From People to Policy

Abstract: Sustainable development is all about finding long-term solutions that benefit people, business and the environment. The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative is based on the common-sense belief that if Minnesota’s prosperity is to be sustained over time, what is good for business, the environment and communities must eventually become one and the same. This is the essential challenge of sustainable development.

The Initiative is approaching a decade of collaboration involving business, government and civic interests to promote policies, institutions and actions that ensure Minnesota’s long-term environmental, economic and social well-being.

INTRODUCTION

The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative had its official beginnings at the Minnesota History Center on January 29, 1993. Governor Arne H. Carlson announced the appointments of 14 co-chairs to lead seven teams of citizens in a search for what "sustainable development" might mean for Minnesota.

The idea of taking on sustainable development came from two Minnesota leaders: Bob Dunn, newly appointed as the first citizen chair of the Environmental Quality Board, and a long time environmental statesman, and Rod Sando, the new head of the Department of Natural Resources. Dunn felt strongly that the state needed a strategic plan for the environment to understand how the myriad of state programs could be unified and progress toward a clear goal monitored. Sando had long followed the efforts in Canada to make sustainable development the guiding policy of state functions, and believed strongly that Minnesota should do the same. They came together in support of a Minnesota initiative and, over time, convinced the other members of the Environmental Quality Board, as well as the Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development and the Governor to do so too. In fact, the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative would not have moved forward, if each of these parties did not support and join the effort.

COMMON THEMES

The Initiative was framed around several themes. First and foremost was a Canadian adaptation of the familiar Brundtlund Commission definition of sustainable development:

Three other directives were given to Initiative participants. These were intended to reinforce the notion that sustainable development was forward-looking and unifying; that is, that the future would be secured only by economic development that was compatible with the environment and environmental protection that recognized the necessity of economic activity. As the Environmental Quality Board put it in 1993:

In addition to these themes, Initiative participants were asked to use the vision defined in Minnesota Milestones, the state’s then new progress indicators report and long range plan. That vision included many ideas relevant to sustainable development, including explicit social themes on which the Initiative was otherwise initially silent. A few examples of the guiding vision statements include:

The thesis was that these environmental, economic and social goals were compatible. The challenge put to Initiative participants was to find out why and how, and to translate them into principles and strategies for securing a sustainable future.

The EQB adopted an ambitious work plan governing the process by which Initiative participants were to face this challenge. It called for seven teams (a total of 105 citizens) to be appointed by the Governor and begin deliberations in March 1993, and to meet monthly, or as needed, through November to develop their own visions, principles, issues and strategies, and to work across teams to craft a unifying Initiative vision, principles and set of overarching strategies.

THE SEVEN TEAMS

The Environmental Quality Board selected seven issues that it believed most warranted study. These were picked because they were of economic and environmental significance to Minnesota, and involved the use of natural resources to create economic opportunity.

The teams and the initial scoping statements they were given are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. The Initiative Teams
Agriculture. How agricultural systems can better achieve environmental and economic sustainability simultaneously. Energy systems. How to more efficiently use energy and choose energy systems or alternatives to meet Minnesota's needs, while reducing adverse effects on the environment and economy. Forestry. Issues involved with sustaining forest ecosystems for a wide range of uses and values. Manufacturing. How to continue manufacturing job growth at rates faster than the national economy, produce more and better goods at the lowest competitive worldwide cost, and thereby, create jobs for the future while sustaining environmental quality. Mineral system. How to explore and develop Minnesota’s diverse mineral resources and efficiently use mineral products in a manner that sustains the economy and environment. Recreation. Minnesota’s changing natural resource systems and how to sustain those systems, as well as the recreational opportunities and associated recreation and tourism industries that they support. Settlement. Where and why people live and work where they do in Minnesota, and the implications for managing services and capital investment in a manner that sustains the environment and economy.

