make no difference and the islands are currently adequately protected. Could it be that this public consultation exercise was sped through to provide a quick legacy and pre-empt the court?

In the debate, the foreign minister Chris Bryant said there would be discussions with the Chagossians so that implementation of the MPA no-take reserve would meet their needs. Does this mean that they will, after all, be able to fish? If so, a solution is in sight.