The bridge lies on the road to the abandoned village, which people also use to travel from the area into the Paphos district. The wooden deck has already been replaced after a call for tenders. Workers are now removing rust from the metal structure, checking the foundations and repainting the bridge. Large rocks have been placed in front of it so that no vehicles can cross while the work continues.

Arsos community leader Giannakis Giannaki told Phileleftheros the work followed a request from the Gerovasa–Trozena Community Council to the Limassol District Administration. The Gerovasa–Trozena council comes under the jurisdiction of the Arsos Community Council.

“Nobody closed the bridge. We asked for it,” Giannaki said. He said the community considered the bridge dangerous and asked for its foundations and the strength of its iron to be checked first, as people use it.

The bridge was built in 1959-1960 by an English engineer to a design the British commonly used, with a metal frame and a wooden deck laid on beams. It has no arches and spans the few metres between the two banks of a tributary of the Diarizos river, so it appears to float.

It was built to serve the villages of Trozena and Gerovasa, as well as vine growers from Arsos who had vineyards and orchards in the area.

Only one vehicle at a time can cross the bridge, and its total weight must not exceed eight tonnes.

Background

Trozena has recently been at the centre of public debate, after claims spread on Facebook that Israelis had bought the abandoned village. The investor behind a plan to revive it is Uriel Curtis, a Hungarian businessman of Israeli origin, who has said he wants to bring the village back to life. The plan includes 64 homes, a small winery and a restaurant.

The Environmental Authority is examining it after unauthorised interventions and illegal works were found in the area. The project falls entirely within the Cha-Potami Natura 2000 Special Protection Area.

Read more:

The department is awaiting submission of a general spatial plan, or master plan, and a Special Ecological Assessment Study (SEAS) covering all the individual projects that make up the Trozena development, before it can assess their environmental impact.

Some of the sub-projects involved, including a restaurant/café and a reception area, have already been completed, while others are at an advanced stage of construction, all before the necessary permits had been granted.

Licensing history

According to the department’s data, six separate applications for planning and building permits were submitted between 2023 and 2025 for individual projects in the community. These included the creation of a private car park with fencing, a café, a single-family house with an office and gym, a winery with additions and alterations to existing buildings, metal fencing and dry-stone walls, and a nature trail.

However, the department’s examination, including its assessment of the SEAS, found that the development includes further projects and constructions for which no application had ever been submitted.

In most cases, the work involves levelling land and clearing low vegetation within the protected Natura 2000 zone, without the legally required environmental impact assessment process taking place beforehand.

To allow examination of the projects to be completed, the department has asked for an Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIAS) to be submitted for the master plan of the whole development. It has also asked for an updated SEAS covering all the individual projects, so that the impact on the environment and the SPA can be assessed overall and cumulatively.

The decision, published in yesterday’s edition of the Official Gazette, approves a beach-use plan for Argaka beach in the Argaka municipal district of Polis Chrysochous Municipality, as part of an effort to balance tourism activity with wildlife protection.

The approval is conditional on full compliance with a set of strict environmental conditions set out in a Special Ecological Assessment Report drawn up by the Department of Environment.

This marks the second attempt to establish an organised bathing presence on this sensitive stretch of coastline, part of a wider effort to concentrate bathers at organised beaches, Argaka and Gialia, to limit uncontrolled use of the rest of the coastline and reduce the impact on protected species and habitats. In 2021, the Committee had licensed an organised beach in the same area, but that attempt failed after the Committee was forced to suspend its operation and revoke the use plan when the environmental conditions set to protect the ecosystem were not implemented.

Argaka beach falls within a Special Area of Conservation under the Natura 2000 network, known as the “Polis-Gialia Area.” It is one of the most important nesting habitats in Cyprus for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), with the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) also recorded there. The area also hosts protected dune habitats and rare coastal plant species.

To ensure no negative impact on the turtles’ breeding population or the coast’s natural shape, the Special Ecological Assessment Report imposes the following conditions:

• Any turtle nest that is found will be immediately covered with a special protective cage and marked, in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Marine Research.
• During the nesting and hatching season, from May 1 to September 30, the beach will operate only during daylight hours, from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. Night lighting is strictly banned, and visitors are prohibited from remaining on the beach at night, to avoid disorienting turtles and hatchlings.
• The 78 approved sunbeds must be removed every evening, while the 39 umbrellas will remain on fixed bases, to avoid the daily digging of holes in the sand that could damage hidden nests.
• The use of mechanical equipment or ploughing of the sand for beach cleaning is explicitly prohibited; cleaning must be done by hand only.
• Any intervention on the dunes is prohibited, and natural barriers such as boulders or wooden posts will be placed to fully block vehicle access to the beach.
• Motorised water sports, floating or permanent jetties, and anchoring are all prohibited.

