Transition Towards Sustainable Fishing and Tourism 

Abstract

Ustica is a small island surrounded by a Marine Protected Area (MPA), where, therefore, all human activities cannot fail to consider the objectives of protecting the marine environment. So, a satisfactory balance must be found. Fishing within the MPA is regulated differently depending on the zone. In any case, the main method is artisanal fishing, which is part of the island’s centuries-old tradition and still provides income with minimal impact on the environment. There are still cases of illegal fishing, especially by retired fishermen. This problem could be solved by attributing sanctioning powers to the MPA authority, adopting more participatory approaches, exploiting the potential of ‘fishing tourism,’ or financial and fiscal incentives. Another key economic activity is tourism. Here, the biggest problem is due to seasonality, which concentrates pressure on the local infrastructure in the summer period. However, initiatives have already been taken to make tourism more sustainable: volunteers from environmental associations have organised awareness-raising activities aimed at both the local population and tourists; diving centres incorporate citizen science projects in their holiday packages and promote tourism in the low season. Finally, the promotion of archaeological heritage and gastronomic excellence could be another means of ‘deseasonalising.’

To reference this paper: 

Mingoia, M., 2024. Transition towards sustainable fishing and tourism: The case of the Ustica Island, Sicily. In Towards Circular: Analysis of the coastal areas of Greece, Italy and Spain. Edited by Skupchenko, J.K. Think Tank AlterContacts. Available at: https://www.altercontacts.org/publications/towards-circular-2024/it-sd-5 

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17057.62567

Introduction

Ustica is an island of volcanic origin with an area of 8,65 km2 and a population of 1,306 people. It is situated in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, approximately 67 km north of Palermo. Since the Palaeolithic period, the island has been continuously inhabited by various ancient Mediterranean peoples. Subsequently, it was for a long time the base of Saracen pirates, then briefly hosted a Benedictine community and was again stormed by Barbary pirates. The island’s colonisation was initiated in 1759. At the same time, Ustica also began to serve as a place of confinement for political prisoners, a role it continued to fulfil under the Savoy and during the fascist regime. The practice of confining prisoners on the island was discontinued in 1961. Since that time, the island has experienced a period of economic growth and development, with the tourism industry becoming a significant contributor to the local economy.

The island's economy is based primarily on artisanal fishing and small-scale agriculture (Hogg et al., 2021). However, the island’s distinctive feature is that any human activity, whether economic or otherwise, must take into account the objective of environmental protection (Livreri Console, 2017). Indeed, the Oriented Nature Reserve ‘Isola di Ustica,’ designated as a Site of Community Importance and Special Protection Area, has been established on the island with the objective of safeguarding the distinctive coastal vegetation, along with the island’s geological landscape and faunal values. Furthermore, the island is encircled by the Marine Protected Area (MPA) ‘Isola di Ustica’ and the Site of Community Importance ‘Fondali di Ustica.’ 

This is an ideal setting for analysing the potential for environmental protection and economic activities not only to coexist but also to benefit each other. This will serve as the foundation for the analysis in the next section. Following a review of the history and legal framework of the MPA, the question will be posed as to whether it adequately balances the competing constitutional objectives. The following sections will analyse the two main economic activities on the island: fishing and tourism. In each case, a historical overview will be provided, followed by an account of the current state of the art. This will be accompanied by an identification of harmful practices and suggestions for potential solutions, many of which have already been implemented by local operators. 

The analysis will be conducted with particular attention to constitutional, legislative, and regulatory legislation. A review of the existing literature on the subject will be crucial. However, the surprising scarcity of academic interest in the island over the last two decades is worth noting. It is, therefore, important to refer to governmental websites, although it is evident that their potential as sources of information and tools for public participation is not fully exploited. Rather, they appear to have been designed solely to fulfil legal obligations (Rossi et al., 2024), which in some cases is not even done to a satisfactory standard. 

However, the difficulty in finding information and data should not be a deterrent. It should be viewed as an incentive for more comprehensive and in-depth research on issues that concern the island of Ustica, but it could also be useful in addressing the same problems and challenges encountered elsewhere. In the present context, where sustainable development represents a fundamental objective, the study and search for solutions in the most ‘extreme’ cases enables the preparation of responses even in ‘easier’ circumstances. 

