Analysis of a Policy Problem - Report Example

Running Head: ANALYSIS OF A POLICY PROBLEM Analysis of a Policy Problem: State Planning Policy 2: Environment and Natural Resources (State Planning Policy 2) Introduction Policy making is a complex, multifaceted process that involves a series of small interrelated decisions being taken by different institutions. The decisions, which are taken at different stages of the process, may be raft with a number of potential pitfalls. Inappropriate decisions always lead to undesirable consequences in the form of the outcomes of the policy implementation process. The State Planning Policy 2 in Western Australia has not been without problems. Although it is natural for some policies to catch public attention in the form of debate in the popular media about the potential benefits and threats with regard to the adoption and implementation of the recommendations therein, the nature, intensity and contradictory opinion of the divide determines whether the issue at hand is one arising from an inherent problem within the policies or is a matter of including public opinion in the policy process, which in itself is an important aspect. Since the State Planning Policy 2 has elicited a lot of heated debate among different stakeholders, it can be seen that its development, adoption and implementation has a number of peculiar problems that warrant a detailed analysis. In this paper, two key problems that are peculiar to the policy will be discussed: the problem related to lack of clear mechanisms to address contradictions in scientific evidence and lack of consensus on important issues with regard to the policy among stakeholders. The discussion is presented in form of four main sections as follows. In the first section, a brief description of the policy is presented. The description is based on three important issues: how the policy came about, its contents and what its prospects are supposed to be. In the second section, specific potential complications with regard to the policy are identified. The potential complications are a reflection of the problem areas which are known to affect policies in general but have been seen within the context of this particular policy. In the third section, a detailed analysis of the identified problem areas is presented. Lastly, suggestions on how to address the complications identified and analysed are presented. The suggestions are based on the different techniques that can be used to improve the relevance and prospects of the policy. A brief description of the State Planning Policy 2 Generally, the State Planning Policy 2 seeks to ensure that the vast natural resources in Western Australia and the environment in general, are protected and managed effectively (Western Australia Planning Commission, 2003). To this end, the policy seeks to achieve three key objectives as follows. The first one is to ensure that wise management of natural resources and the environment is integrated within the broader framework of use of land and decision making. The second one is to ensure that the natural environment is protected, conserved and enhanced. The third objective is to promote and assist in the sustainable and wise utilisation of naturally occurring resources in the region. For a clear understanding of the specific problems that are related to the policy, it is important to highlight some important issues about its background and the overall process that has been followed in the course of its development. Basically, the policy has its foundations on the need to integrate sustainable use of natural resources in the planning practices within the region. It is based on the realisation that the region in particular is endowed with a rich and diverse heritage of natural resources in the form of different ecological resources, species of fauna and flora and different forms of natural landscapes (Western Australia Planning Commission, 2003). It is upon such natural resources that the economic and social lives of the human population within the region are based. Further, the region has a high concentration of natural resources which, incidentally, are located within remote areas that are populated by other forms of natural resources. Yet, as a result of the need for rapid development, the natural resources and the environment of the region is in constant danger of being degraded. It is the need to resolve this dilemma that gave rise to the development of the recommendations which are contained in this policy. Therefore, this policy seeks to resolve the conflict that exists between overall land use and protection of natural resources with special focus on the impact of all these practices on the environment. It is important to point out that in this process of sustainable management and use of natural resources in Western Australia, initiatives undertaken by different actors, the roles, duties and responsibilities done by the different actors have been interrelated in a complex manner. The interrelatedness has been as a result of two factors: the fact that all the initiatives share one overarching goal of integrating natural resource management decision making in the land use planning and the clear separation of responsibilities between different actors which is best seen in the manner in which the national government only makes policy recommendations while leaving matters of legislation and regulation to regional and local governments (Clayton, Dovers & Harris, 2011). There are several unique features of the State Planning Policy 2 that need to be emphasised at this point. The first one regards the nature of the policy in terms of the evidence that has been used to draw up the specific recommendations. Basically, there has been a huge emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for drawing up the policy, as has been the case for similar policies in Australia (Clayton, Dovers & Harris, 2011). Another feature regards what exactly the policy seeks to achieve and how this is supposed to be done. Interestingly, the