Many people think that securing the land is the easy part. But launching a renewable energy project starts with more than just an idea and a location on the map. It takes rigor, vision, and a deep understanding of local realities – from legal regimes and grid specifics to how to build sustainable relationships with landowners. This article is part of an editorial series produced with the support of MIRA Renewables, designed to provide industry professionals with clear guidelines on what a quality renewables project means in practice.
Land is more than dirt
In the logic of any well-constructed renewable energy project, land is not just an area to be exploited, but an anchor point in a much broader energy, social and legal system. Beyond land registration and the apparent availability of the surface area, a ‘viable’ plot of land must simultaneously meet technical, infrastructural and compatibility criteria with local and regional development plans. A systemic vision is needed, in which the positioning of the land takes into account energy consumption and production in the area, the distance from network nodes, the topography of the land and even the quality of the soil. A siting that ignores these elements may look promising on paper, but proves impossible to implement or economically inefficient.
Another essential filter is that of regulation. The legal status of the land – the category of agricultural use, the inheritance situation, possible ownership disputes – can nip an otherwise technically valid initiative in the bud. And ever-changing legislation on set-aside or environmental conditions require a high level of vigilance. Often, seemingly minor issues – such as an active subsidy from APIA or a lack of clarification on easement rights – can jeopardize the whole project. The land is therefore not just a physical support for panels or turbines, but a territory with its own rules that need to be understood and integrated from the pre-feasibility phase.
Moreover, the reality on the ground does not end at the plot boundaries. Neighborhoods, urban development plans, the presence of protected sites or special status areas (such as archaeological sites) add layers of complexity that only a team with practical experience can decipher and integrate. This is why viable projects are not those that look good in PowerPoint presentations, but those that have already passed through the filter of a multidimensional assessment – a rigorous due diligence that not only assesses, but anticipates. In a mature market, the quality of the land means, first and foremost, the quality of the process by which that land was selected.
What is ‘viable’ land for a RES project?
An essential criterion for the success of a project is connectability – i.e. proximity to an electricity grid to which connection can be made under reasonable technical and economic conditions. The ideal location of a site requires not only the existence of a medium or high-voltage line nearby, but also available grid capacity and even a local energy logic: significant consumers nearby, plans for industrial or residential development in the area, local energy transition policies. Without these elements, even a geographically excellent site can turn out to be an unwise choice, blocking the project in the technical approval phase or dramatically increasing its investment costs.
At the same time, the viability of the site must be analyzed in dynamics. A site that seems secure at the outset may later become problematic because of new regulations, civic initiatives or archaeological discoveries. Here, first-hand experience in the market becomes an undeniable asset. It is not just a theoretical knowledge of the rules, but the ability to anticipate obstacles and prevent them in advance. For example, an area that is not officially listed as an archaeological site can, following a simple complaint, become the subject of an investigation that suspends all development indefinitely. Responsibly constructed projects take these risks into account and treat them as an integral part of planning, not as unfortunate exceptions.
Ultimately, a site is only ‘viable’ if it can be integrated into a functioning collaborative ecosystem – with authorities, network operators, the local community and, last but not least, the owners. This is exactly why, at this early stage, some teams decide to pull out: if the land comes with too many unknowns, hard-to-quantify risks or major relational barriers, any technical potential becomes irrelevant. Real viability is therefore a synthesis between what the map says, what the law says and what a responsible dialog can build.
Risk categories: technical, legal, relational
However promising a plot of land may seem at first glance, without a thorough risk assessment, initial excitement can quickly turn into a succession of roadblocks. The risks that can arise in the land selection and securitization phase generally fall into three broad categories: technical, legal and relational. Each of these conceals subtle pitfalls which, if not dealt with seriously from the outset, can compromise the whole project – either at the authorization stage or later, at the construction or even the operation stage.
The technical risks are generally well known. They relate primarily to connectability: the physical existence of a nearby power line does not guarantee that you can connect to the grid. There may be a medium-voltage line but no available capacity, or the distances to a viable injection point may make the project economically unfeasible. A real-life case , as reported by Mihai Manciu (MIRA Renewables) in another article in this series, shows what serious scouting is all about: a day of field checks in which four seemingly ideal sites on the map were eliminated because of bottlenecks discovered on the spot – undeclared leases, irrigation projects in the pipeline or unclear legal histories. A truly viable project requires painstaking work on the ground.
