Analysis Framework
Interim PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, SWOT and synthesis analyses have now been prepared from Phase 2 secondary research as interim evidence-organising outputs. They are provisional and are grouped under Phase 2 Interim Analysis.
A matching Phase 3 Interim Analysis structure has been created for later primary-research-based updates. Those pages are placeholders until Phase 3 primary research has been authorised, conducted and reviewed.
Analytical Principles
- Evidence before opinion.
- Product categories must be separated.
- Farm-gate, supply-chain, organisational and environmental outcomes must be assessed separately.
- Every environmental claim must answer: compared with what?
- Every significant finding must include confidence, evidence strength and geographic relevance.
- Trade-offs and distribution of benefits must be made explicit.
Current Analysis Streams
| Stream | Current status | Source pages |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 2 Interim Analysis | Draft interim analysis based on Phase 2 secondary research. | PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, Synthesis |
| Phase 3 Interim Analysis | Placeholders for later primary-research-based updates. | PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, Synthesis |
Perspective Analysis
Every finding will be classified against:
| Perspective | Classification questions |
|---|---|
| Producer | Does this improve or reduce farm-level profitability, risk, feasibility or adoption attractiveness? |
| Supply Chain | Does this improve or reduce processing, logistics, buyer demand, market access or industry sustainability? |
| Granite Borders Landcare | Does this support or weaken strategic fit, member value, reputation, education, partnership or regional-development objectives? |
| Environment | Does this improve or reduce environmental outcomes relative to realistic alternatives? |
Use classifications such as Positive, Negative, Neutral, Mixed, Possible, Unknown or Not Applicable.
Evidence Strength And Confidence
| Rating | Use |
|---|---|
| High | Multiple credible sources or strong measured/transaction evidence. |
| Medium | Some credible evidence but requiring confirmation. |
| Low | Limited evidence, weak method or poor geographic fit. |
| Unknown | Insufficient evidence. |
Evidence strength and confidence are related but separate. A source may be strong but not geographically relevant; a finding may have medium confidence because strong evidence is available only from another region.
Geographic Transferability
Each source will be rated as Direct, Comparable, Background or Not applicable.
The direct geography for this project is current Tenterfield Shire, NSW, plus the historic Stanthorpe Shire area in Queensland before amalgamation into Southern Downs Regional Council. Evidence covering all of Southern Downs Regional Council should not be treated as direct unless the Stanthorpe component can be identified or the broader geography is demonstrably suitable for the specific question.
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Direct | Current Tenterfield Shire, historic Stanthorpe Shire, or evidence clearly applicable to those areas. |
| Comparable | Similar climate, regulation, production system or market with stated caveats. |
| Background | Useful context but not suitable for direct inference. |
| Not applicable | Too different to support the finding. |
Comparative Assessment
Industrial hemp must be compared with realistic alternatives, including beef grazing, sheep grazing, mixed farming, lucerne, oats, sorghum, forestry, native vegetation restoration and existing regional enterprises.
Comparator selection must consider land capability, water access, labour, machinery, market access and environmental baseline.
Decision Rules
Recommendations should not be made unless:
- The relevant perspective is identified.
- The evidence strength and confidence level are stated.
- Key uncertainties are disclosed.
- Major trade-offs are identified.
- Environmental claims are compared with realistic alternatives.
- Supply chain claims distinguish demand, processing and buyer viability.
Bias Controls
- Include sceptical and non-adopter perspectives.
- Separate aspiration from operating evidence.
- Require evidence of downside risk, not only upside opportunity.
- Avoid extrapolating from international examples without transferability review.
- Avoid treating GBLC involvement as the default outcome.