The Next Generation Holdings (Fiji) Pte Limited has no pathway to resubmit their Environmental Impact Assessment Report but have until the 3rd of July to appeal the decision of the Ministry of Environment to reject the report for their proposed Energy-from-Waste Plant and Private Port Facility at Vuda Point.
Following the announcement that the project had been rejected, Permanent Secretary for Environment Doctor Sivendra Michael, during a press conference says that if an appeal is lodged, the Ministry would be represented by the Solicitor-General's Office.
He explains that any appeal would be heard by the Environmental Tribunal, which would make a decision on the matter and if the Tribunal's decision is favourable to TNG, the Department also has the right to appeal that decision.
Dr Michael says the matter can go all the way to the High Court.
Director Environment Senimili Baleicakawa says they must follow the decision of the court.
The Permanent Secretary also stresses that the laws do not provide any avenue for any interference from ministers or political figures.
He says government leaders have always respected the need to follow the proper process and undertake due diligence.
He says this is the standard approach, and in other jurisdictions, projects of this scale and nature have either been approved with conditions or not supported following the same assessment process.
When questioned about TNG's objection to the rejection in a letter yesterday, including claims of a conflict of interest within the Technical Review Committee, Dr Michael rejected all of the allegations that have been made.
He stresses the TRC is appointed by the Director of Environment and they do not have to disclose its composition to TNG.
Dr Michael further explains that they have always appointed the Ministry's EIA consultants to be part of this TRC because they are experts in particular fields.
He says TNG had every opportunity to ask questions, which they did, and the Ministry also had the right to seek clarification on issues raised during the review.
Dr Michael says there were instances where TNG was unable to provide answers or indicated that information would be submitted at a later date.
He stresses that the assessment could only be based on the information formally presented, adding that there was no provision for further submissions beyond the process outlined in the Terms of Reference.
The Ministry says the assessment 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.
The Permanent Secretary says 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 says 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.
