Wara Diżastru

Dejjem tiġri: splużjoni f’power station nukleari, vapur li jinkalja jew jegħreq, u dan l-aħħar, il-kollass ta’ pont: wara diżastru ta’ ċertu kobor f’pajjiż, il-gvernijiet ta’ pajjiżi oħra juru kemm lesti jilqgħu għall-istess ħaġa.

Mhux f’Malta biss, imma minn tarf sa tarf tal-Ewropa, nħarġu stqarrijiet biex iserrħu l-imħuħ dwar xinhu jsir jew ma jsirx biex il-pontijiet li minn fuqhom jgħaddi t-traffiku jinżammu siguri. Kemm tista’ jafda dit-tip ta’ stqarrija?

Jekk għal raġuni jew oħra, fl-imgħoddi struttura tkun tħalliet trabbi xi vizzju, anke jekk illum qed issirilha manutenzjoni adekwata, mhux faċli tħassar id-deni li jkun laħaq sar. F’kull sitwazzjoni se ssib li baqa’ ċertu sogru li tiġri disgrazzja u ma jistax jitneħħa kif ġieb u laħaq.

Apparti minn kwistjonijiet ta’ sigurtà, li ġara f’Ġenova jqanqal mistoqsijiet oħra li dwarhom ta’ min jirrifletti.

***

Sħubija bejn Stat u Privat

Il-pont li waqa’ kien parti minn infrastruttura tat-traffiku li tmexxiet sa mill-bidu permezz ta’ sħubija bejn stat u s-settur privat: private public partnership, tissejjaħ. Dan sar mudell mifrux ħafna, inkluż f’pajjiżna, ta’ kif ħidmiet li qabel kienu tal-istat, għaddew għal għand il-privat, mitqies bħala aktar effiċjenti.

Bih, l-għan publiku – il-provista ta’ servizz meħtieġ mill-poplu – jintlaħaq mingħajr ma jintefqu wisq fondi publiċi billi dawn joħroġhom minflok il-privat. Wara, dan iħaddem il-faċilità li jkun bena u jbigħ is-servizzi li tipprovdi bi prezz miftiehem ma’ min se “jixtri”, jew l-istess gvern (bħal fil-każ ta’ sptar) jew iċ-ċittadin (fil-każ ta’ autostrada).

F’dan kollu, il-problema baqgħet li mhux faċli tgħid min jaqbillu l-aktar bl-arranġament. Hu minnu li l-għan publiku tista’ tissalvagwardjah mija fil-mija? Niddubita.

***

Manutenzjoni

Argument li qajjem il-ministru tal-intern Taljan Salvini, li ma joħroġx biss provokazzjonijiet stupidi imma ġieli jitkellem bis-sens: b’riżultat tal-awsterità li tħaddmet fl-Ewropa tul l-aħħar snin u biex jintlaħqu l-miri finanzjarji taż-żona ewro, l-gvernijiet baqgħu jnaqqsu l-ispejjeż tagħhom. Għamlu dan f’oqsma ta’ nefqa kapitali u ta’ nefqa rikorrenti li kienu l-anqas jinħassu.

Il-manutenzjoni tal-infrastrutturi spiċċat fost dawn l-oqsma? Ma niskantax, għax manutenzjoni tajba ta’ spiss tinvolvi ċerti spejjeż li jinħassu… u filfatt huma… ta’ natura kapitali. Anki posponiment ta’ ċerta manutenzjoni jista’ jiffranka spejjeż notevoli minn sena għal sena. Imma f’perspettiva tat-tul, dit-tattika tista twassal għall-gwaj.

Żewġ problemi bl-argument ta’ Salvini: Sa ftit taż-żmien ilu, il-partit tiegħu, il-Lega, kien qed jinsisti li l-ispiża kapitali publika fl-Italja kienet suffiċjenti għall-bżonnijiet. U t-tieni: il-pont ta’ Genova ma kienx qed jitmexxa mill-gvern, imma mill-privat.

English Version – Post a disaster

That’s how it always goes: an explosion in a nucler power station, a ship that is driven aground or that sinks, the collapse of a bridge: when a disaster of significant proportions occurs somewhere, the governments of other countries rush to show how well they are prepared to counter a similar emegrency.

Not just in Malta but right across Europe, statements were issued to set minds at rest regarding what is being done or not to ensure that the bridges through which heavy traffic passes are kept secure. But what faith can be placed in such statements?

If for one reason or another, in the past a given structure was allowed to develop some defect, even if today adequate maintenance is being carried out, it cannot be easy to wipe out the damage that has already been done. In allsituations there will be certain margins of risk for accidents to happen and these cannot be suppressed so easily.

Beyond questions of security however, what happened in Genoa does raise questions which merit consideration.

***

Private public partnership

The collapsed bridge was part of a transport infrastructure that right from the start was run according to a private public partnership. This has become quite a widespread model, including here, by which tasks that formerly belonged to the state, were transferred to the private sector, considered to be more efficient than government.

On its basis, the public purpose – that of providing citizens with needed services – is satisfied without spending too much state money, since the funds required areforked out by the private entrepreneurs involved. These then get their money back with a profit since they will run the facility at an “agreed” price for whoever will be “buying” the service, whether it is the government itself (as for a hospital) or citizens (as in the case of a highway).

In the whole issue, a problem remains that it is still not easy to say who benefits most from such an arrangment. Is it true that the public purpose can always be safeguarded one hundred per cent? I doubt it.

***

Maintenance

An argument raised by Italian minister of the interior Salvini (who does not only spout stupid provocations but sometimes talks sense) goes as follows: as a result of the austerity that has been practised in Europe these past years in order to maintain the financial targets of the euro zone, governments continued to rein in their outlays. They did this in areas of capital investment and of recurrent expenditures which would be least noticed.

Was maintenance of the infrastructure among sectors being treated in this way? That would not surprise me, for good maintenance sometimes involves certain outlays which seem to be… in fact they are… close to capital expenditures.Even postponement of some maintenance can account for significant savings fromyear to year. But in a longer term perspective, such an approach could lead to disaster.

Salvini’s assessment carries two objections in its wake: Up to not so long ago, his party, the Lega, was insisting that public capital expenditures in Italy were enough to cover arising needs.And secondly, it was not the government but the private sector which was running the bridge that collapsed in Genoa.