THERE are “many areas of doubt and concern” surrounding the proposed $1.4billion Waste-to-Energy (WE) incinerator project planned for the Saweni–Vuda area, according to Protect the Heritage Coast Committee chairperson Paul Forrest.
Following a community meeting held at the First Landing Conference Room in Vuda, Lautoka on Saturday, Mr Forrest said residents and members of the public have raised questions about the validity of the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report prepared by The Next Generation Fiji (TNG).
“The first points we are raising in our submission is the actual validity of the EIA report,” he said.
Mr Forrest questioned whether all consultants involved in the assessment were properly registered and raised concerns about inconsistencies in the project documentation.
“Are all the consultants registered? We do not think they are.”
He also claimed the report incorrectly identified the project site.
“They have not properly identified the site. They are saying at Vuda Point when in fact it’s at Naikorokoro Point in Saweni.”
Mr Forrest further criticised the environmental documentation, saying it lacked independent data on current waste management outputs and relied on assumptions rather than verified figures.
He also raised concerns about references to international waste standards and agreements, saying the report did not clearly show whether arrangements had been formalised with relevant authorities, including the Australian government.
“The information they have used in it is not submitted as an independent report on what current waste plans are producing.”
Mr Forrest said the community meeting was to allow the public to voice concerns and better understand the proposed development.
“At the end of the day, my feeling is let’s forget about this and focus on getting Fiji back on track with its waste management plan and green energy,” he said.
He added that continued debate over the project could discourage future investment in renewable and waste management sectors.
“This is going to dissuade investors in those areas if the argument keeps continuing.”
Mr Forrest said the committee was not opposing the project for its own sake or because of its location, but was calling for broader scrutiny of its implications.
“The whole issue is so much bigger and broader than that — so have your say.”
