The Department of Environment rejected the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report for the proposed Energy-from-Waste (EfW) Plant and Private Port Facility at Vuda Point, citing a wide range of unresolved environmental, technical, social and economic concerns.
In its assessment, the Department concluded that the report submitted by The Next Generation Holdings (Fiji) Pte Limited failed to provide sufficient information, evidence and certainty to justify approval of a project of such scale and complexity.
The decision identifies at least 18 major areas where concerns remain unresolved.
Among the key issues raised were questions surrounding the overall scale of the project, its long-term feasibility and assumptions about the availability of waste required to sustain operations.
The Department also highlighted concerns about the project’s reliance on imported waste and the lack of clarity regarding transboundary waste management arrangements.
Another significant issue involved the proposed Energy-from-Waste technology itself. Assessors noted the absence of a comparable reference facility and questioned whether the technology could deliver the outcomes claimed by the developers.
Environmental and public health concerns featured prominently in the decision. The Department raised concerns over the management and disposal of hazardous residues such as bottom ash and fly ash, air quality impacts, emissions, pollution control measures and potential long-term health risks to surrounding communities.
Water supply requirements, groundwater impacts and hydrological considerations were also identified as areas requiring further assessment.
The report further failed to adequately address engineering design issues, geotechnical suitability and site stability concerns.
Coastal processes, climate resilience and exposure to natural hazards were also listed among the unresolved matters.
In addition, the Department highlighted concerns relating to port operations, logistics requirements, supporting infrastructure, traffic impacts, road safety and transportation demands associated with the development.
Potential impacts on tourism, community wellbeing and local livelihoods were also cited.
The assessment found that social impacts, relocation concerns, cultural heritage issues, customary rights and the project’s social licence to operate had not been satisfactorily addressed.
The Department also questioned the adequacy of baseline environmental data, technical methodologies, mitigation measures, monitoring plans and emergency response arrangements proposed by the developers.
Finally, concerns were raised over the project’s overall economic viability, alternatives assessment and whether the proposal served the broader public interest.
The Department concluded that several critical issues remained unresolved and could not be deferred for consideration at a later stage, resulting in the formal rejection of the EIA application.
