A decision on the Kentbruck wind farm is now expected in early November, amid deep uncertainty for threatened species with the spread of bird flu

Since our update in July on the poorly sited Kentbruck wind farm proposal, NGT has learned that the Australian Government’s EPBC Act assessment of this proposed development has now re-commenced. We have been advised that a final decision is expected in early November, however – also of note – we won’t learn if our recent request for the Minister to enact the optional 10-day public comment period on the decision will be granted, until the decision itself is announced.

It has been seven long years since the referral for this project under the EPBC Act was first submitted by the developer, back in 2019. After such an extended period of uncertainty hanging over the internationally significant wetlands of the Glenelg Estuary and Discovery Bay Ramsar Site, including NGT’s highly successful wetland restoration project at Long Swamp, we are keen to see this whole unfortunate saga draw to a close.

If you are not familiar with the term, a Ramsar site is a Wetland of International Importance, designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. The convention is named after Ramsar, in Iran, where this treaty was signed on 2nd February, 1971, which is now celebrated each year as World Wetlands Day.

The Ecological Character Description for the Glenelg Estuary and Discovery Bay Ramsar Site (which you can find at this page, along with other information about the site), includes an important table summarising how the site supports a huge diversity of wetland dependent bird species.

Needless to say, given these values (and others that we have previously described in detail), including the need for these species to be able to move unimpeded through the landscape surrounding the Ramsar site for their daily, seasonal or episodic migratory flights, we are hopeful that common sense will prevail and the proposal will be rejected by the federal Minister. However, if a wind farm is approved in any form in this location (even with conditions) it will likely have far-reaching repercussions for set-back distances around Australia’s Ramsar sites and risks encouraging developers to push deeper into sensitive, biodiverse landscapes. If that occurred, it would only harm the environmental credibility of the wider wind energy industry which is already grappling with how to earn trust and build its ‘social licence’ in rural communities.

In summary, and perhaps ironically, approving this particular wind farm in this location could undermine the wider renewable energy transition, because it would demonstrate a lack of proper safeguards and restraint being applied in a case where this is clearly warranted.

The timing of the decision itself is also going to be noteworthy, and scrutinised very closely, for a few reasons. Two of the most significant, which we will discuss in more detail today, are outlined below:

1. Uncertainty regarding the future impact of Avian Influenza (H5N1) on many species

With the recent detection and spread of Avian Influenza (H5N1) across the continent, there is high uncertainty regarding its potential impact on many species, especially birds, which makes this of particular relevance and concern to the proposed Kentbruck wind farm.

Based on the demonstrated mortality impacts of other operating wind turbines on airborne wildlife in Victoria, we can also reasonably expect that the proposed Kentbruck wind farm, if built, would also cause additional new mortalities across a wide range of species (including threatened and migratory species) that are known to utilise the airspace in this sensitive environment. That impact now needs to be carefully re-assessed and re-considered against the backdrop of international experiences of dramatic population declines in some species that have been significantly impacted by Avian Influenza (H5N1).

Of relevance, the Australian Government recently shared with the public “National risk scores for H5 bird flu for native birds and mammals” which includes all listed threatened species under the EPBC Act that are known to occur in the proposed Kentbruck wind farm landscape, and are therefore also at risk from being struck and killed by turbines.

For context, there are at least fifteen (15) species of EPBC-listed threatened bird and bat species (not including a suite of additional listed migratory species) that utilise the airspace in or around the proposed wind farm (13 bird and 2 bat species). Fourteen species were mentioned in the EES, while a fifteenth, the Swift Parrot, has since been recorded at Nelson, in the vicinity of the project area. These species, along with their wind farm impact risk rating (from Reid & Barker 2025) are listed below:

Although international experience can act as a guide, great uncertainty exists regarding which species will be most severely impacted as we await the inevitable spread of the virus; however, it is reasonable to assume populations of some species (including some already threatened species) will experience significant declines.

