The proposed Energy-from-Waste Plant and Private Port Facility at Vuda Point has been rejected by Fiji’s Department of Environment after a comprehensive review found the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report failed to provide an adequate basis for approval.

Announcing the decision today, Permanent Secretary for Environment Dr Sivendra Michael said the rejection was based on significant unresolved environmental, health, social, cultural, infrastructure and economic concerns identified during the assessment process.

“This is not a decision against investment. This is not a decision against innovation. It is not a decision against finding better solutions for Fiji’s waste management challenges,” Dr Michael said.

“This is a decision on whether the EIA report met the legal and technical standards required for approval. The department found that it did not.”

The proposal by The Next Generation Holdings (Fiji) Pte Limited attracted substantial public interest, generating 875 written submissions and close to 9,000 petition signatures during the public review process.

Director of Environment Senimili Baleicakau said the Department moved into the technical review phase following the closure of public consultations on April 22.

Pursuant to the Environment Management (Amendment) Act 2025, Baleicakau appointed a Technical Review Committee comprising experts with relevant technical knowledge and experience across key sectors to assess the EIA report and supporting documents.

“Their role was to review the adequacy, the accuracy, the completeness of the EIA report and each supporting document against the terms of reference that were issued and approved by the Department,” she said.

Baleicakau said the committee met several times over a number of weeks and held its final meeting on May 26, during which representatives of TNG and its consultants were invited to present their proposal and answer questions.

She noted that every public submission received by the Department was also provided to the proponent.

“The Technical Review Committee concluded that the EIA report did not provide an adequate basis to approve the EIA report,” Baleicakau said.

Dr Michael said the Department identified 21 grounds for rejecting the report.

Among the major concerns was the failure to identify a comparable operational facility using similar technology under conditions similar to Fiji, uncertainty around the project’s dependence on imported waste, unresolved plans for hazardous ash disposal, inadequate air quality and health risk assessments, and insufficient engineering, water supply and climate risk studies.

The Department also found shortcomings in the project’s traffic and infrastructure planning, tourism impact assessments, social and cultural impact studies and economic viability analysis.

Particular concern was raised over the lack of evidence demonstrating free, prior and informed consent from affected traditional landowners and communities.

“The EIA report did not provide sufficient evidence of free prior informed consent or demonstrated social and cultural acceptance from the affected traditional landowners and communities,” Dr Michael said.

Officials also found major gaps in environmental baseline data and emergency response planning.

“The EIA report relied on limited modelling periods, incomplete data sets, outdated or insufficiently detailed information, and assumptions that were not consistently supported by evidence,” Dr Michael said.

He added that claims the project would provide affordable electricity were not supported by a complete and transparent economic assessment.

“The cumulative effect of the unresolved technical, environmental, health, social, cultural, infrastructure, economic and planning issues presents a high regulatory, environmental, social and reputational risk.”

“The department is therefore not satisfied that this risk could be adequately mitigated, monitored or enforced through approval conditions.”

Baleicakau said the Department’s decision followed a thorough review of the EIA report, supporting documents, public submissions, consultation outcomes and responses from the proponent.

She stressed that the Department’s role was to assess only the information formally submitted.

The company now has 21 working days to appeal the decision through the Environmental Tribunal.