Gruppo 25 aprile

Piattaforma civica (e apartitica) per Venezia e la sua laguna

Archivio per la categoria “Gemellaggi e cooperazione internazionale”

The Dubrovnik Report – la relazione di Ragusa

All’Ateneo Veneto lo scorso 3 maggio abbiamo presieduto l’incontro delle realtà civiche mediterranee che a Venezia hanno portato le loro esperienze, confrontato i problemi rispettivi e discusso le possibili soluzioni comuni (“soglia di accoglienza”, per i siti UNESCO):

e (per chi non parla inglese):

Pubblichiamo oggi la relazione di Dubrovnik (Ragusa) per i molti punti in comune che presenta con la situazione veneziana: iperturismo, crollo del numero di residenti (una perdita pari ai 2/3 della popolazione presente negli anni ’50, percentuale simile a quella di Venezia) e gigantismo navale (navi da crociera “fuori scala” rispetto al contesto ambientale e monumentale).

Un grazie a Mara Kolić Pustić, per avercene inviato la versione scritta.


Active citizens and sustainable development of UNESCO heritage sites: the Case of Dubrovnik, Croatia

Mara Kolić Pustić, Udruga Grad


In 1979 the Old Town of Dubrovnik was listed as the UNESCO World Heritage site. Even though the city was considered a rare example of a populated medieval town completely surrounded by the city walls, only the architecture of the city was protected at that time. From the 1979 point of view, the fact that the town was populated, being a real town in every sense and context of the word, was something taken for granted. Back then, it seems that no one could have imagined that the life within the city walls would become endangered.

In 1953 the Old Town of Dubrovnik was a vital, populated city with 5181 inhabitants. A year earlier, a group of active citizens founded the Society of Friends of Dubrovnik Antiques. Their goal was “to sensitize the broader public on the importance of preservation of Dubrovnik’s cultural and historical heritage, raising awareness and interest for them, appealing to the pride and appreciation of the public.” ( The Society was trusted with maintenance and management of the city’s most glorious antiquity – the city walls, which, at that time, were in poor condition.

Another proof of the way of life characterized by the appreciation of heritage and culture is the Dubrovnik Summer Festival. “The idea of founding the Dubrovnik Summer Festival’ in 1950 was harmonising the renaissance and baroque atmosphere of  Dubrovnik and the living spirit of drama and music, actually derived from the intellectual way of life of the city itself, from its living creative tradition, which has bestowed upon Croatian cultural and scholarly history, especially in theatre and literature, many great names and works, and kept it continually in touch with contemporary currents in western Europe.”  ( Back then, Dubrovnik was a vital town not only cherishing inherited values, but also creating new ones. Concerts, operas, dramas, and ballets were performed in different locations all over the city – the city was living with the Festival and the Festival was living with the city.

That was the spirit in which Dubrovnik was evolving, leading to the City’s listing as the UNESCO World Heritage site in 1979. In those days, the town itself was raising generations of active citizens with a developed sense of community, aesthetics and measure.


The breaking point for Dubrovnik was the war in 1991 and the subsequent economic difficulties, which led to an exaggerated orientation on tourism in all its forms. Monocultural economy (tourism) and expanded house-short-term-renting have resulted in Dubrovnik following the international city centre depopulation trends – the number of inhabitants decreased to only 1557 in 2016 and, although only 3 years have passed, to a significantly smaller number today.

What happened with the Society of Friends of Dubrovnik Antiques and the Dubrovnik Summer Festival? Well, they both still exist but fail to fully fulfil their original purpose.

Today, the Society of Friends of Dubrovnik Antiques still exists and is active in preserving our material heritage – the walls and the buildings. Expanding tourism brings millions of visitors who pay to walk the city walls, not only maintained but also managed by the Society.  The income is huge – only last year 1.300.000 tickets were sold. Sixty percent of the revenue is transferred to the budget of the City of Dubrovnik. This sounds like a great opportunity to invest in town management. However, the the opportunity has not been seized. Although it has been scientifically proved that if nothing changes the old town will lose all its inhabitants, so far the money has not been invested to increase the quality of life of the remaining citizens, nor in any active measures to increase the number of inhabitants.

As for the Dubrovnik Summer Festival, it still takes place every summer, but most of the former locations are now occupied by restaurant tables or are too noisy to be adequate for performing. Artistic creation no longer happens within the city as it used to. While in the past renown orchestras, ballet ensembles and theatrical companies stayed in Dubrovnik for weeks rehearsing and performing, today the programme is based on ready-made projects created elsewhere and only performed in Dubrovnik in the few remaining restaurant-tables-free-not-too-loud locations.

