Permanent Secretary for Environment and Climate Change Dr Sivendra Michael has publicly defended the statutory environmental approval process for the proposed Vuda Waste-to-Energy project, rejecting calls that he could or should have unilaterally halted the development. In a social media statement, Dr Michael said suggestions the project should have been “stopped at the PS’s table” would amount to “a direct call to disregard the law and due process.”
Dr Michael outlined the legal framework that governs environmental approvals in Fiji, citing the Environment Management Act 2005 and the Environment Management (EIA Process) Regulations 2007. He stressed that the law sets out a structured screening, technical review and decision-making process and that approvals “are not determined by opinion, personalities, or selective consultation. They are governed by a clear statutory process.”
Clarifying the roles within that framework, Dr Michael said the authority to screen proposals, carry out technical assessments and make approval decisions rests with the Director of Environment and qualified technical officers. “The Permanent Secretary does not sit as a unilateral decision maker and cannot lawfully stop or approve a project outside of that framework,” he said, adding that his office only becomes involved at the appeal stage of the process.
The statement pushed back on criticism that individuals should have been consulted outside the formal EIA process. Dr Michael said the EIA framework already provides mechanisms for expert input, independent assessments and public participation. “The legal avenue is through the EIA process — not informal or selective engagement, and certainly not speculation,” he said, urging stakeholders to channel concerns through established procedures.
Dr Michael closed by encouraging members of the public, community groups and other stakeholders worried about the Vuda project to take part in consultations and submit evidence through the proper channels. His comments are the latest development in a budding public debate over the waste-to-energy proposal in Vuda, which has drawn scrutiny from residents and environmental advocates who have called for greater transparency and scrutiny.
While Dr Michael’s statement stops short of addressing technical merits of the Vuda proposal itself, it frames the current dispute as one over process and legal compliance rather than personal authority. By reiterating the statutory pathway for environmental assessment and decision-making, the Permanent Secretary aims to steer the conversation back to the formal EIA timetable, and to discourage attempts to resolve the matter by extra-legal pressure or informal interventions.
As the EIA process proceeds, attention will now fall on the Director of Environment and the technical review team responsible for screening and assessing the project, as well as on any formal appeals that may be lodged. Dr Michael’s call for evidence-based submissions means that public input filed through the EIA process could carry weight in subsequent technical reviews and any appeals.
Leave a comment