Systematic analysis : a means of advocacy in the new institutional environment?

Abstract

Various methods of systematic analysis have been devised to help Resource Managers make decisions. Occasionally, in the past, these methods have not been used in an objective manner as they have played an advocacy role in the decision making process. The recent reform of the Government Land Management agencies will have an effect on the way these methods are used.

This reform resulted in the creation of agencies with more specific functions. It also increased the possibility of unresolved conflict between the agencies over how Crown land should be used.

This conflict will be difficult to resolve due to the relative inflexibility of these new agencies. It is likely that methods of systematic analysis will be used to influence decision-makers and the public into believing that certain outcomes are more desirable than others. These analyses will most probably be biased either consciously or unconsciously. The Cora Lynn Proposal would seem to confirm the occurrence of this behaviour.

It cannot be expected that an analysis can ever be totally unbiased. However, the institutional environment can be adjusted so as to minimise the effect of this bias, and to make any bias that exists explicit to the various parties involved in the issue

There is a need for:

1. A non-partisan land management organisation to carry out the evaluation. 2. Public participation and involvement throughout the evaluation procedure, thereby ensuring that the assumptions used are explicit to all.