This is the second (and final) post in this series. Find Part 1 here.
Rules of Engagement
The processes, regulations and guidelines behind project community engagement drive how that engagement takes place. These might be government regulations, industry policies or local policies. In developing nations where projects are often funded by bodies such as the International Finance Corporation, projects are held to governance frameworks like the Equator Principles, which proscribe relatively high levels of community engagement. Several people who work across developed and developing nations remarked on the fact that in more developed countries, where the Equator Principles and similar standards do not apply, there is generally a lower standard of community engagement.
“For Projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on Affected Communities, the client will conduct an Informed Consultation and Participation process. The client will tailor its consultation process to: the risks and impacts of the Project; the Project’s phase of development; the language preferences of the Affected Communities; their decision-making processes; and the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. This process should be free from external manipulation, interference, coercion and intimidation.”
It was also suggested that in less developed countries, people were more interested in new projects, and would be more willing to interact with engagement processes. That said, in places like Spain, as the speed and scale of projects grows – particularly with regards to new solar power developments – there appears to be more interest, and greater pushback from community. Some industry proponents recognised that this was due to poor consultation on behalf of some operators.
Against this backdrop, in some parts of Spain, the public information phase of a project might only be a 30-day feedback window, which may only be published in the Boletín Oficial (Official Bulletin) of the autonomous community. With much of the direct discussion happening between proponents, landholders and the local governments, it is possible for many in the community to be unaware of projects until they commence. Teruel Existe, for example, have members who spend their time reviewing each Boletín as it comes out to ensure they are aware of new projects.
Increasingly though, the impacts of poor engagement are being felt, in terms of project opposition and the associated costs and delays to project delivery. Still in Spain, speaking with officers at MITECO, it is recognised that there are weaknesses in project social acceptance. This is driving Government to update approvals processes to give more weight to social impacts from projects.
In some parts of Australia, the timing of, or even requirement to prepare a social impact assessment, are key areas of concern for communities and local governments. Where impacts are not considered relatively early in a project’s development (or at all), it can be more challenging to address them through the development process. This can result in less social acceptance for projects, worse social outcomes, stronger opposition, or a combination of all three.
We may not be along there though. Several people highlighted that Spanish legislation is generally better at protecting the environment than people. Some of those with experience opposing projects suggested that trying to stop a project for social reasons was very difficult, whilst there was clear legal recourse if environmental impacts could be demonstrated.
This, Mario Rodriguez from ECODES argues, is reflected in industry’s historical approach. Projects employ biologists and ecologists but not sociologists. Environmentalists (while necessary to inform project development) are not experts on social matters. He feels that doing this poorly creates victims through the process, and in doing so, fodder for the far right to oppose the broader decarbonisation of the economy.
That protest however is not without benefit. In Port Arthur, the Chamber of Commerce feel that some of the opposition to projects has seen proponents meaningfully lifting their engagement, as well as engaging more effectively with the community at large. Whilst it should not require pushback for this to happen, it does elicit a response. Even at a base level, it has made industry more actively promoting some of positive things that they are doing, which previously they had not been publicising well.
Summary
- Community engagement will be driven by various regulations and guidelines, such as government policies, industry standards and industry policies. Robust engagement typically requires a robust framework behind it.
- A move to incorporate social, in addition to environmental impacts of projects, has been emerging and is increasingly necessary.
- Engagement is an investment: Poor community engagement leads to project opposition, delays, and increased costs.
Having the Conversation
When discussing how they approach engagement, there is, and needs to be, a broad spectrum of approaches. Both industry, and supportive community groups, are sometimes frustrated that town hall-type meetings had the potential to provide platforms to opposition groups rather than meaningful discussion.
That said, Spanish communities who saw only directly impacted landholders being spoken with, rather than the broader populace engaged, often harboured suspicions about potentially shady deals being made. As a general rule though, simply due to how projects are developed, it is generally the case that the first conversations will take place with landholders behind closed doors, before engagement takes place with the wider community.
