Tribal-State Relations within Minnesota’s Food and Agricultural Landscape
Natasha Hedin
Outreach Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Abstract
This research was conducted to explore how a state agency can employ outreach mechanisms to improve Tribal-State interactions, while honoring tribal sovereignty. The goal of this research was to identify barriers within the Tribal-State relationship between the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Tribal Nations, and examine strategies to help resolve those barriers. Finding and promoting opportunities to improve relationships through collaboration and partnerships was an additional goal. Data were collected through surveys of tribal government personnel and state agency tribal liaisons. Benefits to local tribal nations and communities included an opportunity to identify barriers and strategies for resolution, which could
strengthen Tribal-State relationships and have a lasting impact on the community through collaboration on food and agricultural activities. Research recommendations from this project could benefit society by identifying steps a government agency could take towards honoring tribal sovereignty, building relationships, and identifying mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration. More specifically, recommendations also could promote broader access to local foods and food safety enhancements such as response and oversight activities and capacity building for food operators.
Key words: Tribal-State relations, food, agriculture, communication, relationships, barriers, outreach, engagement
Tribal-State Relations within Minnesota’s Food and Agricultural Landscape
Background
On November 6, 2000, Federal Executive Order 13175 (Exec. Order No. 13175, 3 C.F.R. 67249-67252 (2000)) was published titled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The Executive Order states that the United States recognizes the right of American Indian Tribes to self-govern, and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The Executive Order also specifies policymaking criteria to assure that agencies shall respect Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribal Governments.
There are 11 federally recognized tribal nations that share geography with the State of Minnesota. Tribal jurisdiction impacts thousands of acres of land within and beyond reservation boundaries. In 2013, the governor of the State of Minnesota established Executive Order 13-10 (Minnesota Exec. Order 13-10 (2013)) ordering 11 state agencies to consult with the 11 federally recognized tribal nations in addressing state matters with tribal implications. In April 2019, Executive Order 13-10 was rescinded and replaced with Executive Order 19-24 which named 24 state agencies. In late 2021, the practices outlined in executive order 19-24 were published in Minnesota State Statute (Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribal Governments, § 10.65 (2021)).
The mission of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is to enhance all Minnesotan’s quality of life by equitably ensuring the integrity of its food supply, the health of our environment, and the strength and resilience of our agricultural economy. In early 2021, the MDA Food and Feed Safety Division (FFSD) started work on a jurisdictional assessment project to identify and assess licensing, registration, and permitting near Indian Territories, to verify jurisdictional decisions, and to provide a consistent foundation for future decisions. Project planning identified the need for tribal expertise or tribal consultative processes as tribal-state food and agricultural interactions, within the FFSD and the MDA, in the past have been minimal. Several other Minnesota state agencies have established engagement activities with Minnesota Tribal Nations over the years and learning from their experiences could help shape outreach mechanisms for the MDA. In early 2020, the MDA hired its first tribal liaison; a specific position held within the Commissioners’ Office to coordinate and consult with Minnesota Tribal Nations.
Shortly after onboarding the tribal liaison position, the agency drafted a Government-to-Government Relations policy with the primary purpose to develop, improve, and maintain collaborative relationships with the MDA and Minnesota Tribal Nations. This research project was a first step in gauging the current level of communication and identifying opportunities to promote and improve relationships through collaboration on food and agricultural programs. Findings from this research may be useful in assessing the MDA’s current practices, identifying areas where the MDA is deficient, and suggesting strategies for improvement to the MDA staff and leadership.
Problem Statement
Strategies to build and improve relationships between the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Tribal Nations, while honoring tribal sovereignty, have not been studied.
Research Questions
1. What experiences do Minnesota Tribal Nations have working with state agencies?
2. What are the experiences of other state agencies while working with Minnesota Tribal Nations?
3. What collaborative opportunities exist for improving relationships between the MDA and Minnesota Tribal Nations in terms of food and agricultural programs?
Methodology
Phase one: Before collecting data, the researcher reached out to executive-level contacts from all 11 Minnesota Tribal Nations and inquired about their research review process or formal Institutional Review Boards (IRB). The IRB application process involves identifying all project risks and benefits; identifying mitigation steps in anticipation of an adverse event; drafting an informed consent; executing a research and data-sharing agreement; and completing human subjects research training in social-behavioral education. A research review process may be requested as “transparency and trust are key issues that continue to beleaguer American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities and their perception of scientific research” (Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents and Therese Ann Markow 2008; American Journal of Medical Genetics [AJMG] 2010). After initiation of the IRB process with one tribal nation, and further consultation with the MDA legal counsel, it was clear the limited project time frame would not allow for a design that was compliant with the human-research standards. Additionally, the MDA legal counsel determined that a state employee collecting survey information could not guarantee the desired anonymity of the information, which was a request made by the tribal nation. Any information collected would be subject to government transparency requirements (the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act) and could be released if requested. Therefore, surveys tied to IRB approval were not conducted and adjustments were made before moving into Phase Two.