Today, Dubrovnik is facing an almost two decades long intensive process of „disneylandization“, depopulation, apartmanization, cultural heritage devastation, endangerment of the natural resources and urban planning malversations. We are facing a threat of losing the living city and remaining with a depopulated, dead city under UNESCO protection.


Is there anything UNESCO can do about that? The answer is positive. Unfortunatelly, UNESCO’s role is restricted to giving recommendations.

The crucial role that makes the very substance of the living city is the role of the citizen. The city is alive as long as there are active and engaged citizens concerned about their community, their heritage, their quality of life. With a decreasing number of inhabitants, with most of them already quite old, a legitimate question is – are there still active citizens not giving up on the city that is practically dying in front of their eyes?

The answer is – yes, there are. In fact, through active citizenship and appealing to UNESCO we managed to provoke a UNESCO monitoring mission in November 2015 that resulted crucial recommendations. For example:

  • The State Party should ensure prompt finalization and approval of the Management Plan for the property
  • The “Bosanka 2”, a project envisaging apartment resort on Srđ, the hill directly above the City, should not be allowed to proceed
  • The plans to construct the quay in front of Lazaretto, with the connection to the Old Port, should be stopped and no construction should be permitted in that area

On the political level, both in Dubrovnik and the Capital, there is a consensus that Dubrovnik’s value is the value of a living city. No party is openly advocating the idea of a city-museum, a tourist site, a huge restaurant and resort, a former town. Unfortunately, in practice, there had been no real measures towards keeping the living city alive until a Management plan was requested by UNESCO in 2015.

Active citizens, aware of the problem, responded to the Management plan activities with extreme engagement. In the beginning, no representatives of the inhabitants nor NGOs were planned to participate in the Monitoring Board for drafting and implementation of the Management Plan. Thanks to the active citizens’ pressure, the original decision of the City authorities was changed, allowing the representatives of the citizens and NGO’s to participate in both the Monitoring Board and the workshops and focus groups organized by the Monitoring Board. The citizens and NGO representatives initiated a new population census and volunteered for the field work. The new population census gathered materials for socio-demographic study, one of the crucial documents on which the Management plan should be based.

Aware that politicians and political parties are too often interested in short term projects useful in their campaigns instead in long term strategies useful for the local community, the citizens have also formed their own lists in the elections for the city quarters, held in 2018. In the Old Town district the citizen list won the elections.

Active citizens encounter strong opposition from all levels of authority. Instead of addressing effectively the obvious issues of over-tourism, gentrification, unsustainable growth in tourist numbers and offering effective solutions, the authorities use the mechanisms they control to undermine the efforts of the citizens and civil organizations. An active citizen often encounters exaggerated PR from the City authorities aimed at calming public opinion and undermining all efforts seeking for real solutions.

Instead of taking care of public interest as a priority, politicians often choose to serve the interests of private investors. In such cases, active citizens have always reacted, writing petitions and gathering for public protests. The latest example was an attempt to change spatial plans of the city, adjusting them to suit the project of a private investor but in the end the city council did not vote for the changes due to citizens public protests.

Even though ruling politicians are always personally invited to public protests to share their point of view with the concerned citizens, they avoid these situations and instead use their influence in media to minorize such events.


Our very Network is also a network of active citizens willing to give their contribution in a very challenging moment for the UNESCO sites that we are concerned about.

In that context, one of the tasks of our Network should be raising the awareness of the importance of active citizens’ involvement. The Network should encourage and support active citizens’ actions among the members of the Network.

The Network could also establish a communication line with UNESCO emphasizing and communicating facts and information to UNESCO from the active citizens’ point of view, contributing to the common universal interest.

To be more precise, our activities could be defined by 3 main goals:

  1. Reinforcing and encouraging of active citizens’ engagement as part of UNESCO’s monitoring missions, as well as periodic reporting whenever possible.
  2. Many Management Plans of the UNESCO Sites have so far been adopted by local authorities just to fulfil the formal obligation with no real measurable results. Management Plans are documents which can allow active citizens participation in the decision-making, implementation, and monitoring phase, especially if they are legally binding documents. These documents should be empowered by the appropriate legal status and enriched with the obligatory active participation of the citizens. The UNESCO support and monitoring in their creation and implementation would be more than welcome.
  3. Finally, in the light of the fact that depopulation and musealization of once living cities is a huge problem inevitably changing the sites and threatening their outstanding universal value, it is high time we stopped taking inhabited towns for granted. With that in mind, it would be necessary to reconsider the role of the “living city” within the OUV criteria and try to establish new modalities to recognize and protect the value of the inhabited historical city either through OUV criteria or the qualification conditions of authenticity and integrity.

