The relationship City-Port

1. The relationship City-Port by Roberta Sparvieri Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities and Towns

2. Relationship City-Port Institutional Agreements signed between Cities and Ports: • 5 Institutional Agreements between Cities & Ports • 10 partners without any Institutional Agreement • 3 data missing (not available or irrelevant information )

3. City and Port Agreements • Ancona • Venice • Gioia Tauro • Pescara • Koper

4. Venice The City of Venice and the Venice P.A. have agreed on a general level. According to act n. 84/1994 of the Italian parliament, the port planning has not to disagree with the city planning. In addition, since 1994, some agreements on defined projects have been signed (e.g. an agreement for the development of the commercial area in porto marghera, on the mainland). (Venice P.A.)

5. Ancona The Municipality of Ancona and the local port Authority jointly elaborated and approved their Detailed Plan for the Development of the Port Area (urban plannig area).

6. Gioia Tauro They signed an institutional agreement on general terms: the city and the port agree to increase employment and development in the area. (Gioia Tauro P.A.)

7. Koper The Municipality of Koper is 6 % owner of the port. Port and Municipality signed a specific agreement on the estabilishment of a terminal for passengers. (Koper)

8. Pescara The City and the Port set up a Work Group composed by representatives of others public corporate bodies and public institutions for the analysis of the potentialities of the harbour and the study of its expansion.

9. Common priorities 11 partners claimed common priorities. 4 partners claimed there isn’t any common priority (Gioia Tauro P.A. Venice P.A.Thessaloniki P.A. and Bar). 4 partners didn’t provide any answer (Venice, Thessaloniki, Vienna, and Koper P.A.).

10. Common priorities • They are: • congestion of access roads to and from the port and city centre (Split P.A. Split and Pescara) • solution of the problems originated by the port traffic -freights and passengers (Ancona and Dubrovnik) • restoration of structural links between the old city and the port area (Ancona) • urban development (Durres) • land acquisition of further areas for the harbour-office, through the recover of old market areas (Pescara) • land use in the port area and Tax regulations (Bar P.A.)

11. the dredging of the canal harbour (Pescara) • individualization of a site for the deposit of the dredged material (Pescara) • the fifth corridor and a terminal for passangers (Koper) • the EU integration process and EU policies (Durres P.A.) • economic growth and tourist development (Dubrovnik)

12. Port-City relationship 2 Municipalities consider it as fairly poor (Ancona and Split) 3 Port Authorities consider it as faily poor (Dubrovnik, Split, and Venice) 3 Municipalities consider it it as fair (Bar, Venice, and Durres) 4 Port Authorities consider it as fair (Bar, Durres, Gioia Tauro, and Thessaloniki)

13. Common projects Only 3 partners developed city-port projects (Ancona, Venice, and Bar) 8 partners have no city-port projects 6 partners didn’t provide any answer.

14. Thank you