Each team of 15 citizens was chaired by two people, one representing the environmental community and the other, the economic development community. The other thirteen citizens were selected, as were their co-chairs, because they were considered leaders of interests relevant to their teams. Racial and gender diversity was valued in selecting team members, but little special effort was made to recruit such folks upfront and the totals were therefore less than hoped for (seven or eight minorities and about 30 percent women, but still well under 50 percent, were appointed). For better or worse, the appointment of state and federal staff was discouraged, amounting to less than ten of the 105. The thought was that citizens should lead the initiative and that staff should be there to testify, guide and advise, but not vote. This worked in some instances, but left key staff and agencies disengaged in others.

Committee staff were provided by the agency most closely linked to the issue the team was formed to investigate. For example, the Department of Agriculture staffed the Agriculture Team; the Department of Trade and Economic Development managed the Manufacturing Team. Staff from the EQB coordinated the Initiative and the staff activities of the teams, but each team decided when to meet, who should provide expert testimony, and how to develop the team products within the framework provided by EQB. Finally, each team was assigned an expert facilitator whose job was to help the co-chairs and staff plan and run team meetings, and the Initiative coordinator to do the same for the all-team meetings. They brought an understanding of process and participatory values to the Initiative and were invaluable to its success.

In addition to developing its own understanding of an issue’s context, problems and issues, teams were asked to craft their own vision and principles, and strategies for reaching their visions as judged by those principles. In so doing, they also were asked to consider how transportation, information, waste management, taxation and education might play key roles either in defining an issue or, potentially, its solution.

Staff from the teams met on a monthly basis to compare notes and share solutions to problems they were encountering. They also used this time to plan the all-team meetings held in June, October and November. These meetings were designed to allow each team to share its experiences, concerns and progress with the others, as well as to engage each team in thinking about the greater good. The meetings involved plenary sessions with speakers renown in key fields, as well as workshops, panels and small group discussions on cross-cutting issues like land use, full-cost accounting and tax policy.

TEAM OUTCOMES

The teams varied widely in their comfort with the assignments and timeframe given and the wide-ranging autonomy they were granted. Some with clear opportunities seemed to falter, while others with a technically complex issue excelled. While the experience and ability of a team’s leaders, members and staffing all contributed to its success or shortcomings, each team made noteworthy contributions to the progress toward sustainable development in Minnesota. They were recorded in the Initiative report: Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future, published in February 1994. Selected highlights included:

The Initiative also developed a vision reflecting the work of the seven teams and the spirit of the overall effort. (See Table 2.)

Table 2. The Vision
The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative envisions a future where businesses grow and prosper while respecting the natural and human environments that support them. In this future: We Minnesotans make commitments and choices to preserve the options future generations will need to secure the quality of life we now enjoy. We see sustainable development as a positive, fundamental change in the way we define social progress, do business and protect the environment. We view the health of our natural environment, the strength of our community and our economic security as interdependent. We maintain our quality of life through the sustainable use of energy and natural resources, recognizing that population growth, resource consumption and lifestyle choices determine the options we leave for future generations. Our communities are places where all citizens enjoy rich opportunities in education, employment, involvement in community and appreciation of the environment. Our economy is healthy, diversified, globally competitive and in harmony with Minnesota’s ecosystems; it provides all citizens ample opportunity for a fulfilling life. Our natural environment is biologically and ecologically diverse and able to provide the resource benefits, products and services needed for the indefinite future. We continually work to change our political and economic systems so that they consistently reward economically efficient, socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable behavior. We embrace this vision because we believe in our state and in the future of our children. And in so doing, we help move our state and our country toward a new kind of development — development that is sustainable. Source: Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future, February 1994.

A STRATEGIC PLAN

The work of the seven teams was reviewed, critiqued and celebrated at a statewide Congress on Sustainable Development in February 1994. Governor Carlson gave the welcoming address and Dave Buzzelli the keynote address on behalf of the new President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The teams produced some 400 recommendations for action, but the question of where to begin came to the forefront. An untimely and ill-informed June veto by Governor Carlson of a small budget request to keep a key aid working on the project also set the Initiative back months, if not longer. While its intent and significance have been misunderstood, and though funding for the staff in question was cobbled together by interagency transfers of cash at the request of the Governor’s Office, it nevertheless slowed efforts and dampened enthusiasm. All of this made development of a strategic plan imperative.

