UK aid wasted on South Pacific windfarm fiasco: failed green energy scheme for only 55 people cost £250,000

• Aid wasted trying to bring green electricity to community of 55 people
• Scheme axed after contractors pocketed cash without building wind turbines
• Islands made famous by the Mutiny on the Bounty in 1789

Britain has wasted £250,000 of its aid budget trying to bring green electricity to a community of 55 people in the South Pacific.
The £1.7million scheme was scrapped after Australian contractors pocketed huge amounts of cash without building any wind turbines on the islands made famous by the Mutiny on the Bounty.
A report from the Department for International Development (DfID) admitted officials had failed to ‘rigorously manage’ the Pitcairn Islands’ eco project.

Wasted energy: Britain has wasted £250,000 of its aid budget trying to bring green electricity the Pitcairn islands

Population: There are only around 55 people on the islands, making the original scheme cost the equivalent of £31,000 per head

By the time the scheme was abandoned it had slipped three years behind schedule and doubled in initial costs.
The UK first took responsibility for the remote volcanic islands after they were inhabited by mutinous sailors from the crew of the Bounty in 1789.
Led by Fletcher Christian, they settled there to escape the hangman’s noose after staging a rebellion against Captain William Bligh.

All of the rocky outcrop’s inhabitants can trace their roots back to members of the crew of the Bounty.

Two years ago the Mail revealed that the overseas territory received £2.4million a year from British taxpayers – more than £43,000 per person every year.

Mutiny: English sailor Fletcher Christian led the mutiny against Captain William Bligh on HMS Bounty in 1789

Now, documents reveal £250,000 of the UK’s aid budget has been wasted trying to bring wind power to the descendants of the ship’s mutinous crew.
During the fiasco the UK taxpayer ended up having to foot the bill for chartering a ship to take equipment to the islands.
But the charter had to be cancelled because the shipment was not ready to transport. Eventually officials from DfID decided to abandon the scheme.
Experts are now trying to convince them that a solar-powered generator would be a better option.
Critics have questioned why the islands need such an expensive green electricity system in the first place.
There are only around 55 people living there – so the original scheme cost the equivalent of £31,000 per head.
Now, if DfID gives the green light to the new solar-powered generator, the total cost of the island’s electricity supply will be even higher than the estimated bill for the original project.
Aid bosses say the Government has a duty to spend cash on the island, as it is still a British Overseas Territory.
Overseas Territories take priority from the aid budget under laws set down in the UN Charter.
But the Government has been roundly criticised for ring-fencing the UK’s aid spending in a time of austerity.
Foreign aid is one of the few departments not to have faced a cut in funding.
A report into the defunct scheme explains: ‘The contractors engaged in 2007 completed the first stages of the project.
‘However, due to continual late submission dates of key deliverables and escalating costs, which more than doubled, the time frame stretched by three years.’

Scrapped: The £1.7million scheme was axed after Australian contractors pocketed huge amounts of cash without building any wind turbines, such as these in West Yorkshire (file picture)

A DfID spokesman said: ‘Where contracts are not good value for money and are not being properly delivered, we will take action to protect taxpayer money.
‘The UK Government will be working with the Pitcairn Island government in order to assess the current and future energy needs, including green options such as solar power.’
But Robert Oxley, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It’s frankly typical of DfID to waste so much taxpayers’ money on a project that delivers so little.
‘One of the consequences of spending up to an arbitrary aid target is that there is little incentive for officials to deliver value for taxpayers’ money. No one has been held to account for the repeated blunders over this project.’