The Department of Forests responded to the Audit Office in relation to the Special Report of the Auditor General for the Lease of state forest land for the construction of hotel units in Ayia Napa.
Such is the announcement
«In relation to the Special Report of the Auditor General no. TD / 01/2020 entitled "Leasing of state forest land for the construction of hotel units in Ayia Napa", which was reproduced in the daily press, The Department of Forests of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment notes the following to restore the truth:
-
- The first issue that arises is an issue for the Audit itself. An audit was performed which, as explained below, had no added value and therefore should not have been performed.
- 4 of the 5 leases were made in 1981-82 in the context of the implementation of a completely legal Plan for restarting the hotel industry and the economy destroyed by the Turkish invasion of 1974 and concerned displaced hoteliers. The Contracts must be judged with the then legal and other data and not with the current ones. Where was the Audit Office when the Contracts were signed and for the last 40 years?
- There are no recommendations of the Auditor General for the termination or adjustment of leases and for the general handling of such Contracts. The Auditor General himself concluded that legal hurdles "may make it very difficult, if not impossible, to adjust rents to market values". We had informed him about it and had informed him that everything was done with the cooperation and guidance of the Legal Service. And this is exactly where the question arises whether the audit should have been carried out. So why proceed with an audit that was clear from the start that it could not have any added value?
- The report literally states that "The purpose of the audit was to demonstrate the weaknesses of previous contracts, in order to make suggestions for improving the existing legal framework". The following questions reasonably arise. How is it possible to look at contracts that were signed forty years ago and were governed by the then legal framework and talk about improving the current legal framework? Was it representative to look at leases made under a Plan 40 years ago to improve the existing legal framework? Why weren't recent leases reviewed? Or at least why not consider recent leases?
- The Auditor General has made three recommendations, which have been implemented for some time. So why was no reference made to the recent Contracts? Would examining the recent Contracts show that its control would not be substantial?
- The findings of the Report are full of errors and inaccuracies themselves.
The following are just a few examples:
-
- It refers to a lease for the construction of photovoltaic parks, without ever having such a lease.
- Sloppiness is also shown in the calculations he makes for the determination of rents since he ignores and ignores the fact that with the expiration of the Contracts all the building and other facilities on the lease will become the property of the state.
- Suggests for the calculation of the rent its application on Real Estate (Ownership, Registration and Valuation) Amendment) (No. 4) Law no. 83 (I) / 2010. It is noted that the determination of the rents of the Contracts of the Department of Forests is done by the Department of Lands and Surveys, as the competent Department and it is indicated that the calculation is done in accordance with this Law. So why not clarify such a simple issue?
Finally, the purely political position of the Auditor General himself on social media that the corruption that is followed breeds corruption is caused by an alginate impression. "The Auditor General should clearly say who breeds corruption and in what way, because behind the implementation of the policies of any Government are service executives, whose name with such interventions is tarnished unjustifiably and unjustly."
Famagusta.News