Which Italian ports would be included in the Core net of IT TRY on the base of the more recent data of traffic?



Which they would be the included Italian ports in the transeuropea net of transport IT TRY if the criteria of Regolamento EU 1315/2013, that it institutes the new map of the nets IT TRY, were applied to three years 2011-2013, last the available one on Eurostat? To the question it has tried to answer Luca Antonellini, managing and manager of agencies and society of the field of the transports and of the logistics and member of the Italian Society of Politics of Transports (S.i. Po.Tra.), association of university university professors, managing publics, professionals and managers joined from the conviction of the centrality of the system of the transports for a sustainable increase, than with Sandra Bini and Massimiliano Dumini has proposed a possible update of the circle of the Italian ports that would have to take part of the harbour ports of call "Core" of the transeuropea net of the transports.

Antonellini remembers that art. the 20 codicil 2 of Regolamento 1315/2013 specify the criteria for the inclusion of the ports in the net "comprehensive", while instead for ports of the net "nothing Core" is said if not that they must have the "alternative clean fuel availability". However, from the preparatory work of the EU commission - Antonellini explains - it emerges that the Core ports must at least respect one of the following criteria: to belong to primary a city node; to have a total traffic (taking to base the average of the more recent three years of the Eurostat data) greater of 1% of the total EU through an interpolation formula that, for the port i-esimo, previews the sum of two distinguished addends considered beginning from the following categories: a) liquid bulk solid +; b) goods several, and the next one I confront with the medium values of reference for every addend calculated to level EU; every defined Area as NUTS 1 (in Italy are more aggregated Regions) must more have at least chosen a Core port as that with elevated traffic between making the part of continuous a coastal line.

For Italy, Regolamento indicates 14 Core ports: Genoa, La Spezia, Livorno, Naples, Gioia Tauro, Taranto, Bari, Ancona, Ravenna, Venice, Trieste, Palermo, Cagliari, Augusta. Antonellini remembers that the first 11 appeared already in the proposal of the EU commission of October 2011; Palermo was added to December of the same year because it was excluded for technical error. Cagliari and Augusta, instead, were inserted during the iter of approval of Regolamento to the European Parliament and the Council. Moreover - Antonellini still remembers - the results of the 2011 were relative to the traffics of three years 2007-2009, when the crisis was yes in course, but it came in general terms from two optimal annuities for the European portualità (Italy, instead, has the best performance in 2006 with the 537 million one tons, while in 2013 it is come down to 457 million).

"Who knows the Italian ports - Antonellini observes - knows that in Regolamento all the Core ports do not turn out to exceed the identified threshold of traffic. The other criteria are used in order to include: Naples, Bari (singular because in Apulia there was already Taranto, but one is on the Adriatic the other on the Ionian one), Palermo and Ancona. For Italy but - it emphasizes - me a value judgment is allowed: it was important "to buy up itself" how many more medals could (in terms of number of corridors and nodes of Core Network), without to think to the economic and programmatorie consequences of such choices. In this direction they go therefore read the positions of the age of Assoporti (which had to support that all the Italian ports center of Harbour Authority would have had to be in the list of the Core ports) but also of the E regions the Municipalities, in afflato a pianificatorio collective of which the however Commission has had to consider".

Evidencing that the crisis but has left a sign that is worth for the EU, but for Italy still more, and wondering what you would happen if the criteria of Regolamento were applied to three years 2011-2013, Antonellini has elaborated the following table (where the quotients EU 28 are pairs to 22.829 thousand tons for the bulk and 14.596 thousand tons for the goods several unitizzate and not) in which added also ports that they have been candidated to being inserted in the review of the list of the Core ports.

Average 2011-2013	Bulk Liquid +Solide	Goods Sundries	Bulk/ 22.829	Goods Sundries/ 14.596	Sum
Average 2011-2013	(thousands tonn.)		Bulk/ 22.829	Goods Sundries/ 14.596	Sum
Genoa	19.674	22.212	0,86	1,52	2,38
Trieste	31.988	11.323	1,40	0,78	2,18
Cagliari - Sarroch - Porto Foxi	26.411	10.584	1,16	0,73	1,88
Gioia Tauro	702	26.917	0,03	1,84	1,87
Taranto	23.735	9.910	1,04	0,68	1,72
Livorno	7.610	14.277	0,33	0,98	1,31
Venice	17.713	6.689	0,78	0,46	1,23
Ravenna	14.024	8.379	0,61	0,57	1,19
Augusta	24.505	131	1,07	0,01	1,08
La Spezia	3.372	9.922	0,15	0,68	0,83
Civitavecchia - Fiumicino - Gaeta	11.872	4.212	0,52	0,29	0,81
Naples	6.076	7.255	0,27	0,50	0,76
Savona	10.822	3.410	0,47	0,23	0,71
Palermo - Terms Im.	1.993	6.449	0,09	0,44	0,53
Brindisi	8.233	1.661	0,36	0,11	0,47
Ancona - Falconara	4.768	3.484	0,21	0,24	0,45
Salerno	140	5.515	0,01	0,38	0,38
Bari - Barletta - Monopolies	2.369	2.534	0,10	0,17	0,28

“As note - Antonellini finds - nobody of the four which candidated ports would have title in order to not only enter (in terms of traffics but also because Areas NUTS 1 already are garrisoned by “more prolific” ports. Civitavecchia it would be only if and as port of Rome, but would be a forcing to Regolamento since the Capital is not on the sea)”. “The amazing thing, to my way to see - it has added - is that if Regolamento saw its performance today, it would be excluded by the La Spezia list, that it is according to Italian port the gateway for the containers”.

Remembering at last that the review of Regolamento is previewed for 2023, but already beginning from the 2015 Member States would have to every other year signal the variations been necessary in positive or in negative, Antonellini expresses the conviction that “the lists would have to be espunte from the ports of transhipment and from the traffics of the same ones. Not because they are not important - it clarifies - but only because they are other (in the Latin sense of the term)”.