According to the published notice, any person or local authority who considers their legal interests affected retains the right to file a hierarchical recourse with the Interior Minister within 30 days of today’s publication.

What’s more, management measures should be pinning down exact anchoring spots for pleasure boats inside a marine protected area, precisely to stop damage to marine habitats such as Posidonia seagrass meadows, sandbanks and reefs. This also applies to the species that depend on them and their habitats: breeding, nursing, resting and feeding grounds, for the Mediterranean monk seal, for example. These Protection and Management Orders should already have been finalised by the Environment Authority and sent on to the relevant ministers for approval and publication.

What’s true of Cape Greco is just as true of the Akamas Peninsula. Worse still, the Forestry Department hasn’t even issued Operating Regulations for the Cape Greco and Akamas National Forest Parks, while the Orders for Marine Protected Areas, such as Lara-Toxeftra, aren’t actually enforced in practice, and aren’t respected even by the local authorities and district councils that are supposed to enforce them.

This is what protecting the country’s natural capital looks like in 2026.

Α.Ν.

Among other things, Charalambides is seeking specific data on how Natura 2000 areas are currently monitored, the personnel and services involved, and the number of on-site inspections and violations recorded in recent years.

She is also asking whether modern technological tools, such as satellite data and drones, are being used to detect illegal interventions early, and what specific measures are in place for high-risk areas such as Lara during the summer months.

Charalambides’s letter, reproduced in full:

“Following recent events at Lara Beach, the need has emerged for the effective implementation of measures to protect and prevent illegal or harmful interventions within protected areas. On this basis, I have submitted ten questions to the responsible Minister.

At the same time, I have submitted the matter for registration with the relevant Parliamentary Committee.

The questions are reproduced in full:

1. By what specific mechanism is the systematic supervision and monitoring of Natura 2000 areas currently carried out?
2. Which competent services are involved, and how many people are employed for this purpose, by service and by district?
3. How many on-site inspections were carried out in Natura 2000 areas during 2023, 2024, 2025 and so far in 2026, by area and competent service?
4. How many violations or illegal interventions were identified within Natura 2000 areas during the above period, and what was their nature, for example illegal building or other developments, land clearance, waste dumping, road construction, interventions in habitats or other activities?
5. For the above violations, how many complaints, administrative procedures or other law enforcement actions were taken, and what sanctions were imposed?
6. What technical means are used to monitor protected areas? Are technological tools such as satellite data, unmanned aircraft or other remote monitoring systems used for the early detection of interventions?
7. What measures are taken to monitor areas such as Lara Beach, where the risk of violations is high during the summer?
8. For how many Natura 2000 areas are management plans still pending?
9. For which areas have Natura 2000 management plans been completed, and to what extent have the planned measures and actions been implemented, by area?
10. Is there a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures and, if so, what were the results of the most recent evaluation for these areas?
11. Are there Natura 2000 areas where the competent authorities have identified habitat degradation or a deterioration in the conservation status of protected species?
12. If so, which areas are they, what are the causes of the degradation, and what corrective or restoration measures have been taken or are planned?
13. What are the latest developments regarding the illegal construction of a temple at Cape Greco, and what measures has the Ministry taken to remove the illegality?
14. Is there planning to strengthen monitoring and law enforcement mechanisms in Natura 2000 areas, whether through additional personnel or new technological tools and more systematic on-site inspections, and what is the relevant timeline?”

SY.ME.PA asked the Department of Environment to gather the positions of the members of the competent ad hoc committee handling the Special Ecological Assessment. The department did so by email on July 15, 2026, in order to form the council’s final opinion.

The committee’s members are divided. State services, namely the Department of Forests and the Game and Fauna Service, have given a conditional green light, while the environmental organisations BirdLife Cyprus and Terra Cypria warn of a dangerous precedent. They are demanding that the application be rejected and all illegal interventions and structures removed.

