There is only one way to prevent the Ilva affair in Taranto from ending up in an economic, social and environmental tragedy of huge proportions and that is to build an IMPOSSIBLE WALL between the judicial affair (which is now in the hands of the Court and not more in those of the Public Prosecutor's Office) and the industrial and productive management of the plant (which is in the hands of the Government).
The short circuit between the Judiciary and Industry occurred because the Taranto Public Prosecutor's Office arbitrarily crossed this border. At the basis of his sensational initiative there was no complaint by the competent Authorities responsible for the protection of the environment and public health of Ilva's violation of environmental regulations. Nor was there the proclamation by these authorities of a state of environmental disaster such as to require the immediate cessation of production activity. On the other hand, there were complaints from private groups and some expert appraisals (which were never subject to cross-examination) on the basis of which the Public Prosecutor's Office became convinced that there was an environmental disaster caused by the activity of the iron and steel center and considered that this disaster could only be stopped by stopping the productive activity. In other words, the public prosecutor's office did not address the problem of a reclamation plan, nor that of the measures to be taken to reduce emissions, nor that of any technological innovations to be made to the production cycle. It has not even proposed to request changes to the environmental protocols prescribed by the Ministries and by the competent Authorities to which the company was already subject and with which it was trying to comply. None of this. The Public Prosecutor aimed straight at the goal and, anticipating the possible outcome of the trial, ordered to close the plant and cease production activity. Only the intervention of the government and subsequently that of the Constitutional Court prevented the disaster. Nonetheless, the Public Prosecutor's Office continued its action to hinder the production activity, first by seizing the coils ready for sale (thus causing damage for millions and millions of euros), then by blocking the funds that were used to feed the production cycle and finally by renewing the request to close furnace 3 with a reason, this time more understandable (the fatal accident), but no less wrong for this.
The story of Taranto, however one wants to judge it, confirms that Italy is still far from being a normal country. Steel is produced all over the world. There are protocols, procedures and standards codified at national and international level. There are independent Authorities, Agencies and national and international Bodies that oversee compliance with these rules which protect public health and safety at work no less than fair competition. If any company violates these rules, the competent authorities intervene and impose sanctions that can go as far as the closure of the plants. If crimes have been committed, the Authority reports them to the Judiciary which is required to proceed. That's how the world goes. The Judiciary cannot replace these Authorities, the government or the Parliament. It cannot be you who decides whether or not to close a plant. It must at least deal with whoever has responsibility for public health and safety and then possibly also proceed against that Authority if it deems it in default. Just as it cannot tell doctors how to treat their patients and if and when to pull the plug on a terminally ill person. The division of powers works if there is strict respect for one's limits. Otherwise the balance jumps and this is exactly what happened in Taranto and the price to pay, if a new balance is not restored, could really be very, very salty.
For Taranto there is one and only one possible solution and that is to continue the effort to restore the environment, reduce polluting emissions, comply with the requirements of the environmental protocol and to do so WITHOUT ceasing the activity but, on the contrary, bringing it back to that allow it to generate value and not losses. Only if the plant produces can it recover, innovate technologically, become more efficient and productive. Only in this way can he hope to find investors willing to take him over from the hands of a procedure which, in any case, will have to end sooner or later. If, on the other hand, the plant were to stop producing as many hope, then the fate of Taranto (and of the Italian steel industry) would be sealed. Not only would an acceptable solution not be found for its 15000 employees and related industries (a solution that does not exist) but no one, let's say NOBODY, would ever have the resources to redevelop an area of that size. Bagnoli couldn't do it, neither would Taranto! Taranto would return to an economy based on oil and mussels but, unlike in the past, it would have to live with the ruins of its main industry and with a port which at that point would be of very little use. It would be an impoverished and assisted city. An end he doesn't deserve.
