Over the past few weeks, many of us in the tourism industry have been trying to understand how a proposal of this magnitude has advanced to its current stage in a location that has long been earmarked for tourism development. The proposed Energy from Waste facility at Naikorokoro Point in the Vuda–Saweni Bay corridor is not a small undertaking. It is a large scale, port based industrial development that would fundamentally alter the character of one of the Western Division’s most strategically important, and fast developing tourism growth zones.
This is not an argument against clean energy. Nor is it an argument against responsible waste reform. Fiji absolutely needs far better waste management planning – the reduction of landfill pressure, drastic improvement of waste sorting long before waste makes its way to landfills, and some serious focus on recycling and modern waste management systems. Efforts to reduce our reliance on imported diesel and strengthening grid resilience have been national priorities that have only had tokenistic attention.
The question before us is not whether waste to energy technology can function in principle in a small island developing state like Fiji. The question is whether this particular project, at this particular scale, in this particular location, aligns with Fiji’s long term national interests. Naikorokoro Point sits within the Vuda–Saweni corridor. This is not a random parcel of land. It has been the subject of Government endorsed regional planning, including an EU funded tourism development study prepared for the Fijian Government. That study identified the corridor as a priority tourism growth zone. The consensus recorded at the time was clear that future development in this area should focus on tourism, residential, agricultural and allied commercial uses. Heavy industrial expansion was considered incompatible with the vision for the precinct. Yet the current proposal envisages an industrial scale Energy from Waste facility capable of processing up to around 900,000 tonnes of waste per annum, supported by port infrastructure and continuous operations. Large structures, massive industrial stacks and associated logistics would sit at the edge of Saweni Bay, directly adjacent to existing and planned medium, small and large resort developments.
Even if emissions standards are met and environmental safeguards are implemented, perception matters. Tourism is a confidence driven industry for which investors commit capital over several decades. This investment will spill out into vast supply chain networks that reach deeper and further into cities, maritime and rural communities to respond to capacity and resource demands. International brands evaluate not only environmental compliance but also location certainty and long-term land use stability. When a tourism growth corridor becomes the site of a major industrial installation, it sends a signal of policy inconsistency. That, quite frankly, is difficult to reconcile. From the tourism industry’s perspective, this is not simply about aesthetics. It is about economic opportunity cost. By reference to established Fiji resort performances, a single large-scale resort of roughly 300 rooms can generate in the order of $F120 million annually in gross tourism revenue and support close to 500 full time equivalent jobs. The Saweni Bay opportunity is capable of supporting at least two developments of that scale. That implies potential tourism receipts exceeding $F200m per year and employment of around 1000 full time employees if fully realised. By comparison, public information around the Energy from Waste proposal suggests direct employment of around 100 positions post construction. Energy security has national value, but location choices create trade offs. If industrial development displaces tourism investment in a designated growth corridor, the economic consequences are not theoretical. They are measurable.
Scale is another element that deserves scrutiny. The proposed facility would process up to 900,000 tonnes of waste annually. Australia’s first and only operational large scale energy recovery facility, the Kwinana Energy Recovery Facility in Western Australia, processes approximately 400,000 tonnes per annum. Fiji’s proposed plant would operate at more than double that throughput. New Zealand has no operating municipal moving grate facility of comparable size. Australia is a country with a population exceeding 25 million and a vastly larger domestic waste stream than Fiji. It has commissioned one such facility at roughly half the scale being proposed for our small island economy. That contrast alone should prompt serious reflection. The proponent has indicated that approximately 75 per cent of the required feedstock (meaning waste) would be imported from other countries. Let’s have a long, hard think about that – a minimum of 3 x40ft containers of waste must always be available for energy generation – sitting in that hot, western sun for weeks and months at a time. It is fundamental to the economics of a plant of this size. If that is the case, then Fiji would not merely be managing its own residual waste. We would be positioning ourselves as a regional destination for imported waste streams.
