Google hub development, Momi Bay dispute top talks with Lands Minister

Google hub development, Momi Bay dispute top talks with Lands Minister VITI Indigenous Tourism Alliance says landowners want greater consultation and progress on commitments linked to the project. Friday 31 July 2026 | 10:00 The proposed Google Hub development and the Momi Bay land dispute will be raised with the Lands Minister next Monday. Photo: DEPTFO News The proposed Google Hub development and the long-running Momi Bay land dispute will top the agenda when resource owners meet Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources Filimoni Vosarogo on Monday. VITI Indigenous Tourism Alliance (VITA) President Sitiveni Nawaqa confirmed the meeting yesterday, saying he hoped discussions would be transparent, constructive and lead to practical outcomes. VITA represents Indigenous Fijian resource owners in the tourism sector and advocates for economic development that respects the rights of the vanua and promotes sustainable partnerships. Related stories Google Hub development Mr Nawaqa said landowners from vanua Nasoqo in Sanasana Village and vanua Nasoni in the district of Malomalo believed they had not been adequately consulted about development within their traditional fishing grounds. He said groundwork had already commenced despite a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) remaining unsigned. According to Mr Nawaqa, a previous meeting between FNPF representatives and him resulted in a verbal agreement to prepare and execute an MOU that would provide approximately $140,000 annually for vanua Nasoqo and vanua Nasoni qoliqoli projects, together with other agreed benefits. He said the agreement had not been finalised despite repeated follow-ups, leaving landowners frustrated and concerned about the consultation process and the potential impacts on their marine resources. "I raised this issue last year and discussed it with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. Natadola Bay Resort Limited, in which FNPF is a major shareholder, had agreed to prepare the MOU," Mr Nawaqa said. "To date, the MOU has not been signed, yet work has already commenced along our beachfront." Mr Nawaqa said the affected beachfront is traditionally owned by the vanua Nasoqo and vanua Nasoni, while the land identified for the proposed tower belongs to the related tokatoka, Navunamocelolo. In a statement yesterday, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change confirmed that only two components of the project had received environmental approval: - the Landing Station Facility, where the subsea cable connects to land-based telecommunications infrastructure; and - the Marine Subsea Cable Landing, where the cable comes ashore. The ministry also confirmed that the proposed beach manholes and trenching conduits between the beach and the landing station have not received environmental approval. "The ministry is aware of concerns regarding activities that may be taking place within the project area," the statement said. "In accordance with its regulatory responsibilities under the Environment Management Act 2005 (as amended), the ministry is prepared to undertake a compliance inspection to verify activities on the ground and determine whether all environmental approvals, approval conditions and legal requirements are being complied with." Momi Bay land dispute Mr Nawaqa said the Prime Minister had advised the affected landowners to pursue discussions through the Ministry of Lands. The dispute relates to a 2005 land-swap arrangement connected to the development of the Momi Bay tourism project. The Ministry of Lands has acknowledged concerns raised by the traditional landowners of the Nahau sub-clan of Vanua o Nalolo in Tau Village, who continue to question the land exchange and its impact on their customary ownership rights. According to the ministry, the land swap was undertaken to facilitate tourism development and was later formalised under the Momi Bay Development Act 2010. The ministry said the current Government inherited the dispute and was committed to resolving the matter fairly, transparently and respectfully. It also confirmed discussions would be facilitated between the affected landowners and relevant stakeholders to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Questions sent to FNPF remained unanswered when this edition went to press.