Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.


Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands)

Factors affecting the property in 2001*
  • Management systems/ management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2001
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2001**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2001

IUCN received reports of legal proceedings taken to oppose the implementation of the Landscape Territorial Plan for the Aeolian Islands. The Plan (“Piano Paesistico delle Isole Eolie”), was prepared by the Superintendent of Culture and Environment on behalf of the Sicily Region, which is fully responsible for the management of the World Heritage site.  It covers the seven Islands in their entirety. 


The main goals of the Plan are:

·  To preserve the natural condition of volcanic bodies, structures and coastal areas

·  To establish clear rules and criteria to guide human interventions in relation to the landscape of the Islands.


It is understood that the Mayors of two of the four townships on the Islands – Lipari and Leni, have opposed the Plan and have requested the Court to deliver a judgement in order to cancel the Plan.  A group of non-governmental organisations, including Italia Nostra, Associazione Prostromboli, WWF and Legambiente, is supporting the Sicily Region’s Plan in Court.  The deadline for submissions is 14 November 2001, while the court decision is expected on the 4 December 2001.  In opposing the Plan, the Mayor of Lipari has stated that “limitations foreseen - for agricultural, tourist, economic and productive activities; in the alteration of existing buildings; the prohibition of new constructions; the limitations of new constructions on agricultural areas; the prohibition of building new roads and enlarging existing footpaths - will all harm the general economy of the Islands”. 


The Plan will be managed by the Regional Office of the Superintendent of Culture and Environment of Messina who will approve or reject any alteration of the territory according to the rules stated in the same Plan. This Plan is the only existing plan for the Islands and meets the requirements set for the World Heritage site.


If the Plan should not be implemented, it is understood the rules regarding conservation, new constructions and general human activities on the Islands will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the different City Councils.  As reported by Italia Nostra, these Councils have stated their intention to increase by at least 4 times the present level of tourist accommodation.  IUCN notes the actions of Italia Nostra for support of the Landscape Territorial Plan, which is particularly important given its significance as the only (potential) plan governing the World Heritage site.  However IUCN also notes that at the time of nomination, the State Party mentioned its commitment to preparation of a separate management plan for the World Heritage site, to be placed within the Landscape Territorial Plan.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2001
Reports on SOC of natural properties inscribed noted by the Committee


Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List noted by the Committee

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)

Fraser Island (Australia)

The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)

Gros Morne National Park (Canada)

Nahanni National Park (Canada)

Los Katios National Park (Colombia) 

Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (Hungary/Slovakia)

The Committee noted that the issues raised concern only the Slovak part of this transboundary site.

Sundarbans National Park (India) 

The Delegate of India informed the Committee that there is no National Waterways Project that is planned or likely to impact this site.

Kaziranga National Park (India)

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)

Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)

The Observer of Indonesia thanked the Australian authorities for their financial assistance. He informed the Committee that it would be difficult to comply with the deadline of 1 February and that a report could be provided by the end of March 2002.

Aeolian Islands (Italy)

The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a court decision on 4 December 2001, which is not yet public, but that it is hoped to be available soon. She informed the Committee that the collaboration between the autonomous regional Government and the central Government has commenced and that a meeting will take place to find a solution. 

Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)

The Delegate of Egypt brought to the attention of the Committee the importance of protecting the wetlands, which are known to be important rest places for the migratory birds along their routes. He suggested that the World Heritage Centre should have a plan defining the wetlands, which are important for the birds and to use this information for establishing "satellite" World Heritage sites. IUCN informed of the co-operation between the World Heritage Centre and the Ramsar Convention as well as with Bird Life International for the protection of the wetlands. He also highlighted the importance of the surrounding areas to the World Heritage sites and the links with the Man and Biosphere programme for the protection of the sites. The Secretariat informed of the on-going discussions with the Secretariat of the Convention of Migratory Species to establish a Memorandum of Understanding between these two Conventions.

Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)

Sian Ka'an (Mexico)

The Delegate of Mexico informed that the confirmation of the Ecological Land-Use Plan is in its final phase and consequently she asked that the deadline for the report requested by the Bureau be set for 15 May 2002 for examination at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June.

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)

Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)

Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)

Doñana National Park (Spain)

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)

Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United Kingdom)

St Kilda (United Kingdom)

Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America)

Canaima National Park (Venezuela)


The Bureau may wish to adopt the following decision:

“The Bureau expresses its concern to the State Party on the local government opposition to the Landscape Territorial Plan, noting that the inscription of the site was partly based on the existence of this Plan. The Bureau requests the State Party to provide information on the implications the court action has for the preparation of a Management Plan for the World Heritage site.  It also requests to be provided with an update on: progress in development of the Management Plan; the protective and educational/interpretative actions undertaken for the site, and proposed development plans, particularly with respect to tourism on the Islands, how such tourism development may affect the World Heritage site and how it will be dealt with within the Landscape Territorial Plan and Management Plan. The Bureau requests that this information be provided  by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau”.

Report year: 2001
Date of Inscription: 2000
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 25COM (2001)

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.