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

info@wi-ei.org

The Environmental Policy Forum is a series of events designed to bring together a large group of stakeholders, representing all sectors and viewpoints, to work toward more effective environmental policy in Wisconsin.  The events focus on creating a process in which the many diverse groups in Wisconsin can better communicate their interests and improve environmental policy-making through collaboration and consensus-building initiatives.  WEI is pleased to present to you a summary of Part II of the Environmental Policy Forum, held September 14, 2000 in Madison, Wisconsin.

Part I and the two working sessions, held in June and July, 2000 focused on creating a mechanism for improving the environmental policy-making process in Wisconsin.  The outcome of these sessions was a process for approaching environmental policy issues through collaboration and consensus-building that is intended to result in policy recommendations drafted and supported by a diverse coalition of environmental stakeholders. The objective of Part II was to further refine and validate the collaborative process that had been developed in previous sessions and create an action plan for its implementation. In Part II, participants representing business, government, non-profit environmental organizations, and academia “tested” and evaluated the process to determine its value for addressing specific environmental issues.  They also discussed what elements and characteristics it would need to have in order to get support and involvement from key stakeholders.

In his opening remarks, John Imes, Executive Director of WEI, described what he views as missed opportunities in environmental policy-making.  The Environmental Policy Forum provides a new option for people to get their issue effectively addressed in an open, inclusive process.

The purpose of testing the mechanism in Part II was to determine its value for addressing a particular environmental issue and begin to outline a strategy for moving the process forward.  Participants working in small groups mainly focused on the parts of the mechanism that deal with how to choose an issue to pursue in a collaborative process and the incentives that are required for getting people to engage in and support the process.  They also discussed who should convene the process or the qualities that a potential convener would need to have, who needs to be involved, and the desired outcomes of the process.  Participants agreed that the process itself is well designed, but they stressed the importance of having adequate time and information, as well as good representation from the various interest groups to produce meaningful outcomes. 

In addition to testing the mechanism, Part II provided an opportunity to gauge the willingness and motivation of Forum participants to move beyond constructing a process and actually start to use it.  We’re pleased to have a committed group of leaders who want to move this process forward and begin applying it to environmental issues facing Wisconsin.  The final discussion explored ways to begin implementing the process, such as by holding an environmental policy summit in winter, 2001.  The next steps of the Environmental Policy Forum will be to further define the summit, build support for it among those involved in environmental policy decisions, and make sure the foundation of solid information and resources is in place.

OPENING REMARKS

John Imes, Executive Director of WEI, spoke about what he views as missed opportunities to spend limited time and resources on truly significant environmental policy.  For example, he noted that while there are over 200 bills on environmental policy pending in the legislature (many repeated session after session) only a few became law.    The few included laws for such pressing issues as “prohibiting DNR from promulgating or enforcing rules that prohibit fisherman from possessing barbed hooks” and a bill which provides “that a dog is not considered to be running at large if the dog is actively engaged in a hunting activity, supervised by a person”.   He restated WEI’s belief that a broader, more collaborative approach is needed to further environmental policy making and improve environmental outcomes.

Harry Webne-Behrman, Lead Facilitator of the Forum, provided an overview of the work done by participants in Part I and the two working sessions, and the goals and intended outcomes of Part II.  He also presented the mechanism that was drafted by Forum participants and explained the process for testing its potential effectiveness for improving environmental policy-making.

The mechanism is organized into five parts: 

I.       Environmental Policy Summit - an event in which a wide range of interest groups are brought together to identify pressing issues stakeholders want to address

II.    Multi-Group Winnowing Process - a process for narrowing the list of issues that would result from the Environmental Policy Summit and deciding which ones would be most effectively addressed through collaboration and consensus-building

III.  Providing Incentives - determining the incentives required, for each particular issue, to get people to enter into a collaborative process

IV. Additional Steps Towards Implementation - steps that need to be taken to work towards implementation, once a critical number of people have committed to participating in a collaborative process;  this includes gathering information, conducting outreach to those affected by a particular issue or policy, seeking budgetary support for the issue, communicating the recommendations of the working group, etc.

V.    Incorporating Science - suggested ways to integrate science into the process if participants determine that science is needed for a particular issue;  this includes developing a way to identify and convene top scientists for each issue and building consensus on how to implement science

The five parts described above have been identified by Forum participants to be  important elements of a collaborative process, but they are not necessarily intended to be followed step by step. This process is designed to provide enough flexibility so that, depending on the issue and the group of people involved, modifications can be made to approach a particular issue in the most effective way.

