We need facilities to manage waste and produce renewable energy. Making them compatible with landscape preservation and public trust requires sharing projects from the outset and taking collective responsibility.
Table of Contents
- Explaining the benefits and taking responsibility for the impacts
- Recognising the history of the local area
- Sharing the project while there is still room for improvement
- Finding a viable scale and a shared future
In the conversations we have held with social stakeholders in areas where new facilities are being proposed, a recurring tension emerges: people want economic activity, jobs and opportunities for young people, but they also want to preserve the landscape and avoid the disruption caused by change. Both aspirations are legitimate. Sometimes it is difficult to accept that development will leave a visible mark; at other times, what is questioned is the extent of that impact, its location or how its consequences are distributed.
A waste management plant, an industrial facility or a renewable energy park changes its surroundings. There will be buildings, equipment or access roads where none existed before. We need to assess whether the location is suitable, what alternatives are available and how to minimise the impact. We must address this dilemma collectively, recognising that setting conditions for a project can also be a way of defining what kind of development is compatible with the local area.
This is where social licence becomes relevant: the trust and level of acceptance that a project builds with the community that will live alongside it. It does not replace administrative permits, nor can it be obtained through a communication campaign. It requires a relationship that is maintained throughout the facility’s entire lifespan.
Explaining the benefits and taking responsibility for the impacts
In my view, we must clearly defend the need for this infrastructure. We generate waste that we must manage, and we consume energy that we want to obtain from renewable sources. If we systematically reject the facilities that make this possible in our own surroundings, we shift the burdens of our consumption onto other areas. Working locally and for local communities means accepting our share of that responsibility, with coordination between municipalities and a fair distribution of efforts.
However, the general need does not justify every project, in every location or at any scale. Developers must demonstrate the value of their proposal and its suitability for the surrounding area. The landscape is part of local identity, well-being and, often, the local economy. Valuing it means studying alternative locations, making use of previously developed sites whenever possible and considering the cumulative effects of other activities.
This assessment must include the availability of water and energy, the occupation of agricultural land and the continuity of existing activities. In some of the social licence assessments in which we have participated, water emerges as a cross-cutting concern. An investment may create jobs while also competing for resources needed by agriculture or other businesses, or posing a risk of contaminating this resource. The proposal must demonstrate how it addresses these competing needs and what limits it is prepared to respect.
It is also necessary to specify what the local population stands to gain: what jobs are expected, what qualifications they will require, what opportunities local businesses will have and what resources or services will benefit the area. From an industrial symbiosis perspective, it is particularly valuable to explore whether the new activity can make use of residual resources from nearby companies or supply them with materials and energy. These benefits must be clearly explained and verifiable, distinguishing firm commitments from expectations.
The same level of scrutiny must apply to risks. Promising a complete absence of disruption or incidents is not credible. Each project must explain what emissions, odours, noise, vehicle movements or other impacts it may generate, how these will be reduced and who will verify that they are properly controlled. Citizens must know what will be measured, how they can access the results and what will happen if a breach is detected. Acknowledging the project’s limitations is essential to building trust.
Recognising the history of the local area
Every project arrives in a community that already has a history. In places where infrastructure, industry or energy facilities have been concentrated, a new proposal may create the feeling that the same communities are once again being asked to make sacrifices. Previous experiences of disruption, promises kept or broken, and the response of public institutions all influence trust. This local history helps explain why technically similar facilities may be received very differently in two locations.
For this reason, shared local responsibility must be accompanied by fairness between different areas. Managing our waste and producing energy close to where they are needed cannot become a justification for indefinitely concentrating the burdens in certain regions. Planning must take into account what each area already bears and recognise its contribution to the wider community. The capacity to accommodate new facilities must be assessed in light of these accumulated impacts.
Sharing the project while there is still room for improvement
There is a concern that we need to address openly: providing information early may make it easier for opposition to organise and cause the investment to move elsewhere. This possibility can encourage developers to communicate as little as possible and wait until the approval process is well advanced. But if the local population only learns about a project after the decisions have already been made, they are unlikely to feel that their opinions can make any difference.
Early participation does not guarantee consensus or prevent every conflict. However, it makes it possible to identify problems before costly decisions become fixed and to incorporate local knowledge that can improve the proposal. We need to explain what is planned and open a dialogue about what can still be changed: the location, the scale, the access routes or the operating conditions. Objections must also be addressed with verifiable arguments, documenting the changes incorporated and explaining why other requests cannot be accommodated.
For participation to be credible, it is important to agree from the outset which decisions remain open, which requirements are mandatory and how contributions will be assessed. Afterwards, a clear and understandable response must be provided: what has changed, why and with what consequences. A meeting or consultation period loses its value if people feel that nothing they say can influence the outcome. Having a voice does not mean that every request must be accepted, but it does mean that all requests should be considered and receive a reasoned response.
This work requires appropriate spaces to listen to residents, organisations and affected businesses, including those in neighbouring municipalities. It may involve small-group meetings, independent technical advice and permanent consultation channels. It must continue during construction, providing information about temporary disruption, and after the facility begins operating, with accessible monitoring results and responses to incidents. We cannot consider our relationship with the local community finished on the day the plant opens.
We must also listen to those who do not actively express their views. Silence may indicate acceptance, but it may also reflect caution, fatigue or the belief that participation will achieve nothing. The visibility of an organised group does not, by itself, reveal the opinion of an entire municipality, just as the absence of protests does not demonstrate consensus. Listening to a diverse range of people, using appropriate methods and without assuming their position, helps identify concerns that never reach public meetings.
Information must also reach people through channels they use and consider accessible. Publishing technical documents on a website is useful, but these should be accompanied by clear explanations and contact people who can answer questions. Everyday conversations and local networks also influence how a project is understood. Developers and public authorities must maintain this dialogue rather than waiting for controversy to arise before explaining their actions.
Finding a viable scale and a shared future
I believe we should explore medium-sized and distributed facilities more thoroughly, located close to the resources they use and the people or businesses they serve. In certain contexts, these can facilitate local integration and reduce transport requirements. However, several small plants can also generate cumulative impacts, while economies of scale may make smaller facilities difficult to sustain. The appropriate size must be justified in each case.
If a more distributed alternative offers demonstrable environmental and local benefits but faces viability challenges, I propose examining mechanisms that could help make it possible: shared services, cooperation between municipalities, stable contracts or incentives linked to the benefits it provides. We must incorporate those benefits into the economic assessment and ensure that the commitments are fulfilled.
We must also consider the cost of inaction. The loss of viable projects can reduce employment opportunities and contribute to young people leaving, even if it is not the only factor behind depopulation. This risk must not be used to pressure citizens into accepting any facility. It should form part of an open and honest conversation about the future the local community wants and the activities that can sustain it.
At Simbiosy, we believe that social licence must be addressed from the very beginning of a project. Developers must be willing to make changes and be accountable; public authorities must plan and ensure effective oversight; and society must be able to participate with sufficient information while also recognising shared needs. Developing well-designed projects and involving communities in the decisions that shape them is a demanding task. It is the task that will allow us to protect our surroundings and secure their future.