Protecting the Marine Environment

The beginnings of marine environmental protection in Italy through the establishment of ‘marine nature reserves’

The first explicit qualification of the protection of the marine environment in the broad sense as a public objective can be traced back to Law no. 979 of 31 December 1982, entitled ‘Provisions for the Defence of the Sea’. Article 1 states that the then Minister of the Merchant Navy will implement a policy of protecting the marine environment and the prevention of harmful effects on the resources of the sea. In addition, Title V of the 1982 Law is dedicated to ‘marine nature reserves’, which are defined by Article 25 as marine environments (waters, seabeds, and stretches of coastline) that are of significant interest due to their natural, geomorphological physical, and biochemical characteristics, with particular regard to marine and coastal flora and fauna, and due to their scientific, ecological, cultural, educational and economic importance. Article 26 then stipulated that the Minister should establish the body in question by decree, based on the opinion of the National Council for the Protection of the Natural Environment – Section for the Protection of the Marine Environment, and on the proposal of the Council for the Defence of the Sea from Pollution, after consulting the Regions and Municipalities territorially concerned. 

The existence of the aforementioned ‘significant interest’ necessitates the implementation of a differentiated legal regime of protection. Article 27 allows regulating all activities in the marine nature reserve (e.g., navigation, access and anchoring with boats, bathing, fishing) through prohibitions, limitations, or authorisations, accompanied by related sanctions provided for in Article 30 in the event of violation. These regulations, together with the determination of the reserve’s surface area and the enumeration of its intended purposes (scientific, cultural, economic, and educational), are set forth in the decree establishing each marine nature reserve. 

The Establishment of the Marine Protected Area ‘Island of Ustica’

The 1982 Law provided the legal basis for the establishment of the first marine nature reserve by ministerial decree of 12 November 1986. The ‘Isola di Ustica’ reserve covers the marina area up to 3 nautical miles from the actual coastline of the island and is managed by the Municipality of Ustica. Article 3 of the ministerial decree outlined the purposes of the marine nature reserve. These include the environmental protection of this marine area, the conservation and valorisation of the area’s biological resources, the repopulation of fish stocks, the dissemination and education in the field of marine biology and ecology, and the implementation of scientific research programmes. This area of approximately 16,000 hectares (ministerial decree of 27 April 2010) is further divided into three zones (ministerial decree of 12 November 1986, Article 4), each of which is subject to a distinct protection regime. 

The 60-hectare area to the west of the island is Zone A. It is an integral reserve or ‘No take Zone.’ In this area, fishing, navigation, access, anchoring with boats, and any other activity detrimental to flora and fauna are prohibited, except for bathing in specifically identified spots and the transit of service boats and those authorised for study and research purposes. This strict regime is intended to allow for the repopulation of fish stock away from human impact. Zone B, to the north and west of the island, is a general reserve and is also called a ‘Buffer Zone’ because it surrounds Zone A, providing it with greater protection. Lastly, Zone C, to the south and east of the island, is a partial reserve or ‘Open or peripheral Zone.’ Certain activities are prohibited in these zones, while others, such as professional and recreational fishing, boating, and diving, are permitted but regulated. However, regulations are stricter in Zone B and looser in Zone C.

Environmental protection and socio-economic enhancement in 1991 and 1998

Subsequently, the legislator intervened again in the matter with the so-called ‘Framework Law on Protected Areas’ (Law no. 394 of 6 December 1991). The first innovation is terminological. The new legislation uses the expression ‘protected natural areas,’ which, like the previous ‘reserves,’ constitute the so-called natural heritage. This is defined as the physical, geological, geomorphological, and biological formations, or groups of them, that have significant natural and environmental value and which, especially if vulnerable, are subject to a special protection and management regime aimed in particular at the conservation of animal or plant species and the promotion of education, training and scientific research activities, as well as compatible recreational activities. 

Furthermore, the valorisation and experimentation of compatible production activities can be encouraged in these areas. Moreover, per Article 1-bis, introduced by Law No. 426 of 1998, the Minister of the Environment promotes agreements with the Regions and other public and private entities to advance sustainable economic actions, including those related to environmental tourism. A more significant novelty can be discerned in the combination of the objective of safeguarding the natural heritage of protected areas and socio-economic enhancement from a sustainable development perspective (Torta, 2023).