Geotechnical problems are also common – unstable soils, high water tables or land with additional construction costs. These are quantifiable risks, but only to the extent that they are identified at an early stage as part of a professionally conducted pre-feasibility analysis.
Legal risks may initially seem formal, but they are often the hardest to resolve. Situations where ownership is unclear – for example, unclear inheritances, outdated deeds, incomplete sale and purchase contracts or pending litigation – are common. In addition, the land use category (usually agricultural) implies severe restrictions and complex bureaucratic procedures for taking land out of agricultural use. This is where not only legal competence comes into play, but also experience in handling such cases, including the ability to anticipate conflicts that may arise later in the critical phases of the project.
Finally, perhaps most subtle are the relational risks, those arising from the nature of working with landowners. Unlike technical and legal risks, relational risks cannot be identified from documents. They are built – or compromised – through dialog, the level of mutual trust, the ability of the developer to communicate transparently and to provide honest explanations to his partners, tailored to their level of understanding. A building contract signed in haste, without the owner fully understanding the implications, can become the source of a costly conflict within a few years. That’s why it’s not just about signing the papers, but about building a sustainable relationship. And that takes time, empathy and a real concern to educate those involved.
Meeting standards – the real difference
In a market where the pressure on speed and volume is growing, the real difference between a quality project and a vulnerable one lies in the standards to which it is held. Not just the explicit ones – laws, technical regulations or administrative rules – but above all the implicit, professional, good practice and prudence ones. Compliance with these standards is the sign of a mature player with direct experience in the market, who understands that sustainable development is not a matter of chance or opportunism, but of method and consistency.
A case in point is archaeological sites – a subject that many developers treat superficially or omit completely from initial assessments. Unlike other risks, which can be clearly identified by consulting databases or by consulting advice in principle, archaeological sites are not always well delineated in official documentation. Their identification requires applied research, sometimes field investigations and dialog with local or central authorities. Neglecting this aspect can have dramatic consequences: stopping the project in the construction phase, withdrawing authorizations or unforeseen additional costs that compromise the entire budget.
A real-life case clearly illustrates the value of this caution. In 2021, a photovoltaic project developer was analyzing a 75-hectare plot of land in rural Constanța County, near the village of Topraisar. The land seemed ideal: flat, with easy access and located next to a transformer station. However, as part of the procedure to obtain permission from the County Directorate for Culture, an archaeological evaluation study was requested. The surface survey carried out by an accredited institute identified apparent traces of an ancient settlement – probably Roman or pre-Roman – which had not previously been officially documented.
Instead of abandoning the project or risking a subsequent blockage, the developer took a clear preventive measure: it demarcated the affected area (about 12 hectares) and redesigned the internal infrastructure routes and the positioning of the panels so as to avoid it completely. A monitoring protocol was signed with the Museum of National History and Archaeology of Constanta, allowing the works to continue under archaeological supervision. The result was to save the project in its entirety, with only a slight delay at the authorization stage, and without the risk of stopping work in the future. The experience became an internal best practice: the developer decided to introduce voluntary archaeological screening already in the site selection phase for other projects in Dobrogea.
Meeting standards is actually investing in prevention. It means not considering as acceptable what is only possible and not relying on the fact that ‘it just works’. It means treating every step with rigor, even if it is not required by strict regulation. It is a form of respect – for the investment, for the partners, for the local communities and, above all, for the future of the project. This attitude, often invisible in the early stages, becomes clear when challenges arise: when others take a step backwards, the teams that have worked well from the start can move forward. No synergy, no conflict, no hidden costs.
Educating partners – invisible but essential capital
In a society in which land ownership still has a strong symbolic and emotional value, the relationship between developer and landowner is fast becoming more than a simple legal transaction. It is, in essence, a meeting of two different worlds – one anchored in rural or agricultural realities, the other oriented towards technological solutions, business and energy infrastructure. In this context, landowner education is not just an optional step, but a critical condition for the viability of any renewable project. You cannot build long-term without trust, and trust is earned through transparency, empathy and dialog.
In practice, this means explaining, sometimes from scratch, what a photovoltaic or wind project entails: how long it lasts, how it works, what impact it has on the land, what the rights and obligations of each party are. It means countering natural fears – of loss of ownership, undervaluation of land value, abuse – and showing that there are contractual alternatives (such as a 30-40 year lease (e.g. 30-40 year surface) that allow the owner to retain control while earning stable and predictable returns. It’s an effort that requires patience and honesty, but once done correctly, it paves the way for real partnerships, not just paper deals.