Fiji is a party to the Basel and Waigani Conventions – both of which regulate transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes. These are not abstract treaties. They impose obligations around classification, prior informed consent, environmentally sound management and regulatory oversight. An import dependent Energy from Waste model therefore becomes a sovereign policy decision, not simply a local consenting matter. We must ask ourselves what message that sends. Fiji has spent decades building its international brand as a clean, tourism led island destination. Becoming structurally dependent on imported waste to sustain a large-scale industrial combustion facility sits uneasily with that positioning. Perception may not tell the whole technical story, but in tourism, perception is powerful. What investment initiatives, priorities, incentives or promises have fogged over our long-term big-picture aspirations? There is also the question of energy pathway alignment. Energy Fiji Limited’s published planning trajectory for the coming decade emphasises solar, hydro, wind, battery energy storage systems and grid modernisation. Thermal generation is framed as transitional rather than foundational. An 80 MW baseload Energy from Waste facility would become a system significant asset, influencing dispatch and potentially shaping tariff structures for decades. Internationally, Energy from Waste has often been deployed in cold climate cities as part of combined heat and power systems linked to district heating networks. In those contexts, recovered heat provides a substantial share of project value. Fiji does not have district heating demand. In a warm climate, electricity becomes the sole energy product. That alters the economic and efficiency equation. But again, we ask the question – what has caused the fog that has prevented us from seeing the bigger picture? When we examine alternatives, the contrast is instructive. A publicly reported solar development in Christchurch, New Zealand, is described at approximately 150 MW of grid connected capacity, almost double the electrical output proposed for the Fiji facility. Reported construction costs are in the range of $F370 to $F390 million equivalent. The Energy from Waste proposal has been referenced at approximately $F1.4 billion, inclusive of port and logistics infrastructure. The comparison is not simplistic. Technologies differ. System services differ. But it does highlight that substantially more generation capacity can be delivered through modular, rapidly deployable solar paired with storage at a fraction of the capital cost and without introducing port-based waste import logistics or long term ash management obligations. I am also mindful of the position articulated by Lauwaki Village, which has lodged formal correspondence expressing opposition to the project at this location while supporting planned tourism developments on adjoining land. While the iQoliqoli owners appear to have agreed with the foreshore development. Development durability depends on landowner alignment that articulates a clear preference for tourism led growth which has historically provided long term lease income and wider employment. Dissenting landowner voices surely deserve more careful consideration.
Ultimately, the central question is not whether Energy from Waste technology can work somewhere. It is whether this project, at this scale, in this location, reflects coherent national planning. The Environmental Impact Assessment process is necessary, but it is not sufficient. An EIA assesses site specific environmental impacts. It does not determine whether a project aligns with national tourism strategy, long term energy policy or international brand positioning. For a decision of this magnitude, strategic coherence must sit alongside technical compliance and involve its impacted communities, existing residents and businesses in the vicinity, as well as the wider industry and its pipeline development project owners. Fiji does not need to trade one national objective against another. We can strengthen energy security and modernise waste systems while preserving tourism growth zones. We can accelerate decentralised solar and storage deployment on grid proximate sites, including iTaukei leased land, spreading lease income and strengthening social licence. We can continue modernising landfill operations and improving waste sorting and recycling. If residual waste to energy is ultimately required, it can be assessed within a national framework that transparently evaluates scale, location and alternatives.
What is difficult to understand, and what genuinely boggles the mind for many of us in the industry, is how a proposal of this scale has advanced in a corridor long identified for tourism operations without a more visible, national level conversation about land use hierarchy and strategic fit. Fiji’s development choices today will shape our economic structure for decades. The Vuda–Saweni corridor represents one of the Western Division’s last major coastal tourism frontiers. Once industrial infrastructure is established at its gateway, the character of the precinct changes permanently and planned developments falter, while investors walk away. We are not opposed to innovation, nor are we opposed to clean energy or the reforming of waste systems. But location matters (as the Australian State governments that knocked back similar projects know). Scale matters. Alignment matters. Yet we haven’t even touched on the more pressing challenges of existing projects like these in other parts of the world (and why they are increasingly knocked back) – from the smell of reeking waste sitting in 30degree temperatures, the impact on rodent numbers, or smoke emissions from the 100-150m high smokestacks. Especially given Fiji does not yet have specific numerical emission limits that are as detailed as demanded in the US or Europe.
This is a nation shaping decision. It deserves transparent, strategic debate grounded in evidence, not simply procedural progression through an environmental checklist and quiet, background manoeuvring. If we are serious about protecting our tourism brand, respecting endorsed planning frameworks and safeguarding long term economic value, then we must pause, examine and ensure that our choices add to Fiji’s future rather than inadvertently subtract from it. Otherwise, we may as well toss out those widely consulted and carefully planned National Sustainable Tourism Framework, the new Tourism Policy and the imminent Sustainable Tourism Standards.
n FANTASHA LOCKINGTON is the chief executive officer of the Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association. The views expressed are not necessarily those of The Fiji Times. To share a comment or thoughts on the article, please send an email to info@fhta.com.fj