Such an effort would result in all stakeholders being more active in dealing with the aforementioned negative trends that heritage sites have been experiencing for the last several decades.


Many well-meaning people often tell us: “What you are saying is true, but nothing can be done. That battle has already been lost.”

As long as there are active citizens willing to fight for the public interest, the battle has not yet been lost. If in the end the battle should be lost, the losers will not be just us, the citizens. The looser, in case of a UNESCO site, will be the entire humanity.

Una proposta concreta: la “soglia di accoglienza”

Gazzettino 4 maggio 2019

“Una volta tanto, da un forum dedicato ai comuni problemi del turismo non escono solo lamentele sulla situazione (pesantissima) in cui le città d’arte sono finite, ma vengono abbozzate anche delle soluzioni. E, se non sono soluzioni, sono degli strumenti che potrebbero essere utili alla gestione dei flussi. Il forum delle realtà civiche operanti nei siti Unesco del mediterraneo, riunito per un giorno intero all’Ateneo Veneto, ha infatti deciso di realizzare un modello matematico-statistico che consenta di prevedere la soglia di accoglienza oltre la quale città e paesi non sarebbero più vivibili. La novità è che non si tratterà di una cosa applicabile a Venezia o a una delle città partecipanti, ma sarà donata a tutti coloro che ne faranno richiesta.


Le città aderenti oltre a Venezia sono Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Corfù, Creta, Rodi e Cipro, ognuna con problemi comuni a tutti i siti sotto tutela dell’Unesco. La scelta è caduta sul modello Costa-Van der Borg-Canestrelli che era stato approntato a fine anni Ottanta per evidenziare l’impatto catastrofico che avrebbe avuto l’Expo 2000 a Venezia. Quel modello oggi è superato nelle premesse, ma potrebbe essere implementato, visto che lo stesso Van der Borg ha dato il suo assenso e appoggio.


«Lo scopo – spiega Marco Gasparinetti, il portavoce del Gruppo 25 Aprile che ha ospitato l’evento in quanto presidente di turno del forum – è definire in modo oggettivo e accademico una soglia di carico o meglio, di accoglienza, oltre la quale la qualità della vita di turisti e residenti potrebbe peggiorare sensibilmente. Una soglia oltre la quale non siamo in grado a garantire un’accoglienza decente. L’impegno è stato preso, sarà formato un gruppo di lavoro multidisciplinare e internazionale che chiederà un finanziamento europeo». Non è una cosa che si può fare dall’oggi al domani, ma un lavoro che richiederà un arco di tempo triennale. Quindi, non una boutade elettorale, visto che nel 2020 si vota.«Continuiamo a restare apolitici – aggiunge Gasparinetti – e metteremo a disposizione il modello al sindaco in carica, chiunque esso sia».


La definizione di un numero limite di turisti accettabili è balzata nuovamente alle cronache con la protesta del sindaco di Riomaggiore contro le Ferrovie, per via del trasporto di turisti alle Cinqueterre in numero ben maggiore alle capacità di accoglienza. La soglia di accoglienza potrebbe essere quel numero magico oltre il quale scatterebbe la chiusura dei siti Unesco a ulteriori arrivi. «Il pagamento di un ticket – ha concluso Gasparinetti – come hanno dimostrato i nostri amici di Ragusa non è più sufficiente. Loro hanno staccato un milione e 300mila biglietti (per visitare le mura della città antica, NdR) ma i turisti continuano ad arrivare».

Un altro tema comune che è uscito dall’incontro è l’impegno di tutte le associazioni a non usare plastica usa e getta negli eventi e a sensibilizzare i turisti sul fatto che una bottiglia in plastica rischia di essere una bottiglia in acqua. Meglio rispolverare le virtù della vecchia borraccia”.

Michele Fullin

Nelle foto che seguono, alcuni dei partecipanti al Forum del 3 maggio. Da parte nostra, un sentito ringraziamento all’Ateneo Veneto e al suo Presidente Gianpaolo Scarante per aver inserito questo convegno nel Programma accademico del prestigioso Ateneo, e alla vicepresidente Prof. Caterina Carpinato che ha deliziato i presenti con una efficace quanto colta prolusione in greco moderno.


