In order to meet the nation’s target of converting 50% of its total energy demand to clean energy by 2030, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has set the ambitious aim of enabling India to produce 450 GW of renewable energy through solar and wind energy. However, large areas of land are needed for solar and wind power projects. According to one analysis, it would take 55,000 to 125,000 square kilometers of land – roughly the size of Tamil Nadu – to produce 175 GW of electricity from solar and wind power projects. To prevent converting agricultural and forest lands into sites for such power projects, “resource wastelands” will be considered suitable locations for solar and wind energy generation. However, these resource wastelands are of immense ecological value and a communitarian property whose benefits are reaped by the community’s members.
The aim of radical transformation to renewable energy, while necessary, will pose huge risks to the communitarian ownership of common lands. Land conflicts concerning this are already on the rise and will only exponentially grow this decade. How to traverse through this dilemma is of urgent concern given the pressing need to transition to renewable energy while also protecting the livelihoods of those who rely on the commons economically and socially.
When common lands are sold to corporations, it is usually the Panchayat or the State who can establish a claim on such lands that benefit from the sale. The landless people who are dependent on such commons however cannot benefit from such a sale. The transaction in the ownership of commons in such cases only detriments the economic and social standing of such locals.
In cases where common lands need to be utilized for solar and wind power projects, and ownership must be parted away, it must be a priority that the interests of the locals dependent on the commons are not overlooked. For example, it was promised that the Pavagada solar park would provide an economic boost to the poor residents of the rural. However, this promise was not delivered as the finances of the local landless laborers were only destabilized as they lost their means of income. Only the huge landowners who provided the land on lease for the development of the solar park profited from the sale. This also exacerbates the social inequity between the members of the community.
This aforementioned case provides an important takeaway regarding the re-compensation of those dependent on the commons. To protect the livelihoods of the locals dependent on the commons, it is important that a mechanism for sharing revenue in the profits of the power project is devised. Jobs and economic opportunities that can be provided to locals must be reserved for them. Available alternatives must be provided to the locals. However, this must be only for cases where it is of urgent necessity that common land must be utilized for power projects, for it is not only for economic purposes that common lands are relied on by the locals, but it also contributes to the social value and identity of the community, of whose compensation is a more complicated task.