Now is the time to make a decision on Ilva. Views and ideas

Giorgia Meloni, prior to her arrival yesterday for the opening ceremony of the 20th edition of the Mediterranean Games, sent a letter to the Prefect of Taranto announcing the convening of a round-table meeting in September: “I guarantee that maintaining a significant steel production capacity is considered by the government to be an objective of national importance,” she wrote. “Significant production capacity”—how much? Six million, as authorised? One million, as at present? Eight million, as per the break-even point? Zero, as imposed by the Milan court? Hot rolling mill? Blast furnace or electric furnace? Or just rolling mill? In short, Meloni’s statement seems more like a conciliatory message aimed at preventing protests during the ceremony than a genuine industrial policy direction. After all, long gone are the days when the then Prime Minister Matteo Renzi came to Taranto to save Ilva from the clutches of the courts and populist pressure, established the CIS with two billion to give the city a new lease of life, and inaugurated the largest museum of Magna Graecia – yet was criticised by trade unions and associations. Now everyone is applauding. Because Ilva is definitively dead. To everyone’s relief. Even the industrialists who, until now, had been defending it.

“Even the solution proposed by the 14 Italian steelmakers is not a consortium to save Ilva, but only its rolling mills,” says Professor Carlo Mapelli, Italy’s leading expert on the steel industry. Ilva will no longer produce steel but will process it, becoming a service centre. After all, as Mapelli explains, the production capacity previously provided by Ilva has now been replaced without any major disruptions. For months, the Taranto steelworks has been operating below capacity, but the Italian economy has not suffered as a result. It is therefore entirely redundant to talk of a new electric furnace. It is worth recalling that a few months ago, Federacciai opposed public funding for Metinvest’s electric furnace in Piombino. Yet now it is calling for it for Taranto. Even if it never does so. Because, as Mapelli explains, it would involve a prohibitive level of investment. First of all, the entire site would have to be redeveloped, involving the demolition of the four existing blast furnaces. The facility Hyundai Steel is building in Louisiana, with a capacity of 2.7 million tonnes, has cost almost six billion. For 1,700 employees. Is it worth doing this in Taranto? That ship has sailed; indeed, it was deliberately allowed to sail. At the time, Marco Bentivogli was secretary of the Fim-Cisl union, and he fought hard to prevent this outcome. “Bringing the Italian steelmakers together is a major achievement for Federacciai,” he tells us, “but there remain questions that nobody wants to answer. It’s true, politicians should provide a framework of guarantees, but a ‘mini-Ilva’ without a hot-rolling mill isn’t realistic; it’s merely postponing a problem that remains. The electric furnace is a symbol of Italian excellence, but it doesn’t cover all production, and the steel we don’t produce ourselves we’ll have to buy from others. The rolling mills would have to be fed with slabs sourced from around the world, and in Jindal’s plan, from Oman. But the question also applies to the national consortium: where will its slabs come from, given that supply sources are becoming increasingly unstable? We call it a ‘transition’ when it is actually a relocation upstream: emissions remain in the world, whilst value flows out of here. An integrated cycle compatible with public health is now technologically feasible, but we need a ten-year European plan, not yet another round of talks.”

Stefano Firpo of Assonime explains: “The Ilva case is paradigmatic because it reflects the utter inability of our national system to work towards finding strategic solutions to industrial problems. Ideological environmentalism, an interventionist judiciary, a political class incapable of understanding and managing processes of transformation, an opportunistic trade union, and local authorities driven by populism have all contributed to the current situation”. He adds: “The government completely underestimated (assuming it was even aware of it) the case before the Milan court. And when the judgement came down, it found itself unprepared. Now it must choose between the Italian consortium and Jindal’s bid. Either it protects the Italian steel supply chain by focusing on the operations that are still salvageable and profitable, whilst socialising all the environmental, employment and economic costs of closing the hot rolling mill – with the complex management of a ‘Bagnoli cubed’ scenario – or it builds a supply chain with the Indian group which, thanks to access to gas in Oman, can restore the competitiveness of primary steel production in Taranto (judiciary permitting). After years of procrastination, the time has come to make a choice.”