Delivering energy infrastructure needs people, capability, and cohesion
Australia's energy transition requires more than technical plans. Discover four ways to build the people, culture and capability to deliver infrastructure at scale.
Change your location to view content tailored for you.
Renewable energy developers are managing increasingly complex projects and portfolios, while being asked to deliver at pace and at scale. Ecology is no longer a peripheral environmental consideration in achieving renewable project approvals, it is strategically material, with a direct influence on project outcomes.
Hear from Aurecon’s ecology and biodiversity expert, Dr Chris Schell, on how to achieve timely approvals, what regulators want to see in approvals, and how to navigate regulatory changes. In addition to working across different technologies and states, Chris advises Commonwealth and Queensland Governments on the ecological assessment of wind farm proponent applications.
Essentially, confidence is key. Regulators need assurance that environmental risks have been thoroughly identified, assessed using robust methodologies, and managed through practical, long-term strategies.
Bringing this mindset into project planning helps translate ecological complexity into clear, decision-ready information, helping support efficient approvals and more proportionate conditions.
On a recent wind farm project, this approach enabled early definition of ecological risk, targeted field surveys, and fit-for-purpose assessment methods. As a result, the project secured both State and Commonwealth Government approvals faster than typically achieved, demonstrating the value of managing ecological risks from the outset.
Projects that don’t clearly identify ecological impacts, assess them rigorously, and demonstrate how risks will be managed are far more likely to face delays, additional survey requirements, and more onerous approval conditions.
In this video, Dr Chris Schell says projects often face approval challenges not because impacts exist, but because they are poorly defined, inconsistently assessed, or identified too late. Tailored assessments that reflect site-specific sensitivities are essential.
Dr Chris: Projects that can't clearly identify ecological impacts, assess those in a robust manner and manage those associated risks are likely to require additional survey work, result in onerous conditions and, if approvals are obtained, they're obtained after a long and drawn-out process.
The one-size-fits-all for ecology developments doesn't really work anymore because they're so localised and the impacts are highly specific to the location, the species that are going to be impacted, the local values, the nature and type of project and the surrounding environment.
Essentially, confidence is the key. The regulators have to have confidence that any developer has thoroughly identified what the environmental issues are, that a robust methodology has been applied to identify the risk associated with those impacts, and that they've been thoroughly thought through in terms of how that risk is going to be managed.
We've recently worked as part of a team for a wind farm application where we actually helped the team understand risk from the project's onset. We helped to guide the project through that risk profile to design field methodologies, to identify assessment protocols, to assist in determining what those impacts would be and, ultimately, to develop the mitigation measures to help to reduce that risk.
These mitigation measures will last for the life of that project. And for that project, we received approvals at both the state and Commonwealth level in a timely manner, faster than what typically would be achieved for projects that didn't have that same risk assessment from the project onset.
A one-size-fits-all approach no longer works because ecological impacts are highly localised, and shaped by the specific landscape, species, environmental values, and the type and scale of the project.
Projects often face approval challenges not because impacts exist, but because they are poorly defined, inconsistently assessed, or identified too late. Tailored assessments that reflect site-specific sensitivities are essential.
Early engagement with regulators through pre-lodgement meetings and ongoing engagement through the application lifecycle is also key. It helps align expectations, reduce surprises, and build credibility and trust.
Regulators understand projects carry risk; what matters is how clearly those risks are identified, assessed, and subsequently managed.
Underestimating or obscuring ecological impacts is a common issue that quickly erodes trust. In contrast, strong applications are transparent, use robust and repeatable methodologies, and clearly link impacts to practical management measures that can be implemented.
The projects that progress most effectively are the ones that treat ecology as a strategic input from the outset. Early advice helps focus on material risks, shaping the right survey effort, and technical approach, and avoiding both under-scoping and unnecessary cost.
Dr Chris Schell says regulators are increasingly looking for projects that go beyond meeting minimum requirements to actively improving ecological outcomes.
Dr Chris: Regulators know there are risks in projects, but what they want to know is how those risks will be appropriately managed.
Underestimating or hiding ecological impacts is the most common issue associated with development applications for renewable energy projects.
This erodes trust with a regulator. They want a clear identification of what the risks are, how the risks have been assessed using a robust methodology, and how those subsequent risks will be managed.
In my role as assessor of development applications for wind farms, where applications use ecology as a strategic input. For example, avoiding bird flight paths or strategically enhancing wildlife corridors.
These applications have an increased likelihood of achieving approvals in a faster timeframe than those that don't have similar material contained within them.
And whilst regulatory frameworks differ between states, the fundamental principles remain consistent across the nation.
What regulators are looking for is above and beyond. So how do we enhance? And that goes back to that example I used there is avoiding bird flight paths but also enhancing ecological corridors.
Currently, there exists a lot of opportunity for repair that will coincide with what's required with the new reforms under the EPBC Act at the national level.