The EQB and Initiative staff spent the next 12 months debating and distilling the concepts and recommendations of the Initiative teams. This engaged agency commissioners and the Governor’s Office in telling debates on what concepts they would and would not support, and it resulted in publication of Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota, a strategic plan adopted by EQB and distributed under a cover letter signed by the Governor in August 1995.

The strategic plan called for examining state incentives and disincentives for sustainable development and removing any barriers found in state laws, regulations and practices. It suggested that state policy should encourage the growth of sustainable manufacturing by reducing business taxes, fees and regulations while increasing fees for waste and pollution. It suggested that the state set permit fees to reflect the costs of environmental damage, resource use and depletion, rather than the cost of administration.

Recommendations also included a range of other ideas from establishing a routine method and process for tracking environmental trends to a simple suggestion that the Commissioner of Natural Resources be authorized to use funding from narrowly focused fee-based programs to support comprehensive resource management activities. The strategic plan repeated the call for a new approach to regulating business, where air, land

and water emissions are regulated in sync and regulatory requirements simplified in exchange for superior environmental performance. It also called for applying the principles of sustainable development in state activities and for the Governor to appoint a round table on sustainable development. This last point was the first step taken in January 1996.

THE GOVERNOR’S ROUND TABLE

The Governor appointed a diverse group of 30 business, environmental and community leaders to the Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development. By design, half of the 30 members were drawn from the original seven teams. The Governor charged the Round Table with considering how Minnesotans could safeguard their long-term environmental, economic and social well-being. He asked them to serve as a catalyst for sustainable development, to foster public and private partnerships and reach out to Minnesotans across the state, and to stimulate interest in and communicate the importance of achieving sustainable development.

The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development focused on three areas of study:

The Round Table completed its work in July 1998 with a series of reports proposing concrete steps for helping make Minnesota business, communities and government function more sustainably. As the group’s co-chairs put it: "We cannot afford yesterday’s old approaches, whether they boost the economy at the environment’s expense or protect the environment without thought to the effect on our economy. We need an economy that naturally restores the environment and enhances communities."

MINNESOTA CHALLENGES

The Round Table identified six sweeping challenges that Minnesotans must face to move toward sustainable development. Each was followed by recommended strategies and action steps. The challenges are:

PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTERISTICS

The Round Table also identified five principles and a series of policy characteristics that it believed useful in meeting the challenges it posed to Minnesotans. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Development of the principles, in particular, gave the Round Table a clear focus in the first few months of its tenure, and helped them gel as a social unit. They developed trust in each other and a sensitivity to member concerns and interests that lasted as long as the forum itself. The principles help define sustainable development’s key precepts, while the characteristics operationalize them for practical use.

Table 3. Principles
The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development offers five principles as guideposts along the path of sustainable development. They are: Global interdependence. Economic prosperity, ecosystem health, liberty and justice are linked, and our long-term well-being depends on maintaining all four. Local decisions must be informed by their regional and global context. Stewardship. Stewardship requires the recognition that we are all caretakers of the environment and economy for the benefit of present and future generations. We must balance the impacts of today’s decisions with the needs of future generations. Conservation. Minnesotans must maintain essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life-support systems of the environment; harvest renewable resources on a sustainable basis; and make wise and efficient use of our renewable and non-renewable resources. Indicators. Minnesotans need to have and use clear goals and measurable indicators based on reliable information to guide public policies and private actions toward long-term economic prosperity, community vitality, cultural diversity and healthy ecosystems. Shared responsibility. All Minnesotans accept responsibility for sustaining the environment and economy, with each being accountable for his or her decisions and actions, in a spirit of partnership and open cooperation. No entity has the right to shift the costs of its behavior to other individuals, communities, states, nations or future generations. Full-cost accounting is essential for assuring shared responsibility. Source: Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, A Report of the Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, May 1998.

