NGOs say roadwork errors not fixed but ‘at least the debris has been removed’
The sustainable development plan for the Akamas peninsula appears to be in limbo, following the government’s recent decision to cancel the roadworks contract. Still, from the perspective of environmentalists, the pause does provide an opportunity for a rethink of the plan’s provisions.
The projects in question, particularly the controversial roadwork network in the unspoilt peninsula, have been on hold since December 2023 pending the implementation of terms aimed at reducing their environmental footprint.
The Akamas occupies the westernmost tip of Cyprus covering an area of 17,000 hectares approximately, of which 7,000 hectares are state forests and the remaining 10,000 hectares are private properties and some state-owned land.

In early January, Agriculture Minister Maria Panayiotou told MPs that the roadworks contract – assigned to Cyfield – was in the process of being terminated. The Cyprus Mail can now confirm that the contract has been severed.
But Panayiotou went on say that this would not affect the initial plans for the completion of the project by 2027. And she pledged the project would be completed with a reduced environmental footprint and under strict observation.
She added that on February 3, the relevant ad hoc committee would be convened to receive the roadwork plans, and that the public works department would be invited as specialists on roadwork issues.
Tassos Shalis, campaigns coordinator for NGO Birdlife, told us the February 3 session of the ad hoc committee has been postponed, with no new date given yet. Nevertheless, the meeting is expected to be rescheduled for later this month.
The project, which began in September 2023, aimed to improve 13.4 kilometres of roads within the Akamas National Forest Park to enhance safety and accessibility. It didn’t take long for complaints to come up about the works violating the agreed specifications.

For example by November 2023, environmental NGO Terra Cypria documented several violations with photographic evidence. These included a cluster of illegal structures continuing to operate along the north end of the protected Lara beach, removal of protective bollards, indiscriminate dumping of construction waste and materials, and the existing dirt roads widened beyond limits stipulated in the plan’s conditions.
The NGO documented such roads, up to 12 metres wide in spots, in Aspros Potamos, Toxeftra, above Lara beach and at its turnaround, claiming they were double or triple their officially permitted widths of 4 to 5.5 metres.
These roadworks – aimed at promoting visitation and tourism in the area – comprise what’s called Phase 1 of the sustainable development and management plan for Akamas. They involve improvements to three main roads for vehicles. Also, the construction of bridges to improve accessibility for visitors.
Phases 2 and 3 will come later. These involve the construction of so-called visitor nodes (information kiosks and rest stops for visitors) plus improvements to some minor roads.
The stated benefits of the project include “effective, sustainable and adjusted management, conservation and protection of approximately 7,000 hectares of forest, contribution to the sustainable growth of the wider area, reduction of the risk of fire forest eruptions, enhancement of the conservation status of species and habitats, and job growth.”
Evidently, the endeavour requires a delicate balancing act between, on the one hand, the demands of local residents for development, and environmental concerns on the other hand.
“We’re waiting for the Phase 1 issue to come up again at the ad hoc committee. We’re kind of in the dark right now, in waiting mode,” Shalis told the Cyprus Mail.
He recalls the last time the ad hoc panel met to discuss Akamas specifically was about eight months ago.
“Many mistakes were made with the roadworks in the past – with the roads, piping, sewerage, and the bridges. In the case of the bridges, some were unnecessary, others out of specification, too wide or too long. Although mistakes may be too soft a term…these were violations of conditions of the environmental permit, which are binding.”
Four bridges were built – again by contractors Cyfield – before the government pulled the plug. According to Shalis, because the build specifications given to Cyfield were wrong, this impacts the riverbed and interferes with river flow, affecting the European eel, an endangered species.
As to whether the Phase 1 construction errors in general have been fixed, the BirdLife officer said no.
“They [the government] say they have, but we’ve got serious reservations. At least the machinery and the construction debris have been removed.”
Asked whether the 2027 timetable for completion still looks realistic, Shalis has his doubts “given the considerable delays so far, and that was with Phase 1 which was supposed to be the least complex stage”.
At any rate, the break does afford a chance to take another look at the whole project.
“We need to fix the errors in Phase A, and hopefully make revisions to phases 2 and 3,” offers Shalis.
“This story has dragged on since 2016, with more than its fair share of bumps along the way.”

The ad hoc committee is an advisory body, consisting of experts from various disciplines. It includes a representative each from BirdLife, Terra Cypria and Opok (Federation of Environmental Organisations. Other participants are the Department of the Environment, the Game and Fauna Service, the Forestry Department, the Fisheries Department and Etek (scientific and technical chamber).
They attend as individual experts, not as groups per se. The committee is more targeted, focusing on flora and fauna and habitats. It does not discuss social aspects for instance.
The ad hoc committee convenes whenever a project may impact a Natura 2000 site specifically. The Akamas includes such sites.
The body discusses a proposed development, after which the Department of the Environment issues a report known as an ‘appropriate (ecological) assessment’. This report, which is binding, reviews the environmental impacts of a proposed project.
An ‘appropriate assessment’ is the first hurdle for a project relating to a Natura site. If the project does not pass the test here, that spells the end of it. If it does pass, next the matter gets taken up by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) committee.
The EIA committee’s mandate is broader in scope. A more formalised body, it takes on board a wider array of issues – such as the needs of local communities, air pollution and so forth. This committee likewise includes environmentalist advocates.
Next, based on the deliberations at the EIA committee, the Department of the Environment issues a report, basically giving the proposed project a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – or a thumbs-up with conditions attached.
Once green-lit, a project moves to the Planning Bureau for the issuance of the construction permits.
We reached out to the ministry of agriculture, with questions on what to expect going forward.
In an emailed response, the ministry said the goal is “to complete the works of both Phase A of the National Park Road Network as well as the remaining infrastructure within the National Park, considering both their environmental footprint and the needs of local authorities, within the framework of the aforementioned procedures and applicable legislation.”
Regarding the contract with Cyfield, it has been terminated, “and all necessary steps will be taken in order to resume works within the provisions of a new contract”.
In relation to the timetables set for completing Phase 1 of the road network, the ministry said it’s taking “all necessary actions to restart the projects as soon as possible, taking into account the Supplementary Special Ecological Assessment Report’ terms and conditions. Having this in mind, the ad hoc committee will meet in the near future for the completion of the assessment for Phase A.”
Regarding Phase B of the projects, and in accordance with the decision of the cabinet of March 2024, “the competent department is in the process of re-evaluation, taking into account the views of the local authorities and the departments involved, with the aim of reducing the environmental footprint but without changing the philosophy of the Akamas National Forest Park Plan.
“We stand by our commitment that the project will be completed by 2027.”
Click here to change your cookie preferences