Opinion
By Yiannos Stavrinides
The Cyprus-Crete electricity interconnection cable is full of thorny issues that, until resolved, would be better off out of the headlines. The project is making news for all the wrong reasons. For citizens, it is a venture defined by unanswered questions and catchy slogans. Slogans like “a project of strategic importance for Europe” or “a project that ends Cyprus’ energy isolation.”
How a private company without prior experience managed to have the project classified as an EU strategic initiative and secure European funding is now under investigation, and the European Prosecutor’s Office will demand answers.
As for ending Cyprus’ energy isolation, the discussion is premature. To become a reality, the project must overcome major technical and geopolitical hurdles. Technically, it is unprecedented. The distance and the seabed’s topography pose serious challenges. Geopolitically, Turkey claims a stake in the project due to its route, making clear that no energy initiative in the region will proceed without its approval.
For a long time, Turkey’s stance dominated discussions about the project’s feasibility. But deeper and more fundamental problems have now come to light. They concern the agreement between Cyprus and Greece, which appears unclear even on expenses already incurred. Sources say the project has already cost 300 million euros out of a planned 2 billion. These expenses cover the construction company and consultancy fees. In other words, 15 percent of the project has been billed with no clear prospect of starting or completing it.
The agreement is so vague that Cyprus recognizes less than a third of these costs, about 80 million euros. This brings the question of cost recovery back into focus, because when construction begins, the project will require significant liquidity. A funding gap is likely, as Cyprus is unwilling to pay without assurance that the cable will benefit consumer. A guarantee far from easy to provide.
Turkey, long used as a convenient scapegoat, has also served as a patriotic cloak under which shortcomings, disagreements, and poor planning have been hidden. These problems cannot be solved with press statements or meetings. Greece and Cyprus, for reasons still unclear, were drawn into a poorly planned project with an obvious risk to their bilateral relations. We are facing a difficult situation, full of unanswered questions and an agreement open to multiple interpretations. The top priority must be preserving the excellent relationship between Athens and Nicosia at all costs, even if that requires a change of strategy.
Even before seabed surveys are complete, the Cyprus-Crete underwater cable is stirring tension and concern. The lack of transparency prevents reasoned dialogue, while the European Prosecutor’s investigation casts a long shadow over the project.
