Airport development – Coalition of the willing

by G E M Saunders 31.JULY.09

Sir James was correct back in 1999 when he re-focused our attention on the crucial issue of airport development. At that time, both Sir James and his Government felt that St. Vincent’s future growth and development thrust was going to be through services and especially tourism and financial services.{{more}}

Today, with the gradual decline of the agricultural and other traditional sectors of the economy, Sir James once again reiterated the importance of the services and tourism sectors in a recent interview with Jeff Trotman. He was as unequivocal as he was in 1999 about the need to increase the stay-over visitors.

Unfortunately, his decision to undertake the extension and expansion of the existing ET Joshua runway and airport was in conflict with the advice tendered by all pervious engineering consultants hired by his Government. In addition, the US$20 million promised by Taiwan was never going to be adequate for such an extensive undertaking.

Then it was Prime Minister Arnhim Eustace’s turn to intervene in December 2000. Faced with a mountain of evidence and criticism of the Arnos Vale option, he decided to halt plans for the development of the ET Joshua airport.

It was then left to Dr Ralph Gonsalves to whom the baton was passed in 2001 to create another historic moment by appointing the first airport development oversight committee. The committee’s mandate was to evaluate all the reports tendered by consultants over the years and all the possible site options, including Arnos Vale, and to advise the government on the way forward.

Fast-forward to today, in July 2009 when construction of the all important international airport at Argyle is presently in progress, with significant contributions and funding so far coming from the Cuban and Venezuelan Governments and pledges of support from many others.

Regarding the eventual choice of site, several options were examined over the years, including sites on the Leeward side of the island and up to Georgetown on the Windward. In the eyes of the experts, both Argyle and Kitchen stood out as the best technically feasible and cost effective options. Both sites had the potential for future expansion with Kitchen having greater negative environmental impacts and more costly acquisitions.

The issue of cross-winds at Argyle was given close attention and so far, after two years of wind studies, the wind rose indicates that under normal conditions, the highest wind intensity has not produced a cross-wind component that exceeds the limit for aircraft the size of a twin-otter. In any event, Should this become a problem, then the US$ 1 million cross-runway will have to be built.

The Canouan option was never viable since it did not address the fundamental objective of seamless, efficient travel from the continents to mainland St. Vincent. Canouan was simply going to become another “Barbados”, another stop, introducing more inefficiency for the LIAT Dash 8’s when forced to be continually plying a ten-minute route many times a day.

Dr. Rudy Matthias was correct when he alluded to the fact that financial feasibility alone cannot be the sole deciding factor in embarking on this type of project. Indeed, there are few airports in the region that sustain themselves without a subsidy. What is more important is the benefit the airport will bring to the various sectors of the economy.

No one expects the Rabacca Bridge to earn revenue for the government to repay its investment cost; but the bridge certainly provides reduced travel times for many citizens and easy access for fish and produce from that region for eventual export.

In any event, any financial appraisal of the airport must consider a useful life of at least 70 years. Consider that almost fifty years later, airports in Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica continue to be expanded with increasing user costs to help meet investment and operational costs.

The Argyle airport will be no different in terms of a phased development, linked closely to demand. That is why the initial omission of the 30 acres of land for future expansion of the terminal, apron and commercial areas was considered a “mistake” by the IADC. In fact it is my opinion that the Government may well be short-sighted in not acquiring even more lands east of the new Windward highway, in the vicinity of the airport.

Of course there will be significant cost variations, and those will obviously weigh heavily on the final decision. But nobody knew or even flinched when Sir James and Jeffrey Cato decided to reclaim additional lands at the Cruise Ship berth back in 1997. That grassed area was never in the original designs; however, Sir James seized the opportunity to reclaim lands for future generations at a cost far below the value of lands in Kingstown at that time. That decision produced a major cost variation.

On the issues of sources of financing, cost and affordability of the airport, I will simply say that there is no foreign donor or lender that will 100% finance a $500 million airport. There could only be a consortium approach, a “coalition of the willing”. What PM Gonsalves must be mindful of is to keep our debt at manageable levels as construction progresses, and if funding runs out on this generation, then there will always be the next generation and future donors.

What is important is that we have started on the journey and will thankfully bequeath to the next generation, at the very least, an unencumbered, partially developed site for future development. If it can be completed in 2013, so be it.

Where is the difficulty in supporting such a fundamental project and such a creative approach to financing? Why should SVG always be left behind with our selfish political stances, while the gap between us and the rest of the world widens to what will soon be a yawning abyss?