Will new findings soon reach the approval process?

Anyone planning a solar park today often encounters a remarkable contradiction. On one side are operators, developers, environmental consultants, and municipalities who see renewable energy as a contribution to climate and environmental protection. On the other side, permitting procedures still regularly raise the question of whether a ground-mounted photovoltaic system inevitably leads to the loss of habitats for species such as the skylark.

In reality, both sides are pursuing the same goal. The renewable energy sector aims to make energy supply more climate-friendly. Nature conservation authorities are responsible for protecting species and habitats. They are therefore not opponents, but partners with a shared responsibility.

Nevertheless, in practice, many Lower Nature Conservation Authorities (UNB: Untere Naturschutzbehörde, local nature conservation authority) still tend to assume a general incompatibility between birds and solar parks. Solar parks often find themselves under a blanket suspicion from which they struggle to free themselves.

Where Does the Problem Come From?

Skepticism toward ground-mounted photovoltaic systems has historical roots. For many years, reliable data on the effects of solar parks on species typical of agricultural landscapes was lacking. Particularly with ground-nesting bird species, it was often assumed as a precaution that technical infrastructure would displace habitats.

This approach is fundamentally understandable. Nature conservation frequently follows the precautionary principle. Where knowledge is limited, protecting species should initially take priority.

However, science continues to evolve. And this is precisely where the current debate begins.

What Is the Discussion About Today?

In 2025, one of the largest nationwide field studies, “Biodiversity in Solar Parks” (Artenvielfalt im Solarpark), was published. The study evaluated data from 31 photovoltaic installations across Germany. The results show that ground-mounted PV systems are used by a wide variety of animal and plant species.

Particularly noteworthy are the findings regarding breeding birds. A total of 32 breeding bird species were identified within the surveyed installations. The skylark was the most frequently recorded breeding species and was found at a large proportion of the surveyed sites.

The study also reports skylark population densities that, according to the authors, rank among the highest known values in Central Europe. In several solar parks, skylark populations exceeded the levels previously recorded on the agricultural land before construction.

According to the study, the decisive factors were not the solar modules alone. Habitat suitability was strongly influenced by management concepts, structural diversity, access tracks, and sufficient open areas within the sites.

This does not mean that every solar park automatically provides ideal skylark habitat. The study itself emphasizes that location, design, and maintenance are critical, and that every installation must be assessed individually.

However, these findings have so far had little noticeable impact on the day-to-day practices of public authorities.

At the same time, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN: Bundesamt für Naturschutz, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) is currently conducting a comprehensive evaluation of monitoring data from a large number of solar parks.

Based on discussions between Kumandra Energy and the BfN, the planned assessment is intended to draw on the broadest possible database of field investigations. It is expected to consider various characteristics of solar parks, including their size, age, design, and maintenance strategies. Using statistically robust methods, the study aims to identify which installation parameters have the strongest influence on habitat suitability.

Why Is This Important?

Because the debate is still frequently based on a perception that increasingly fails to withstand scientific scrutiny.

The primary challenge for skylark populations does not lie within solar parks. For years, the most significant population declines have been linked to changes in agricultural landscapes.

The study “Biodiversity in Solar Parks” references European research documenting substantial declines in farmland bird populations. At the same time, investigations within solar parks demonstrate that these sites can provide new structures, refuges, and food resources.

Of course, solar parks are not a substitute for comprehensive agricultural reform. But they can be part of the solution.

That is why the key question today should no longer be:

“How do we prevent damage caused by solar parks?”

Instead, it should be:

“How can we use the potential of well-planned solar parks to enhance biodiversity?”

Why Is Practical Implementation Adapting So Slowly?

This is a question that many project developers, municipalities, and landowners are now asking quite legitimately.

No one seriously disputes that nature conservation authorities perform an important role. The precautionary principle is sensible. Where evidence is lacking, species protection must remain the priority.

The real question, however, is: what happens when new evidence has long been available?

For years, monitoring reports, expert assessments, and scientific studies have indicated that certain open-land species do not fundamentally avoid ground-mounted photovoltaic systems. The recent bne study, for example, documents high skylark populations and suggests that the species is increasingly using solar parks as habitat.

Nevertheless, developers in many regions continue to experience permitting procedures that are still based largely on assumptions dating back to a time when these data did not yet exist.

Of course, regional differences exist. Of course, every site must be evaluated individually. Yet this is exactly why it is worth asking why findings that are now supported by a broad range of monitoring data have still not been fully integrated into approval practices across the country.

Until the results of the BfN assessment become available, set-aside areas, compensatory measures, and precautionary requirements will continue to be requested.

From a technical perspective, this is understandable.

At the same time, however, the impression often arises that years can pass between scientific findings and their implementation in administrative practice.

And realistically, we do not have that kind of time.

Not for biodiversity conservation.

Not for climate protection.

And not for the energy transition (Energiewende: Germany’s transition to a climate-neutral energy system).

If new findings are robust and evidence-based, they should be incorporated promptly into evaluation criteria and permitting practices. Otherwise, there is a risk that outdated assumptions will continue to influence decision-making long after they should have been replaced.

Our Perspective

The debate should not be framed as a conflict between solar parks and nature conservation.

At their core, renewable energy and nature conservation pursue the same objective: preserving a livable environment for future generations.

This is not about lowering environmental standards.

It is about making decisions based on the best available evidence.

This is precisely where the ongoing evaluation by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation could play a crucial role.

Many stakeholders within the industry hope that the results will not only generate new insights, but also achieve a high level of acceptance among regulatory authorities.

If a comprehensive national data evaluation produces practical recommendations for the planning, permitting, and operation of solar parks, there is a strong opportunity for these findings to become more deeply embedded in the daily work of local nature conservation authorities.

Many authorities would likely welcome scientifically sound guidance of this kind. At the same time, permitting procedures could benefit from greater clarity, consistency, and planning certainty.

The decisive question will then no longer be whether new findings exist.

The decisive question will be how consistently they are implemented.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding solar parks and biodiversity has reached a turning point.

No one is calling for the precautionary principle to be abandoned. No one questions the important role that nature conservation authorities play. However, science depends on continuously testing existing assumptions against new evidence.

Current findings suggest that well-designed and properly managed PV parks can be far more than facilities for generating renewable electricity. They can create valuable habitats, reintroduce structural diversity into agricultural landscapes, and provide new opportunities for a range of species.

From our perspective, it is therefore essential to regularly reassess established assumptions and to integrate new scientific findings into practical decision-making. Through its ongoing assessment, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) offers nature conservation authorities an opportunity to take exactly this step, supported by its unique scientific expertise and institutional authority.

Because effective nature conservation is not only about identifying risks at an early stage. It is also about embracing new knowledge and drawing the appropriate conclusions from it.

Our hope is therefore clear: that the results of the ongoing investigations will not merely be of scientific interest, but will genuinely help to further develop permitting practices. If the energy transition (Energiewende: Germany’s transition toward a climate-neutral energy system) and nature conservation are pursuing the same objective, scientific progress should benefit both as quickly as possible.

Note: This article reflects our practical experience and does not constitute legal advice.