Shannon aid hub ‘not viable’

THE development of a much-discussed multi-million euro global centre for humanitarian aid in Shannon Airport will not be going ahead, following a State-sponsored report, which found it wouldn’t be viable.
The report also outlined how one non-governmental organisation (NGO) said it would use a potential site at Shannon Airport but only if Irish Aid or another donor paid for the transport costs.
A statement on the Irish Aid website this week said, “The Programme for Government set out the Government’s desire to explore the possibility of positioning Shannon Airport as an international hub for the storage and distribution of EU and UN emergency humanitarian supplies.
“An independent feasibility study was initiated earlier this year, with the specific aim of providing an independent, evidence-based assessment of the viability and value for money of a possible humanitarian hub at the airport. In November last, a final version of the study was presented to Minister of State, Joe Costello, by the independent consultants, who had been tasked with undertaking the study. Based on the findings, which found that there is not a justifiable, economically viable rationale for proceeding with plans to develop Shannon Airport as a humanitarian hub, a decision has been made not to proceed.”
The report’s executive summary stated, “The prepositioning of medical or general relief items show poor risk/benefit ratios because they run counter to the logic of locating stocks close to disaster response sites and/or suppliers, counter to ongoing trends moving stocks away from Europe and toward sub-regional locations and do not fill or address any gaps in existing prepositioning networks.
“The role of training centres shows a marginally better risk/benefit ratio due to its potential use as a neutral site but presents an inconvenient travel destination for aid agencies and runs counter to current trends pushing for greater training held in regional and sub-regional locations in Africa and Asia.”
It also stated that Shannon offered poor value compared to competitors. “The study shows low relative value for money for the potential roles of Shannon Airport, given the associated operation and transport costs, low likelihood of usage or regular funding, uncertainty of specific services offered (for the training centre role), and the pre-existence of relatively well-functioning service providers. For example, the estimated costs of running a prepositioning site at Shannon Airport for just one year represents the equivalent of providing humanitarian aid to over 23,000 people; a provision of aid that can and has been done using existing prepositioning networks.”
Those working in the field didn’t believe Shannon was a good option, the report found. “Stakeholders consulted did not see Shannon Airport as a strong site to fill a humanitarian role nor did they believe their organisations would use, manage or fund such a role.
“They did not have a clear favourable impression of the viability of Shannon Airport in any of the proposed humanitarian roles and showed a minimal degree of interest. In an environment of tight funding, the humanitarian roles for Shannon Airport – fraught with expected high cost and uncertainty – do not present a superior alternative to current service providers.”
The report also stated that aid agencies didn’t see Shannon as an attractive proposition for storing relief items. “None of the interviewed NGOs saw a clear rationale – beyond media exposure for Ireland – for using Shannon Airport as a prepositioning site. Pointing to the high transportation costs of flying items from Shannon Airport to Africa or Asia, one NGO stated that the idea “doesn’t make sense”. Several of the interviewees stated they would be unlikely to use a site at Shannon Airport over an existing hub like Dubai that would have cheaper transport costs, both outgoing (to disaster sites) and incoming (restocking from suppliers, many of which are based in Asia).
“One NGO said it would use a potential site at Shannon Airport but only if Irish Aid or another donor paid for the transport costs. This NGO noted though that in the long run, Irish Aid funding of these transport costs would result in less total funds available for the humanitarian relief effort – a disservice to beneficiary populations.
“Similar to the NGOs, UN agencies like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and WHO did not see any logic in locating a prepositioning site in Shannon Airport, again noting the prohibitive cost of air transport and the preference for pre-existing network sites. What little gaps were noted largely pertained to geographic coverage of South-East Asia. Therefore, none of these organisations expressed any interest in using Shannon Airport in this capacity.”
The report found that Shannon might be useful as a centre for training. However, it wasn’t overly enthusiastic about this either. “It is estimated that the benefits outweigh the risks of this role (53% benefit) but only marginally.”
While it stated that Shannon has the capacity required and Ireland’s neutrality would be advantageous, there were problems identified. “Amongst the three specifically humanitarian options, a training centre role has the highest likelihood of use/funding; this likelihood is still quite low, overall. Many existing humanitarian training providers/managers do not regard Shannon Airport as an ideal site for this role and it does not appear there is large interest or available funding for another training location or centre of excellence.”
On the positive side, it found the development of an EU Civil Protection site was the best of four options considered. “Shannon Airport’s peripheral, neutral location can offer benefits for certain scenarios such as political disputes, contamination of high-density population areas on continent.”