policy takes into consideration a number of trends that are common at the national level with regard to sustainable use of natural resources. One way in which this is evident is the manner in which this policy factors in issues to do with sustainable use of natural resources by taking into account the effects of climate change in planning for use of such resources. This is important since climate change has gained prominence in different policies (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). Interestingly, the national government, through its broad and long-term frameworks for natural resource management operations, seeks to achieve similar objectives. Problem areas in the policy One of the problem areas that are evident in the State Planning Policy 2 is lack of appropriate mechanisms to address what Ludwig, Mangel and Haddad (2001) call uncertainties that exist in scientific evidence. That it is common and standard practice for the policy formulation process to be heavily based on evidence is a matter over which there is wide consensus (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013; Fairhead & Leach, 2003 & Nutley, Powell & Davies, 2013; Norse & Tschirley, 2000). What remains problematic though is how well the policy formulation process makes good use of the evidence, bearing in mind the fact that in most cases, evidence (scientific evidence for that matter) is presented in different opinions that are complex, far-reaching and contradictory in nature (Moser & Dilling, 2011; Stirling, 2010). In general, evidence-based policy in issues to do with sustainable use of natural resources is developed in relation to how well the policy uses the right kind of information that is counted as evidence and accesses the right sources that contain such information (Sedlacko, Reisch & Scholl, 2013). This implies that policies in general and in sustainable use of resources in particular, take into account a specific type of information that is used as evidence and which can be found in specific sources. It has become standard practice for evidence-based polices in general, and those that are premised on sustainable use of resources in particular, to rely on quantitative data as evidence for the formulation of specific policy recommendations (Aarons & Linger, 2013; Sutherland, Pulin, Dolman & Knight, 2004). One of the reasons given for this apparent bias is what Adams and Sandbrook (2013) refer to as the nature of scientific training which makes scientists favour quantitative data as being more testable and reliable than qualitative data. Interestingly, since many of such policies rely on quantitative data, the only reliable sources of such data are peer reviewed journals which contain findings of studies that have been carried out by professional science-trained researchers. Another problem area in the State Planning Policy 2 arises from lack of consensus among the different stakeholders on technical details that are of great importance to the success of the policy. Although the process of policy formulation is naturally chaotic, bearing in mind that it brings on board different stakeholders with competing interests (Aarons & Linger, 2013), it is of great importance that there is consensus among the stakeholders on important aspects of the issue at hand. It is only when there is agreement on such issues that a policy can be said to be viable in terms of adoption and implementation of the prescribed recommendations. Analysis of the problem areas The issue of evidence in policy formulation has received considerable academic attention. The trend has been on determining the role that evidence plays in formulating different policies, what kind of information merits as reliable evidence and how it can be used effectively in the process. Banks (2014) observes that for evidence-based policy to succeed, it has to be premised on the right kind of evidence which has been made available to the right kind of persons at the right time during the process of formulating the policy. Rutter (2013) differentiates between two forms of evidence in policy making: pre-existing evidence that is used to make policy decisions and evidence that arises from evaluation of the impact of the policy. Liebman (2013) identifies key problems that are associated with evidence-based policies as lack of cross-border collaboration, failure to target improved performance of the outcomes of the policies for specific populations, and failure of the policy making institutions to utilise the evidence that is made available to them. Although the State Planning Policy 2 utilises scientific evidence in recommending specific measures that should be taken to integrate sustainability in the use of natural resources in Western Australia, its functioning is influenced by specific issues that are pertinent to science-based evidence. The key feature here is the extent to which the individuals framing the policy are able to balance between competing forms of evidence so that the final policy document reflects what, in expert opinion, can be seen as the best possible option (Shaxon, 2005). This is because good use of evidence in policy making is seen in the form of the consequences of its adoption and implementation (DuToit, 2002). In general, since the policy seeks to integrate good use of natural resources within the planning and decision making framework in the region, the measures it recommends cover a wide range of issues including general measures on the approach that should be adopted with respect to the utilisation of natural resources in the region and recommendations on how specific resources such as water, biodiversity and minerals should be used (Western Australia Planning Commission, 2003). The recommendations in this policy with regard to exploitation of natural resources and other forms of land use in the region have been based on scientific data about several issues which are of relevance to the activities. One of them has been information about population estimates in the region and how this can be used