As renewable projects move from policy ambition to physical infrastructure, landholder relationships are becoming one of the earliest tests of whether projects can progress.
Renewable energy is moving from promise to delivery. Long discussed as a necessary good – clean, beneficial to the planet and broadly popular – the sector is now facing a more difficult test: how to build at speed without losing the trust of the communities and landholders most affected by the build-out.
Nicola Pero, Executive Board Director and Executive Manager, Engagement and Social Value at Iberdrola Australia, explains, “If you don’t get your environmental approvals, engagement, social impact and community engagement done right and early, it can kill a project before you even get to submitting a DA.”
In today’s renewable energy renaissance, engagement is no longer a communications exercise. Landholder relationships are integral to shaping and progressing or stalling a project.
If cultural heritage, local sentiment, misinformation, complaints and consultation timing are not addressed early, community uncertainty can quickly become project risk.
The perspective divide
Traditionally treated as the polite bit around the edges, engagement typically involves newsletters, town hall meetings, benefits funds and consultation sessions, but Pero explains how that era is over.
Landholders can block access, communities can mobilise, misinformation can spread quickly, cultural heritage issues can derail approvals and poor timing can destroy trust before construction begins.
The impact of infrastructure can look different depending on the vantage point. From a metropolitan perspective, a transmission line or wind farm may appear necessary, strategic and nationally important, forcing the thought: “It’s critical infrastructure, what’s the big deal?”
For a family who have lived on a property for decades, however, turbines or transmission towers in their garden and obstructing their view can incite very different emotions and reactions.
Community miscommunication
Communities tend to accept new infrastructure when they understand its purpose. A farmer may tolerate a telecommunications tower because it provides phone signal, internet access and connectivity. The same logic has applied historically to roads, poles and wires: they were disruptive, but their necessity was understood.
Renewable energy infrastructure does not yet carry the same immediate legitimacy, so if assets are not explained clearly, communities can experience them as a burden being imposed rather than infrastructure being shared.
That matters, because when people see infrastructure as essential, they are more likely to accept compromise. For developers, the task is not to repeat the national case for renewables, and instead communicate at a local level. That means explaining why the infrastructure is required, what role it plays in the wider system, what trade-offs are involved and how the host community will be respected in the process.
A quiet majority
To add complexity, community opposition is not always straightforward. Pero says the majority of people in regional and rural areas are actually in support of renewables, but they’re not the loudest voices in the room.
In small communities, speaking publicly in favour of a controversial project can come with social consequences. People don’t want to be “arguing over a beer at 6pm in the local pub” or dealing with purgatory looks at the petrol station because they publicly supported renewables, explains Pero. For some, staying quiet is easier than becoming part of a local argument.
That silence, however, distorts the picture as supportive voices may withdraw from the debate and anti-renewable voices can be louder, more organised and more active online. Over time, that can create the impression that opposition is more widespread than it really is, particularly for those in the middle who are still forming their view.
For developers, community sentiment becomes difficult to read. Understanding the difference between organised resistance, quiet support and genuine unresolved concern is now an integral aspect of managing project risk.
Engagement as data
Developers that only rely on feedback from people who turn up to consultation sessions, complain loudly or dominate social media, risk mistaking volume for consensus. A handful of strong voices can shape the mood around a project, but that does not necessarily mean they represent the broader community.
Pero says engagement needs to be supported by structured evidence, surveys, focus groups, social impact assessments, sentiment monitoring and stakeholder systems. Without that evidence base, project teams are left working from anecdotes and assumptions. With it, they can better understand what people are truly thinking, where concerns are forming and whether opposition reflects misinformation, poor communication or legitimate unresolved issues.
In a contested environment, good engagement is not about reading the room once, but continuously understanding how the room is changing.
The sequencing trap
Timing is vital and complex. Early project lifecycle engagement often means many answers are still unknown. The design may be changing, the height and number of turbines not yet finalised, and the access arrangements or visual impact from a particular property not yet clear.
That uncertainty creates a trust problem, so when developers say “we don’t know yet”, communities can hear evasiveness, assuming information is being withheld — even when the project team genuinely does not have the answer.
“As soon as you can’t answer a question, human behaviour naturally becomes suspicious,” explains Pero. But waiting until every detail is confirmed makes communities feel the decisions have already been made.
It’s a sequencing trap: engage too early and developers may not have enough answers. Engage too late and communities may feel excluded from the process. In that gap, scepticism grows quickly.
Pero suggests transparency over perfection: don’t wait for all the information, but be clear about what is known, what is still being worked through and where community input can still shape the outcome. Early engagement only builds trust if people believe there is still something meaningful to influence.
Landholders are operational experts
Local knowledge is not sentimental, it’s operational. Landholders understand the daily and seasonal realities of their environment that a project depends on.
For developers, contractors and consultants, agricultural land can sometimes appear as open space to be accessed, surveyed or crossed.
For landholders, that land is part of a working system and may be shaped by livestock movement, lambing, harvest, drainage, biosecurity requirements, access routes and seasonal timing.
Failing to understand agricultural or local consequences can cause serious problems. What may look like a routine site visit to a project team can become a financial and emotional cost for a farmer, and if that expertise is ignored, engagement failures can quickly become delivery failures, showing up as damaged trust, avoidable disruption, complaints, delays and a harder path to construction.
Renewable construction may be essential, but it is still being built in real places, on real land, around real livelihoods. If developers want projects to move, they need to understand what they are asking of the people and places expected to host them.
Join Nicole Pero and other industry leaders at the Renewable Energy Construction Summit on 2 September to explore the strategies, systems and partnerships needed to deliver Australia’s clean energy future. View the full agenda and secure your spot today.