The committee members representing the environmental organisations argue that the Environmental Authority cannot revoke the demolition and restoration conditions attached to the monastery project by issuing a favourable Special Ecological Assessment report paired with compensatory measures, such as planting new trees, installing artificial nests for bees, birds and bats, or creating a rock garden and seasonal pond. They point to the unsustainable agricultural practices applied on the site, the unauthorised earthworks carried out there, and the illegal erection of buildings.

The Department of Environment will now draft its final position, which is expected to largely shape SY.ME.PA’s ultimate decision on the future of the illegal structure.

Legal background

The Metropolis filed an appeal at the Administrative Court on May 28, 2024 against the Republic of Cyprus, naming the Interior Minister, the Department of Environment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, and the Famagusta District Office of the Department of Town Planning and Housing.

Alongside that appeal, the Metropolis sought to suspend several measures. These included an Enforcement Notice issued by the Famagusta District Office on March 28, 2024 ordering an immediate halt to all work and the removal of all illegal interventions within 15 days, and a Department of Environment letter dated March 29, 2024 requiring a demolition plan by April 3, 2024 and a restoration plan within a reasonable period. Also targeted were a May 2, 2024 letter from the Interior Ministry’s Director-General rejecting its hierarchical appeal, and a May 14, 2024 letter from the Famagusta District Office rejecting its application for a deviation planning permit and again ordering removal of the illegal works within 15 days.

The Administrative Court’s Interim Decision, issued on July 25, 2024, found that the Metropolis had failed to establish manifest illegality or irreparable harm. The suspension application was rejected in full.

State agencies lean in favour

State authorities have taken a favourable view of the Metropolis’s application for a planning permit deviating from the Ayia Napa Local Plan.

The Department of Forests, in a letter to SY.ME.PA dated March 10, 2026, said it did not object to the project going ahead, noting that it includes a monastery and a shelter for abuse victims. It argued the site had already been burdened by unsustainable agricultural practices, and that the development would boost biodiversity through the planting of 2,000 trees, the installation of artificial nests for birds, bees and bats, and the creation of a rock garden, a seasonal pond and watering points to support the presence and breeding of these species.

The Game and Fauna Service, in a letter dated July 21, 2026, was also supportive, subject to 17 strict conditions. These include no widening or paving of the road network, exclusively organic farming, a ban on future extensions, restrictions on night lighting, and measures to keep cats out of the area. It specified that electrification must be carried out either through an underground network or a small, autonomous photovoltaic system, and that an autonomous system for treating grey water and sewage must be installed.

Environmental groups firmly opposed

Against this backdrop, BirdLife Cyprus and Terra Cypria have taken a starkly different view. BirdLife, the ornithological society, called the attempt to retroactively legalise illegal interventions unacceptable. The organisation argues the Special Ecological Assessment Study underestimates the site’s bird life: while the study recorded just 27 species, BirdLife’s own data show more than 160 bird species in the area. It also rejected the study’s claim that the project is “directly connected or necessary” for managing the protected area.

BirdLife considers the measures proposed in the study to be largely management or ecological-enhancement measures, which on their own cannot demonstrate that the development will not negatively affect the conservation goals and integrity of the Natura 2000 areas.

Terra Cypria, the Cyprus Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, points to extensive case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union requiring environmental assessments to be carried out in advance, not after the fact, to legalise a fait accompli.

The organisation also cites the Administrative Court’s Interim Decision of July 25, 2024, which rejected the Metropolis’s bid to suspend the Enforcement Notice and demolition orders, stressing that the Environmental Authority is not authorised to overturn those decisions.

Terra Cypria also raised a further, more technical concern: limits placed on conducting an Appropriate Assessment in the absence of specific conservation objectives and suitable management measures for the potentially affected Natura 2000 areas, as well as the rejection of a proposed limitation on the temporal effects of a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling dated July 16, 2026.

Two separate cases that came to light in recent days capture this sorry reality in striking fashion. They invite us to admire our glorious state!

The first concerns Natura 2000 areas. The Republic knew for years that it had serious outstanding obligations when it came to setting specific conservation targets. The European Commission warned. The Law Office warned. The Audit Office warned. And still, the matter was allowed to reach the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The story is outrageous. Warning signs go back to 2013. A formal infringement procedure opened in 2016. By 2021, the European Commission had flagged the shortcomings, while the Audit Office warned of the risk of referral. There were assurances. The decrees were being issued gradually, they said. Between 2021 and 2024, only ten were issued. Half of those were judged inadequate. And in the end, what had been signalled all along duly arrived: Cyprus was referred to the CJEU.

