1. Introduction
The electrification of port quays, known as “cold ironing”,…
Let us continue to examine the circular of the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (“MIT”) published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic of 5 February 2018, concerning the parameters that Italian Port System Authorities (“PSAs”) should take into account when comparing applications for renewal and/or issuance of maritime concessions under Article 18 of Law No. 84/94.
As is known, by said circular – in light of the need to identify “objective, adequate and accurate criteria” for the assessment by PSAs of such applications –, the MIT set out the technical and economic criteria at issue.
In the previous issues of our newsletter, we commented on the first three criteria referred to in the circular concerning, namely, (i) the “level of coherence of the National Strategic Plan for Ports and Logistics [“Piano strategico nazionale della portualità e della logistica”] and of the other national sector planning instruments in force”, (ii) the “capacity to ensure the widest access conditions to terminals for users and operators concerned”, (iii) the “nature and relevance of infrastructure and superstructure investments such as systems, equipment and technologies aimed at the development of port productivity, protection of the environment and safety, in terms of both “safety” and “security”, including assessment of the financing used in the form of public and private funds”.
In this issue we are focusing on the fourth criterion set out by the MIT, which – without prejudice to the importance of those examined so far and the ones still to be examined – actually seems the most relevant to the assessment of concurrent applications.
Such criterion relates to the “traffic and development targets of port and inland logistics and the railway mode”.
In this regard, we can make the following considerations.
First, it is immediately clear that the parameter at stake is of particular practical relevance in many respects in relation to traffic and logistics development targets, at both port and inland level.
As is known, traffics are what financially supports a certain port area and, therefore, as a matter of fact, the PSA too. This, with specific reference to the port tax (tassa portuale) charged for the loaded and unloaded goods [1].
In light of the above, a greater volume of traffic in a port will result in more revenues to the benefit of that port and, therefore, of the competent PSA, who is the ultimate beneficiary of such revenues generated from tax imposed on goods arriving at that particular port.
It goes without saying that the greater revenue for a PSA, the greater will be the its ability to make investment for the port aimed at increasing its attractiveness (both for perspective concessionaires and for perspective users) in a sort of virtuous circle.
The same considerations apply to logistics, which, being functional to the transport chain, contributes to improve the competitiveness of the production system and therefore boosts traffic growth.
That being said, the second point for attention is the reference to the rail mode.
In our opinion, this is a “good news” for terminal operators, since more attention seems to be required from the MIT and PSAs to railway connections, which, again for the purposes of traffic development, are a potentially crucial element.
We all know, indeed, how railway connections are strategic, if not essential, to a port and, particularly, to terminal operators.
It is of course necessary to understand to what extent a wannabe concessionaire may be certain to be able to “take action” or at least “affect” rail traffic in the port area in which it operates, taking into account that sometimes there could be objective difficulties in accessing and utilizing the railway services.
Consequently, it is necessary to try to “decode” such reference. In our opinion, it could also be interpreted as meaning that the application filed by a wannabe concessionaire should be able to, inter alia, promote railway traffic by implementing investment programs that may allow the enhancement of railway transport.
In this regard, we note how – besides logistical and operational advantages – there may also be legitimate reasons linked to car traffic congestion (and connected environmental problems) that may lead to shifting a huge amount of goods from road to rail.
Hence, in this case, when comparing concurrent applications, PSAs would seem to be required to favourably consider the value of railway connections and, therefore, all the investments and plans aimed at facilitating railway transport.
We will continue our analysis of the MIT circular in the next issues of our newsletter, by exploring the last three evaluation parameters, focusing – we anticipate – on the occupational plan, the capacity to ensure adequate operational continuity of the port and environmental sustainability as well as on the level of technological innovation of the industrial project proposed by the applicant.
This article is for information purposes only and is not intended as a professional opinion. For further information, please contact Simone Gaggero.
