Corfu pays, but who gets the money?
Cruise ships fill Corfu, but how much do they contribute towards the town’s needs? Why do Santorini and Mykonos collect four times as much in fees per passenger? Who decided that Corfu can cope with more while getting less?
The cruise passenger fee brings the Municipality of Central Corfu just €396,000 for the three-month period from May to July. Santorini collects €1.74 million, not necessarily because it receives more visitors, but because the state charges a fourfold higher fee there. Why should similar treatment not apply to Corfu?
Cruise passengers do not disembark into some abstract tourism market. They arrive in a specific town, using its roads and public spaces and placing additional pressure on its cleaning services, traffic and infrastructure. In Corfu, moreover, they encounter a historic urban fabric with limited capacity, which must simultaneously accommodate residents, workers and visitors.
The distribution of the cruise passenger fee acknowledges this burden, but arguably does not go far enough. The €396,000 collected over the three-month period is not insignificant. However, without an assessment of the additional costs of cleaning, traffic management, maintenance and visitor management, we cannot know what proportion of the actual expenditure it covers.
The legislature has already recognised that not all destinations are the same. That is why Mykonos and Santorini are subject to a fee of €20 per passenger during the peak season, compared with €5 in Corfu. Differentiated rates, therefore, are neither unprecedented nor institutionally unthinkable.
If Corfu were subject to the same rate structure, with the number of taxable disembarkations and the collection rate remaining unchanged, the municipality's share for the three-month period in question could, in numerical terms, reach approximately €1.58 million. This is a hypothetical calculation, not a revenue forecast.
Corfu could seek inclusion in the higher fee bracket, but this would not be possible through a simple administrative decision. It would require an amendment to Article 27 of Law 5162/2024, which explicitly names Mykonos and Santorini alone.
The town cannot be treated as a free extension of the port. If cruising is a significant economic activity, it should contribute proportionately to maintaining the place that welcomes it. And if Santorini is entitled to special treatment because of the pressure it faces, on what objective criteria is Corfu excluded?
This is a concrete demand that can be put to the government and the region's MPs, supported by data on passenger disembarkations, infrastructure and the burden placed on the town. Without such evidence, it will remain a legitimate grievance. With it, it can become a substantiated case for change.
GIORGOS KATSAITIS