Table 4. Ten Characteristics of Sustainable Development Policies
They take a long-term perspective that includes present and future generations. They take a systems approach that treats social, economic and environmental goals as interdependent. They are self-regulating, that is, the price of a product, service or activity covers its life-long social, economic and environmental cost. They encourage cooperation among diverse interests, rather than relying on regulatory mandates, in situations where cooperation can achieve the same or better outcomes than mandates. They allow regulatory flexibility based on public-private consensus and commitment to long-term goals that emphasize sustainable outcomes rather than prescribing "do’s" and "don’ts." They reward resource efficiency as well as financial efficiency. They provide a transition away from unsustainable behaviors. They promote an ecological economy that is based on high efficiency, low waste production and consumption, and feedback signals (usually in the form of prices) that produce outcomes that are best for the environment, businesses and the broader community. They promote equitable solutions and equal opportunity. They address root causes of problems. For example, rather than attempting to protect the environment only by better control of the economy, policies would encourage the economy to operate in ways that protect the environment as a matter of course. Source: Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, A Report of the Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, May 1998.

POLICY TAKES HOLD

First, the Minnesota Legislature, as recommended in the strategic plan, directed all agencies, departments and boards to report on how their respective missions and programs "reflect and implement the state sustainable development principles" or how they could be changed to do so. The EQB presented the results of its surveys of state agency responses in Taking Root: State Agency Efforts Toward Sustainable Development in Minnesota. The Board found that while many state agencies are engaged in work that contributes to sustaining Minnesota’s environment, economy and communities, these issues are still often treated as separate rather than interconnected.

Second, the same legislation that called for this state agency self-assessment also defined sustainable development in Minnesota law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 4A.07) and directed the state planning agency, Minnesota Planning, to develop a local planning guide and model ordinances for sustainable development. The first edition of the guide was developed under a contract with Biko Associates of Minneapolis in 2000 and is posted on the Initiative web site (www.mnplan.state.mn.us/SDI/ordinances.html). The first edition of the planning guide is expected to be completed in June 2001.

Third, the Legislature adopted the Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act of 1996 in a near unanimous vote by both houses. Most of the credit for this accomplishment belongs to the Pollution Control Agency, which developed and pursued passage of the bills in cooperation with business and environmental interests. Their action and that of the Legislature implemented a key provision of the Initiative’s policy agenda: the integration of regulations across land, air and water, and the reduction of regulatory "hoops" in exchange for superior environmental performance.

The year 1997 also brought an important policy change. Thanks in great part to the work of the 1000 Friends of Minnesota, and also a 1995 sustainable development task force representing both the legislative and executive branches, as well as the Round Table’s Land Use Committee, the Legislature adopted the Community Based Planning Act of 1997. The act established 11 state goals for community planning, including several sustainable development concepts. (See Table 5.) Although voluntary, 150 communities, including 17 counties, have developed or are developing plans under the authority. Unfortunately, the act has become a symbol of state intrusion for the wise use movement, which has convinced conservatives in the Legislature that "community-based" means something more than the words would normally imply. The 1999 Legislature imposed a June 30, 2001 sunset to the law. Governor Ventura and key legislators are working to integrate its important elements into the mainstream planning and zoning authorities of local government.

Table 5. Community Based Planning Goals
Citizen participation. To develop a community-based planning process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights, knowledge, and support of local residents. The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government. Cooperation. To promote cooperation among communities to work towards the most efficient, planned, and cost-effective delivery of government services by, among other means, facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities. Economic development. To create sustainable economic development strategies and provide economic opportunities throughout the state that will achieve a balanced distribution of growth statewide. Conservation. To protect, preserve, and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural land, forests, surface water and ground water, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and significant historic and archaeological sites. Livable community design. To strengthen communities by following the principles of livable community design in development and redevelopment, including integration of all income and age groups, mixed land uses and compact development, affordable and life-cycle housing, green spaces, access to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways, and enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public spaces. Housing. To provide and preserve an adequate supply of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the state. Transportation. To focus on the movement of people and goods, rather than on the movement of automobiles, in transportation planning, and to maximize the efficient use of the transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability and use of appropriate public transit throughout the state through land-use planning and design that makes public transit economically viable and desirable. Land-use planning. To establish a community-based framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use. Public investments. To account for the full environmental, social, and economic costs of new development, including infrastructure costs such as transportation, sewers and wastewater treatment, water, schools, recreation, and open space, and plan the funding mechanisms necessary to cover the costs of the infrastructure. Public education. To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite capacity to accommodate growth, and the need for planning and resource management that will sustain growth. Sustainable development. To provide a better quality of life for all residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy. Source: Minnesota Statutes, Section 4A.08

