In October, India surpassed 200 GW of renewable energy capacity, accounting for 46.3% of the country’s electricity generation. It marks a significant milestone, which pushes the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter closer to its commitment to generate 500 GW from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
Solar energy is central to the country’s renewable energy transition, which has grown from 0.5 GW in 2011 to more than 90 GW in 2024. This growth is attributable to India’s continuous push for renewable energy, which includes relaxing critical due diligence processes like environmental impact assessment (EIA) for green energy projects.
The rising numbers underscore the country’s growing commitment to non-renewable energy but there is more at stake in this race towards a so-called “clean” and “green” future. Renewable energy boasts low carbon emissions but is often very land-use intensive. This need for large geographical spaces is one of the reasons green energy conflicts with conservation goals.
A new research paper published in Biological Conservation, a peer-reviewed journal, uses a case study of the proposed 880 MW solar park in Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, to highlight why it is important to align green energy development with biodiversity conservation goals.
Researchers from the Nature Conservation Foundation, an independent research organisation, showcase that development activities for the proposed solar project will harm snow leopard habitats in the region.
Considerable cost
The proposed solar park is set to come up on 31 square kilometres as a conglomerate of substations across six villages in Spiti. The project is part of India’s plan, announced in 2014 to develop 25 solar parks and ultra mega solar projects in the country.
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd, a public sector utility jointly owned by the government of India and Himachal Pradesh governments, is the solar power park developer. However, the project has seen numerous false starts over the years. It received a shot in the arm when the World Bank announced its backing in 2017. However, the evacuation costs remain a concern, and the project has yet to take off.
On the other hand, the Upper Spiti Landscape is one of the 20 landscapes delimited by the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program for conservation as per the 2017 Bishkek Declaration, a pledge by 12 countries to conserve snow leopards and their habitats. The GSLEP is an alliance of snow leopard range countries.
Spiti is also one of the first landscapes identified under Project Snow Leopard in 2009. When snow leopard researchers working in Spiti came across the proposed mega solar park, they wanted to understand the potential implications for the apex predator and its habitat.
“We were explicit in our paper that this is not an attack on the project. We understand that we live in a populated country with high energy demands. [We understand] that transitioning from fossil fuels is important, but it is also naive to say that it is ecologically and socially sound to build green energy projects [anywhere],” says Munib Khanyari, one of the authors of the study, and Program Manager at Nature Conservation Foundation’s High Altitudes Programme.
For the study, researchers used camera trap data of snow leopards across Himachal Pradesh and Spiti. This was then overlaid on the locations of the 13 proposed sites to demonstrate that all of them fall within important snow leopard habitats. “Using the [species distribution] data, we could make a judgment that it is not okay to go forward with the project and that we have to move it elsewhere to ensure the conservation of good snow leopard habitat,” shares Khanyari.
Based on the species distribution model results, the researchers then applied a mitigation hierarchy framework to limit the negative impacts of developmental activities on snow leopard habitat. They arrived at the consensus to “avoid” the construction of any sites.
What is mitigation hierarchy? Khanyari explains: “Mitigation hierarchy, broadly, was built to align development goals with biodiversity goals. It is a stepwise hierarchical framework – avoid, minimise, remediate, and offset – that helps you think through development in a biodiversity-friendly manner. So, in this case, once we did our analysis, we quickly realised that all the 13 [sites] are in important snow leopard habitats. So we stop at the first step itself. That’s how we arrived at ‘avoid’.”
‘We won’t give it up!’
The researchers, though, are cognisant of the developmental aspirations of the local community and acknowledge that green energy projects need to integrate the regional perspective. “What we are opposed to is when a project gets dumped on a landscape like Spiti without any consent from the local people,” says Khanyari. The local community is still against the project.
Rinchen Togbe, 38, a farmer in Kibber, remembers the day the representatives of the solar power park developer visited their village to meet with the panchayat leadership. “When they told us that our land would go away for the project, we immediately rejected it. The panchayat unanimously agreed that we shouldn’t let this happen, that this is not good for us,” shares Togbe.
Still, the representatives visited them multiple times after that. “Earlier, when they were trying to kick off the project, a lot was promised in terms of jobs and livelihood,” says Togbe. “But for how long? Four-five years maybe. What happens after that?” he questions.
Most of the areas under consideration are pasture lands, where their yaks would graze and where they collect dung to keep themselves warm during the winter. The sacrifice is way too big for the people of Kibber, according to Togbe. “If the project were to happen, it would destroy the land where our animals graze and a perennial water source!” he says.
“In the future, whatever happens, we, the people of Kibber, will not give up our land. We won’t give it up even if we have to fight the government,” adds the dogged Kibber resident.
Can we do solar differently?
The research paper demands a radically different approach to green energy development. To achieve both the objectives of solar energy generation and snow leopard conservation, it recommends a data-driven approach involving all relevant stakeholders.
According to Khanyari, the abolishment of environmental impact assessment for green energy projects is at the core of the issue. “The relaxation of EIAs [environmental impact assessments] is against the spirit of local inclusion. It is against the spirit of collaborative planning. It is against the basic rights of the people there,” he says.
Matthew Sturchio, a postdoctoral research associate studying the ecological consequences of solar development at Cornell University, agrees that due diligence processes such as EIAs are critical. “I don’t think renewable energy should be treated any differently. That is not the most difficult step, but for some reason, such processes are seen as a barrier to renewable energy development. Instead of trying to speed up the process and then for the next 30 years it is an ecological disaster, we should look at designing these sites to benefit the ecosystem,” explains Sturchio.
In 2023, Sturchio and Alan Knapp outlined the concept of ecovoltaics, an ecologically informed approach to solar energy development that underpins a more sustainable future for renewable energy. “Most of the [solar] sites right now are built only to maximise energy production. In contrast, an ecovoltaic approach co-prioritises energy production and ecosystem services during both the design and management phases of solar development,” explains Sturchio.
Ecovoltaics requires us to rethink how solar development decisions are made. If we are going to change the land use of a site, we need to be proactive and work towards what we want to see it become in the future, says Sturchio. “I think one of the things that are easy to recognise is that these are large land areas. Access to so much land shouldn’t be seen as something that can be thrown away. Since the site is now being managed, we can influence it and apply some ecological principles to make it more sustainable,” he explains.
Sturchio accepts that ecovoltaics requires change at the policy level. “Right now, the larger ecosystem is the furthest thing (for consideration) for solar energy developers; they are only concerned about the solar arrays and energy production. It requires a level of policy to ensure that they are doing things that will be best for the ecosystem,” he shares.
While Khanyari agrees that government willingness is a prerequisite for a shift in approach towards green energy development, he feels encouraged by the attitude of the state forest officials they have interacted with.
“The officials are forward-thinking individuals who are interested in using data to inform their decision-making. I can see them using some of these outputs [from the study], like modelled species distribution, to make a case with their counterparts,” says Khanyari.
Most importantly, he hopes that the decision-makers think about wildlife conservation in tandem with green energy development and that there is transparency in the decision-making process.
This article was first published on Mongabay.
