Consulting with communities

Public reaction to our network rollout differs depending on our approach. Lack of information can increase concern. Experience has taught us that the quality of our communication with local communities really helps. When we communicate poorly, concern can intensify. When we listen and explain, many of these concerns can be alleviated.

When people do raise objections to planned base stations, we listen and accommodate their views as far as possible. We also engage with campaign groups targeting mobile phone operators in some countries where we operate.

Our Group Responsible Network Deployment Policy requires all operating companies to communicate with local communities and authorities and address their concerns. Information relating to network deployment must be available on all operating company websites.

Monitoring public perceptions
In 2005, we commissioned a survey of members of the public in 18 countries where we operate. The research by MORI focused on health issues related to mobile phones and masts and concerns about mast placement. The survey found that of those aware of a mast in their neighbourhood, the largest proportion in each country felt indifferent about it, a significant minority felt they could not control where the mast was sited, and a minority made an objection to their local or national government about the mast sitting. We plan to repeat this survey every two to three years.

Consultation in practice
The type of consultation we carry out depends on local regulations and public attitudes – what is acceptable in one country may not be in others. Here are some examples of how we consult with local communities in different countries.

• In Australia, we have implemented the industry code on the design, installation and operation of mobile phone networks. The code requires a precautionary approach to the placement of base stations and obliges mobile phone operators to consult councils and communities. After stakeholders have been given the opportunity to raise concerns, the final decision on site selection must be clearly explained and balanced to reflect all views. If the community identifies a viable alternative site during the consultation process, this must be considered, taking into account service needs and any impact on RF field levels.
• In Germany, we appoint employees to keep local authorities informed of existing and potential new sites for base stations. Local planning and building departments raise issues of local concern and, in some cases, propose alternative sites. Our network planners consider these concerns open-mindedly and take them into account where appropriate. Our employees offer support and advice for local councils or public action groups, take part in local discussions, and make themselves available to answer questions raised by councillors, the public and the press.
• In the Netherlands, we are working with the industry and government to engage with communities. Under the Dutch Antennae Policy and Covenant, residents can vote on plans to erect a base station on their residential building. If the majority votes against the planned site, the base station must be built elsewhere.
• In New Zealand, we have created a 'Straight Talk' toolkit to provide employees with training and guidance on how to respond to community questions about base station sites. This emphasises that clear, simple information and an easily accessed point of contact must be provided for people living close to proposed sites.
• In Italy, Portugal, Greece, Malta and the UK our Independent Field Monitoring Initiatives record radio frequency emissions in certain locations 24 hours a day. The data are sent to a central point and tracked against International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. Community members can access the data through websites hosted by their local councils or universities. RF emissions from other sources such as TV and radio are also recorded, enabling the public to check total RF field levels in their area.