Poor and slow community engagement is causing local resistance and the collapse of social licence, putting renewable energy transition at risk of bottlenecks – especially in regional and rural communities.
Last year, Rok Solid, a renewable land brokerage firm, said smaller renewable energy developers are taking on the heavy lifting by getting renewable projects through the approvals process and then selling to bigger companies.
And now Capire, local community consulting experts, part of sustainability consultancy RSK Group, reveals that developers are engaging late or leaving communities unclear on what they can influence, which is triggering local resistance.
The consultancy said the lack of community trust is often the biggest bottleneck in a renewable project, rather than funding or technology. Despite the $12.7 billion invested in renewables in 2024 and another slated $8 billion additional investment through the federal government’s $2 billion expansion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation announced for the 25-26 budget. Many projects are struggling to see fruition due to difficulties in earning social license.
The firm said across the community and stakeholder engagement programs it has delivered for renewable energy projects such as Darlington Wind Farm and Meering West Wind Farm, and the Yanco Delta Wind Farm in NSW, there is overall public support for renewable energy.
Spokesperson Matthew Gordon said fear and concerns about land rights, safety, visual and other negative impacts are often stronger than the perceived benefits and are driving opposition.
While there is overall public support for renewable energy, Capire said there is strong resistance at the local level when projects become a reality.
Developers are especially missing the mark in regional and rural communities, where they historically feel “unheard and overridden” because “developers treat engagement as something you do after decisions are made or to justify decisions already taken.”
Gordon said communities have felt far more empowered over the last two decades, thanks to social media and community chat groups and have seen that advocating for themselves is often successful.
“They see themselves as deserving a seat at the table when decisions affect their land and their communities.”
“You might still get approval, but you won’t get social licence, and that backlash follows the next project, and the one after that,” Gordon said.
He added that the most important community engagement actions are generally the least comfortable and therefore developers avoid them the most.
He suggested some foundational principles developers should apply to their engagement process:
Start engagement early and understand it is a long game – developers often wait until they have certainty about the project before speaking with the community. And when the community learns about the projects through prospecting visits, real estate agenda and land negotiations, whispers can learn to misinformation. Communities also feel strongly when they feel excluded.
Solution: Instead, developers should reach out to understand issues at the prospecting stage, understand whether any planned projects failed in the area, and listen to concerns to demonstrate a good track record. This is more effective than any town hall.
Create space for communities to talk among themselves: While opposing voices can be a significant minority, they can be the loudest, because there isn’t a safe space for grassroots conversations. Gordon said members supportive of renewables projects have been seen staying quiet because they don’t want to grow tensions or damage their relationship with neighbours
Solution: Developers or the government should create this space and then step back. A community more likely to listen to the neighbouring farmer than the developer or government. Gordon said there was one developer who had 10 landholders “nut it out among themselves” and seven supportive neighbours had gotten the other three on board.
Be honest about the community’s influence and project limits: Developers need to let communities know as early as possible what they can influence and what they can’t. This includes being transparent about future project stages and expansions. Gordon adds that a regional solar farm project that was originally gaining support is now getting pushback because a member found out about a battery energy storage system getting planned that they were not consulted on.
See engagement as reputation management, not risk management: While developers might shy away from the risk of community relationships when costs, timeframes and approvals are on the table, starting off on the wrong foot would risk millions invested in a project. Gordon adds that developers will be judged more and more by communities