The 2022 Constitutional Reform

However, combining the safeguarding of protected areas and their sustainable socio-economic development is not easy because they both have constitutional relevance, thus requiring delicate balancing. This is especially needed following the amendment recently made by Constitutional Law no. 1 of 11 February 2022 to Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution. Article 9 already protected the Italian landscape and historical and artistic heritage. The 2022 constitutional reform introduced a third paragraph, thereby establishing the constitutional protection of the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems. It also intended to safeguard the interests of future generations. 

Article 41 already guaranteed the freedom of economic initiative. The 1948 text provided that this freedom cannot be exercised in a manner that is contrary to social utility or would impair security, freedom, and human dignity. The recent constitutional amendment has extended the limits on freedom of economic initiative to include the protection of health and the environment. Furthermore, the law determines appropriate programs and controls to direct and coordinate public and private economic activity for social and environmental purposes. Looking closely, the scope of this constitutional reform is less extensive than it may appear. While it indeed highlights the importance of the environmental issue in the sensitivity of Italian public opinion, it does not represent an absolute novelty in the domestic legal landscape. Rather, it is the manifestation of the constitutional legislator’s desire to align itself with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and provide an even more solid foundation for its reasoning (Torta, 2023).

A Satisfactory Balance?

Whether the balance between these constitutional requirements is satisfactory in practice must, therefore, be questioned. Giulia Torta, in the article on the balance between environmental protection and the promotion of economic activities (2023), suggests that the establishment of MPAs as a refuge for threatened biodiversity and in support of ecosystem resilience and the subsequent subdivision of these areas into zones with differing protection regimes has failed to improve the situation of these areas and even worsened it as a result of the logic of economic exploitation. 

Firstly, in practice, economic demands are considered a priority. Furthermore, emphasis is often placed on the enormous potential of natural heritage in terms of economic development as a justification for its protection. This would divert attention from the necessity to protect natural heritage for its intrinsic value towards its economic potential as a productive factor to be exploited for the promotion of tourism and economic growth. Thereby, the means and ends of regulation are easily confused. In light of these considerations, while the 2022 constitutional reform affirms the idea that the environment is a heritage to be safeguarded irrespective of the quantity and significance of economic initiatives that may be undertaken within it, its practical scope is nonetheless limited if a reassessment of the concept of ‘sustainable development’ and a re-evaluation of the conventional zoning of gradually diminishing protection is not implemented. 

In contrast, Salvatore Livreri Console, the director of the Ustica Island MPA until 2019, held the view that, over the 30 years of the MPA’s operation, the safeguarding of marine biodiversity and the protection and renewal of artisanal fishing went hand in hand, demonstrating that traditional production activities are compatible and can serve as an instrument of economic development and cultural enrichment of the area (Livreri Console, 2017). The director praised the pivotal role of the community’s positive attitude toward the protection of the marine area and sustainable development of the coastal strip. The community’s resilience and dedication, as well as its profound attachment to the homeland, created the perfect conditions for maintaining sustainable customs and traditions. This is not as obvious as it may appear, especially considering the community's negative attitude that can be observed in other areas subject to this kind of protection. In contrast, the fishermen of Ustica were strongly in favour of the establishment of the MPA to protect their sea and its resources, and even 30 years later, it is a symbol of the islanders’ desire for progress and pride. 

Sustainable Fishing

Artisanal Fishing: Ante Litteram Sustainability

Artisanal fishing allows diversification (Arculeo, 2018). Different gears are used, including trammel nets, longlines, and fish pots, while surrounding nets are permitted only in Zone C. A wide variety of species, especially those closely associated with hard substrates and Posidonia oceanica meadows, is targeted, and the targets vary according to seasonal availability. For example, the so-called cave shrimp are highly sought-after during summer. Moreover, artisanal fishing plays a pivotal role in the local economy by providing employment and revenue streams and maintaining a harmonious relationship between the exploitation of fish resources and the conservation of the marine environment (Arculeo, 2018). As the island’s seabed is not suited to high-impact fishing methods such as trawling, artisanal fishing is the primary form of fishing. It enables the sector to achieve a sufficient standard of living while exerting minimal environmental impact (Arculeo, 2018).