The year 1998 brought one significant policy application. The EQB was directed to develop a generic environmental impact statement on animal agriculture. The authority to do a GEIS is described in the state rule governing environmental review. It is intended to cover a class of related activities whose environmental impact may best be assessed globally. The session law, however, specifically directs the Environmental Quality Board to broadly study the environmental, social and economic factors surrounding animal agriculture. The study has received nearly $3 million and is nearing completion.

Finally, the Legislature adopted two other sustainable development laws in its 1999 session.

The first directed Minnesota Planning to develop a 20-year state development strategy in coordination with the Metropolitan Council and the commissioners of Transportation, Trade and Economic Development, and Natural Resources. The directive requires Minnesota Planning to submit an evaluation and proposal to the Legislature based on a prototype strategy for the I-94 corridor between the Twin Cities metropolitan area and St. Cloud. The report, Minnesota by Design, describes this product and the goal of sustainable development on which it is based. To date, the Legislature has not acted on the proposal.

The second directed the Environmental Quality Board to develop a generic environmental impact statement on urban development. With similar language to the animal agriculture GEIS, this study is required to examine the long-term effects of urban development, past, present, and future, upon the economy, environment and way of life of the residents of the state. The study may address:

(1) the overall dimension of urban development in this state, including the past and current trends of settlement and population growth, the types and location of urban development, and the relationship of past and current development patterns to existing land use policies; (2) environmental quality issues associated with urban development such as the effects of urban development on air, groundwater, surface water, and land, including the impact of urban development on the loss of agricultural land in urbanizing areas; (3) economic issues such as the comparative economic impact of alternative means of urban development, including the economic efficiency of the alternatives; (4) social issues such as the comparative social impact of alternative means of urban development; and (5) the roles of various units of government in regulating various aspects of land use decisions.

The Board received sufficient money for scoping the study and that job is completed. See www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/urbangeis for a copy and discussion of its key elements. In particular, the scope lays out a theme repeated throughout the history of the Initiative, and near and dear to the Governor, that we should understand and question any state policies or programs that, in effect, subsidize urban sprawl.

RESEARCH

In addition to the recent directives discussed above, the Initiative has made a substantial commitment to sustainable development research, thanks to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. The Commission funded four years of research in two projects: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Smart Signals: Economics for Lasting Progress. Pathways identifies and explores barriers to sustainable development in the areas of energy, manufacturing and settlement. Smart Signals questions whether or not Minnesota’s tax laws and economic incentive programs are sending the same message. Specifically, among other things, it asked:

The study found that as current laws stand, the state has answered yes in all three cases. But do these policies truly reflect the long-term interests of Minnesotans?

Smart Signals found a number of state tax and spending policies that work at cross-purposes. Another example: the money state government spends for affordable housing was found to be countered several times over by the property tax and tax code treatment of housing. Without addressing the economic distortions of tax policy, housing affordability will likely be a chronic urban problem, regardless of the amount of money state and local governments devote to the issue.

Smart Signals evaluated an alternative approach to the property tax, called site-value taxation, and concluded that it would support home ownership without penalizing other types of housing.

The study also found that traditional economic measures give an incomplete picture of how well Minnesota is doing. Smart Signals proposes a new, more comprehensive indicator, the Minnesota progress indicator, which recognizes that the health of Minnesota’s economy, communities and environment are all linked. It also suggests a description of what a healthy, sustainable economy might look like.

To address these findings, the report recommends that the state change its approach to policy and programs in a number of ways. It should:

SMART GROWTH

"Smart growth" describes the application of the sustainable development concept to land use issues. Smart growth means smart management of resources in both growing and declining communities. Smart growth, like sustainable development, is fiscally prudent and environmentally, economically and socially sound while enhancing the choices people have for housing, jobs, recreation and transportation. The long-term needs of people, business and the environment ultimately define what is smart growth and sustainable and what is not.

