The construction of a new industrial port in Pentakomo is moving forward at full speed, despite fierce opposition from the local community, environmental groups, and concerned citizens. As works advance, the sheer scale of the looming environmental destruction is becoming increasingly visible.
Earlier this year, environmental activists managed to secure a court injunction halting construction. However, that order was lifted after a new Administrative Court ruling, following a legal maneuver by the state’s Legal Service that added fish-farming operators as “interested parties.” Since then, works have resumed, exposing both the vast size of the port and the scale of intervention in an ecologically fragile area.
Dust, Roads, and Questionable Approvals
The construction has already created major problems for the area. Authorities have allocated additional funds, outside the project’s original budget, for asphalting a nearby road to mitigate dust from heavy vehicles serving the site. Yet this move appears to alter the original permit conditions. If the road had been part of the project from the outset, it might have required a full environmental impact assessment, not just an advisory opinion.
Meanwhile, photographic evidence suggests that basic environmental conditions are being ignored. Condition 45 of the environmental opinion required silt curtains to contain sediment dispersion. Instead, only a few yellow buoys appear to have been installed, doing nothing to stop plumes of sediment spreading into the sea. This poses a serious threat to seagrass meadows, marine life, and the wider ecosystem, in a zone that is also a habitat for the endangered Mediterranean monk seal. It also remains unclear whether an environmental consultant is overseeing the project, or whether a binding contract with the designated assessor even exists.
Contradictory Figures Raise Questions
An examination of the project’s documentation reveals significant discrepancies between the quantities of materials estimated in the environmental study and those listed in tender documents.
-
Natural boulders: The environmental opinion estimated 24,000m³ would be needed. Tender documents list 82,300m³ across three separate references, more than triple the figure.
-
Breakwaters: The study suggested 11,800m³ of quarry material and aggregates. Tender documents, however, total a staggering 250,400m³, over twice as much.
-
Artificial boulders: Environmental study: 14,000m³. Tender documents: 32,600m³.
Such inconsistencies suggest the environmental review may have been based on incomplete or misleading data, grossly underestimating the scale of impact on an already burdened coastal environment.