Phase two: The researcher presented on the project to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) in November 2021 requesting a letter of support and feedback on the project approach. The MIAC is made up of an executive board representing 10 Minnesota Tribal Nations, and a non-voting board comprised of 12 state agency commissioners, two representatives, and two senators. The MIAC’s mission is to protect the sovereignty of the 11 Minnesota tribes and ensure the well-being of all American Indian citizens throughout the State of Minnesota. After presenting to the MIAC, and receiving a letter of support, the researcher reached out again to tribal executive-level contacts seeking voluntary participation in the anonymous Microsoft Forms survey, and requesting that the survey be shared with tribal government employees who work in food or agricultural program areas. The results of the survey were compiled with other responses and exported to Microsoft Excel for data analysis.
Phase three: Data from state agency tribal liaisons were collected through an anonymous Microsoft Forms survey and compiled for analysis. Recruitment of state agency tribal liaisons was accomplished through project presentations at the newly formed and MDA-hosted Indigenous Farmers’ Collaborative Group meeting, various other meetings, and follow-up emails.
Phase four: Data from both surveys was tracked in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and was analyzed to identify trends, keywords, thoughts or themes, and collaborative opportunities for improving relationships between the MDA and Minnesota Tribal Nations in terms of food and agricultural programs.
Results
The survey for tribal government employees had four respondents and the survey for state agency tribal liaisons had seven respondents. Respondent feedback does not represent all Minnesota Tribal Nations or all Minnesota state agencies. Each tribal nation and agency are unique entities with variations in identity, structure, values, culture and more. What worked or did not work for one tribal nation or agency may be different for another.
What’s working: Three of four tribal government respondents reported having had one to two interactions with the MDA and categorized them as neutral experiences. Additional comments mentioned these interactions only happened after hiring of the MDA tribal liaison position. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) was identified three times as an agency interaction that was positive. Other state agencies were mentioned once or twice. Some generalized comments on what made these interactions positive included: efforts to engage government-to-government; good communication; assistance with identifying funding opportunities; and providing opportunities to engage and partner on projects.
Tribal liaisons described agency interactions with Minnesota Tribal Nations as positive and reported the following steps taken to establish state-tribal relationships: increasing staff knowledge of government-to-government relationships by providing opportunities for staff to attend Tribal-State Relations training hosted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation; establishing a regularly scheduled meeting within an agency to increase knowledge and awareness of tribal nations; implementing current laws into agency policy; participating in the MIAC board; and increased outreach and communication to tribal nations.
What’s not working: A lack of understanding and respect of tribal governments and a lack of action when putting tribal community needs and feedback into practice were identified as barriers that contributed to negative interactions ratings by tribal government survey respondents. Additionally, a lack of understanding of tribal sovereignty (implying lack of care to fully understand) and dismissing basic concepts of tribal sovereignty when convenient, also were identified as negative factors. As shown in Graph 1 below, multiple barriers were identified by both survey groups, with a lack of understanding of tribal needs from staff as the most frequently referenced barrier.
Graph 1
Barrier Identified in Minnesota Tribal-State Relationships
Other barriers identified included: brief grant application periods that did not provide adequate time to receive approval from tribal government; staff turnover; and the lack of understanding how information may be shared within tribal governments. Additionally, tribal government employee respondents referenced food or ag-related programs and identified the need to build upon those programs despite tribal capacity lacking in staffing, outreach, funding, and program planning areas.
What may be done to overcome these barriers? Better communication and listening were the most recurring improvement strategies identified by both survey groups. Targeted communication (specific to tribal nations), early and frequent communication on specific matters, and honoring tribal preferences for communicating were identified within survey feedback. Other suggestions offered by tribal government employee respondents included: long-term/five-year grant opportunities that require and include full-time staff for programs to be sustainable; and including more programs around traditional foodways, land use, and Indigenous practices. Additionally, creating categories in existing agency grants that are more specific to food sovereignty in tribal nations was identified as a suggestion. Tribal liaisons identified increased agency staff training and information sharing, updating agency policy, asking for clarification if needed when a tribal nation makes a request, acknowledgment of barriers and finding ways to address them together, and collaborative consultation as additional ways to assist in overcoming identified barriers.