Some communities, including those in and around Lanarkshire, commented on the fact that they are being consulted on too many things to keep track. With many projects and community consultation sessions taking place, this ‘consultation fatigue’ drives poor engagement. It is also being felt by local governments, community councils and industry peak bodies like the National Farmers Union (NFU), who are finding themselves stretched thinly attempting to keep up with the sheer volume of project proposals and being expected to provide information to community enquiries.
Industry can help to establish local bodies to engage with, or support existing representative bodies to be engaged. In doing so, it is possible to reach large portions of the community through a single group. Such groups may also be valuable as project development progresses, and representatives are needed to help guide community benefit allocation. In some cases, the community can self-organise these groups as well. Keith Bergthold, CEO of Regenerate California Innovation, is currently working with some of the poorer Latino communities in the unincorporated parts of Fresno County, so that they can effectively engage with, and own the benefits from, some of the large renewable energy projects being proposed in their area.
It may also be the case that communities need to be actively incentivised to even engage with project proponents. At the lower level, this is simply providing a cup of tea or snacks at community information sessions, but this can include providing attendance payments to representatives who may be required to take time away from their employment to meaningfully engage. Around Rigside, in South Lanarkshire, it was acknowledged that industry held open days to share information about their projects, but the events were generally poorly attended “unless they were giving something away”.
Sometimes, the community (including the local government) has limited experience engaging with large industrial projects, or limited capacity to do so, and actually requires additional time and possibly greater assistance to understand the opportunities and risks that may be before them. The knowledge and experience imbalance between government or industry proponents and regional communities needs to be recognised as part of the engagement process so that people are not left behind.
At the same time, a project developer is not necessarily always the same organisation that builds or operates it. Or, if it is the same company, they are often different teams. Because of this, industry needs to ensure that there is a good handover between the various project stages and maintain as much consistency as possible. In small communities, the trust in a project may be held with an individual, rather than the organisation, as they hold the personal relationships.
Summary
- There are diverse approaches to community engagement, and they have benefits and weaknesses. A range of approaches is needed and should be tailored to the community in question.
- Communities and local governments experience ‘consultation fatigue’ due to the high volume of project consultations, leading to poor engagement.
- Establishing or supporting local representative bodies can facilitate broader community engagement. It may be necessary for industry to help build the capacity of those bodies before you can meaningfully engage.
- It may be necessary to incentivise participation in community engagement activities if you want people to show up.
Trust
It is one thing to have the frameworks in place, it is another to successfully engage with regional communities.
There is a degree of scepticism in some communities; they might be aware of the narrative around the energy transition, but do not feel that they will genuinely benefit from this process. Part of this scepticism may be derived from the source of the message; if there is not trust in a company, the local government or a political party, even the best-crafted message can fall on deaf ears.
Several industry and academic parties highlighted the need for messaging to come from a trusted party. In some cases, this may be a local community engagement officer hired to support the project. In others, existing organisations like Chambers of Commerce can be leveraged to provide introductions for proponents into the local business and sometimes broader community.
In other cases, by engaging with key groups like the NFU or National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), project proponents can seek to work with key stakeholder groups and address potential areas of opposition in a way that sees local stakeholders supported by larger peak bodies.
In the case of Cedillo, Maria Estela Holgado works as the local library manager, as well as the president of the Cedillo Solar Association. She has been working with Iberdrola to promote access to cheaper solar power through their Solar Pueblo project (mentioned previously here). As the face at the local library, she has also been providing information to community members about the nearby solar farms more generally.
The other key point is that trust is not built quickly. It is not built in a single meeting; successful community engagement is built on long-term relationships. Likewise, because each community is different, and building that trust will require a different approach in each place, this is not a process that can be scaled through a cookie-cutter approach.
Summary
- Scepticism exists in some communities about the benefits of energy transition projects, often due to distrust in the sources of the messaging, such as companies, local governments, or political parties.
- Effective engagement requires messages to come from trusted parties. Local people or organisations that can genuinely advocate for a project are valuable.
- Trust is built over time through long-term relationships and tailored approaches specific to each community, rather than a one-size-fits-all method.