Elena Riu (Venezia)

Petra Marčinko (Ragusa – Dubrovnik)

3 maggio Petra

Maria Gerakianaki (Creta)

3 maggio Maria

Daniella Pistenti Mouyiannou (Cipro)

3 maggio Daniella.jpg

Dimitrios Balatsinos (Corfù)


#AteneoVeneto 13 aprile: partecipanti accreditati

Locandina 13 aprile 2018

Grazie al “trasloco” in aula magna, l’evento è aperto anche a chi non si fosse registrato all’evento e volesse farlo sul posto, nei limiti di capienza della sala.

Ai “non accreditati” consigliamo di arrivare in aula magna alle ore 14.15; nell’attribuzione dei posti a sedere, il servizio di accoglienza (riconoscibile dal badge “25 aprile”) darà comunque la precedenza a:

I) Stampa e operatori dell’informazione

II) Le delegazioni estere:


Alexandros Makris (President of  Σύλλογος San Giacomo)

Andreas Katsaros

Dimitrios Balatsinos

Aliki Katsarou

Tenia Rigakou

Cyprus (Pafos):

Daniella Pistenti Mouyiannou (President of Ex-Artis Association)

Susan Vargas

Ragusa (Dubrovnik)

Ljubo Nikolić (President of Srđ je Grad)

Roberto Di Lorenzo

Nikolina Farčić

Petra Marčinko

Ana Marinković


Christos Maliarakis (President of Rhodes International Culture & Heritage Society)

Hannie Palios- van Dijk


Gerasimos Ermogenis (President of the Oia Committee)

EU Commission:

George Stavros Kremlis

III) Consiglieri comunali

IV) i partecipanti accreditati per l’Italia:

  1. Alberti Gaia
  2. Angioi Paola
  3. Alvisi Fabrizio
  4. Antonin Flavia
  5. Barbini Francesca
  6. Barozzi Francesca
  7. Bartoloni Roberta
  8. Barutti Bruna
  9. Bellati Gian Angelo
  10. Bellati Maria Chiara
  11. Beltrame Carlo
  12. Benvenuti Alberto
  13. Bertussi Izadora
  14. Bonutto Fabio
  15. Borromeo Lucia
  16. Bressanello Alessandro
  17. Bruttomesso Elisa
  18. Buiatti Chiara
  19. Callegaro Nicola
  20. Caputo Fulvio
  21. Caputo Luisa
  22. Carpinato Caterina
  23. Casadei Andrea
  24. Cassino Anselmo
  25. Castagnetta Salvatore
  26. Castelli Enzo
  27. Caturelli Chiara
  28. Cavallari Beatrice
  29. Cavallarin Caterina
  30. Cecchini Annamaria
  31. Cecconi Giovanni
  32. Celetti David
  33. Cendon Aline
  34. Ceselin Francesco
  35. Chiesa Carlo
  36. Confuorto Valentina
  37. Cormio Rita
  38. Cotrona Alberto
  39. Croce Stefano
  40. Crociani Marianna
  41. Crovato Maurizio (delegato da Paola Mar)
  42. Culloca Lorena
  43. Cunego Valentino
  44. Danesin Cecilia
  45. D’Angelo Fabrizio
  46. De Luigi Gianni
  47. Deschamps Veronique
  48. DeVlieg Mary Ann
  49. De Vettor Giorgio
  50. Di Cataldo Gina
  51. Di Puorto Silvana
  52. Dina Manfredo
  53. Dissera Francesca
  54. Donaggio Adriano
  55. Donaggio Davide
  56. Duse Frank
  57. Dussin Tobia
  58. Eddy Nicola
  59. Fassina Giovanni
  60. Ferrara Daniele
  61. Ferrata Elena
  62. Fersuoch Lidia
  63. Fiano Maria
  64. Fogliata Renzo
  65. Foschi Francesco
  66. Freguia Irina
  67. Frosini Nicoletta
  68. Gagliardi Maria Grazia
  69. Gasparinetti Marco
  70. Gerotto Anna
  71. Gerotto Marina
  72. Ghigi Giancarlo
  73. Girardi Cristina
  74. Giussani Cristina
  75. Gottardi Michele
  76. Gregolin Tiziana
  77. Koukoutselos Panagiotis
  78. Lando Maurizio
  79. Lapiccirella Flavio
  80. Licandro Orazio Antonio
  81. Liosatou Eugenia
  82. Lobina Laura
  83. Loi Maurizio
  84. Lombardo Fabio
  85. Macaluso Francesco
  86. Maddalena Giorgio
  87. Manfredi Dina
  88. Marchetto Maurizio
  89. Marengo Barbara
  90. Marin Anna
  91. Mastroianni Marco
  92. Menegazzi Prem Elena
  93. Menetto Silva

