The end of the iron and steel plant in Taranto, the largest in Europe and pivot of the Italian manufacturing system as well as a source of work and income (and not just environmental problems) for thousands of Taranto families, will not be decided by the crisis in the iron and steel industry European as it was for Bagnoli and not even the economic recession but the ideological and cultural prejudice and the blind persistence of the Taranto Judiciary. A Judiciary - it must be said! – who is literally and technically irresponsible because he doesn't know how, or doesn't want to, evaluate the economic, social and environmental consequences of his own decisions.
From the various ordinances of the Taranto magistrate, an abysmal ignorance of the economic and industrial data of the iron and steel cycle transpires and, above all, an unforgivable underestimation of the complexity of the problems that the management of the plant and its environmentalization involve. The decision to place 8 billion euros under precautionary seizure had the sole effect of provoking the resignation of the entire top management of the group and, consequently, blocking in the bud the reclamation plan that the government and the company had, albeit painstakingly, agreed. A disaster!
What the Judiciary of Taranto does not seem to understand is that to reclaim an area of this size and, above all, to adapt the plants to the new and more stringent European regulations and thus guarantee employment, it is necessary that there is an Entrepreneur willing to invest significant amounts of money in this project (at least 3 billion Euros). These figures must, at least in part, be generated by productive activity. If the plant produces and if the products are sold then the remediation can continue because it is itself a condition of production continuity. If, on the other hand, this is not the case and the plant stops, then the reclamation also stops. In the event of cessation of activity, in fact, the only obligation of the owner is to secure the area and the systems: not necessarily to reclaim them. If there is no production, as the magistrate has repeatedly said, there is not even pollution and if there is no pollution it really makes no sense to invest huge resources in the reclamation and environmentalization of the plants. It is true that the dispute remains on the background and on what Ilva should have done and which according to the investigators it did not do. However, it will be the judges who decide on this point following the outcome of a hearing and certainly not the investigating magistrates or the public prosecutor's office, at least as long as Italy remains a rule of law. If Ilva decides to cease production activity and consequently not to follow up on the reclamation plan, the fate of the site appears to be sealed and it will be scrapped. That is, to become the largest abandoned industrial area in Italy, exposed to degradation and vandalisation. Have no illusions about this! We have not managed to transform Bagnoli, where the conditions existed and there were also the resources to do so, it is difficult to think of being able to do it in Taranto where both the conditions and the resources are lacking.
What can happen now? In all likelihood, the Riva group will have to evaluate the need to put the plant (and perhaps the whole group) into liquidation. The trade unions, for their part, ask that the government nationalize Ilva but forget that in 95 Ilva of Taranto was saved only because the EU (Andreatta Van Miert agreement) authorized IRI to cover Ilva's losses on condition who restructured the factory and sold it to private individuals, which was later done with Riva. If this path appears impassable, no less problematic is that of placing a commissioner on the part of the government, if only because it seems very difficult for the State and the Banks to be able to make available the huge financial resources that are necessary to start the reclamation. Only the way of selling to third parties remains, which then means to the Chinese, the Indians (Mittel ) and, perhaps, the French. It is possible that this will happen but on the condition that the plant is sold at zero lire and that, in addition to the obvious environmental indemnity for the past, there is a strong downsizing of the reclamation plan (at least lengthening its implementation times to align it with those of the entry into force throughout Europe of the new 2018 legislation). That can hardly happen. Also because one wonders if such a choice makes sense for a private entrepreneur. If you have to invest a lot of your own money to reclaim and environmentalize a site and moreover you have to do it in a context hostile to steel production, it would seem more sensible to build a plant from scratch perhaps in a non-EU country close enough to Italy to be able to replenish it. In this case, only the (irrecoverable) ruins of the already largest steel plant in Europe would remain in Taranto. A truly bitter outcome for the workers and for Italy that could perhaps be avoided if only we all rowed on the same side or, at least, if everyone limited themselves to doing their job.
