Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy CI Report – Final

What has been most instrumenta to your progress?

The dialogue process continues to be a powerful tool for community engagement that leads to action. The inclusion of diverse voices throughout our target counties (Stevens, Itasca and Winona), interacting in a respectful and in-depth way, is helping communities embrace changes in the energy system in a way that allows them to be proactive in addressing the challenges of climate change and the transition to a clean energy economy. Key to this success is the sense of community ownership that the discussion entails. Participants in all three counties are continuing to express their enthusiasm for involving their fellow community members in a just transition to renewable energy. Without the intense periods of preparation and follow up to the events we have hosted in the last year, it is quite likely that momentum would stall, as we have seen in community engagement approaches that employ more of a ‘drop in’ model. We are going to continue to hone this model as we look towards working in new communities in 2019, specifically on the topic of siting wind energy projects.

IATP’s ability to serve as a bridge between the dialogue counties and other units of government has produced tangible results that, we believe, will make the energy transition smoother and on a larger scale for rural communities. In the past year, we have taken the findings of the dialogues and presented them to several Minnesota state agencies to better inform their offerings for rural Minnesotans. A large component of this has been a State Program Navigator that makes it easier for rural governments, businesses, and households to understand and access state offerings available to them. The State Program Navigator includes cross-agency program offerings, case studies, application instructions, and more. We created a site map, a work plan for moving forward, and a feedback letter for state agencies to improve program presentation. The Navigator was released in mid-February 2019. We have been disseminating it to state and local officials, other NGOs, and to community activists. We are also in close contact with the Environmental Quality Board, who are consistent advisers on policy matters and navigating the state bureaucracy as we continue to effect change.

Key lessons learned

Investing directly in communities and community members is instrumental to long-term change. Residents of a community are deeply connected to and invested in that place and its social, environmental and economic well-being. As such, they can generate the best ideas and solutions for complex challenges, including climate change and a transition to a clean energy economy. When solutions are community generated, they are more likely to be carried forward by local leaders and decision makers. Implementation of the recommendations that come out of the dialogues requires time and resources. After the dialogue events, the most valuable thing we did was make connections and help secure financial resources for that community to carry forward its own ideas. This happened through facilitating grant proposals, securing micro-grants for the communities, and recommending other funding sources for the community to pursue. This direct investment spurs the most change.

A challenge we worked to overcome was how to handle differences in opinions between dialogue participants and city and county decision makers. In one specific case, dialogue participants recommended moving forward with a community solar garden. The Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission had the power to approve the solar garden, but not all of the commissioners were supportive. At first, this seemed like a shortcoming of the dialogue process – we were soliciting solid community recommendations, but without the ability to move them forward. However, this tension demonstrated the power of public pressure and community engagement. Due to increased community support for the solar garden due to the discussions at the dialogue, community members organized a community solar garden forum that over 50 people attended, including several of the GRPU commissioners. Shortly after that event, the commissioners green-lighted the project. This shows the power of community discussion and deliberation to lead to advocacy and positive community change.

Reflections on the community innovation process

The RCD process was most useful in getting our communities through the first two loops of the diagram. We now have confidence that in both Stevens and Winona Counties, the community led efforts are now self-sustaining as they test and implement solutions that lead to community innovation. Of the loops we completed, it was the increasing collective understanding of the issue that made a breakthrough in the communities. We have long held that when rural areas are presented with evidence of climate change in their communities, and their voices and perspectives are elevated and centered in generating solutions to addressing climate change in their communities, that they will become empowered in bringing those solutions to bear. Using the citizens jury process to listen to rural residents helps the whole jury relate to and collectively understand the issue in a deeper and more lasting way.

Other key elements of Community Innovation

The most important element not included is the existing relationships that IATP has build over the last 30 years which laid the groundwork for the inclusiveness, collaboration, and resourcefulness that made our project successful. Connections to state agency staff, local officials and staff, other NGO staff in the field, etc. enabled us to provide resources for our communities both at the dialogue stage and in follow up. Agency staff have also told us that being connected with our communities and understanding how they navigate state bureaucracy is going to help them revise their interagency collaboration and communication to better serve rural communities.

Progress toward an innovation

The dialogues center democratic deliberation and community engagement as pillars of community change. In our dialogue counties, local collaborations were either founded or re-ignited to carry forward dialogue recommendations. These collaborations are inclusive and sustainable bodies for driving community innovation. In Stevens County, the ‘Morris Model’ formed, with the dialogue cited as an originating event. Since it’s inception, the Morris Model has driven significant climate action in Stevens County, including signing a climate protection agreement with a city in Germany, changing city lightbulbs to LEDs, installing 3 electric vehicle chargers, and more. In Winona County, the group ‘Sustain Winona’ reconvened after a hiatus to address climate and energy recommendations from the dialogues. That group has since created a comprehensive Energy Plan for the City of Winona, which includes a goal of going carbon neutral by 2050. Democratic and collaborative community groups such as the Morris Model and Sustain Winona can become significant change agents, and both counties are more organized than at the beginning of the grant period in addressing community climate and energy challenges.

What it will take to reach an innovation?

Community engagement in Itasca County was not as robust as in Stevens County and Winona County. We are unsure of the reasons for this, but believe that with more time and engagement opportunities more local collaboration could emerge.

What’s next?

After 5 years, we plan to move our work into different counties. We will convene dialogues throughout 2019 and 2020 in Southwest Minnesota on the more specific topic of wind energy siting.

If you could do it all over again…

The more time we can spend in a community, the better. Emails and phone calls were necessary, given that each dialogue community was between 2 and 3.5 hours away from Minneapolis. However, the most progress happened when we were able to be in a community in-person. Trust and relationships are at the center of the dialogue process, and nothing can substitute for time together. It was over cups of coffee, learning about community members’ lives and families, that we built trust with community members and leaders. These relationships allowed us to facilitate productive spaces for conversation. Time, funding and staff capacity allowed us to visit each dialogue community approximately 3 times in the lead-up to each event. We believe our impact could have been even greater if we’d been able to spend more extended time in the places we were working.