  TESTING THE MECHANISM

The purpose of testing the mechanism was to determine its value for addressing a particular environmental policy issue.  Based on participants’ interests, three broad issue areas were selected for testing the mechanism:  1)  multi-recreational use of inland lakes, 2)  nonpoint source pollution related to development, and 3)  regulatory reform of business environmental performance. These issues were intended to be used as a starting point for testing the mechanism on a real issue and to reflect issues that might result from an environmental policy summit.

The first focus area of the testing was the “Multi-Group Winnowing Process”, a process intended to narrow the long list of issues produced in the Environmental Policy Summit and determine which ones present solid opportunities for collaboration.  Participants in previous sessions of the Policy Forum had agreed that consensus-building and collaboration require significant incentives to ensure that the parties involved in a particular issue will commit to working together.  It was also agreed that certain issues present better opportunities for collaboration than others, depending on their history, current status, and significance for the future.  To help identify which issues might be ready for a new approach, they developed a list of five criteria which, if met, would provide a substantial incentive for people to use a collaborative process.  Below are the five criteria they developed:

1.     Have the parties reached an impasse?

2.     Is there urgency to reach a resolution?

3.     Are the parties willing to try a collaborative approach and agree to its ground rules?

4.     Does the issue have long-term statewide impact?

5.     Are the parties willing to use science where it is appropriate?

The small groups in Part II were asked whether or not they thought these criteria were effective in deciding which issues to pursue.  They noted that the criteria present a few difficulties.  For instance, how do you determine impasse?  How do you measure urgency?  Many groups thought that impasse isn’t necessary, and that it is more important that groups agree on the definition of the problem and are willing to work on it together.  Another group pointed out that the criteria don’t address sustainability.  They are good for responding to problems that are visible and/ or have already escalated to a serious level, but they don’t allow us to be proactive about environmental problems. 

In general, participants thought that the winnowing process was well designed, but it was difficult to determine how it would actually work without adequate time and information.  Also, adding the following criteria was suggested for improving this part of the mechanism:  Is sustainability threatened?  Do the parties want a solution?  Do people understand the issue enough to use a collaborative process? Are the parties in agreement on some aspects of the issue?

In the next part of the testing, participants focused on the third item of the mechanism, “Providing Incentives.”  They discussed ways to provide incentives for key stakeholders to engage in a collaborative process, keeping in mind that incentives differ depending on how formal or informal the process becomes.  For a more formal approach, participants in previous sessions of the Forum suggested gaining “sanction” from the “powers that be” to enter into a collaborative process.  They also observed that it is important to have an opportunity to follow an informal collaborative process, which would require different incentives for participation. 

Participants in Part II generally agreed that the most significant incentive for people to engage in a collaborative process is knowing that the outcomes will have value and be used in a significant way.  It also must be clear what people will gain or lose from participating or not participating. The process should focus on building solutions to problems, not “win versus lose.”  They also thought that the following incentives were important to consider:

1.     Make it clear that there will be adequate information and time to address the issue thoroughly.

2.     Assure participants that the process is time-efficient, flexible, well-organized, and adequately staffed.

3.     Use a professional facilitator.

4.     Make sure that participants know they will be involved in the follow-up and implementation steps, and what their role in those steps will be.

5.     Provide some type of recognition for participating.

6.     The process needs to have defined preferred outcomes of “win-win,” equity, and inclusiveness.

SUMMARY OF MORNING DISCUSSIONS

Harry Webne-Behrman summarized the themes and observations from the morning discussions:

1.     The “Multi-Group Winnowing Process” is generally a good way to prioritize issues, but refinements are needed in terminology used, the definition of problems, and the criteria.

2.     Providing incentives is the more challenging part of the process, and is based on the particular issue the group selects.  For now, it requires assembling a general “tool box” of incentives from which the right ones can be pulled at the right times.  It might be more useful to consider the “Providing Incentives” step in the same way we consider the role of science in the process, something to be woven throughout each step as necessary.

3.     Having a “reality check” at different stages in the process is key.  When bringing people together, consider their history with each other and with the issue at hand;  habits and relationships are already formed, and people may feel some bitterness about past situations.

4.     The process needs INTEGRITY (referent power) and FORMAL AUTHORITY, such as a “blessing” from the Governor or another person with formal decision making power.

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE MECHANISM

In the afternoon, participants convened as three issue-specific groups to evaluate the whole mechanism in terms of its overall value for addressing their issue.  It was generally agreed that the process itself is well designed and could potentially have a significant impact on policy surrounding certain environmental issues.  Many people noted, however, that its success will depend on having adequate representation of different interest groups and the involvement of people who are in positions to influence legislative or other decision making processes.  In turn, the incentives required to assemble the right group of individuals and organizations for a successful collaborative initiative will depend on the empowerment of the process. 

The following recommendations were also developed:

·        establish a link between this collaborative process and other processes at different levels

·        ensure that there will be an appropriate amount of time for addressing issues

·        include greater constituency ownership during the follow-up or implementation phase

·        make sure that people can afford to participate by compensating them for their time and other expenses incurred in attending events or meetings

·        this process is good for very tough issues, but it could be modified to also be  applicable to easier issues

·        the process needs to have defined preferred outcomes of “win-win”, equity, and inclusiveness

The groups also addressed specific details which need to be in place before the process can be implemented.  They paid particular attention to who convenes the process, who needs to be involved, and the desired outcomes. 

It was pointed out that the nature of the outcome of the process will determine the nature of the convener, but participants did identify some general characteristics of an effective convener:  credible, apolitical, nonpartisan, neutral to the outcome of the process, able to address statewide issues, and able to get through a stalemate situation.  Participants need to be assured that the process will be seen as an important and professional one, and that the convener will be able to give it adequate support (information, time, resources, staff).  The convener should also have some links to the follow-up and implementation phase of the process.  Participants also thought that the process and the convener need to be empowered through a “blessing” from a legislator or other person in a position to influence policy-making to ensure that the products of the process will be considered.

The people who need to be involved in the process are those that can contribute to the success of the process at different levels.  Participants identified general roles that need to be filled by the right individuals.  For instance, people who can provide information for creating possible solutions, people who can define the problem in creative ways, and implementers such as business, NGO’s, state agencies, and local government all need to be at the table.  We also need to include people or groups who are affected by the policy or issue at hand.

Improved, long-range policies was mentioned as one of the desired outcomes of the process.  The outcomes should be clearly focused and specific enough to be used in a meaningful way, such as for writing grants.  Participants also observed that until the process is well established, the necessary support components that will keep it going and give it credibility are an important outcome.  These components include:  determining who can provide the information necessary to address specific issues and how to communicate the information, getting critical support of the process from key decision makers, and obtaining funding for an ongoing Environmental Policy Forum.

Finally, each participant was asked, “Given the priority issues for you or your organization, what type of process would you need in order to be willing to actively participate?”  Several people mentioned that they would need to have a belief that their involvement in a collaborative process would change something and/ or produce a better solution.  More importantly, they would want to know that collaborating would lead to better solutions, and that they would more easily get what they need by collaborating.  For many individuals and organizations, compensation for staff time and resources spent on the process would be very important.

For a process with a more formal outcome, participants thought that legislators would need to agree to not entertain proposals that had not been through the collaborative process.  Even when working towards informal outcomes, it would still be important that the parties involved understand that no other options would be entertained during the process.  Participants agreed that the process needs a commitment on the part of all the interests involved to get as close as possible to a consensus-based solution.

  FINAL DISCUSSION/ NEXT STEPS

The challenge in trying to implement a collaborative process to improve environmental policy is clear, and groups in each session of the Environmental Policy Forum have been conscious of all the obstacles which hinder efforts at inclusive, open, and effective policy development. However, they have generally agreed that it was worthwhile to spend time engaging in a process-based discussion in order to begin to establish a new option for addressing environmental issues.  One participant noted that this is especially difficult because we are changing a paradigm of environmental policy making, but that the results of the Forum discussions have been a significant first step in building support for and implementing an alternative process.

Participants suggested a few important guidelines for moving the process forward successfully.  Most importantly, all the “supports” must be in place:  staff, a professional facilitator, people who can provide the diverse base of information needed to adequately address an issue, diverse sources of funding, and a wide range of well-represented environmental interest groups committed to engaging in a collaborative process, and an assurance from policy makers that the work products generated through the process will be recognized and considered in policy decisions.

An Environmental Policy Summit in 2001 designed to target a specific area of environmental policy was suggested as a possible first step towards implementing the process.