The Next Generation Holdings (Fiji) Pte Limited has appealed the Department of Environment’s decision to reject the proposal for the $1.4 billion waste-to-energy plant at Vuda Point.
The matter was called before the Environment Tribunal, presided over by Magistrate Charles Ratakele this morning.
TNG counsel Feizal Haniff says the appeal has been filed while Ministry of Environment counsel Pete Bauleka has been given 14 days, until 30th of this month to respond.
TNG is appealing the Director of Environment's decision on seven grounds where they allege that he wrongly concluded that additional information submitted after the EIA Report could not be considered, despite provisions in the Environment Management Act and EIA Regulations allowing further information, amendments and supplementary studies to be requested during the review process.
They allege the Director wrongly treated several issues as incapable of being addressed through approval conditions, when the law allows environmental approvals to be granted subject to conditions that manage or mitigate impacts.
They say the Director allegedly failed to consider TNG's written responses provided following the Technical Review Committee meeting on 26th May this year before making the decision on 4th June.
The appeal argues the review process was procedurally unfair because insufficient time was provided to respond to technical questions; important adverse material relied upon by the Department was not disclosed; documents such as individual Technical Review Committee's assessments, material regarding tourism impacts, and correspondence relating to the Tui Vuda objection were allegedly withheld; and the Department proceeded with its decision despite being notified of concerns about procedural fairness.
TNG also allege material errors of fact resulting in failure to properly consider environmental impacts and/or a manifestly unreasonable decision.
They argue the Director made factual errors regarding matters including water supply requirements; waste bunker design; and other aspects of the EIA Report, leading to incorrect conclusions about the project's adequacy.
They allege the legal, procedural and factual errors were material and argue that had these errors not occurred, a different decision would likely have been reached.
In their appeal's application, TNG says the proposal is said to be environmentally acceptable and in the public interest.
TNG argues the EIA Report should be approved, subject to appropriate conditions, because the project would divert combustible waste from landfills, reduce reliance on imported fuel, provide reliable baseload electricity, create employment, stimulate economic growth; and
contribute 5 percent of profits to the Katalyst Foundation to support sustainable community programmes in Vanua Levu.
They appeal the Tribunal to reverse the Director's decision rejecting the EIA Report and either approve the EIA Report, subject to conditions; or order a targeted request-for-information process on identified issues, after which the Tribunal determines the EIA Report under section 31(1) of the Environment Management Act.
If the Tribunal does not approve the primary relief, TNG is seeking for the Director of Environment's decision to be overturned and the matter sent back for reconsideration through a fresh review process.
The company says the review should include disclosure of all material relied upon in the decision, production of the complete decision record, an opportunity for it to respond, and consideration of any further information requested under the Environment Management Act.Permanent Secretary for Environment Dr Sivendra Michael has confirmed to fijivillage News outside court that the Vuda community’s objection is part of their submission.
The matter has been adjourned to the 13th of August.
While rejecting the proposal, the Ministry had said the review found that key issues remained unresolved, including the scale of the project, waste supply, imported waste, hazardous ash management, water supply, public health risks, environmental impacts, road and port infrastructure, social and cultural impacts, tourism impacts, and the overall economic case for the project.
Dr Michael said the decision was made based on the EIA Report and the information formally submitted for assessment.
Doctor Michael said this report did not meet the required technical standards.
The Permanent Secretary said for a project of this scale, the Department must be satisfied that the risks to people, communities, the environment, culture, livelihoods and the economy are properly assessed and can be properly managed.
Doctor Michael said several critical matters remained unresolved and were proposed for future assessment rather than being addressed within the EIA itself.
As a result, the Department was not satisfied that the potential impacts and risks of the project could be adequately assessed or managed.