Conclusions
The small number of tribal government survey respondents may reflect the very limited relationship between the MDA and Minnesota Tribal Nations. Other factors that may have contributed to a low response rate include, but are not limited to, government data practices, current tribal government staffing office closures due to the COVID-19 public health crisis, and communication and information sharing preferences. Barriers and issues identified are likely not limited to the ones mentioned within the survey results, however, overcoming barriers and identifying strategies for improvement appear to be common goals for tribal nations and state agencies. Specific mechanisms to overcome barriers may not always be apparent, but certain insights were identified through the course of this study that will help guide the MDA in its efforts in to improve government-to-government relations with Minnesota Tribal Nations:
1. A primary barrier between tribal nations and state agencies is a lack of understanding of tribal needs by state agency staff.
2. Tribal government employee respondents referenced food- or ag-related programs and identified the need to build upon them despite tribal capacity lacking in staffing, outreach, funding, and program planning areas.
3. The MDH Statewide Health Improvement Partnership was the most frequently referenced program by tribal government employees, in a positive manner, and as a resources for further guidance or as a program for the MDA to emulate. Attributes of this program include dedicated program staff, long-term commitment to developing and maintaining tribal relationships, and foundations in community driven collaborations.
4. Improving communication and incorporating good listening practices were the most recurring improvement strategies identified by both survey groups.
Recommendations
As the Food and Feed Safety Division evaluates the data and feedback from this project, continued efforts to collaborate and build relationships with individual tribal nations should be made.
1. Ongoing interaction with the MIAC should be looked at as another opportunity for collaboration, as more collaboration is needed in the form of one-on-one relationships with tribal nations.
2. Other state agency programs that incorporate sustainable systems and community driven collaboration should be looked to for guidance while evaluating current programs and building new ones.
3. There is a need to evaluate and identify what steps should be taken to collaboratively collect, analyze, and share data in a beneficial way for all. Additionally, recognizing how a tribal nation would prefer to receive agency program information and utilizing a mechanism that fits the tribal nation’s needs, may result in greater program awareness.
4. A better understanding of the further dissemination of information within a tribal nation also may be significant for state agency consideration. Developing successful information dissemination and data sharing methods collaboratively with Minnesota Tribal Nations may be foundational to overcoming barriers identified in the survey results.
5. Finally, increased outreach and authentic and respectful engagement with Minnesota Tribal Nations would provide more opportunities to share information about food- or ag-related programs. Increased awareness of state agency food- or ag-related programs in Indian Country may result in increased use of programs as tribal nations demonstrate the desire for agency services. Collaborating on shared priorities and pursuing them together may assist with building relationships and trust between groups.
Acknowledgments
The success of this project was due, in large part, to the mentorship of the MDA Tribal Liaison, Shannon Kesner. Data collection and execution could not have been possible without project support from the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, feedback from the MDA Indigenous Farmers’ Collaborative Group, and efforts made by tribal community staff and state agency tribal liaisons. Finally, the project was made possible by the supportive leadership at IFPTI, and the Food and Feed Safety Division within the MDA.
References
Exec. Order No. 13175, 3 C.F.R. 67249-67252 (2000). Federal Register : Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribal Governments, § 10.65 (2021). Sec. 10.65 MN Statutes
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents and Therese Ann Markow. 2008. Arizona Court of Appeals, Nos. 1 CA-CV 07-0454 and 1 CA-CV 07-0801. Havasupai Tribe of Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents | Findlaw
Hull, S. C. & Wilson, D. R. (Diné) (2017). Beyond Belmont: Ensuring respect for AI/AN communities through tribal IRBs, laws, and policies, The American Journal of Bioethics, 17:7, 60-62, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1328531
State of Minnesota Exec. Order 13-10 (2013). EO-13-10.pdf (mn.gov)
State of Minnesota Exec. Order 19-24 (2019). EO-19-24.pdf (mn.gov)
Author Note
Natasha Hedin, Outreach Coordinator
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
This research was conducted as part of the International Food Protection Training Institute’s Fellowship in Food Protection, Cohort X.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Natasha Hedin and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 625 Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN 55155
Funding for the IFPTI Fellowship in Food Protection Program was made possible by the Association of Food and Drug Officials.