The denied reports of plans to reroute the cable, the call for bids to conduct an environmental impact study, and the Turkish surveys north of Cyprus
As time goes by and developments seem to be stalling regarding efforts to construct the cable, matters are becoming increasingly complicated. Just when it seemed that Athens and Paris had struck a balance by issuing a statement on the necessary bathymetric surveys, signaling a successful French intervention with Ankara, the situation has taken a complete turn, despite Greece’s insistence that the project is proceeding as planned. For the second consecutive week, the Turkish Ministry of Defense has warned that any surveys in an area that Ankara considers part of its continental shelf require its permission. Even more questions have been raised by a report in Kathimerini that France and Greece are considering rerouting the cable so that it does not pass through the illegally declared Fetiye–Kas marine park—a claim that was refuted by three members of the Greek Cabinet within 24 hours. Not to mention that redesigning the cable’s route is not geographically justified. With tensions running high, the EAC has raised further questions by announcing a tender for an environmental impact study on the GSI, 14 years after the idea was first conceived.
A tangled wire or a Gordian knot?
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Last week’s reports about Athens and Paris finding a Solomonic solution regarding the issuance of a notice to coastal states concerning bathymetric surveys by aoff the coast of Kasos, were followed by a warning from Ankara that it demands its permission be sought. By Sunday, new reports in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini stated that France and Greece had put on the table the possibility of rerouting the power interconnection cable so that it would not intersect with the unauthorized Fetiye–Kas offshore park that Turkey has declared around and south of Kastellorizo. The aim was to avoid any new tensions and thereby remove the pretexts Ankara is seeking to use to escalate the situation.
However, the report was denied by Greece’s Ministers of Energy and Foreign Affairs, as well as the Government Spokesperson, within 24 hours. Indicative of the fact that the cable issue has escalated from a complicated situation to that of a Gordian knot is the statement by Giorgos Gerapetritis that there is no reason to reroute the cable. As you can see on the map, the cable’s route as currently planned—passing off the coast of Kasos—lies much further south than the unauthorized Fetiye–Kas marine park. This raises questions about the purpose behind the leak of information that France and Greece are considering rerouting the cable. As the Turkish Ministry of Defense noted in its statement last week, Ankara’s demand that a permit be issued for conducting bathymetric surveys and laying the cable stems from the Turkish-Libyan memorandum on the delimitation of the EEZ. This is an area that a cable from Greece to Cyprus will inevitably have to cross.
As expected, the issue remained in the news this week as well. The Turkish Ministry of Defense reiterated: “Under international law, as a coastal state, any activity involving the laying of cables or pipelines or scientific research to be carried out on our continental shelf must be coordinated in advance with our country. Our country, within the framework of the rights and responsibilities arising from its status as a coastal state, will not permit any unauthorized activity on its continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Athens, however, continues to stand firm on its own red line, with Government Spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis, reiterating that the project will proceed as planned, and that there is no question of requiring a permit to conduct the seabed surveys planned by Athens and Paris.
At the same time, surveys and construction work are underway in Turkey for both the bidirectional natural gas pipeline and the cable, both of which will further link Turkey to the occupied territories. In fact, Ankara has issued a new NAVTEX regarding the activities of the research vessel Oruç Reis, with the aim of preparing the pipeline route. While this NAVTEX may not pertain to the area south of Kastellorizo related to the GSI, it is nonetheless indicative of the overall situation. Not only is the situation not moving toward normalization, but rather toward escalation, as the two sides are pulling the rope to its limits, with the affected communities in Cyprus watching developments from a distance.
Impact Study 14 Years Later
Fourteen years after the conception and announcement of the idea of an electrical interconnection between Cyprus and Greece, something has finally happened that should have been expected from the very beginning. Namely, the government should have had the necessary understanding of all the parameters of such a project before proceeding to the stage it is at today. Last Wednesday, the EAC announced a tender for consulting services to assess the potential impacts of the “Great Sea Interconnector” project. The tender, which closes on November 11, is valued at €350,000, and the criteria set forth pertain to:
- energy-related and associated services
- infrastructure consulting
- construction cost estimation
- project management consulting
- general business and management consulting
- business and management consulting
- providing financial management consulting
- financial and insurance services
- provision of financial consulting
- submarine cables.
However, this is not the government’s first attempt to resolve the issue. The Ministry of Energy announced a tender in 2024, with the aim of commissioning a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the impact on electricity prices. That tender was closed without a contract being awarded, as only one company expressed interest when it was announced in the summer of 2024. The bid was rejected because it was deemed not to meet the necessary terms and criteria of the tender, resulting in the tender being re-announced in September of the same year. With no interest shown, the tender was canceled again, and the matter has remained unresolved ever since, as the government has made no further effort to determine the cost of the GSI to consumers.