The concept of "smart growth" takes many of the sustainable development principles and applies them to how cities, towns, counties and regions grow. The idea not only means communities that have a sense of uniqueness and a sense of place, but that work equally well for people of all ages and income levels and that reflect the goals and values of residents.

Another way to define smart growth is to think of it as "informed growth." In other words, "smart growth" does not lead to some preconceived outcome, but is the result of understanding and accounting for the real costs, benefits and tradeoffs associated with various growth alternatives.

Smart growth is the focus of sustainable development activity in the Ventura Administration. Convinced that many Minnesotans would like to see their state and their communities manage growth better, and that the state has a role to play, Governor Ventura made smart growth one of his administration’s key goals for policy reform. The Governor’s Smart Growth Initiative was founded on the principles of stewardship, economic efficiency, freedom of choice and accountability for the costs and consequences of development decisions, both at state and local levels.

Its framework for action on smart growth, a work in progress, is laid out in Growing Smart in Minnesota. The framework was built around the idea that "some things must grow – jobs, productivity, wages, education, housing and recreational opportunities, savings, profits, opportunity and knowledge. Others – pollution, waste and poverty – must not." The reader might note that the quote is largely "borrowed" from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Growing Smart in Minnesota presents a new set of principles, which also are grounded in sustainable development. (See Table 6.)

Table 6. Smart Growth Principles
"Smart growth offers options for how Minnesota can develop and change while enhancing its quality of life. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. While there are many options for smart growth, the following common-sense principles can guide public decisions and achieve the results Minnesotans expect: Stewardship: Use land and natural resources wisely to sustain them for the future. Minnesota will protect the environment and conserve agricultural land, open space and other lands that support sustainable outdoor recreation, tourism and natural resource-based industries. This will allow for growth that is sustainable for the long term. Efficiency: Make more efficient, integrated public investments in transportation, housing, schools, utilities, information infrastructure and other public services. Minnesota needs to coordinate and link its tax policies with smart growth. It also must coordinate and link public investments in transportation, information infrastructure, land use, housing, schools and utilities so they expand economic opportunity for the entire state. By maintaining and improving existing investments in roads, schools and utilities, rather than needlessly making expensive new investments on the edges of communities, Minnesota will avoid wasteful public spending and support economic growth. Choice: Give communities smart growth options and choices. Communities can be shaped by choice, or they can be shaped by chance. The state will work with local governments to encourage citizen and business participation in decisions about what smart growth should look like. Minnesota will create choices and incentives for linking transportation, housing, jobs, education and the amenities that make communities desirable places to live. Accountability: Reinforce responsibility and accountability for development decisions. For smart growth to become a reality, everyone — individuals, businesses and government - must make smart choices and take responsibility for the true costs and consequences of the decisions they make. The marketplace can be an effective force for smart growth, but only if state and local policy sends consistent signals and development decisions are predictable, fair and cost effective. If communities choose to make short-sighted development decisions, it is not up to Minnesota taxpayers to pay the costs of their mistakes. Source: Growing Smart in Minnesota, Office of the Governor, 1999.

These principles give a kind of sustainable clarity to what "smart growth" might mean in Minnesota.

Today, the Administration is engaged in a number of smart growth activities. These include a series of initiatives being implemented in the state’s metropolitan region by the Metropolitan Council, an interagency Smart Buildings Initiative, a "Conservation Connections" environmental corridors initiative of the Department of Natural Resources, and a new Local Solutions Alliance, an interagency effort led by Minnesota Planning. The Alliance was first conceived of by the Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development and described as a "sustainable communities partnership." The basic idea is to help communities meet their needs in becoming sustainable through a unified collaboration of state and local interests, rather than the current system where agencies tend to offer assistance in a piecemeal fashion.

