Terminal operators critical of the effects of differentiated autonomy in ports

Referring, then, to differentiated autonomy, Cognolato emphasised that 'the centrality of the ministry, and therefore of governance, is essential in order to guide investments, standardise rules and procedures, and avoid distorted approaches from port to port that could create internal competition. It is no good if the port of Naples is pitted against that of Genoa or Civitavecchia or vice versa'. We need 'a regulation on concessions, a regulation on port operations. We need, for the system to be efficient, for the administrations to talk to each other, at a central level, and for behaviour at a peripheral level to be uniform and more streamlined'.

Cognolato went on to ask: 'Do we want to imagine how many more critical issues the non-inclusion of port activities among the Lep (Essential Levels of Performance, ndr), envisaged for the development of differentiated autonomy, could produce? No thanks. Already today we are witnessing some dystonic readings between the competences of municipal or regional administrations and those of the Port System Authorities: each one does its own thing, linking up, while respecting reciprocal functions, perhaps within Port Management Committees, which evolve in the direction of an enhanced and single services conference".

As for the reform of 84/94, which Deputy Minister for Infrastructure, Edoardo Rixi, said he would resume in the autumn, Cognolato has no doubts. "Our port system is based on a model, in principle an ideal one, of public-private partnership, state/enterprise, grantor/concessionaire, which must develop through mechanisms that simplify even for the Adsps the exercise of their functions. This model is not under discussion'.

According to Assiterminal's president, "The legal nature of the Adsps is not in question: state property is a strategic public asset for the country's system: we must overcome a real-estate vision of port state property, the fee per square metre equation can no longer be central, nor can the criteria for revaluing fees. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport must confirm its centrality'.

There is a need, he continued, 'for a specialised discipline to be confirmed for our sector that enhances the investments and value production of companies and also public investments'. Even "the regulation on concessions and the application guidelines must be taken up with this in mind: ours is not a production system that can be assimilated, for example, to the mechanisms of motorway concessions where the tariff is regulated and remunerates investments. Ports live on market dynamics in a context of international traffic where tariff policies have negotiating dynamics'.

On the subject of 84/94 and the powers of the Regions, Carlo de Ruvo, president of Confetra, also has clear ideas: 'The law on ports needs some modifications,' he said, 'but not upheaval. Differentiated autonomy, then, is of great concern: we have always asked for a network logic; and we are also concerned about a possible transfer of state property to the regions'.