Dams, pipelines, power plants, mines, refineries and smelters, ports and rail are all examples of large engineering projects with a primary purpose. Dams store water, pipelines convey water, petroleum, gas or slurry. Power plants generate electricity, mines extract minerals, refineries and smelters extract metals from ores. Ports provide a safe harbour for ships and facilities to load and offload goods. Railroads carry trains conveying goods and passengers. The list is endless.
Developments are not islands
My point is that each development has a core function – what it is primarily designed to do. But developments are not islands operating in silos. They form part of the social-ecological landscape and economy. Significant engineering developments also provide other kinds of services in addition to the primary function. These secondary services can be in the form of business and job opportunities for local supply chains, improvements in infrastructure, investment through time spent by staff or through money in local initiatives, or assistance with education and health care.
Major mutipliers
Secondary services are valuable because they serve as significant project multipliers of benefits that flow to communities and the economy. Benefit streams have many entry points when the project is located in a developed area with good public infrastructure, a range of commercial activities, and a receptive community.
Developing countries
However, in developing countries, the circumstances are very different, especially if the project is located in a remote area. Projects do not easily integrate with the local economy in these instances. The people leading the project may be unprepared for the local circumstances that may differ vastly from what they have encountered previously. Local communities may be hostile, feeling disempowered by significant decisions affecting them and their land, and perceiving little or no obvious benefits to themselves. But even when the community is receptive, issues such as poverty, weak institutions, and poor infrastructure form a weak foundation for projects. This makes it challenging to integrate them into the local community.
Developers and project and operational managers can face wholly new and unexpected situations to what they have trained for or experienced.
The approach to community engagement is key
Organisations manage these situations in different ways when viewed on a spectrum from avoidance to meaningful engagement. With avoidance, engagement is reduced to only what is required legally for an environmental impact assessment (EIA). It is left up to the consultants. Organisations faced with this challenge sometimes create silos, effectively insulating themselves from the local communities. The situation may be seen as too big a problem to tackle, not the organisations’ problem, or not the purpose of its business. The effect of this approach is detrimental to community relations, and over time, increasingly difficult to remedy.
Organisations that take the other approach and work with the communities to identify win-win opportunities that make sense for all parties, experience different outcomes. Indeed, it takes a lot of effort, is never finished, and there are always issues to be resolved as in any relationship. Still, over time the process can achieve far better outcomes for everyone. Engagement by these companies tends to be frequent with multiple entry points, mindful of local customs, and open-ended.
An investment in communities and in the engagement process pays dividends for everyone involved. It slowly builds a firm foundation upon which to establish the secondary services that multiply and distribute project benefits, and improve people’s lives and result in project success. The difficult path, the one over which organisations have little control, can be the better path.