The Environment Management Act 2005 (EMA) is the bedrock of Fiji’s environmental law framework. The EMA applies to all of Fiji, including its extensive coastlines, nearshore areas, and ocean areas. This impressive environmental legislation has achieved many things for Fiji, including the introduction of the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Approach, alongside decision-making tools like mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). There have been notable successes in the enforcement of environmental standards, as demonstrated by landmark court cases upholding its authority against companies that have breached its provisions, that notably include the oil giant TOTAL.

Currently (as of November 2025), the Environment Management (Amendment) Bill 2025 (Bill No. 39 of 2025) is before Parliament. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, this legislation will mark the first major overhaul of the EMA since its introduction, fundamentally reshaping how environmental regulation is administered. This Bill aims to modernise the legal framework, support digitalisation projects, and centralise environmental control under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MECC).

This article briefly sets out what will change if the Bill is passed into law as currently drafted, providing clarity on how the new centralised structure will affect the implementation of the EMA, environmental project approvals, and enforcement actions across Fiji. We also clarify what will remain the same.

EMA 2005 and Its Strength and Successes—Standing the Test of Time

The EMA's strength is evidenced by successful implementation in Fiji's courts, upholding the environmental rule of law and the polluter pays principle:

• Freesoul case: The High Court convicted Freesoul Real Estate Development for unauthorised developments that destroyed mangroves and coral reef. The Court imposed a fine of $1 million (FJD) and mandated a $1.4 million refundable environmental bond to guarantee the rehabilitation of the damage caused.
• Total (Fiji) Limited Case: A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in the prominent case of Ramendra Prasad v Total (Fiji) Limited determing that TOTAL is a polluter under Fiji law and liable for a fuel leak from its underground storage tanks due to its negligence that resulted in the most serious classification as a "pollution incident" under the EMA - thereby upholding the polluter pays principle in EMA. Importantly, TOTAL's inept argument that a "pollution incident" as defined by the EMA could only occur - if the pollution incident resulted in harm to human health - was unanimously rejected by Fiji's higher Courts. 

Key Changes Introduced by the Amendment Bill 2025

The Bill introduces structural and policy amendments aimed to enhance enforcement and clarify roles, with a strong focus on centralisation and immediate accountability.

Centralisation of Authority: A New Model for the MECC

The Bill makes sweeping changes to administrative roles and the EIA process.

• Centralisation of Authority: The term "approving authority" is deleted from the Act, removing its historical role in the EIA process. The "licensing authority" is defined as the external agency that issues the final permit or licence. All initial EIA referrals are now directed solely to the Director or EIA Administrator by the licensing authority.
• EIA Process Centralisation: The core EIA sections (former S. 27 and S. 28) are deleted and replaced. The new structure explicitly defines the EIA process as including screening, scoping, and the preparation of an EIA report or Management Plan.
• EIA Screening (New S. 28): The Department is mandated to issue the EIA screening determination within 7 working days of receiving the complete application. The process now distinguishes between EIA (significant impact) and Management Plan (minimal impact).
• EIA Scoping (New S. 28A): The scoping phase is formalised under S. 28A, requiring a Terms of Reference (ToR) to be issued within 15 working days of receiving the complete application and fees.
• Approvals and Monitoring: Final approval (S. 31) is solely by the Director/EIA Administrator. Approved activities must commence within three years, or a new screening application is required. S. 32 is replaced to clearly affirm the Department's right to conduct inspections.

Implementation Practice: Benefits, Risks, and Leadership

Therefore, if passed, the Bill will reshape how the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MECC) implements the EMA 2005, moving from a shared, often fragmented regulatory system to a centralised, time-bound control model.

