What happens when citizens lose trust in the institutions meant to protect their environment? The fight against illegally buried waste in the Croatian city of Gospić has become one of the largest protests in recent Croatian history, raising an important question: What can the public sector learn from local struggles for a clean, healthy environment?

Infrastructure of a resilient society

The Gospić case has a broader dimension as well. The way institutions communicate environmental crises can affect a society’s ability to deal with disinformation about climate policies.

Disinformation does not arise in a vacuum. It spreads more easily where people lack access to reliable information, distrust official sources, or perceive a gap between their own experiences and official accounts.

When people see a problem on the ground while an institution simultaneously sends a reassuring message without providing enough publicly available evidence, a communication vacuum emerges. Various actors can step into that vacuum – from citizens’ initiatives and journalists to political actors, interest groups and those who knowingly spread false information.

The organised citizens of Gospić responded to the lack of trust in institutions in a reasonable and responsible way. The “Gospić je naš dom” initiative did not rely on protests and public pressure alone (although they won public support and organised a mass protest in Zagreb). It organised its own measurements, engaged experts, collected documents and tried to translate complex technical information into language the wider public could understand. In doing so, the initiative took on tasks that would normally be expected of public institutions.

Things did not have to develop this way. Into that vacuum, much as during the Covid-19 pandemic, all manner of fraudsters and charlatans could have rushed in, seeking to profit from the erosion of trust between the state and its citizens.

That is why the fight against disinformation does not begin only when a false claim appears that needs to be fact-checked, but much earlier. One of the best defences against disinformation is having institutions that citizens trust to provide them with reliable information.

Transparent data, clear methodologies, independent verification, swift correction of errors and a willingness to engage in dialogue are not merely elements of good communication. They are part of the infrastructure of a resilient society.

Image created with AI

What does this mean for the green transition?

The green transition involves many decisions that will directly affect local communities. Citizens will ask how a particular project will affect their health, their surroundings, their property, their jobs or their way of life. They will ask who made the decision, what data it was based on, whether that data is publicly available and and independently verified, what happens if the assessment turns out to be wrong, who will be held accountable…

If institutions do not address these questions in a timely and transparent way, they risk fuelling new social tensions and make it harder for themselves to manage the biggest crises humanity has ever faced – the climate crisis; a challenge that will require a high degree of public trust and cooperation. This is why the Gospić case offers practical lessons that public institutions should take seriously.

First, communicate what is known – but also what is not yet known. There is no need to wait for perfect information if citizens already have legitimate questions. It is important to clearly distinguish between confirmed facts, estimates and uncertainties.

Second, enable independent verification. Trust grows when citizens can understand how an institution reached a particular conclusion and when independent experts have the opportunity to scrutinise the evidence.

Third, involve the local community before conflict arises. Participation is not simply a public consultation held when a decision has effectively already been made. Engagement should begin earlier, while there is still room for meaningful influence.

Fourth, do not use PR as a substitute for an answer. A political message can be part of communication, but it cannot replace data, measurements, expert analysis and a concrete plan of action.

And fifth, build trust before a crisis occurs. An institution that is transparent as a matter of course has greater reserves of public trust to draw on when a problem arises. An institution that shares information only under pressure can hardly expect the public to trust it when trust matters most.

If you want to learn more, go to Klimatski portal (in Croatian language)