Indeed, the socio-economic importance of this practice has remained consistent over time, with a similar number of fishermen and vessels engaged. As a 2021 study shows, those authorised to practice artisanal fishing within zones B and C of the MPA were residents on the island and operated 7-8 vessels (Hogg et al., 2021). Nevertheless, as is the case elsewhere, there has been a decline in the number of individuals engaged in full-time artisanal fishing (Hogg et al., 2021). There is a lack of sufficient generational change, which can be attributed to the absence of incentives for young people to pursue this career path, exacerbated by the lack of institutional support and the perception of marginalisation and undervaluation within society.

A Detrimental Practice: Illegal Fishing

A common problem in MPAs is illegal fishing, which takes on peculiar connotations in Ustica. It is important to stress that the island is not part of an archipelago and is situated in a remote location. The nearest land is Sicily, which is approximately 67 km away. This means that the ferry crossing takes approximately two hours and 30 minutes, whereas the hydrofoil boat takes over one hour. Thus, it is understandable that the island is unattractive to any illegal fishermen from a greater distance. Yet, there have been reports of illicit fishing within the Ustica MPA. What may come as a surprise is that the perpetrators were islanders. Due to the island’s strong cultural tradition, retired fishermen keep fishing and selling their catch in the local fish market. They do so despite the fact that this has a detrimental effect on the operations of licensed commercial fishermen (Hogg et al., 2021), both in terms of the diminished availability of stocks and the effects on market prices. This is undoubtedly a cultural issue, but two key factors exacerbate it.

First, the MPA cannot impose sanctions independently (Hogg et al., 2021). Indeed, Article 30 of the 1982 Law provides for the generality of marine reserves that, unless the act constitutes a crime, the violation of the prohibitions or constraints contained in the decree of the constitution of the reserve shall be punished with an administrative fine, accompanied by the confiscation of the objects, instruments and tools through which the violation was committed and the restitution of any items removed from the reserve. However, the application of such sanctions is entrusted to the Coast Guard. In accordance with this general legislation, the 1986 decree entrusts the supervision of the Ustica reserve, the prosecution of any violation and the imposition of consequent sanctions to the Palermo Coast Guard. 

The second issue is linked to the political context at the local level. In fact, the management of the MPA is entrusted to the Municipality of Ustica, which, like all small municipalities, lacks the necessary human and financial resources. Furthermore, the political influence of local interests, supported by traditions, results in the unequal application of regulations and sanctions. A sort of ‘islander’s privilege’ (Hogg et al., 2021) exists, whereby violations committed by locals are not adequately prosecuted. Therefore, de facto tolerance is tolerated – especially during low season – while all restrictions apply to tourists (Hogg et al., 2021).

Incentives Towards a More Sustainable Fishing

In a governance analysis conducted by Hogg et al. (2021), the authors suggested that attributing sanctioning powers to the MPA authority would not only strengthen its political position but also lead to a fairer application of sanctions to offenders. However, this is not an automatic consequence. Although the impartiality of the public administration provided for in Article 97 of the Italian Constitution must also be a fundamental principle here, it is reasonable to question its effectiveness in a context where clientelism is easily developed. The so-called ‘islanders’ privilege’ is a clear indication of this. The ex-post sanction of any liability of the public administration may not be appropriate in this case, where ‘it is better to be safe than to be sorry’. Hence, the ‘external’ intervention of the Palermo Coast Guard may represent a significant guarantee of impartiality. 

Instead, peer enforcement, which is also recommended in the same analysis (Hogg et al., 2021), could be a more effective approach. Fishermen and diving centres are already engaged in assisting the Coast Guard and the MPA staff in patrolling and monitoring. Further building on the strong sense of pride in the island’s heritage and culture could lead to the promotion of volunteer guard programmes that would ensure respect for the island by both locals (including fishermen) and tourists. Nevertheless, legal incentives and participatory approaches may prove inadequate. It is possible that economic incentives may prove more effective. Indeed, the strong desire and support from the fishing community of Ustica for the MPA from the earliest stages of its development was stimulated precisely by the focus on the potential benefits that the establishment of an MPA may have on economic activities, particularly fishing (Di Carlo, 2013).

Firstly, fishing tourism (‘pescaturismo’) is promising. This form of tourism is regulated by Legislative Decree No. 154 of 2004 and consists of tourists boarding fishing vessels for recreational and touristic purposes. It can only be conducted by licensed fishermen, so it serves as a supplementary activity for professional fishing and could contribute to the prevention of illegal fishing practices because it ensures the financial stability of fishermen. However, the profit margins of fishing tourism are low. Moreover, the legislation and logistics involved in bringing tourists onto fishing vessels make it challenging to pursue this activity (Hogg et al., 2021). While the simplification of relevant legislation may facilitate the development of fishing tourism, it is likely to be insufficient as a standalone measure to encourage the growth of this sector.