LESSONS

The people behind the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative have learned a number of lessons throughout the last eight years. Sometimes, it seems remarkable that the Initiative has been able to accomplish anything, given how much has had to be learned on the fly. The following paragraphs briefly describe several lessons learned with the hope that others might capitalize on the Initiative’s experiences.

The greatest single lesson of the Initiative is its understanding and tapping of the power of citizen engagement. Citizens brought to the table their experiences, issues, concerns, contacts and, most importantly, basic commitment to Minnesota’s future. They grounded the Initiative, yet helped it take off. They also carried the experience with them after leaving the Initiative, working for sustainable development locally in countless ways.

It takes time to get the right people to join in a lengthy process of policy exploration. The EQB identified a series of qualities it was looking for, including things like credibility, stature, interest in sustainability, openness, geographic balance, gender balance and cultural diversity. Some of these criteria were easily met, but others would take, we later learned, special effort and outreach. Getting diversity in participants was a particular challenge. Yet, the effort is well worth it and people were the key to the Initiative’s success.

One difficult, but as it turns out, wonderful decision the Governor’s Round Table made was to operate by complete consensus. Each member had to agree, or at least be willing to live with, every word out on the page representing a Round Table position. We used the "five-finger" voting method to gauge the extent of committee support for an idea, with five indicating total and enthusiastic support down to two, indicating "can live with it," and one, indicating a blocking vote on a position that a member simply could not accept.

This was a profoundly important approach to take and one we would heartily recommend, whenever a committee’s timeframe permits. While it can be time consuming, this consensus approach makes each member's opinions and position supremely valuable and not dismissable. Conflicts must be resolved, the committee must come to an honest understanding of the issues and each member must be upfront with his or her position, or there is no movement.

This led to honest and people-engaging negotiation, not lowest common denominator thinking.

A dilemma that the Initiative never effectively solved is how to convince those not at the table that the supposed sustainable solutions espoused represented progress, not a sellout of their special interests. Those not at the table never had to "walk in the shoes" of their political adversaries and never had to come to a deep understanding of the legitimacy of the other side’s position.

The Initiative tried to address this in a number of ways. First, we set a ground rule that participants on the Teams and Round Table represented, first and foremost, themselves. They were expected to communicate organizational positions during Initiative deliberations, but not rigidly hold to their positions. Second, we provided opportunities for engaging others in the discussions at key points along the way. The 1994 statewide Congress on Sustainable Development was the first of these. Third, we expanded the participation of interests in selecting members of the Round Table, limiting to half the number of participants drawn from the original seven teams. Still, we felt as if these steps were never enough.

We lost the engagement of many participants because of the length of time process often took, and because of the frustration people felt when Administration decision-makers failed to support recommendations. More attention to narrow, focused and, perhaps, incremental steps might have helped address this problem.

The Environmental Quality Board would not have begun the Initiative in 1993 had it not received the endorsement of the Governor. The Initiative waxed when it had support from the top and waned when it did not. Support from the top or from key champions in powerful places, such at the Legislature, the Governor’s Office or key agencies, can make a striking difference in cutting through resistence. But, positive change often happens in unexpected ways in any case.

We did not pick a specific time frame to guide the seven Initiative teams, initially leaving it up to each team to decide. After witnessing one politically charged team leader conclude that the timeframe ought to be two years in order to get the Governor re-elected, we changed course. We asked each team to use a 50 year time frame, with the goal being to get us all thinking far enough out to bypass today's conflicts and converge on what in the long run was most important to Minnesotans. This seemed to work well.

The Initiative benefited greatly from professional facilitation at several points in time. Early on with the seven teams, the crew of facilitators introduced several simple social concepts, such as urging team members to be diligent listeners and "harvest the contemporary conversation," concepts that a seasoned planner might have had difficulty introducing directly. The Round Table’s facilitator made his mark by introducing the consensus decision-making concept and the five finger voting method. Of course, the facilitators also helped greatly by keeping team discussions on task.

At several points during the Initiative, efforts were made to develop principles of sustainable development for various applications. The Forestry Team considered their principles one of their most significant accomplishments. The Round Table’s efforts to develop a set of sweeping principles helped the group gel socially and gave them a signature piece they guarded jealously. The principles also served to guide the actions of others, particularly EQB and Minnesota Planning in their efforts to evaluate state agency missions and programs, and develop model ordinances and local planning guidance.

