Assessment Perspectives

Status:	Draft
Sensitivity review:	Completed
Purpose:	Explain how findings are separated by stakeholder perspective.

Industrial hemp must not be assessed as a single undifferentiated opportunity. A finding that benefits one stakeholder group may be neutral or negative for another.

Four Assessment Perspectives

Perspective	Primary decision question	Main evidence needed
Producer	Would a reasonable agricultural producer in the Granite Borders region choose to grow industrial hemp?	Costs, yields, prices, labour, machinery, water, compliance, freight and risk.
Supply Chain	Can the industrial hemp industry operate sustainably beyond the farm gate?	Buyer demand, processing access, specifications, volumes, logistics, storage and processor economics.
Granite Borders Landcare	Should Granite Borders Landcare invest time, resources or organisational reputation in industrial hemp-related activities?	Member value, strategic fit, governance, funding fit, partner capacity and reputational risk.
Environment	Would increased industrial hemp production create net positive environmental outcomes compared with existing and realistic alternative land uses in the Granite Borders region?	Soil, water, biodiversity, chemical use, emissions, carbon and realistic local comparators.

Published findings should identify which perspective they support and whether the effect is positive, negative, possible, neutral or uncertain.

Why This Matters

The same finding can mean different things depending on the stakeholder.

Example finding	Producer	Supply Chain	GBLC	Environment
Strong demand for hemp grain	Positive if farm-gate returns are viable	Positive if volumes and specifications are realistic	Possible education or extension relevance	Neutral unless environmental benefits are evidenced
Limited regional processing capacity	Negative	Negative	Relevant to risk assessment	Neutral
Improved summer ground cover	Possible if it fits the enterprise calendar	Neutral	Relevant to sustainable agriculture objectives	Possible positive, depending on comparator
High compliance burden	Negative	Possible barrier to supply reliability	Reputational and extension risk	Neutral

Evidence Classification Rule

Each significant finding should identify:

• the perspective or perspectives affected;
• whether the effect is positive, negative, possible, neutral or uncertain;
• the relevant product category;
• the geography used by the evidence; and
• the confidence level.