The bill on the ports risks to crystallize the market



Yesterday to the Senate completed is a step ahead or behind? Flying over on the issue of the proliferation of the Harbour Authorities, of which one agreed to reduce the number and that instead it has seen the confirmation of the agencies to Manfredonia and Trapani, and neglecting other important topics as that of the powers to confer to the Harbour Authorities, that varrebbe in itself a normative detailed list above all in sight of the possible allocation to these institutions of a effective autonomy financial institution, in the bill approved of yesterday from the Senate are other elements that contribute to confirm the supposition that more than an advance is in existence a regression.

Law 84/94 on the ports currently in vigor was defined with the attempt to privatize the docks and to liberalize the harbour activities and the bill currently to the examination of the Parliament is elaborated with the scope to continue on the road of the liberalizations and the privatizations emphasizing some the capacity. For some aspects instead seem to for example stretch to the conservation, hindering the income of new operators in the market. The purpose of the legislator does not seem face to equip the enterprises of new weapons in order to capture ulterior marine traffics. It rather seems oriented to prevent to other operators to invade harbour territories through which the richer traffics journey and being consisted.

The dispositions to article 14 of the bill approved of from the Senate that could allow to anticipate the public contest for the reassignment of a terminalistica area regarding the natural expiration and that they could impose to the Harbour Authority or to the new concessionaire to refund the investments carried out and damped from the old tenant of the terminal they do not certainly cover the road of the simplification, the transparency and the opening of the market, neither above all invogliano new operators to try to approach the Italian ports.

According to the reporter of the bill Luigi Grillo, draft of "a norm that stimulates the private ones to make investments", "considered - it has found the senator yesterday - than the State is not in the conditions today and, perhaps, in the near future to make them".

The investments of the terminalisti in the Italian ports, so as those carried out in almost the totality of world-wide the marine ports of call, consist mainly in the payment of the rent of the harbour areas, in the purchase of the cranes and of other means and in the purchase of the necessary systems for the computerized management of the terminal. When in the ceremonies for the subscription of a new contract of concession one emphasizes the grindstones of the private investments that will be carried out in the terminal, about this it is spoken: of canon of rent, means of raising and programs software. It is not spoken about the construction of docks, than all over the world they are realized by the public part except sporadic cases in which the harbour terminal is the appendix of an industrial park, as it happens with activity that they demand an access dedicated to the sea.

In the course of the debate parliamentarian the former minister of Matteoli Transports, referring to these specific norms of article 14, has manifested "perplexity in order to the compatibility of the disposition with the communitarian indications", but he has found - as other senators - than "when the concessionaire arrives to the last years of the concession, without knowing if this is renewed to it, stops to carry out investments. This - it has observed Altero Matteoli - goes sure to the detriment of the activity of the port". To we it seems difficult to believe that the terminal operator can stop to carry out investments, that is stops to pay the rent and to use indispensable means in order to serve the customers, without this goes to discapito of own activity before of that of the port.

The article, to the aim to grant a delay of the concession, speaks however about "investments in infrastructural works and works or systems not easy removal" realized from the passed concessionaire the two third party of the duration of the concession. Frankly it seems improbable that the terminals operator load the responsibility to finance the construction of infrastructural works, very more onerous regarding that already onerous to equip the terminal so that it becomes operating. The delay of the duration of the not advanced concession to a third party of the duration initially established for the concession does not appear sufficient - as it previews the text approved of from the Senate - in order to damp the investment.


Bruno Bellio