With this uncertainty in mind, NGT feels it is incomprehensible that approval of a new wind farm in such a sensitive landscape, adjacent to a Ramsar site and that will knowingly increase the risk of mortalities – and hence contribute to extinction risk – to such a long list of threatened species, could even be contemplated at this moment in time.

2. Renewables Environmental Research Initiative

Over the past 12 months, the Renewables Environmental Research Initiative (RERI) has seen the Australian Government engage a wide range of experts, via dozens of research projects, to help assemble and improve key scientific knowledge that will inform renewable energy developments in Australia, including how to better avoid or mitigate their impact on threatened species. Indeed, one of the early outputs from this work was the 2025 study (by Reid and Baker) referenced in the table above.

NGT understands that much of this work is now complete, but so far it remains unavailable to the public, despite being information that the federal government are now obliged to consider in their assessment of the Kentbruck wind farm proposal. Hence in NGT’s case, we know this information exists, but at this point we cannot access or review its findings.

For fair and transparent decision-making in relation to such a highly contested development proposal, in a sensitive location that impacts so many Matters of National Environmental Significance, ideally this material would be made available for the public to scrutinise ahead of the Minister’s decision. This is especially the case considering NGT has identified at least 14 of these projects (based on their descriptions) are likely to produce information relevant to the Kentbruck wind farm proposal, including some specifically relevant to the most at-risk threatened species, such as the Australasian Bittern and Southern Bent-wing Bat.

With this in mind, when the EPBC Act decision is made, we believe it is imperative that the full reasons for the decision are published, and that this explanation adequately references the RERI research outputs and findings. This would allow the public to clearly see and understand (even if only retrospectively, when the RERI research is published) how this most recent scientific work informed the Minister’s decision.

The issues we have outlined here illustrate just how quickly the situation is evolving – and that this is especially relevant for poorly sited wind farms (like Kentbruck) that are proposed in sensitive landscapes, with major data deficiencies, high levels of uncertainty and where a long list of nationally threatened (and migratory) species occur.

In our correspondence with the Australian and Victorian Governments over the past seven years, we have reiterated the need for the Precautionary Principle to be fully and correctly applied in this instance, as required by legislation, including the EPBC Act. This requires proactive, preventative measures to be taken to protect the environment, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty about the harm. Put another way, decisions must favor environmental protection and creates a very high burden of proof on those proposing activities that may cause harm. This principle takes on extra relevance in the face of the emerging, unpredictable and effectively unstoppable threat posed by bird flu to Australia’s wildlife.

Right now is a time when the rhetoric from governments, both state and national, has been drumming home the message about building or maintaining ‘environmental resilience’, and how this is our best response to the bird flu outbreak, by giving our wildlife a chance to survive, persist and slowly bounce back.

It is noteworthy that NGT, with the support of government grants and the participation of the local community, has been actively increasing the resilience of the Discovery Bay wetlands, by restoring the hydrology of Long Swamp (immediately adjacent to the proposed wind farm) and dramatically improving its biodiversity values. For more than a decade, our organisation has embodied the very approach to protecting wildlife in our most sensitive landscapes, that governments are now advocating for at this critical time, by restoring their habitat.

And so, against this backdrop, it would seem inconceivable that a major wind farm could be approved in this location – as close as 300 metres from a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance (and Protected Area) boundary, just 500 metres from the water’s edge, potentially interrupting the inland flight paths of so many threatened and migratory species – directly undermining the resilience of key wetland habitat that was restored due to the persistence and dedication of the local community.

In my personal opinion, this decision is therefore shaping up to be a litmus test of the current rhetoric surrounding ‘environmental resilience’, and whether an appropriate level of ‘precaution’ under the EPBC Act is genuinely applied. Crunch time is now not far away…

PS – If after reading this article you have any concerns, it is not too late to write to the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the decision (see contact details here) ahead of a final decision being made. You can email your letter to his office at: