16 N. Carroll Street
Suite 840
Madison, WI 53703-2726
(608) 280-0360
Fax (608) 280-0361

info@wi-ei.org

Executive Summary

The Environmental Policy Forum is a series of events designed to bring together a group of stakeholders, representing all sectors and viewpoints, to discuss ways to improve environmental policy development in Wisconsin.  WEI is pleased to present to you a summary of Part One of the Environmental Policy Forum, held June 5, 2000, at the University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point. 

Part One drew participation from over 50 key stakeholders, representing business, government, non-profit environmental organizations, and academia. The purpose of Part One was to:

1.      Review the current state of environmental policy-making in Wisconsin and identify positive and negative aspects of the system.

2.      Critique a proposed mechanism for improving environmental policy-making in Wisconsin, one that produces effective policies that reflect multiple stakeholder interests and citizen participation.

3.      Create an action plan for implementing the discussed improvements in the policy-making system.

Opening remarks by John Imes, Executive Director of WEI, Secretary George Meyer of the WI Department of Natural Resources, and Secretary Ben Brancel of the WI Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection focused on the reasons for convening the Environmental Policy Forum and the importance of consensus-building among diverse stakeholders in inclusive, effective policy development.

Following the opening remarks, a panel of Steering Committee members, including Jerry Deschane, WI Builders Association, Keith Reopelle, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade,  Joe Greco, Village of Menomonee Falls,  Ron Baba, UW-Green Bay, and Linda Bochert, Michael, Best & Friedrich, addressed the question, "What is and is not working in Wisconsin's policy-making system?"  Each panel member described individual experiences with environmental policy issues that have shaped their perspectives of the system.  All participants had an opportunity to respond to the same question in the first session of small group discussions. The panel members and other Forum participants agreed on these key points:

1.  There is a lack of trust and communication among different stakeholders.

2.  A lack of accurate, unbiased information hinders effective policy development.

3.  The policy-making system needs to incorporate strong incentives for people to reach consensus on particular issues.

4.  Collaboration and consensus-building can produce more effective environmental policies by helping stakeholders recognize common goals and interests.

In his keynote address, John Ehrmann, Ph.D., Meridian Institute, speaking from his over 20 years of experience in collaborative processes, introduced the principles and characteristics of consensus-based approaches and creative problem-solving.  He stressed that it is not possible to find consensus;  people must work hard to build it.  This idea and others he presented set the tone for the afternoon sessions, which focused on designing a consensus-based mechanism for improving Wisconsin's system of environmental policy development.

The afternoon sessions generated several interesting ideas and suggestions for implementing improvements in policy development.  For instance, one group proposed a process in which two state agency secretaries and two legislators would agree to hold a public hearing on an issue if consensus is reached.  Another group suggested convening a statewide system of scientific peer review that would provide credible information to decision makers on specific issues.

During the upcoming working sessions, participants will continue to build and refine the alternative mechanisms for improving policy-making.  These sessions will also emphasize finding ways to identify, involve, and communicate with critical individuals and organizations to insure that once a mechanism is introduced, it has broad support.  In Part Two of the Environmental Policy Forum, scheduled for September 14, 2000, participants will begin "testing" the different mechanisms and determine the next steps in implementing the discussed improvements in environmental policy-making.

Opening Remarks

John Imes welcomed participants and highlighted WEI’s mission, program emphasis, and unique role as convenor of the Forum.  He recognized the very distinguished group of steering committee members for their leadership and emphasized the far reaching potential of the Forum’s larger groups of key stakeholders.  He also expressed WEI’s interest in an active, stakeholder-driven process where bold, persistent experimentation in environmental policy-making leads to policies that truly benefit Wisconsin’s future.

Secretary Meyer and Secretary Brancel both acknowledged that policy-making at the legislative level is polarized. Secretary Meyer pointed out that this leads to key issues not being addressed and people’s concerns not being heard.  He remarked on difficult proposals being repeated session after session, taking time and energy out of the legislative process and away from issues that can be resolved.  However, he also noted a couple of examples of successful initiatives, such as Smart Growth and wetland mitigation, and the role that a strong coalition of stakeholders played in their success.

Secretary Brancel posed the question, “Is environmental policy rules to follow or goals to obtain?”  To him, it appears to be “rules to follow” when the process does not bring the public along with the few rule makers.  However, the lack of trust among different environmental stakeholders sometimes makes it difficult to bring diverse groups together to work towards common goals.

Both leaders recognized the importance and potential of the Environmental Policy Forum and thanked participants for dedicating time and thought to this opportunity to improve collaboration in environmental policy development.

  Panel Presentation 

Panel members included:  Jerry Deschane, WI Builders Association, Keith Reopelle, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade,  Joe Greco, Village of Menomonee Falls,  Ron Baba, UW-Green Bay, and Linda Bochert, Michael, Best & Friedrich.  They were asked to describe, from their organizational perspective, examples of what is and is not working in Wisconsin’s environmental policy-making system.  Below is a summary of their remarks:

·         There is often disagreement among stakeholders on the definition of a particular problem.  When people can’t agree on what the problem is, it is difficult to agree on a solution.

·         “Misinformation campaigns” often shape policy. 

·         There is a general lack of accurate information to inform environmental policy development..

·         Relationships between local government, local environmental groups, and the DNR are often adversarial, but can improve by asking “why” questions.

·         Certain groups often have the ability to agree on larger goals until limitations are placed on the groups.  These limitations make it difficult to close the gap between goals and implementation.

·         An enforced commitment to a consensus process can be very effective, particularly when it is supported by legislators who recognize the value of proposals that have been through the process, versus those that have not. 

·         It is important to have solid science and thorough data collection, and a process which allows sufficient time to take advantage of all available resources for gathering information.

·         The current system encourages “victory” instead of a genuine commitment to a consensus process. 

·         There is a lack of trust and confidence among different environmental stakeholders.

·         It is possible to find common goals through increased communication and collaboration.

Small Group Discussions

The small group discussions provided participants with the opportunity to continue the review of the policy-making system and work towards possible improvements.  During the first discussion, they addressed the same question as that addressed by the panel:  What is working and what is not working in the current policy-making system in Wisconsin?  Responses to what is not working often included the lack of solid, unbiased information, the distrust and poor communication among stakeholders, and the general lack of incentives to establish commitments to consensus-building.  On the positive side, groups acknowledged that many strong personal relationships do exist to provide a foundation for collaboration on environmental policy issues.  They also recognized that informal stakeholder involvement has been very successful in some cases and provides a model for improving policy that is not government-driven.

*For more details on the results of this discussion, see "Key Themes from Part One"

In the afternoon sessions, groups critiqued a “proposed improved mechanism for environmental policy-making” to determine how it worked with the issues raised during the morning discussion.  The groups then refined and made changes to the mechanism, producing alternatives which addressed the identified problems while building on the strengths of the current system.  Below is a description of one of the alternative mechanisms drafted by a group at the Forum:

In a biennial process, a “laundry list” of environmental issues would be brought to legislative chairs and secretaries of state agencies such as the DNR and DATCP, who would review and narrow the list.  The narrowed list would then be brought to the public for further review and comment.  In another alternative, these two steps could be switched so that the issues are first brought to the public, then to the legislative chairs and secretaries.  Task forces would be convened for the selected issues to gather data and draft recommendations that reflect the involvement of various stakeholders.  Two secretaries and two legislators would agree to hold a public hearing if consensus is reached on a certain issue.  In a two-year cycle, only those issues that reach consensus continue.

Other ideas and suggestions for alternative mechanisms included:

·         Adopt a consensus-based process through legislation.

·         Identify a neutral party or organization that could convene the “issues oversight group.”

·         As an end result, develop legislative recommendations. 

·         Include a mechanism to disagree with the recommendations and/ or identify a neutral organization that could provide a non-biased analysis of the recommendations.

·         Establish tangible goals as an outcome of the process.

·         Convene a statewide group of scientists to review data and establish a consensus view of the science, which could be used by the task forces in drafting legislative recommendations.

·         Tap into existing media resources such as the “We, the People Series”, editorial boards, and community forums.

A few important issues continued to resurface as the participants thought more about what an improved process would look like, and what the ultimate outcomes would be.  For example, should an informal or formal process be pursued? Participants generally agreed that at this point, either type of process could be pursued, or both, allowing for enough flexibility to try different approaches and see what works best for different issues.  Whether the process that results from the Environmental Policy Forum is formal or informal, groups agreed that it needs to provide strong incentives for participation and productivity, get critical support from key individuals, and utilize a neutral convenor and facilitator in order to be successful.

A Summary of the Keynote Address

by John Ehrmann, Ph.D., Meridian Institute

John Ehrmann has over 20 years of experience as a facilitator and mediator in regional, national, and international multi-stakeholder processes addressing a wide range of issues associated with the environment, natural resources, and sustainable development.  He is the Senior Partner and Co-Founder of Meridian Institute, a non-profit organization whose mission is to increase society’s ability to solve problems and resolve conflicts arising from the integration of environmental, health, economic, and social issues.  In his talk, he introduced the principles and  characteristics of collaborative processes, then shared some success stories at local and national levels.

Themes:

·         Conflict is good.  It is a natural part of collaborative decision-making, and expressing differences gives everyone an opportunity to learn and grow.

·         You are all part of the problem.  It is easy to place blame and focus on what others are doing, but everyone needs to examine their own actions to recognize ways they might also be contributing to the problem.

·         Good science alone will not save the day.  Scientific experts will always support different data, so “good science” alone can’t be expected to solve problems.

·         It’s impossible to find consensus;  you must build it through hard work, trust, and communication.

·         Balance is not the answer;  integrative solutions which respond to the needs and concerns of the parties are necessary, as opposed to an “equal,” balanced solution.

Key elements of collaborative processes:  “The Five I’s”

·         Issues

• definable

• understandable

• link to implementation

·         Interests:       

• reflected in “why questions”

• different from positions

• raw material for agreement building

·         Incentives:      

• power

• BATNA’s  (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)

• leadership

·         Information:     

• process

• key questions

• fit into conceptual framework

• transparency

·         Implementation:  

• begins at beginning

• monitoring

  The 3 Dimensions of Collaborative Processes:

 

Key Themes from Part One:

 

1.   A “consensus” approach seems to work well, when it is credible, enforceable, and inclusive.

2.   The current system discourages a consensus approach…incentives to “end run,” “win,” etc.

3.      Leadership is required to build risk-taking behaviors, acknowledging realistic political costs of doing so.

4.      The system sabotages efforts at “good science” and “open information sharing,” instead encouraging adversarial “dueling experts,” misinformation, and closed data.

5.      There is an atmosphere of distrust and disempowerment through which most behaviors are filtered.

6.      There is a need for consistency and collaboration across levels and agencies as a key infrastructure for problem-solving.

7.      Often, there is a consensus on the problem and goals…but getting there on solutions is complex and requires diligence that we don’t necessarily support—fail to follow the goals thus set.

Next Steps:

Part One’s discussion involved a review of the policy development process and the individual experiences that had shaped each participants view of the process. Beginning with a process-oriented discussion was important in allowing participants to see where each others’ interests and perspectives overlapped.  More importantly, it provided an opportunity to both identify concrete ways to improve policy development and recognize the strengths of the current system.  Many groups also compared the proposed process to collaborative processes already in use, and began shaping the role that the Policy Forum would have alongside other processes. 

Moving towards Part Two of the Environmental Policy Forum, participants will focus more on the action-oriented aspects of improving policy development in Wisconsin.  Volunteers from each small group will continue to refine the improved policy-making mechanisms  discussed during Part One of the Forum during the two working sessions listed below.  The mechanisms will be prepared for presentation in Part Two.

In Part Two of the Forum, participants begin “testing” the refined mechanisms.  This will include applying the mechanisms to environmental issues identified by the participants as priority issues for Wisconsin.  The various alternatives, approaches and solutions will be compared to identify those that address the issue most effectively.  Based on these experiences, a best mechanism will be selected for final drafting and circulation to participants.  Participants in Part Two will also draft an action plan for implementing the discussed improvements in the policy-making system, including a tentative articulation of priority issues.