Secondly, financial and fiscal incentives should be introduced for fishermen and restaurateurs. The former should be incentivised to comply with regulations, while the latter should be discouraged from purchasing illegal fish (Hogg et al., 2021). These incentives would not contravene EU competition law, as they would constitute state aid compatible with the common market. This is because they would be designed to facilitate the development of certain activities, such as sustainable fishing, or certain economic regions, such as smaller islands. Furthermore, they would not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. 

Tourism and Sustainability

A Brief History of Tourism in Ustica

While fishing was historically a primary economic activity on the island, the tourism industry has emerged as a significant contributor to the local economy in recent times. In the 1950s, in addition to emigration to the more industrialised northern Italy, a major problem was confinement. After centuries of mutually beneficial and reciprocal coexistence between the islanders and those confined, the latter’s presence began to be perceived as a burden because of public morality issues following the relaxation of surveillance regulations. 

Consequently, public opinion was divided between those (especially the youngest) who advocated for the abolition of confinement and the opening of the island to tourism and those (especially the oldest, whose interests were linked to confinement) who instead supported maintaining the status quo (Ailara, 2016). The transition from an economy linked to confinement to one focused on tourism was not plain. For 13 years, Mayor Anna Notarbartolo Favaloro adopted a moderate approach: she acknowledged the inevitability of change but also felt that it was necessary to prepare the island before a shift of these proportions.

In the meantime, major impulses for the development of underwater cinematography and recreational diving originated from three young aristocrats who were members of the Palermo Sailing Club and shared a passion for the underwater world. They produced the inaugural professional underwater documentary entitled ‘Cacciatori marini’ (‘Underwater Hunters’), which was a 12-minute short film shot entirely in apnoea. It was dedicated to underwater fishing between Ustica and Lipari and was later selected for the 1947 Cannes Film Festival and awarded prizes at the Stresa and Taormina Festivals. Furthermore, in 1947, they established the Sicilian Underwater Hunters’ Club, headquartered in Ustica and Salina. This was one of the first underwater clubs in Italy, paving the way for the advent of modern diving centres (Giacino, 2013). 

It became increasingly clear that tourism represented the sole viable avenue for overcoming the economic challenges confronting the community’s traditional economy. Consequently, in the summer of 1954, the first Sunday excursions began. In 1955, the Pro Loco was constituted as an association with the objective of advancing and fostering the region’s growth. Hotels, restaurants, and other tourist infrastructures opened in the following years. At last, confinement was abolished in 1961 (Ailara, 2016). Moreover, the International Exhibition of Underwater Activities was inaugurated on 17 August 1959. The island’s community's involvement in welcoming tourists was remarkable, but after the exhibition concluded, tourist numbers on the island only resumed in conjunction with Sunday excursions. 

Despite the continued efforts of the Exhibition to promote the island as the ‘Black Pearl’ and the ‘Capital of Divers,’ Ustica continues to experience a very short tourist season, interrupted by long and challenging winters. This has led to economic difficulties, with the island’s economy remaining unstable. Even in the present era, efforts to de-seasonalise tourism remain a prominent objective (Ailara, 2016).

Diving: Regulations and Risks Related to the Main Tourist Activity in Ustica

The pursuit of economic development in a region with tourist appeal may be at odds with the objective of conservation. The impact of tourist activities, such as diving, snorkelling, and anchoring, can result in environmental degradation, particularly when the number of tourists increases significantly. With regard to Ustica, marine tourism activities are subject to regulation within the MPA. For instance, diving activities – a significant contributor to the island’s tourism industry – are delineated by designated zones and diving buoys. Nevertheless, no official diving limits or quotas have been established. 

Therefore, some authors (Hogg et al., 2021) have suggested that the approach to tourism management adopted thus far has been ineffective. Nevertheless, the island community’s perception is different. Indeed, as reported by the same authors, fishermen are generally satisfied with the expansion of underwater activities. However, they believe that greater harmonisation between this and fishing activities is necessary and that adequate incentives are required for profits to remain within the community.