  94. Messinis Anna
  95. Milner Eleonora
  96. Nikitina Iuliia
  97. Nordio Silvia
  98. Olivi Pierluigi
  99. Oselladore Nevio
  100. Paipeti Olita
  101. Pardo Daniel
  102. Parkinson Paul
  103. Pasqual Paola
  104. Paternoster Luciano
  105. Pelizzato Giovanni
  106. Pellizzon Dario
  107. Pellidis Giorgio
  108. Penzo Tiziana
  109. Peris Cesare
  110. Pezzini Plevano Carla x2

  111. Piastra Lucia
  112. Piccitto Giovanna
  113. Piccoli Matteo
  114. Radich Lucio
  115. Ragazzi Stefano
  116. Raimondo Simonetta
  117. Ranieri Francesca
  118. Reski Petra
  119. Riu Elena
  120. Rizzardo Stefania
  121. Romieri Cristina
  122. Romor Luigina
  123. Riu Elena
  124. Rosati Fiorenzo
  125. Rossi Lina
  126. Rosteghin Emanuele
  127. Rubini Edoardo
  128. Salvato Angela
  129. Sambo Monia
  130. Sassi Lorenzo
  131. Scarpa Iva
  132. Scarpa Lucia
  133. Schiavon Elena
  134. Scurati Marco
  135. Seindal René
  136. Sensini Claudio
  137. Serena Ottavio
  138. Signorato Valeria
  139. Soliani Silvia
  140. Sonino Alberto
  141. Spadon Loredana
  142. Stamou Caterina
  143. Steffinlongo Paolo
  144. Suppiej Giorgio
  145. Tessarin Pietro
  146. Theotoki Olga
  147. Thorne Olivari Federica
  148. Tiberi Maria
  149. Toffolo Carla
  150. Tognon Nicola
  151. Vachino Patrizia
  152. Vanzan Marchini Nelli
  153. Velo Luca Giulio
  154. Venturini Giulia
  155. Venturini Guido
  156. Vernier Claudio
  157. Veronese Alice
  158. Vianello Ada
  159. Vianello Gian Luigi
  160. Vianello Giovanni
  161. Visentin Francesco
  162. Vidal Massimo
  163. Visman Sara
  164. Volpato Luca
  165. Zafalon Sebastiano
  166. Zafiropoulos Dimitrios
  167. Zennaro Martina

Un grazie alla stampa italiana e straniera che in questi giorni ha fornito ampie anticipazioni su questo incontro, a conferma dell’interesse che sta suscitando in Italia e all’estero:






13 aprile all’Ateneo Veneto, il programma definitivo

Locandina 13 aprile 2018

In considerazione dell’affluenza superiore al previsto, con più di 120 partecipanti già accreditati e altri in arrivo, l’evento “trasloca” in Aula Magna e il programma della sessione plenaria è modificato come segue, al fine di dare più spazio alle domande e agli interventi del pubblico e della stampa presente.

14.30 Welcome speech by the President of Ateneo Veneto, ambassador Gianpaolo Scarante

14.40 Introductory Speech by Aline Cendon, associazione 25 aprile Venezia

15.00  Σύλλογος San Giacomo (Corfù/Kerkyra): Andreas Katsaros, Aliki Katsarou, Tenia Rigakou

15.40 Srđ je Grad (Dubrovnik/Ragusa): Ljubo Nikolić, Ana Marinković, Petra Marčinko

16.10 Rhodes International Culture & Heritage Society (RICHeS): Christos Maliarakis

16.30 Oia Committee (Santorini) : Gerasimos Ermogenis

16.45 ex Artis Cultural Association (Pafos, Cipro) : Daniella Pistenti Mouyiannou

17.00 Associazione 25 aprile Venezia: Elena Riu

17.15 Questions and discussion

Moderatore: Marco Gasparinetti (President associazione 25 aprile Venezia).