as a basis to develop specific policy recommendations with regard to the use of land and other natural resources in the region. Chapman, Tonts and Plummer (2014) observe that demographic projections of several towns in the region have been inconsistent. This suggests that the figures upon which the policy has been based to make specific recommendations may not reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to current population estimates, projected population growth and employment-related data. Another issue is the impact that rapid exploitation of natural resources that are largely found in the area has on local populations. The point of contention has been that whereas the process can serve an important purpose in overall development of the region, scientific evidence suggests that the disruptions associated with the process may have social, economic and even environmental consequences on the region and its populations. It is imperative to point out that although the policy was made in favour of the former point of view, this remains a matter of controversy. Therefore, it can be seen that in formulating the State Planning Policy 2, the framers relied on scientific evidence on issues such as the population estimates of the different towns in which there is enhanced exploitation of natural resources, different forms of biodiversity that are found in the region and which may be harmed by land use processes, and other forms of natural resources that are available in the region. In doing this, it is natural that the uncertainties that are peculiar to such statistical evidence which arise from failure to draw the full implications of the issue under investigation when the null hypothesis is rejected (Ludwig, Mangel & Haddad, 2001), were not fully addressed. The adoption and execution of the State Planning Policy 2 has been characterised by a number of contentions among the stakeholders over time. The contentions have been on different issues that are pertinent the process. One of the issues is the impact of exploitation of natural resources on housing. In general, with increased use of land in the form of extraction of natural resources, the pace of social and economic development within a region is accelerated. However, this scenario presents a number of specific problems, the solutions to which, as recommended by the policy, remain completely controversial. With regard to housing, general public opinion has been that use of natural resources in the region has led to a high cost of housing (Chapman et al., 2014). This has forced a large section of populations to seek alternative forms of accommodation. This therefore raises controversy over the impact that implementation of the policy will have on housing patterns in the region. Also, involvement of local populations in implementing the policy has been a contentious issue. Several studies have been carried out on the issue in general. Hill, Grant, George, Robinson, Jackson and Abel (2012) examined different ways in which engaging with indigenous populations when implementing the recommendations of a policy can enhance the prospects of achieving its intended objectives. Barker and Bennett (2003) state that the need for engaging with the local populations in developing sustainable policies with regard to managing forests is of great importance to the success of such policies. Hunt (2013) observes that engagement with local populations with regard to policy issues is a process that requires a high degree of trust and integrity. Engagement with the local population is an important issue with regard to the adoption and implementation of the recommendations of the State Planning Policy 2. It is in view of this that the framers of the policy sought to balance between the needs of the local populations on one hand and those of use of natural resources on the other. Hill et al. (2012) identify the significance of engaging with various stakeholders in the process. They observe that this can be done in three key ways: sharing the decision making process, incorporating the participation of different stakeholders and involving different intercultural needs. This is an important issue since it is only when it is achieved and maintained that specific interventionist measures can be instituted successfully. Although this is the case, consensus has been lacking in regard to how effective the development and actual implementation process of the policy is responding to this issue. Related to the issue of engaging the local populations in the process of implementing the recommendations of the policy is the impact that use of natural resources in the area as recommended by the policy has on the lives of individuals. Essentially, this is a complex matter as it requires a delicate balancing act between human needs and economic development. It has already been pointed out that the development of the policy and its present process of implementation have a basis on scientific evidence about population estimates and other related issues to do with natural resources present in the area. The issues that are however controversial are what effect the process of land use has on the lives of individuals and whether this process is completely sustainable. There has been a lot of disagreement about this issue. One point is the opinion of different stakeholders which is that the policy fails to adequately safeguard the social wellbeing of human populations in the region, thus undermining the ability of the policy instruments to realise the intended prospects. To this regard, focus has been on how the lives of human populations are affected by the booming extraction industry in the region. Ennis, Finlayson and Speering (2013) state that with the increasing need to set up more industries in the region to exploit the vast amount of resources, there comes a sharp shortage in housing and other social amenities. It is in the same vein that Tonts and Plummer (2012) note that the general shortcoming of recommendations of sustainability policies is that they