The Port of Gioia Tauro
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 THE PORT OF GIOIA TAURO PREPARED BY: CSIL, CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL STUDIES, MILAN PREPARED FOR: European Commission DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY POLICY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION MILAN, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 This study is carried out by a team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure no 2010.CE.16.B.AT.036. The consortium selected comprises CSIL – Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner – Milan) and DKM Economic Consultants (Dublin). The Core Team comprises: - Scientific Director: Massimo Florio, CSIL and University of Milan; - Project Coordinators: Silvia Vignetti and Julie Pellegrin, CSIL; - External experts: Ginés de Rus (University of Las Palmas, Spain), Per-Olov Johansson (Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden) and Eduardo Ley (World Bank, Washington, D.C.); - Senior experts: Ugo Finzi, Mario Genco, Annette Hughes and Marcello Martinez; - Task managers: John Lawlor, Julie Pellegrin and Davide Sartori; - Project analysts: Emanuela Sirtori, Gelsomina Catalano and Rory Mc Monagle. A network of country experts provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis: Roland Blomeyer, Fernando Santos (Blomeyer and Sanz – Guadalajara), Andrea Moroni (CSIL – Milano), Antonis Moussios, Panos Liveris (Eurotec - Thessaloniki), Marta Sánchez-Borràs, Mateu Turró (CENIT – Barcelona), Ernestine Woelger (DKM – Dublin). The authors of this report are Mario Genco, Emanuela Sirtori and Silvia Vignetti of CSIL. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey, Anna Burylo and Kai Stryczynski. They also express their gratitude to all stakeholders who agreed to respond to the team’s questions and contributed to the realisation of the case study. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged. Cover: The Port of Gioia Tauro. Source: MCT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 STRUCTURAL FEATURES AND SERVICE DELIVERED .................................................................................... 9 1.3 CURRENT PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................. 11 2 ORIGIN AND HISTORY ............................................................................................................... 13 2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 FINANCING DECISION ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 START UP AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE TRANSHIPMENT HUB .................................................................. 17 2.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE BROAD GIOIA TAURO AREA ...................................................... 25 3 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 31 3.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.2 DIRECT ECONOMIC GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 33 3.3 ENDOGENOUS DYNAMICS ................................................................................................................ 34 3.4 TERRITORIAL COHESION ................................................................................................................... 36 3.5 SOCIAL HAPPINESS .......................................................................................................................... 37 3.6 SOCIAL COHESION .......................................................................................................................... 37 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 37 3.8 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY .................................................................................................................. 38 4 DETERMINANTS OF PROJECT OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 39 4.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 39 4.2 APPROPRIATENESS TO THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 40 4.3 MANAGERIAL RESPONSE .................................................................................................................. 41 4.4 PROJECT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 43 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 53 ANNEX I. METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION .................................................................................. 55 ANNEX II. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 61 ANNEX III. MAP OF STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................... 97 ANNEX IV. LIST OF ENTERPRISES OPERATIONAL IN THE PORT AREA .............................................. 101 ANNEX V. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................ 105 ANNEX VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 107 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASI-REG Consortium for the Industrial Promotion of the Province of Reggio Calabria CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policies EC European Commission ECU European Current Unit ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund EU European Union FPA Framework Programme Agreement (Accordo di Programma Quadro) GDP Gross Domestic Product ICO-BLG Automobile Logistics Italia (port operator for car carrier) MCT Medcenter Container Terminal (port operator for transhipment) MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company (shipping line) NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units RFI Rete Ferrovie Italiane (Italian railway operator) SME Small and Medium Enterprise TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study illustrates the story of the Port of Gioia Tauro, a major infrastructure investment co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the period 1994-1998. More specifically, this is an ex-post evaluation assessing the long term effects produced by the project and interpreting the key determinants of the observed performance. It is an innovative evaluation exercise given the long-run perspective (30 years), which extends into both the past and the future, and requires a mix of retrospective and prospective analysis. The analysis draws from an ex-post Cost-Benefit Analysis - CBA1 and from an extensive set of qualitative evidence, both secondary (technical reports, official reports, press articles, books and research papers) and primary (17 interviews with key stakeholders and experts have been carried out in the period May-July 20112). The overall approach and methodology followed in the project is briefly recalled in the box below. OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The Conceptual Framework delivered in the First Intermediate Report has been developed from the evaluation questions included in the ToR3, and further specified and organised in accordance with the study team’s understanding. In particular, the Team identified three relevant dimensions of analysis: a. The object of the evaluation (the ‘WHAT’): this relates to the typologies of long-term contributions that can be observed. Starting from the typologies identified in the ToR (socio-economic development and quality of life) the Team developed the following classification of long-term effects: ‘Economic development’ (including effects on GDP growth and endogenous dynamics) and ‘Quality of life’, taken here to be synonymous with additional social wellbeing, i.e. including effects that are not captured by the economic variables. ‘Quality of life’, in turn, has been divided into: social cohesion, territorial cohesion, institutional learning, environmental effects and social happiness. b. The timing of the long-term effects (the ‘WHEN’): this dimension relates to the point in the project’s lifetime at which the effects materialise for the first time (short-term dimension) and stabilise (long-term dimension). The proper timing of an evaluation and the role it can have in relation to the project’s implementation is also discussed here. c. The determinants of the project’s performance (the ‘HOW’): the assumption here is that