Words matter. It may be obvious to people, but we were constantly impressed with how important this basic lesson is.

In 1993, a breakthrough occurred in negotiations within the Agriculture Team when environmentalists agreed to drop a reference to "ecosystems" and substitute the term "natural systems." Producers on the committee saw implications with the word "ecosystem" that were not intended by environmentalists. The compromise went a long way to building trust among participants.

In 1996, the Round Table initially defined the third leg of the sustainable development "stool" as "social justice." They believed that the word "justice" had a long standing history in this country and that it had more concrete meaning than other choices, such as "equity" or "community well-being." However, more conservative political operatives with the ear of the Governor threatened that the Round Table’s report would not see the light of day if the reference to social justice was not removed from the Round Table’s proposed principles. It took the Round Table several hours, both to work through its anger and to find a solution that no one would veto. Several choices were acceptable to the vast majority of members, but were blocked by two or three members. Finally, in a fit of frustration, one of the co-chairs blurted out "with liberty and justice for all" and it, with subsequent discrete staff editing, stuck. In fact, the substitution of "liberty and justice" for "social justice" enabled the Round Table to explicitly suggest the connection between property rights and responsibilities.

Today, the Community-Based Planning Act of 1997 is scheduled to sunset because of the influence of property rights advocates who, among other things, were deeply concerned with the phrase "community-based." But, a key conservative legislator has agreed to carry legislation to integrate key elements of the current law, minus the words "community-based," into the mainstream of planning and zoning authority. (Currently, the act is a voluntary, parallel track authority.)

As a catalyst for sustainable development, the Initiative encouraged others in all walks of life to work for sustainable development. Often, we were aware and supportive of initiatives others might be taking. But often, we had no idea about them and were unsure of the influence we may have had. Sometimes, we had reason to believe that the Initiative contributed to a change.

For example, the former director of State Building Construction confided that the Round Table’s advocacy of sustainably designed buildings for the first time legitimized the concept in his mind. In other words, it gave him the necessary cover to innovate, or at least allow innovation. Today, the Department of Administration actively participates in a Smart Buildings Partnership and has begun requiring consideration of sustainable design principles in bids for building pre-design contracts. While it clearly can help with continued program support, in the end, it is neither possible nor necessary to fully understand one’s effect and influence.

Enabling and embracing the early adopters of sustainable development was a concept suggested to us by a public relations consultant. The longer we work in the area, the more we come to appreciate the wisdom of the idea. Early adopters, such as the members of the Round Table and seven Teams, become special advocates working in numerous ways to demonstrate the feasibility and sensibility of taking steps toward sustainable development.

Sometimes the fear of change, or perhaps simply the inertia of the status quo, makes even the most logical idea take what may seem like an inordinate amount of time to put in place. The Round Table first called for a Sustainable Communities Partnership in 1997. Initiative staff argued periodically for it over the past three years, but it took an early adopter outside the agency to make the connection with the current Administration. Today, it is a priority experiment in implementing smart growth.

CONCLUSION

Sustainable development is a fragile, yet resilient process. At several times over the years, the very existence of the Initiative seemed in question. Yet, changes for the better usually emerged from clouds of uncertainty, and a great deal has actually been accomplished. Today, a small corps of proponents exists with a focus on local assistance and Smart Growth. And while the people, focus or name may change, the underlying concept of sustainable development is here in Minnesota to stay.

Author and Copyright Information

John Wells is sustainable development director for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. In this capacity, he is responsible for coordinating the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, assisting with the Governor’s Smart Growth Initiative, and overseeing the Governor’s Water Unification Initiative. John has held this post since late 1992. Prior to this, he served as state water planning director. He received his Master of Science in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977 and his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1972.

John R. Wells, Sustainable Development Director
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
658 Cedar Street; St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 297-2377 (ph); (651) 296-3698 (fax)
email: john.wells@state.mn.us
web address: www.mnplan.state.mn.us/SDI/index.html