Following the resumption of cruise traffic, the debate over the management of large ships within the lagoon is heating up. Another 60 ships are expected before the end of the year. Following the resumption of cruise traffic, the debate over the management of large ships within the lagoon is heating up. Another 60 ships are expected before the end of the year.
On 5 June, the cruise season in Venice got under way following the halt imposed by the pandemic — the last ship had sailed 17 months earlier. And with the departure of the Msc Orchestra, carrying around a thousand tourists bound for Greece, the debate over the management of large ships within the lagoon has reignited. Despite the decree-law of 25 March, the cruise ship sailed from the Marittima station, passing through the Giudecca Canal, San Marco, and finally exiting the lagoon via the traditional Lido harbour mouth.
The Msc Orchestra is expected to return to Venice every Saturday, and in the coming months two further cruise ships — the Msc Magnifica and the Costa Deliziosa — will also pass through Venice: three ships a week, totalling around 60 by the end of the year. A considerably reduced number compared to the 550 calls recorded in previous years, also because there will be a stoppage in early July due to restrictions connected to the G20 being held at the Arsenale and to the Festa del Redentore.
On the Saturday of the departure, two demonstrations of diametrically opposed character took place. On one side, the "No grandi navi" committee, which for about ten years has been contesting the presence of the colossal ships within the lagoon. On the other side of the barricade, the Venezia Lavora committee, representing the approximately 5,000 workers in the cruise-related tourism sector, which for its part applauded the restart after months of standstill. During the demonstration, moments of tension were recorded, as reported by a local outlet: "as the Msc Orchestra passed, some boats carrying port workers ventured beyond the area allocated to the pro-cruise demonstration, triggering a verbal and near-physical clash with the environmentalists".
A few days after the dispute, the "No grandi navi" committee responded, expressing concern at the "climate of tension, of a split between citizens opposed to large ships entering the lagoon and those who welcome them", maintaining that it had "always offered space for dialogue at our assemblies and have always defended the rights of workers, especially during these months of extremely serious crisis, including by taking part in mobilisations to that end".
As if that were not enough, on 21 June Unesco also weighed in, criticising current policies that continue to defer the problem without offering short-term solutions. So much so that it urgently called for a "long-term solution" to completely prevent large ships from accessing the lagoon, preferably "redirecting them to more suitable ports in the area". A concerned Franceschini also responded to the appeal, writing on Twitter that this choice "compels us to take a further step, by immediately banning the passage of large ships through the Giudecca Canal".
The discussion about removing large ships from the lagoon has been ongoing since at least 2012, if not earlier — the year of the Costa Concordia accident off the island of Giglio. Indeed, as far back as that year, the so-called Clini-Passera decree had already banned the passage of ships along the current route. There is also a ban in force relating to the size of cruise ships, which is supposed to limit entry to vessels exceeding 96,000 tonnes. For comparison, the Msc Orchestra weighs 92,000 tonnes, is 294 metres long, 32 metres wide and 60 metres tall. That is why it was permitted to enter.
To date, the decree is still awaited — the one that is supposed to launch a call for ideas to find an alternative solution. The deadline indicated was 31 May, later pushed back to the end of June. The new tender envisages the construction of a new cruise terminal in the industrial canal of Porto Marghera, which is expected to include the design of a passenger terminal with a corresponding quay facing the northern industrial canal. The second option, also floated by Veneto regional governor Luca Zaia, would be to have ships enter via the Malamocco harbour mouth, then pass along the Canale dei Petroli and the Vittorio Emanuele — a partly silted-up canal that would therefore need to be dredged to allow the "skyscrapers of the seas" to pass through.
The other solution, which in the pre-Covid era had appeared to be the fastest, was to reduce passages in front of San Marco by using distributed berths at Porto Marghera on the container quays — Tiv and Vecon had been identified for this purpose. But now, with the protocols required by the pandemic, resorting to this alternative is practically impossible.
While environmentalists support removing cruise ships from the lagoon, the entire sector employed in cruising is backed by the regional governor. As ilfattoquotidiano.it reports, Zaia stated that "there is a red line that we will not allow to be crossed. Venice and Veneto will never give up cruising — a sector worth 4,500 jobs, 200 companies, and enormous financial flows. We can discuss everything, but not the priority of safeguarding employment and the economy linked to the sector. Any project that calls these points into question is automatically ruled out".
It is fairly evident that seeing cruise ships outside the lagoon remains a pipe dream, at least for the next few years. Meanwhile, Venice risks losing its prestigious Unesco recognition, which does nothing but document the slow, almost inescapable decline of this fragile floating city in an environment unique in the world.
