Monday, March 21, 2005
The airport - good plan or bad?
I arrived this morning to an unusually large crop of email messages, and found that most of them are from people discussing the relative merits of St. Helena having an airport. Few seemed to be in favour, claiming – inter alia - that it will ‘destroy the uniqueness of the island’.
Let me update everyone with a few local realities:
If you don't beleive me, find a copy of a film called "Water" (Hand Made Films, 1985, starring Michael Caine and Billy Connolly) for a humorous but vivid interpretation of an island in St. Helena's situation (any character similarities to anyone here, past or present, is nothing to do with me!).
I agree there are risks to having an airport. Any change has risks. The important thing to consider (and I speak as an experienced change manager) is that not changing also has risks.
The island's economic future is dependent, at least in the medium term, on tourism. As many of you who have attempted to visit will testify, that requires an international airport. It has taken the UK Government many years to come to that conclusion, with just about every other solution having been tried and having failed. DfID have now committed to spending a large sum of money on the airport (no figures have been released but estimates run in the £60-100m range) because, they have concluded, it is the only way forward for the island. Judging by what has been said here since last Monday, the island, on the whole, agrees.
To address two specific dangers that people have raised (both of which, you will be pleased to hear, have already been considered extensively when making the decision):
St. Helena is not an ecological experiment, it's a living place. It will change, airport or not. With the airport that change can be positive - without it, the evidence shows, it will be negative.
The 'word on the streets' in St. Helena is that we need an airport, and the problems it will bring are manageable whereas the ones caused by its absence are not.
Let me update everyone with a few local realities:
- The island is currently supported by the UK taxpayer, to the tune of at least £13m/annum. Everyone agrees it needs an economy.
- The island's population has halved since 1998 and many local businesses are operating on or below the verge of viability because there are just too few customers.
- If the trend continues, the continued loss of population will mean the subsidy will need to increase to the point where DfID will give up. Then the island will become the isolated natural paradise some of the writers seem to desire, because it will be completely devoid of any permanent human population.
If you don't beleive me, find a copy of a film called "Water" (Hand Made Films, 1985, starring Michael Caine and Billy Connolly) for a humorous but vivid interpretation of an island in St. Helena's situation (any character similarities to anyone here, past or present, is nothing to do with me!).
I agree there are risks to having an airport. Any change has risks. The important thing to consider (and I speak as an experienced change manager) is that not changing also has risks.
The island's economic future is dependent, at least in the medium term, on tourism. As many of you who have attempted to visit will testify, that requires an international airport. It has taken the UK Government many years to come to that conclusion, with just about every other solution having been tried and having failed. DfID have now committed to spending a large sum of money on the airport (no figures have been released but estimates run in the £60-100m range) because, they have concluded, it is the only way forward for the island. Judging by what has been said here since last Monday, the island, on the whole, agrees.
To address two specific dangers that people have raised (both of which, you will be pleased to hear, have already been considered extensively when making the decision):
- St. Helena is never going to be Ibiza in the South Atlantic. It wouldn't be practicable - given our location - even if we wanted it to happen. The island recognises that it's environment is the main attraction for visitors and that over-development of tourism would destroy the very thing the visitors come to see. We are fortunate that we have many examples elsewhere (positive and negative) to learn from in this respect.
- Who benefits from the economic development will depend on the islanders. There is an opportunity for local businesses to thrive, serving the needs of tourism. The alternative, where all the skills are imported and the islanders just become toilet cleaners, is not an acceptable option. I believe St. Helena can achieve this and have (publicly) committed the bank to helping in the process. Read our press release (home page of www.sainthelenabank.com).
St. Helena is not an ecological experiment, it's a living place. It will change, airport or not. With the airport that change can be positive - without it, the evidence shows, it will be negative.
The 'word on the streets' in St. Helena is that we need an airport, and the problems it will bring are manageable whereas the ones caused by its absence are not.
