Last week, the cruise industry was shaken up with the news that Venice has banned large cruise ships from entering its Guidecca canal.

Minister for transport Mr Toninelli announced last week in a parliamentary hearing that large cruise ships (weighing 1,000 tonnes or more) will as of next month be rerouted to Fusina and Lombardia terminals. By next year, a third of cruise ships will be rerouted.

However, given the close proximity of the two alternative terminals to Venice’s city centre (both are located inside the lagoon), this shouldn’t have too much impact on cruise ships and passengers going forward, as they will still be able to travel into the city centre easily.

Because of this, this has raised concerns and speculation as to whether the new measure will address the environmental concerns that have continuously been stressed by residents and critics, who argue that these ships are damaging the historic city’s ancient foundations and are contributing to overcrowding.

This ongoing dispute came to a head last June when MSC Cruises’ 2,675-passenger vessel crashed into a wharf and tourist boat in Venice, resulting in five people being injured. A few weeks later, another vessel narrowly avoided smashing into the shore during a violent storm. Both incidents reignited calls for a ban.

However, according to Ralph Hollister, associate tourism analyst at GlobalData, while the new measure will reroute cruise ships away from the centre, this isn’t likely to achieve the objective of protecting the city’s centuries-old buildings and limiting overcrowding.

“Rerouting cruise ships away from Venice’s centre will give local residents the impression that their complaints have been taken on board,” comments Hollister. “However, it is probable that redirected tourists will commute to the central islands via large coaches and taxi services instead.

“This will spread the issue of over-tourism to new areas outside of the centre, creating traffic congestion that will pollute suburban areas.

“The combination of utilising ports away from central Venice and a new measure requiring day-trippers to pay an entrance fee up to $11 from September are unlikely to effectively combat over-tourism. Mass visitation remains important for the local government; tourism is worth 11.4 per cent of Venetian GDP.

“The local government may continue to ride the tourism wave until the effects become irreversible to the city’s fragile structure.”

Along with Hollister, other people have also raised their concerns about the effectiveness of the new measure, including We are Here Venice, a company which advocates the safeguarding of Venice and evidence-based approaches to policy-making.

Following the announcement last Wednesday (7 August 2019), it tweeted: “The government decision about MOVING cruise ships is like changing the position of the cream teas buffet when we’re running out of food! The problem has not been resolved YET.”

Similarly, CLIA released a statement announcing it has been in talks with Italian authorities for a long time about using alternative routes and urges them to make a decision so plans can move forward.

“CLIA cruise lines have been actively engaged in discussions for a considerable time about using the Vittoria Emanuele Canal as the preferred alternative solution. We have been cooperative in simulations and studies that supported the Comitatone recommendation.

“CLIA urges all parties in Venice to reach a conclusion to start the preparation work to prepare the Vittoria Emanuele Canal so we can begin to reroute the larger ships.”

Therefore, given these raised concerns, it remains to be seen whether this new measure will achieve its aim and benefit Venice and its residents in the long-term.