This year's news events have brought to light, certainly not for the first time, the phenomenon of corruption in the construction of public works in Italy. The "major works" and their contracts end up once again at the center of judicial attention. The most serious fact that emerges is that corruption not only involves morally and legally reprehensible facts, but introduces mechanisms that increase costs and lengthen times: to finance the corrupt it is necessary that the works cost more and last longer to be built . There is an obvious need - to build infrastructure at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable time - for tools to fight corruption, for measures to free public works sites from the mafias.
A separate but nonetheless connected theme is that of a more credible planning capable of identifying priorities. No longer a list with a large number of works proposed to be implemented, the costs of which are often constantly increasing also due to delays and blockages, and often capable of devouring resources for those works, small or large, that are really useful for development of the country. Think, for example, of the development of the broadband network and the related digital communication services, of which parts of the country are completely lacking, or even of timely interventions to protect the environment.
In part, this problem has been addressed by our Government. The Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Graziano Delrio, in fact, in the Strategic Infrastructure Program (PIS) 2015, contained in the Infrastructure Annex to the 2015 DEF, indicated a small core of infrastructures, 25 priority, essential works of national importance, necessary for the country's competitiveness and for intelligent mobility in urban areas. It is a sort of "priority of priorities" on a national scale. Further priority works may be identified during the definition of the Multiannual Planning Document. But is stopping major works really the solution to all evils? By doing this, can the work of those who have to carry out the construction of the infrastructure be better monitored? Can the phenomena of corruption and the squandering of public resources be avoided?
In our opinion, the issue is not in the contrast between major works and minor works, but between useful works and useless or less useful works; in other words, it is a matter of establishing the real precedence to respond to the real demand for development of the country, that is, works that are truly relevant for the community, based on innovation and quality. From the point of view of the I Costi del Non Fare (CNF) Observatory, it is certainly wrong to argue that major works are no longer needed, just as it is incorrect to assume that all the works indicated in the Objective Law had priority. It is our belief that the need for works in the country is still very high, but its nature has profoundly changed, just as priorities have changed considerably. Our latest study estimates the economic, environmental and social costs that we all would have to bear at over 800 billion euro by not filling Italy's infrastructure needs.
However, it is important to note that, over the years, this need has evolved, above all as a result of changes in the consumption habits of citizens, largely due to the crisis. And so the demand for energy, waste disposal, mobility, etc. has shrunk or slowed down its growth. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that in the last decade many great works that were at a standstill or proceeded in the midst of a thousand difficulties have been completed; this in the energy sectors but also in the mobility sector, such as for example the HS railway line and the Mestre bypass, but also the Brebemi (with all the limits we observe), the Milan-Bergamo fourth lane, part of the Pedemontana and various other . Finally, the constraints of public finance and banking impose a necessary rationalization of spending.
In our opinion, all of this redefines the framework of priorities, and this also emerges from our studies. The relative importance of historical infrastructures - such as power plants, highways or railways - decreases and the importance of works with a higher technological content increases. Above all, the ultra-broadband which improves work productivity, business efficiency (lower costs) while simultaneously reducing the need for mobility. It is therefore essential to implement precise targeted infrastructure plans with clear priorities, which establish precise actions to be carried out, with well-assigned tasks and divided among the various actors, both public and private, according to a well-defined time sequence and using means and certain resources.
But, as mentioned, the phenomena of corruption must be strongly opposed. First, with greater clarity and transparency of the rules. We need legislation that is both "lighter" and more severe, which gives greater certainty and stability of the rules and based on the concept of accountability, speeding up the execution of the works. But as is often reiterated: the rules alone are not enough or even counterproductive if they are not applied and implemented. Perhaps, with the draft law to reform the Procurement Code, approved by the Senate last June, a valid process of change is beginning to be outlined. It constitutes a fundamental step for the Government in order to review the system of awarding public works.
These and other topics will be addressed on the occasion of the first QPLab Workshop, which will be held in Rome on September 30 at the Via Veneto Auditorium (visit the event website).