This is no longer a simple administrative backlog. The CJEU’s recent ruling on Ireland raises serious questions about whether projects can be lawfully licensed in Natura areas at all, without specific, measurable conservation targets having first been set.

The Audit Office’s response is entirely right and entirely expected. It is calling not only for the outstanding matters to be resolved, but for responsibility to be examined among the officials involved. That is precisely the point that matters. When, after years of warnings, letters and assurances, the outcome is referral to Europe’s highest court, we cannot simply keep looking at whether the paperwork is moving. There is responsibility here, and someone, finally, needs to answer for it.

Now, the second case. Parliament passed new legislation on recreational boating six months ago, a law aimed at bringing order to a wide range of activities involving every kind of vessel. The recent jet-ski accident brought a painful truth to light. Six months on, the law is still hanging in the air. It has not been implemented, and nobody even knows when it will be.

We are not claiming the delay in implementing the new law caused the recent serious sea accident in Pernera. In fact, according to the Deputy Ministry of Shipping, the core provisions on operator age and licensing already applied under the previous framework. The real issue lies elsewhere. We pass a law, and then whether or when it actually comes into force is left to the whim of whoever happens to be responsible for taking the necessary steps.

This is the real problem with this state. Not one specific law. Not one specific official. The mentality. We have learned to believe that the job is done the moment a notice is issued, a law passed, or an assurance given. Well, it isn’t. That is exactly where the job begins.

A decree that isn’t issued is a backlog. A law that isn’t implemented is half a job. A warning that goes ignored is a failure. And a failure with no consequences is an open invitation to repeat it.

That is precisely why the Audit Office’s call for accountability cannot be left to disappear into the correspondence shuffled between departments and ministries. It needs a clear answer, and it needs a result. Otherwise, accountability will remain a fine word trotted out in press releases, never once applied in practice.

And that, in the end, is the whole point. Every single time a state service fails, we cannot keep reaching for the same failed recipe: warnings, letters, meetings, assurances, new dates, and yet another extension. That is not basic, functioning state administration. It is the recycling of inertia.

As long as no one is held accountable for the delays, as long as no one genuinely bears the cost of a failure, and as long as responsibility keeps vanishing into the faceless machinery of the state, nothing is going to change. A system that fails to penalise inertia is, in effect, rewarding it.

Cyprus needs concrete results. It needs accountability, responsibility, and consequences where they are due. It needs a state that gets ahead of problems, not one that only stirs into action once a problem has already become a crisis, a European condemnation, or a bill handed to the taxpayer.

If this vicious cycle isn’t broken now, nothing in Cyprus is going to change. And at that point, the problem will no longer be bureaucracy, or irresponsibility. It will be that we have simply accepted inertia as the norm.

A country that treats it as normal for no one to be held responsible for the state’s failures, and that keeps this failed model of governance limping along, cannot expect anything other than to keep being exposed, and to keep making its citizens pay the price.

Adding to this is a recent landmark CJEU ruling in an Irish case, which explicitly states that competent authorities cannot carry out a valid assessment of the impact of projects or plans affecting Natura 2000 areas unless specific, quantified and measurable conservation objectives have first been established.

The ruling has a direct impact on Cyprus, where significant gaps remain in setting specific conservation objectives. It has raised concern at the Department of Environment, which may no longer be able to examine or licence projects in areas that lack established conservation objectives. Otherwise, the Republic risks facing the same fate as Ireland, whose licensing decisions were ruled legally suspended.

In Cyprus, the problem is particularly serious in both Special Areas of Conservation (SACs, areas protecting specific habitats and species) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs, areas protecting wild birds). For years, the country relied on general or inadequate objectives, which the CJEU ruled do not provide a lawful basis for assessing projects.

Under the Irish ruling, issued on July 16, 2026 in Case C-27/25 (SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG v An Bord Pleanála), following preliminary questions from Irish courts, the CJEU clarified that competent authorities cannot approve plans or projects in Natura 2000 areas unless specific conservation objectives have first been established for the protected species and habitats of each area. The ruling concerns the application of Article 6 of Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, which requires that any project likely to significantly affect a Natura area must undergo an appropriate assessment of its impact.

As a result, when specific conservation objectives have not been established for a given Special Protection Area, the competent national authority cannot carry out a valid assessment of a plan or project’s impact on the area’s integrity when examining an application for approval. In practice, this means plans or projects within Natura areas cannot be approved unless specific conservation objectives have been established for those areas, since the objectives set the framework for both conservation priorities and the necessary protection measures.