If we have a look at what's happening at the Commonwealth level, the shifts and reforms that are happening under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, we're moving from an area of policy-driven to outcome-driven. What that means is how can applications now enhance the environment? How can we restore? And there currently exists a really exciting opportunity in terms of how we get the best and how we restore ecosystems and how we bring nature back as part of these developments.
Be outcome-driven, not just policy-driven. Regulators are increasingly looking for projects that go beyond meeting minimum requirements to actively improving ecological outcomes.
In my experience with assessing the ecology component of wind farm applications, projects that treat ecology as a strategic input, such as avoiding key bird flight paths or enhancing wildlife corridors, are more clearly articulated and better aligned to regulatory expectations. As a result, they tend to achieve approvals more efficiently and with greater certainty.
While regulatory frameworks vary across borders, the underlying principle is sustainable development. Projects that proactively integrate renewable energy development with the protection of ecological values are better positioned to succeed.
With evolving reforms, there is also a growing opportunity for ecological repair as part of a project and this is evidenced in the change to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)[1], moving from policy-led to outcome-led decision-making.
Regulators gain confidence when an application provides all of the details related to risks. Openness and transparency with enough detail to assess the project thoroughly. Clear, well-articulated information that demonstrates risks are understood and managed, with supported sustainable outcomes under the environmental protection and biodiversity frameworks.
It’s about providing the full picture, giving regulators confidence that the project is well understood and that any risks are clearly identified and managed.
There is also a growing opportunity to adopt a restorative mindset by linking fragmented habitats and strategically enhancing ecosystems, which can strengthen both ecological outcomes and regulator confidence.
Dr Chris Schell says the key is not just identifying potential impacts but clearly communicating their significance. By presenting the full picture, explaining why certain areas matter, and why some impacts may be minimal, project documentation provides regulators with the confidence that risks are understood, assessed, and will be appropriately managed.
Dr Chris: What's really important is to be open and transparent and provide the full picture to the regulators so they have sufficient information to actually assess the project and make a determination.
This high level of scrutiny by the regulators ensures that any projects that proceed are done so sustainably because, as part of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Regulation, sustainable projects are encouraged.
I think that you know what we're seeing at the moment is things that are driven by compliance what we need to see is things that are driven by incentive and outcomes. I think that's the change that we need.
Ecological sensitivity is a relative term and there are a lot of nuances. At the state level, ecological sensitivity typically is defined through geospatial layers. Ecologically sensitive receptors, particularly at the Commonwealth level, are not clearly defined.
Under the EPBC Act, threatened species and the habitat associated with those species is defined in the listing advice. Now if we take, for example, a koala, we might have a paddock with one or two trees in it, but if those trees connect to larger areas, then under the Commonwealth's definition of habitat for that species, that may constitute habitat critical to the survival and any impact to that corridor or even a single tree may require referral under the Commonwealth Government's requirements. We need to clearly identify where we think those areas are.
So, in many instances, impacts to those receptors may not be significant. But it's not identifying that it's not significant. It's actually telling the full story so that regulators have confidence in what we do and the story that we tell so it clearly articulates that it's not a risk for the project.
Ecological sensitivity is relative and nuanced, and definitions vary between States. At a State level, sensitivity is often mapped through geospatial layers, while at the Commonwealth level, ecologically sensitive receptors are less clearly defined.
Under the EPBC Act, threatened species and their habitats are defined in Commonwealth approved listing advice, which includes species recovery plans and species profiles. For example, a single koala tree in a paddock may seem minor, but if it connects to larger areas, it can be considered as ‘habitat critical to the survival of the species’. Any impact to that tree or corridor may trigger referral to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water under the EPBC Act.
The key is not just identifying potential impacts but clearly communicating their significance. By presenting the full picture, explaining why certain areas matter, and why some impacts may be minimal, project documentation provides regulators with the confidence that risks are understood, assessed, and will be appropriately managed.
As renewable energy developers manage and deliver increasingly complex projects at pace and scale, ecology needs to be treated as a strategic input from the outset with a direct influence on project outcomes. This means being thorough in identifying, assessing, and managing environmental risks through tailored, practical, and long-term strategies and going beyond meeting minimum requirements to actively improve ecological outcomes. Renewable energy projects that proactively integrate the protection of ecological values achieve approvals more efficiently and with greater certainty.
Reach out to our team below to discuss how Aurecon can help you manage approval risks for your renewable projects through ecology.
[1] Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 05 January 2026, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Director, Environment & Planning – Australia
Australia's energy transition requires more than technical plans. Discover four ways to build the people, culture and capability to deliver infrastructure at scale.
Aurecon shares insights on how renewable project delivery models are evolving to better manage risk and deliver long-term value through project partnerships.
From battery-ready to hybrid solar-plus-battery systems, Aurecon explores how grid-forming inverters are transforming grid stability, flexibility and performance.
