Let wind farms pay to help endangered species they hurt

The Age,
June 26, 2006

ENVIRONMENT Minister Ian Campbell's recent decision to use federal endangered species legislation to block a wind farm development in west Gippsland was controversial. Some in the wind industry now worry whether any proposed development is safe, while others, including me, are wondering whether there is a better way to protect endangered species from such uncertain threats.

If further wind developments are blocked on the same grounds — that a single individual of an endangered species may die — the decision may affect the development of Australia's energy infrastructure. It may, for example, lead to the development of more coal-fired power plants. How many orange-bellied parrots will then die from the resultant climate change? If we really intend to protect endangered species, we must tackle these issues.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Kyoto Protocol might have a thing or two to teach us about managing wind farm developments. At the heart of the treaty is a carbon trading mechanism that allows polluters who find it difficult or expensive to reduce their CO2 emissions to offset their pollution by buying carbon credits from those who can reduce their pollution more easily. Why should we not allow a trading system designed to protect endangered species to operate in the case of wind farm developments?

The system could work as follows: if it is considered likely that a wind farm development might kill a single orange-bellied parrot each decade, for example, the wind farm developers should be allowed to offset this risk by funding initiatives aimed at increasing the population of orange-bellied parrots by one individual each decade. Such initiatives might include the protection of important habitat, feral cat eradication programs, or even support for organisations committed to saving the orange-bellied parrot.

Such a scheme has the potential to allow both wind-farm development and save endangered species in a cost-effective manner. It should be subject to review: if more parrots are killed, the volume of "endangered species credits" purchased by the wind company could be increased. The same could be done if the measures funded were found to be ineffective in protecting the species. If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that no dead parrots eventuated, the credit scheme could be suspended and the funding reimbursed to the wind farm.

Environmentalists might worry that such an offset scheme would lead to inappropriate development should it be applied more broadly. There is a good argument, however, that climate change and wind-power generation is a special case: without wind we are likely to be forced back to dependence on fossil fuels, which will gravely damage many endangered species.

If we are to win the war for climate stability we need to generate as much low-emission electricity as possible, and wind is one of the most cost-effective ways of achieving this. If the wind industry is to avoid being destroyed by thoughtless NIMBYs, its fossil-fuel rivals or political opportunism, it desperately needs an endangered-species credits scheme.

Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist and director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.