Audit Office demands accountability

The referral follows a decade of documented delay, and the Audit Office has been tracking it closely. Immediately after the Irish ruling was issued, the Audit Office renewed its criticism. In a letter dated July 31, 2026 to the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, it set out the case’s history and the Office’s longstanding concerns over the risks arising from the ministry’s continued inaction. It also called for the immediate adoption of the necessary conservation measure orders for all Natura 2000 areas, and for those responsible for the current situation to be identified and held accountable.

According to the Audit Office, the court’s ruling creates a major problem, since the Republic of Cyprus has not set conservation objectives for most Natura 2000 areas. This is despite years of assurances from successive Agriculture ministers that the relevant orders were being issued gradually, according to a timetable.

This was not the Audit Office’s first warning. Two years earlier, in a letter sent in March 2024, it had also called for accountability, warning of the risk of Cyprus being convicted by the CJEU and citing carelessness, negligence and prolonged inaction in preparing the orders.

Timeline of a referral long in the making

A decade-long failure by the Republic of Cyprus to comply with the EU directive:

• 2013: First warning signs. The European Commission opens its first investigation file (Case EUP (2013) 5493) into the Republic of Cyprus’s shortcomings in protecting environmental areas, with particular reference to the Akamas Peninsula.
• October 14, 2016: Formal start of infringement proceedings. The European Commission formally opens an infringement file (Case EUP (2016) 8928) against Cyprus over non-compliance with Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The focus is the failure to set conservation objectives for most protected Natura 2000 areas.
• April 26, 2021: Law Office warning. In a letter to the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Law Office informs that the European Commission has rejected Cyprus’s justifications. It notes that five years after the file was opened, implementation of commitments remains pending, with specific reference to Akamas, and urges immediate action ahead of a formal warning letter.
• June 9, 2021: Warning letter from the European Commission. The Commission states the objectives in question are not measurable, referring to “generalised and systemic deficiencies in the conservation objectives.”
• August 17, 2021: Audit Office intervention. Following the Commission’s warning letter, the Audit Office writes to the Minister of Agriculture warning of the immediate risk of referral to the CJEU.
• October 7, 2021: Ministry assurances. The Minister offers reassurance, stating that the orders are being issued gradually according to a timetable submitted to the Commission.
• April 6, 2022: Commission’s reasoned opinion. Judging Cyprus’s actions inadequate, the European Commission moves to the next stage of infringement proceedings by issuing a reasoned opinion.
• March 13, 2024: Decision to refer to the CJEU. The Commission announces via press release its decision to refer Cyprus to the CJEU, judging compliance efforts inadequate.
• March 28, 2024: Renewed Audit Office intervention. The Audit Office again criticises the delay by competent authorities, revealing that between 2021 and 2024 only 10 orders had been prepared, five of which the Commission judged completely inadequate.
• February 18, 2026: Official referral to the CJEU. The Commission’s case against Cyprus (Case C-111/26) is formally filed with the CJEU, seeking a ruling for breach of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
• July 16, 2026: CJEU ruling on Ireland. The CJEU issues a landmark ruling in Case C-27/25, finding that no valid assessment of a project or plan’s impact on a Natura 2000 area can be carried out unless clear, specific conservation objectives have first been established.

Work on Larnaca’s largest park was completed around eight months behind schedule, a delay that was considered justified after restrictions were imposed during the summer months because of the risk of fires.

Construction began on 23 October 2023 by Miltiades Neophytou Civil Engineering Constructors & Developers Ltd, with a budget of €5.3 million.

The project was co-financed by the European Union under the THALIA 2021-2027 Cohesion Policy Programme.

It has been one of Larnaca’s most debated projects in recent years. Changes were made to the original plans in an attempt to address public objections, although some residents continue to argue that the intervention should have been considerably more limited.

Plans for a skatepark, sports courts and a car park in the Faneromeni area were dropped. It was also decided that environmentally friendly materials would be used on all pedestrian paths.

The changes were submitted to the Environmental Authority, which issued a positive opinion in March 2024.

New bridge, viewing points and leisure areas

Phileleftheros visited Pattichion Park to record the completed works.

The redevelopment covers a large section of the park and includes a substantial elevated bridge, viewing points, recreation areas, a children’s playground, a botanical garden and routes for walking and cycling.

Aromatic plants have already been planted in the botanical garden, while a considerable number of trees will be added at a later stage.

A large restaurant has also been built, with a rooftop viewing area overlooking the salt lake. Other additions include a picnic area beside a small lake and bridge, as well as a dog park.

Entrances to the park have been upgraded, along with the area surrounding Patticheio Amphitheatre, while street furniture and lighting have also been replaced.

Visitors will be able to exercise at an outdoor gym, attend cultural events and use the viewing points overlooking the salt lake and surrounding landscape.

The park is accessible to pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. According to Larnaca Municipality, controlled and limited vehicle access will be permitted to serve Pattichion Amphitheatre, including for stage equipment and supplies.

The positives and negatives of the new park

Interventions in areas with such extensive greenery should generally be more restrained, particularly when carried out within the Natura network.

Among the negative aspects of the project are the creation of a car park among trees near the entrance to the park and the large scale of the restaurant.

Another mistake, which Larnaca Municipality has said will be corrected, involved the planting of species that do not comply with the environmental opinion or with plans requiring the use of appropriate native vegetation.

Among those planted were banana trees.

Following objections, it was decided that unsuitable plants would be moved to other parts of the city and replaced with appropriate native species, in line with Forestry Department guidance and the conditions of the environmental approval.

The plants will be moved when weather conditions allow, Phileleftheros was told, as transplanting them under current conditions would destroy them.

Another significant negative is the state of cleanliness in parts of the park, with rubbish discarded at a number of locations.

Despite the criticism directed at the large pedestrian bridge and the salt lake viewing points, they remain striking features of the redevelopment and are likely to offer visitors a different experience of the park.

The children’s playground, picnic area, lake and botanical garden are also among the positive additions.

Whatever one’s view of the project, the new facilities are expected to attract more visitors to what had until now been one of Larnaca’s lesser-known attractions and its largest green space.

The infrastructure is designed to encourage visits by families, people walking their dogs, people with disabilities and tourists, who will be able to enjoy panoramic views across the salt lakes, one of the most striking natural areas in Larnaca and Cyprus.

Mayor: More than 100 trees to be planted

“The project has been handed over. There are some details left and the planting, which we will carry out when weather conditions allow. We are happy because a very beautiful project has been completed and residents will be able to enjoy it more,” Larnaca Mayor Andreas Vyras told Phileleftheros.

He also said he hoped “the project will also help protect the salt lake” by discouraging people from walking through it during the summer months.

Vyras said more than 100 pine and cypress trees would be planted in the park.

Tenders have meanwhile been invited for the operation of the café and restaurant, which is expected to open by the end of the year.

The Federation, together with BirdLife Cyprus and Terra Cypria, said in a joint statement on July 14, 2026 that they had sought clarification from the Department of Environment on the procedures followed in organising the festival and on any environmental assessment carried out. The organisations said the site lies close to two Natura 2000 network areas, the Akamas Peninsula Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area.

In their statement, the organisations asked whether the Department of Environment had known about the event in advance, whether Akamas Municipality had submitted a request for an environmental assessment, and whether any environmental approval had been issued for the festival.

The organisations said events involving loud music, intense lighting, traffic congestion and large crowds can disturb sensitive species and their habitats, and said the site’s proximity to protected areas made early and substantive assessment of potential impacts necessary before any such event, rather than after the fact.

They pointed to a similar festival held at the same venue last year without what they described as adequate or timely environmental assessment, adding that this had not served as a lesson to avoid repeating the issue.

The organisations said such events, particularly during the sea turtle nesting season, should be assessed in good time and in line with existing legislation, and that organisation, advertising and staging of festivals should only proceed once the required approvals are secured.

The Federation said environmental legislation must be applied in all cases, including where local authorities organise such events, and described compliance with the law as essential to protecting Natura 2000 areas and the species they were designated to protect.

The organisations also raised concern over the prospect of the square becoming host to recurring summer festivals, saying this could systematically and cumulatively increase pressure on protected areas, habitats and species.

Despite the festival going ahead, the Federation said the questions it raised remain unanswered, including whether the Department of Environment knew of the event, whether an environmental assessment was requested, whether an approval was issued, what conditions were attached, and how compliance with those conditions was monitored.

The Federation reiterated its call for the Department of Environment to provide full public information without further delay, saying protection of the Akamas Peninsula and Natura 2000 areas cannot rely on clarifications provided after the fact.