• Centralisation Benefits: This approach introduces a structural mechanism to end the confusion caused by multiple agencies having a hand in the early stages of the EIA process. The stricter deadlines (7 working days for screening, 15 working days for ToR) aim to dramatically cut down on administrative delays, contributing to more predictable outcomes for developers and investors. Furthermore, a single point of environmental control is expected to lead to stronger and more consistent environmental standards across sectors.
• MECC Leadership and Challenges: While centralisation improves efficiency, it places immense pressure on the MECC. Meeting the demands for all EIA and Management Plan reviews in line with the new deadlines will be a significant operational challenge. If resources are insufficient, the MECC itself could become a bottleneck. Fortunately, at present, the MECC benefits from experienced and dedicated leadership and is well-positioned to rise to the challenge of managing this increased workload and achieving the mandated efficiency.

Enforcement and Accountability for Other Agencies

The centralisation model provides a powerful mechanism for holding other government agencies accountable:

• Licensing Authority Accountability (S. 43 Detail): The Bill introduces a section that ensures other government agencies may be held accountable to comply with EMA. The centralisation model sees all external agencies required to issue the final permit or licence (defined as the "licensing authority") but only upon receiving MECC's environmental clearance. Critically, Section 43 introduces a provision stating that where a Ministry, Department, or licensing authority issues a development approval or licence without an approved EIA report or Management Plan, that approval or licence is void, invalid, and of no legal effect. This places the administrative and legal burden directly onto the licensing agency's compliance with the MECC's clearance. Furthermore, the responsible officer, Director, or agent of that agency remains liable for an offence under S. 44.

Enforcement and Accountability Tools

The Bill strengthens EMA’s enforcement function in various ways:

• Fixed Penalties: S. 46A is inserted to establish the authority and procedures for issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for prescribed offences including pollution offences, allowing for swift administrative action.
• Increased Fines: Penalties for offences related to false accreditation and impersonation of inspectors are increased to $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment.
• Environmental Fund: The purposes for the Environmental Fund (S. 55) are expanded to explicitly cover environmental damage assessments, emergency response, and supporting remedial works.

What Remains the Same

Other than the changes set out above, the core legal foundations of EMA remain intact and unchanged by this amendment this includes:

• The integrity of the Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle is maintained meaning that amongst other things a company that causes a pollution incident as defined by EMA may face fines of up to FJ$5m as well as civil claims.
• Serious Criminal Offences: The structure and penalties for the most serious criminal offences remain in place.
• The Environmental Tribunal retains its role in hearing appeals against rejected EIA reports. Appeals against screening decisions go to the Permanent Secretary (S. 33).
• The requirement for an environmental cash bond remains mandatory upon approval of an EIA, securing funds against potential damage.
• The Right to access any report or plan prepared under Part 4 is explicitly maintained.

A reminder of the serious consequences for polluters in Fiji:

Penalties for Severe Pollution Offences (EMA Section 45)

The penalties for pollution are tiered based on the nature of the offence:

1. Knowingly or Recklessly Causing Severe Damage (Section 45(2))

This section targets polluters who intentionally or recklessly cause harm:

• Individual: A person who knowingly or intentionally or with reckless disregard to human health, safety, or the environment causes a pollution incident that results in harm to human health or safety, or severe damage to the environment commits an offence.
  • Maximum Penalty: A fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or life imprisonment, or both.
• Body Corporate (Company): Where a body corporate is convicted under this section, the maximum fine is 5 times the fine specified for that offence.
  • Maximum Penalty: $5,000,000 (5 x $1,000,000).

2. General Pollution Offences (Section 45(1))

This section covers a person who causes or contributes to the discharge of a waste or pollutant without lawful authority or reasonable excuse:

• First Offence: A fine not exceeding $250,000 or 3 years imprisonment, or both.
• Second or Subsequent Offence: A fine not exceeding $750,000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both.

3. Personal Liability of Directors

The EMA also ensures that company leadership cannot escape liability. Directors, officers, employees, or agents who participated in the commission of an offence can be held personally liable for the same penalty prescribed for the offence.

This blog post provides general information and commentary on legislative developments in Fiji. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such or taken as such. Specific legal advice should always be sought before acting on any information contained herein.