18.00 Conclusions by Georges Stavros Kremlis, Direttore onorario Commissione europea (UE)

18.15 Working plan and announcement of the next meeting: Alexandros Makris (President Σύλλογος San Giacomo).

Med Map


Ateneo Veneto 13 aprile, il programma

Venezia 13 aprile

Ateneo Veneto (campo San Fantin, di fronte al teatro La Fenice)

14.30 Welcome speech by the President of Ateneo Veneto, ambassador Gianpaolo Scarante

14.40 Introductory Speech by Aline Cendon, associazione 25 aprile Venezia

15.00  Σύλλογος San Giacomo (Corfù/Kerkyra): Andreas Katsaros, Aliki Katsarou, Tenia Rigakou

15.40 Srđ je Grad (Dubrovnik/Ragusa): Ljubo Nikolić, Ana Marinković, Petra Marčinko

16.10 Rhodes International Culture & Heritage Society (RICHeS): Christos Maliarakis

16.40 Oia Committee (Santorini) : Gerasimos Ermogenis

17.00 ex Artis Cultural Association (Pafos, Cipro) : Daniella Pistenti Mouyiannou

17.20 Associazione 25 aprile Venezia: Elena Riu

17.30 Questions and discussion

Moderatore: Marco Gasparinetti (President associazione 25 aprile Venezia).

18.00 Conclusions by Georges Stavros Kremlis, Direttore onorario Commissione europea (UE)

18.15 Working plan and announcement of the next meeting: Alexandros Makris (President Σύλλογος San Giacomo).

Un’iniziativa di: associazione 25 aprile Venezia e Σύλλογος San Giacomo Corfù.


  1. Le relazioni verranno svolte in lingua inglese. Per il dibattito è prevista traduzione consecutiva da/per le seguenti lingue: greco, inglese e italiano;
  2. In considerazione della forte affluenza prevista per questo incontro, il nostro servizio di accoglienza disporrà di una lista delle persone accreditate, che avranno precedenza nell’attribuzione dei posti a sedere.
  3. Nel corso dell’incontro verrano presentati i dati raccolti con il questionario inviato a tutte le associazioni partecipanti e le linee di azione comuni che verranno approfondite nei mesi a venire, in vista del secondo incontro. Per maggiori informazioni e/o richieste di accredito l’indirizzo da utilizzare è:

Galleria fotografica:

  1. la Rhodes International Culture & Heritage Society (RICHeS) che parteciperà all’incontro in rappresentanza di Rodi.
  2. Flussi turistici a Dubrovnik (Ragusa) che conosce problemi molto simili a quelli di Venezia (foto Srđ je Grad ).
  3. La piazza del Municipio di Corfù (foto Σύλλογος San Giacomo).
  4. Un’immagine del sito Unesco di Pafos (foto Daniella Pistenti Mouyannou).
  5. Il logo dell’evento.
  6. Una delle iniziative organizzate dall’associazione 25 aprile Venezia: la riapertura del cinema all’aperto in campo San Polo, alla vigilia della Mostra del Cinema 2017.



Corfù Town Hall Sqr (2).jpg


Locandina 13 aprile 2018

Foto Julia 1

Press release: Venice and Santorini, working together

Santorini, 9 September 2017

We are delighted to announce that the Citizens of Venice & Oia are going to be working together to fight against unsustainable development, cultural degradation and city/village exploitation by corporate greed. The Citizens of Oia will work closely with Gruppo25aprile Venezia to give our communities a sustainable future and to preserve our cultural heritage.

We will be announcing future plans via social media, as well as joint press releases and future workshops. If you would like to join our international support community for both regions and stay informed about our activities please send an email with your name to:

We look forward to your support in preserving the beauty & heritage of two iconic regions in the world… with more iconic cities & villages to join our alliance soon.

Michael Ermogenis


Venice, 10 September 2017

We are delighted to confirm and relay the announcement made by Michael on behalf of the Oia Citizens’ group in Santorini.

We have the chance of living in two of the most beautiful places on earth.

This is a privilege but also a responsibility and, depending on how we cherish rather than destroying these treasures, we will be held accountable to both the next generations and the rest of the world. Our common challenge is to make sure that these treasures are not spoiled by human greed. Ready to work together, to help each other and to learn from each other!

Marco Gasparinetti

Chairman, Associazione 25 Aprile Venezia


Venezia e Santorini: due fra le destinazioni più ambite dai turisti di tutto il mondo. Come convivere con questa realtà senza diventare “vittime del proprio successo” vendendo l’anima come nel patto faustiano? Questa è la sfida comune che abbiamo deciso di affrontare insieme. Il “patto” è aperto ad altre realtà associative che si trovano ad affrontare problemi simili nelle città rispettive.

Navigazione articolo