Impacts of the ‘Seasonalisation’ of Tourism on Sustainability

A more significant issue, common to all small Italian islands, is the seasonal nature of tourism. This phenomenon consists of the concentration of tourist activities exclusively during the summer months, exerting considerable pressure on the environment, services, and infrastructure. These islands often lack the endogenous natural and economic resources to meet the needs of their island communities adequately. Consequently, the tourism industry accentuates the structural deficiencies in resource management and supply, as well as in waste management, which are also fundamental in a sustainability perspective. The Sustainable Islands Observatory (‘Osservatorio isole sostenibili’) aims to provide a dynamic picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the small Italian islands regarding sustainability. It does so by creating an overall sustainability index. In the 2024 report, Ustica reached 53% (Battistelli et al., 2024) — an improvement from 38% in the 2023 report (Battistelli et al., 2023). 

In developing the index, several factors are considered, including waste, soil, water and sanitation, energy, and sustainable mobility. For the sake of brevity, this paper will focus on the issue of sustainable water management. This is a matter of great importance for all municipal administrations, particularly in the context of climate change, which challenges the availability and quality of water. However, this issue is particularly delicate for small islands, given that seasonal tourism peaks have a significant impact on integrated water services, including the supply, distribution, and treatment of water for civil uses. Inefficiencies in these systems could compromise the quality of services provided to islanders and tourists, and this could potentially lead to significant harm to key sectors such as tourism (Battistelli et al., 2024).

Due to the absence of natural freshwater resources on the island, the potable water supply in Ustica is derived from desalinisation by a plant powered by three diesel generators (Bonvissuto et al., 2011). Moreover, although the total annual potable supply varies between 250,000 and 300,000 m3, approximately 30,000 m3 per year is guaranteed through the intervention of tankers. They primarily operate during the summer period, when the demand for potable water is at its highest. During the period between June and September, 58.1% of the yearly demand for potable water is recorded (Bonvissuto et al., 2011). Additionally, in 2001, with 1,330 residents, the number of people fluctuating during the summer period reached 3,628 (Bonvissuto et al., 2011). The plant cannot satisfy this demand even when operating at full capacity (Bonvissuto et al., 2011).  

This is one of the reasons why de-seasonalisation, i.e. the extension of the tourist season to at least the spring and autumn months, is an objective that should be pursued. This would result in a higher total number of recorded tourist visits, thereby reducing the pressure on the island context during a concentrated period. Furthermore, it would facilitate the prolongation of certain local economic and commercial activities, as well as the integration of tourism with traditional activities such as fishing (Gallia et al., 2022). 

Initiatives for a More Sustainable Tourism

The MPA has a positive relationship with national and international NGOs, including WWF and Legambiente, which have the capacity to influence decisions at the national level. However, the absence of local sections of these NGOs on the island was considered a limiting factor (Hogg et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in 2023, the environmental association Marevivo established a section in Ustica. Its activities include the ‘Dolphin Guardians of the Island’ project for children and young people on Ustica. Additionally, Marevivo engages in volunteer activities to raise awareness among tourists in collaboration with the MPA.

In their first year of operation, volunteers engaged in the dissemination of information about points of natural interest and environmental outreach and the promotion of best practices for the enjoyment of the island’s distinctive features in an environmentally conscious manner. Furthermore, free thematic excursions were conducted to promote specific sites of natural interest and ensure their enjoyment in an environmentally responsible manner. These included, among other things, a guided snorkelling tour led by a marine biologist from the MPA and an expert-guided visit to the Laboratory-Museum of Earth Sciences (LABMUST). Moreover, activities continued in the evenings at the MPA centre with promotional events, documentary screenings, educational entertainment for children, and a point for information and bookings. 

In addition, Mare Nostrum Diving has demonstrated a heightened commitment to sustainable tourism. It expanded its citizen science initiatives and incorporated conservation programmes into holiday packages. After training on the marine environment and the fundamentals of applied scientific research techniques, participants are afforded the opportunity to select the specific protocol in which they wish to engage. For example, ‘Be a Sea Sentinel’ involves observing and noting key species, and ‘Dive Against Debris’ concerns the removal of litter from the seabed. Mare Nostrum Diving also offers diving opportunities during the low season. In addition to the enhanced tranquility of the island, divers can observe different species than in the summer. These include lobsters, shrimp, cuttlefish, and octopus in the spring and schools of tuna and other passing schools of fish in the autumn. 

