When Strategies Fail: Lessons from Closing Climbing Spots to Transmission Lines
Picture this: a social media post starts circulating, showing a proposed transmission line cutting through the farm your family has owned for generations, a substation near the home, or plans to close a beloved climbing area. The affected group—farmers, climbers, or local families—reacts swiftly, feeling blindsided by what looks like a decision already made.
In Australia, controversies like these can quickly galvanise support, especially when marginalised or grassroots groups take up the fight. Whether it’s the “Aussie battlers” defending their land or recreational communities rallying to save public spaces, the narrative of underdogs taking on faceless decision-makers can gain traction in the media, putting intense pressure on governments and organisations to respond.
“Secrecy over cultural heritage bans on rock climbing sparks outrage” The Australian
“Thousands sign petition against Mt Arapiles climbing, camping ban” Hearld Sun
“The clean energy super highway has hit a roadblock. Here’s why”
When strategies, plans, or maps are released without broader stakeholder awareness, they risk alienating those most impacted. This blog explores how poorly executed engagement creates mistrust and outlines how a transparent, inclusive approach can balance competing needs, rebuild trust, and avoid backlash.
If you are more interested in how to get a project back on track, you might want to read this article instead: Rebuilding Trust: Getting Projects Back on Track After Backlash.
The Challenge – Perception of Decisions Made Behind Closed Doors
Strategic plans and infrastructure projects are vital to development, but their rollout often leaves stakeholders blindsided. Without early engagement, stakeholders feel that:
- Their voices don’t matter, as decisions appear pre-determined.
- Trust in governance erodes, especially when plans are rolled out with little explanation.
- Conflict is inevitable, stalling projects and raising costs.
For example, the abrupt announcement of proposed Mount Arapiles climbing closures has caused uproar in the climbing community. I think there’s a petition of over 7,000 signatures already. Similarly, poorly managed consultations around transmission lines in regional Australia have led to widespread resistance, with communities perceiving minimal input opportunities.
The Solution – Elevating Engagement Practices
Effective engagement begins with recognising that change is often unwelcome, especially when it feels imposed. A well-thought-out process prioritising inclusion and transparency can transform potential backlash into collaboration. Here’s how to get it right:
Checking off a compliance requirement isn’t engagement—it’s avoidance. Effective stakeholder involvement starts at the idea stage, not once plans are fully drafted.
- Proactive involvement: Begin discussions before any decisions are made, enabling stakeholders to shape solutions rather than react to pre-determined ones.
- Co-creation over consultation: Frame early engagement as a partnership, where stakeholders feel they contribute to outcomes rather than being informed about them post-factum.
Example: In developing its Master Environment Strategy, Yarriambiack Shire Council engaged the community early and deeply. Instead of presenting a pre-drafted plan, they facilitated workshops and surveys with farmers, local businesses, and residents to identify priorities like water scarcity and waste management.
Unclear or inconsistent communication erodes trust. Stakeholders must understand not only what is being proposed but also the rationale behind it.
- Visual storytelling: Use maps, infographics, and diagrams to make complex plans accessible.
- Timelines and milestones: Break down the project lifecycle into clear phases, so stakeholders know when and how they can contribute.
- Plain language policies: Avoid jargon. Craft messaging that is direct and relatable, tailored to the audience’s level of understanding.
When plans are visualised and presented in plain language, stakeholders feel included and are more likely to engage constructively.
Local communities often possess insights that experts overlook and will often share information with other community members in a factual manner. Involving those who live, work, or recreate in affected areas ensures the final outcome reflects real-world considerations and helps better inform local communities.
- Participatory design workshops: Create forums where stakeholders can share their expertise, identify risks, and propose alternatives.
- Cultural sensitivity: Recognise and incorporate cultural or historical values tied to specific sites or landscapes.
Example: Had climbers and conservationists been included earlier in discussions about Mount Arapiles closures, solutions that balanced recreation with conservation might have emerged, reducing backlash.
Whilst Australia is getting better, countries like Denmark and New Zealand have pioneered innovative engagement frameworks that prioritise inclusivity and dialogue.
- Citizen juries: A diverse cross-section of community members is convened to deliberate on complex decisions, ensuring every voice is heard before proposals are finalised.
- Dialogue-driven processes: Public dialogue sessions provide stakeholders with a platform to openly discuss concerns, fostering understanding and trust.
These approaches ensure legitimacy by demonstrating that dissenting opinions are valued and considered.
Resistance isn’t just a challenge; it’s a natural outcome of any significant change. Successful engagement anticipates dissent and addresses it constructively.
- Empathetic listening: Give space for opposing viewpoints, showing that you respect stakeholders’ concerns.
- Feedback loops: Clearly outline how input is being incorporated—or, if not, explain the constraints preventing changes.
- Mitigation strategies: Proactively address contentious issues through compromise or tailored solutions that demonstrate responsiveness.
When resistance is respected rather than dismissed, stakeholders are more likely to view the process as fair—even if their desired outcome isn’t achieved.
Trust thrives on openness. A transparent process reassures stakeholders that decisions are based on sound reasoning, not hidden agendas.
- Public dashboards: Use digital tools to share progress updates, decisions, and rationales in real time.
- Independent oversight: Enlist third-party evaluators to review engagement processes, ensuring fairness and credibility.
When stakeholders see a commitment to transparency, they’re more likely to trust the outcomes, even if they don’t align with their preferences.
Key Takeaways
Engagement must start early to avoid perceptions of pre-determined decisions.
Clear communication builds understanding and trust.
Leverage local knowledge to identify risks and opportunities.
Transparency and respect mitigate resistance and foster collaboration.
Plans, maps, and strategies have the power to shape futures—but only when they include the voices of those most affected. By committing to authentic engagement, decision-makers can avoid the pitfalls of rushed or opaque processes. Trust, after all, is built not on agreement but on listening and respect.
Are you facing challenges in engaging stakeholders? Read this article to see how to get your project back on track. Rebuilding Trust: Getting Projects Back on Track After Backlash.
At Grantus, we specialise in transparent, inclusive engagement processes that build trust and deliver measurable outcomes. Contact us today to learn how we can help your project succeed.
Simon Coutts
Simon is the CEO and Founder of Grantus, a trusted advisor in strategic funding, complex problem solving, and stakeholder management, driving growth and public benefit for organisations dedicated to making a lasting impact. Book a ‘Borrow My Brain‘ session with Simon.
No Comments