Moreover, this kind of mature and committed relationship has a key strategic advantage: it prevents future conflicts. A well-informed owner, convinced of the benefits of working together and treated with respect, is a long-term ally, not a bureaucratic obstacle. And in a market where many projects stall precisely because of disputes with landlords or contractual misunderstandings, this invisible capital – trust – becomes the decisive differentiator.
A real-life case clearly shows how much the right approach matters. The owner of a 50-hectare plot of land, a retired former tractor driver and respected figure in the community, flatly refused any discussion at the first meeting. He had been duped in a land deal in the past and was convinced that “green energy” was just an excuse for foreigners to grab Romanian land. His main fear was not the money, but the risk of losing the land for good, the impossibility of bequeathing it to his children and the risk that promises would be broken.
The development team quickly realized that they couldn’t rush the process and that the only chance was to build a relationship of real trust. It followed a strategy based on honest dialog and human presence: repeated meetings, without pressure, speaking “his language” with patience and clarity. The discussions also involved the family – his son and daughter, with the same doubts, received detailed and transparent explanations from a neutral notary, so that everyone clearly understood the terms of the contract. In the end, skepticism was dispelled by a simple but convincing gesture: a visit to an already operational photovoltaic park in Giurgiu, also built on arable land, where the owner spoke directly to another farmer of his own age, in the fourth year of the contract, who confirmed the concrete benefits of the collaboration.
When there’s no way forward – no-go criteria
One of the most important signs of professionalism in a renewable project is the ability to say “no” early. “No” to any land, “no” to any contractual relationship, “no” to any project that, while promising on the surface, hides insurmountable complications. This early selection, based on experience and discernment, is what separates responsible developers from those who transfer risks to others downstream. Early identification of no-go scenarios is not pessimism, but efficiency and ethics.
There are some clear signals that should quickly lead to a halt. Land with uncertain legal status – unfinalized successions, co-ownership with dozens of heirs, pending litigation – is among the most risky. No matter how well located the land, if ownership cannot be clearly and quickly proven, the risk of deadlock is high. Likewise, sites involving grid connections of tens of kilometers, land in protected areas, those affected by environmental restrictions or poorly mapped archaeological sites should be avoided out of hand.
There are situations where due diligence analysis uncovers insurmountable problems, even if at first glance the land seems ideal. For example, in a real-life case in the south of Romania, a flat piece of land, well connected to the grid, was rejected after the topographical and hydrological study showed a high risk of flooding every 10 years. Without protective dykes and with a recent history of flooding, any construction plan would have meant exposure to equipment destruction and major insurance costs – a risk that could not be justified.
In another real-life case , the aviation study showed that the height of the turbines would have interfered with a military radar field. The Civil Aviation Authority issued an unfavorable opinion because of the proximity to flight routes, and even lower turbine scenarios could not completely eliminate the risk to air safety. For these reasons, the entire site was abandoned.
In many cases, just a few minutes of careful analysis is enough to close a file that would otherwise consume months or years of effort and resources.
A major risk and a suggestion of a “no-go” comes from early-stage projects that are put up for sale. Often behind these initiatives are failed development attempts, land with hidden problems, or poor relationships with owners. If a developer gives up on a project when it is relatively low-cost, before it gets into the technical stages, it is reasonable to assume that it has encountered obstacles that it has been unable to overcome. The buyer of such projects often takes over not just the documentation, but also the problems. And these, if accepted without a good understanding, become almost impossible to resolve without additional costs and significant delays.
But there are also rare situations where the project has potential, but the original landowner or developer is not interested in getting involved in an area that is new to them. Therefore, the ability to filter out unviable projects quickly and reasoned is a way of protecting one’s own portfolio – knowing when to pull out is sometimes more valuable than going ahead at all costs.
This article is part of an editorial series produced with the support of MIRA Renewables. The “Quality RES Project” is aimed at all those who want to better understand how sustainable projects are built – from the perspective of those who take on not only financial investment, but also the responsibility of working to sound professional standards, with respect for their partners and a genuine interest in educating the market. The common objective is to highlight good practices that can become the norm in a rapidly transforming market.