De-seasonalising of tourism could also be achieved by promoting gastronomic and archaeological excellence. With regard to the former, there are the Slow Food Presidia of Ustica lentils and Ustica broad beans. In relation to the latter, the prehistoric village of the Faraglioni, which is rich in material and well-preserved, is a relevant example of a Middle Bronze Age settlement (1400-1200 BC) and testifies to a moment of particular development and intense population growth on the island. 

Conclusion

This paper has dealt with three aspects of the island of Ustica that are relevant to the transition towards a more sustainable tourism model. Although compartmentalising them makes the discussion easier in some respects, in others, it is difficult, if not counterproductive. It would be more appropriate to consider the island’s nature and cultural heritage as a whole, with the aim of making it a driving force for social and economic development. This would involve the valorisation and enjoyment of the island as a diffuse museum system (Tornatore, 2016). This cannot be achieved without disseminating awareness and knowledge among tourists and locals, who should be more actively engaged in the protection of the territory from mass tourism and the excessive withdrawal of natural resources. In this way, a sense of belonging and respect will prevail over the attitudes of indifference and the prioritisation of private interest over public one. 

References

Accademia internazionale di scienze e tecniche subacquee. http://www.underwateracademy.org/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Ailara V. (2016), Storia contemporanea dell’isola di Ustica. Dal Confino al Turismo. Gli anni delle decisioni sofferte e contestate (1950-1961). Lettera del Centro Studi e Documentazione Isola di Ustica, 50, 5-17.

Arculeo M. (2018). Pesca artigianale e Area Marina Protetta (AMP) Isola di Ustica: un esempio di pesca sostenibile e di conservazione della biodiversità. XX Rassegna del mare, Roma Campidoglio - Ostia, IT.

Area Marina Protetta ‘Isola di Ustica’. Attività. Retrieved from http://www.ampustica.it/it/attivita.asp?idmenu=4. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Area Marina Protetta ‘Isola di Ustica’. La prima area marina protetta italiana. Retrieved from http://www.ampustica.it/it/chi-siamo.asp?idmenu=3. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Area Marina Protetta ‘Isola di Ustica’. Ustica. Retrieved from http://www.ampustica.it/it/l-isola.asp?idmenu=2. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Area Marina Protetta ‘Isola di Ustica’. Zone. Retrieved from http://www.ampustica.it/it/zone.asp?idmenu=4. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Battistelli F., Minutolo A., Nanni G., Laurenti M., Lugli D., Tomassetti L., Petracchini F. (2024). La transizione ecologica nelle isole minori. Osservatorio Isole Sostenibili. ISBN 978-88-6224-031-4 

Battistelli F., Minutolo A., Nanni G., Laurenti M., Montiroli C., Tomassetti L., Petracchini F. (2023). Suolo, rifiuti, acqua, energia, mobilità, depurazione. Le sfide della sostenibilità nelle isole minori. Osservatorio Isole Sostenibili. ISBN 978-88-6224-028-4

Bonvissuto M., Di Giovanni G. (2011). Espletamento della gara per l’affidamento del servizio di dissalazione di acqua idonea al consumo umano, mediante la sostituzione, a cura dell’aggiudicatario, dell’impianto per la dissalazione di acqua di mare ubicato nell’isola di Ustica nelle aree di proprietà della Regione siciliana con impianti preassemblati per desalinizzazione. Incarico R.U.P. conferito con d.d.g. n. 583 del 18.05.2011. Relazione tecnica. Retrieved from https://pti.regione.sicilia.it/portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_LaStrutturaRegionale/PIR_AssEnergia/PIR_Dipartimentodellacquaedeirifiuti/PIR_Bandi/PIR_20140205SERVIZIODISSALAZIONEACQUAIDONEAISOLADIUSTICA/Relazione_Dissalatore_USTICA__APP-SER_rev.%2019.11.13_%20-%20N.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Comune di Ustica. Area Marina Protetta. Retrieved from https://www.comune.ustica.pa.it/vivere-il-comune/luoghi/70165ed8-620c-43ac-14bc-08db34df423f/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Comune di Ustica. Riserva Naturale Terrestre Orientata. Retrieved from https://www.comune.ustica.pa.it/vivere-il-comune/luoghi/a960eb54-873a-46c3-14ca-08db34df423f/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Di Carlo G. (2013). L’Area Marina Protetta di Ustica: ieri, oggi, domani. Lettera del Centro Studi e Documentazione Isola di Ustica, 44-45, 5-7.

