About us

According to the EIA, in the framework of the mnagement project the effects on the area’s fauna due to the deforestation of the hydrophilic vegetation along the stream will be remedied by the recolonization of the riparian zone by the species after the works are completed. The natural riparian vegetation, which will be deforested, will be restored by planting new trees and by incorporating seed clods and topsoil in the gaps of the wire ties to allow vegetation to grow on the stones of the gabbions. Moreover, acoording to the EIA following a phytotechnical study 380 sycamores, 240 pines, 230 willows, 260 poplars, 40 cypresses and 40 tamarisks will be planted “with spatial emphasis on the areas from which they will be cut”. The Council of State accepted that the EIA examined the effects on the fauna of the area and proposed specific measures to deal with them, in particular the restoration of the natural riparian vegetation. Nonetheless, based on the lessons of common experience, “you can’t plant a ‘home”!

Moreover, with regard to the adverse effects on the fauna and the ecosystem, the Council of State failed to take into account the reports of Hellenic Centre of Marine Research (ELKETHE) and the Hellenic Ornithological Society, because they had not been presented to the Administration in the context of the consultation on the Environmental Impact Study. With regard to the protected wetland of the Estuary (Priority A), the Court accepted that the management of the bed with cement and gabbions does not constitute a disturbing activity and an activity that degrades its ecological status (!). Finally, with regard to the anti-flood nature of the project, the Court accepted that in principle the substitution of a natural stream by a pipeline is allowed only exceptionally and under special conditions, related to the treatment of a serious flood risk. In this particular case, while accepting that:

• the construction of the planned dam was reasonably chosen to take place at a later time in due course following an assessment of the impact of the A’ phase project on local flood risk and
• the increase in the speed of the water flow will be significant due to the materials that will be used in the project,

the Court concluded that “the creation of a controlled and specific space for the passage of water by virtue of the disputed project ensures the prevention of flooding“. This position runs counter to the scientific approach “Room for the River”, which advocates restoring the river’s natural floodplain in places where it is least harmful, in order to protect those areas most vulnerable to floods.

Moreover, the Court ruled that the alternative solutions, including the zero solution, had been sufficiently considered but were rejected as insufficient. However, the Court did not take into account the technical expertise of a local hydraulic engineer with international experience, from which it emerged that the implementation of the settlement project as planned in phase A, i.e., without the retention dam, actually increases the flood risk.

These approaches of the Supreme Administrative Court raise the issue of the lack of a real and effective appeal of full jurisdiction in environmental cases in Greece, which would allow the court to check both the substantive and technical judgments of the Administration based on the expertise of environmental organisations and technical experts submitted by the applicants. The judicial control, as applied today, restricted to the legality and justification, on the basis of the ‘lessons of common experience’, which are often specialized on the basis of subjective perceptions, is not enough.