Fondazione Slow Food per la Biodiversità Onlus. Fava di Ustica. Retrieved from https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/it/presidi-slow-food/fava-di-ustica/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Fondazione Slow Food per la Biodiversità Onlus. Lenticchia di Ustica. Retrieved from https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/it/presidi-slow-food/lenticchia-di-ustica/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Gallia A., Malatesta S. (2022). Le isole minori italiane nelle missioni del PNRR. Una visione sul futuro. Documenti geografici, 1, 161-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.19246/DOCUGEO2281-7549/202201_11. 

Geloso T. (2024). Un anno vivo per un mare vivo. Retrieved from https://www.marevivosicilia.it/2024/01/04/un-anno-vivo-per-un-mare-vivo/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Giacino G. (2013). Il primo diving in Italia. Lettera del Centro Studi e Documentazione Isola di Ustica, 42/43, 1-4.

Hogg K., Noguera-Méndez P., Semitiel-García M. (2021). Lessons from three north-western Mediterranean MPAs: A governance analysis of Port-Cros National Park, Tavolara Punta-Coda Cavallo and Ustica. Marine Policy, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.034. 

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Demo: demografia in cifre. Retrieved from https://demo.istat.it/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Livreri Console G. (2017). L’Area Marina Protetta di Ustica: strumento di sviluppo economico e culturale. Lettera del Centro Studi e Documentazione Isola di Ustica, 51, 36-38.

Mare Nostrum Diving. Citizen Science Action. Retrieved from https://usticadiving.com/experiences-citizen-science-action-8.html. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Parco archeologico di Himera, Solunto e Iato. Villaggio dei Faraglioni di Ustica. Retrieved from https://parchiarcheologici.regione.sicilia.it/himera-solunto-iato/siti-archeologici/area-archeologica-del-villaggio-dei-faraglioni-ustica/. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Rossi V., Pipitone C., Yates K. L., Badalamenti F., D’Anna G., Pita C., Alves F. L., Argente-García J. E., Basta J., Claudet J., Dahl K., Fraschetti S., Giovos I., Mackelworth P., Maniopoulou M., Markantonatou V., Marques M., Noguera-Méndez P., Piwowarczyk J., Raykov V., Goldsborough D. (2024). Poor online information on European marine protected areas impairs public participation under the Aarhus Convention. Marine Policy, 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106012. 

Tornatore E. (2016). Comunicare il patrimonio archeologico. Ustica tra valorizzazione, comunità locale e sviluppo territoriale. Lettera del Centro Studi e Documentazione Isola di Ustica, 50, 23-26.

Torta G. (2023). Il delicato equilibrio tra la tutela dell’ambiente e la promozione delle attività economiche nella pianificazione dello spazio marino. Rivista Giuridica AmbienteDiritto.it, 1, 1-21.

Legislation

Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana (G.U. 27 dicembre 1947, n. 298).

Legge 31 dicembre 1982, n. 979, “Disposizioni per la difesa del mare”.

Decreto ministeriale 12 novembre 1986, “Istituzione della riserva naturale marina Isola di Ustica” (G.U. 26 marzo 1987, n. 71).

Legge 6 dicembre 1991, n. 394, “Legge quadro sulle aree protette”.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22/07/1992, p. 7–50).

Legge 9 dicembre 1998, n. 426, “Nuovi interventi in campo ambientale”.

Decreto legislativo 26 maggio 2004, n. 154, “Modernizzazione del settore pesca e dell’acquacoltura, a norma dell’articolo 1, comma 2, della legge 7 marzo 2003, n. 38.

Decreto ministeriale 27 aprile 2010, “Approvazione dello schema aggiornato relativo al VI Elenco ufficiale delle aree protette, ai sensi del combinato disposto dell’articolo 3, comma 4, lettera c) della legge 6 dicembre 1994, n. 394 e dall’articolo 7, comma 1, del decreto legislativo 28 agosto 1997, n. 281” (G.U. 31 maggio 2010, n. 115).

Legge costituzionale 11 febbraio 2022, n. 1, “Modifiche agli articoli 9 e 41 della Costituzione in materia di tutela dell’ambiente”.