lay much emphasis on the need to conserve the environment at the expense of the impact that the process of the use of natural resources has on the social and cultural lives of local populations. This means that the guidelines in general fail to adequately address what Mensah and Castro (2004) identify as the three key pillars of sustainable development: economic, environmental and social. Whereas the economic aspect is focused on ensuring stable and efficient growth, the social dimension is concerned with cultural and other human needs of the local populations. The environmental dimension is focused on ensuring that the environment and biodiversity of a region are maintained. Therefore, there has hardly been consensus on the issue. There is still divided opinion on the extent to which the State Planning Policy 2 ensures sustainable planning in the use of natural resources found in the region in terms of addressing social, environmental and economic needs. This extends from the needs of human populations to those of the biodiversity of fauna and flora found in the region. The objective of the policy framers was to ensure that the needs of the community as well as scientific evidence is taken into account when determining how well to use land and other natural resources found in the region. However, opinion on the matter has remained sharply divided. Although there appears to be general consensus on the need for conservation of biodiversity (Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler & West, 2002), different stakeholders still disagree on how specifically the policy addresses the special needs of human populations that have been largely affected by extraction of natural resources found in the region. Suggestions to Address the Problem Areas The problems that are pertinent to the policy are not insoluble. There are specific techniques that could be deployed to improve the overall prospects of the policy. From the observations made by Hill et al. (2012), it is recommended that the implementing authorities seek to enhance the level and depth of engagement with local populations. This should follow the three basic aspects of sharing power, enhancing participation and addressing intercultural needs. Further, since the region is currently experiencing a surge of new projects that are based on using the natural resources found in the region, and the process is having fundamental effects on the lives of the locals (Chapman et al., 2014), it is recommended that the implementing authorities develop new frameworks that address challenges not fully addressed in the original policy document. This will be an effective way of reducing the degree of disagreement among different stakeholders. This will go a long way in ensuring that the intended objectives of the policies are achieved. With regard to mechanisms to address the inconsistencies present in the scientific evidence used in formulating the policy, there are several techniques that can be used for improvement. One of them is about enhancing collaboration among different organisations directly involved in the implementation of the policy. The prospects of the policy will be achieved if the capacity of organisations to coordinate and collaborate in sharing scientific information is enhanced (Brechin et al, 2002). Therefore, when the results from research are shared by different stakeholders, the problem of inconsistencies in evidence will be addressed since the new knowledge will be applied in specific contexts. This will be a critical step in building consensus on different scientific issues with regard to the issues that the policy seeks to address. Conclusion In this paper, key problems that are associated with the State Planning Policy 2 have been identified and analysed, and suggestions for improvement presented. From the arguments presented in the paper, it has been seen that the framers of the policy failed to provide adequate mechanisms to tackle the contradictory nature of scientific evidence, which was heavily used when drafting the recommendations of the policy. It has also been seen that different recommendations in the policies have elicited sharp and divided opinions among stakeholders. The nature, intensity and content of the contentions indicates that there lacks consensus among different stakeholders on fundamental issues of the policy. This hampers its overall adoption and recommendation. The problem areas identified in the policy are not without possible solutions. There are several techniques which, if used appropriately, can improve the prospects of attaining the purposes for which the policy was intended. It has been seen that what is important is applying the technique in such a manner that issues in the planning and operational stages of the process are addressed. References Aarons, J., & Linger, H. (2013). A knowledge-based approach to evidence-based public policy work: The case of sustainable development and climate change policy in Asia. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cob.calpoly.edu%2F~eli%2FAIS-JJAW-PACIS2013%2FPACIS2013-Proceedings%2F6-2.pdf&ei=I9MaVJGsNMqB7Qbvr4GADw&usg=AFQjCNF7T4cj4jwuleopbZHvmxxVtYWayg&sig2=wdr_CbOsFAOOs5kpta7S2A&bvm=bv.75097201,d.bGQ Adams, W.M., & Sandbrook, C. (2013). Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx, 47(3), 329-335. Banks, G. (2014). Challenges of evidence-based policy-making. Australian Public Service Commission. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/evidence-based-policy Barker, M., & Bennett, M. (2003). In search of sustainability: Forestry law and policy in Western Australia. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edowa.org.au%2Ffiles%2Farticles%2F13_forestpolicy.pdf&ei=3_4aVOfWJIGCzAOu0YLIDA&usg=AFQjCNHrFeKgQV-ipK3GG__Kw3HUTvTltA&sig2=KndH3sROB7T7nLpBGXKhMQ&bvm=bv.75097201,d.bGQ Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., & West, P.C. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 41-62. Chapman, R., Tonts, M., & Plummer, P. (2014). Resource development, local adjustment and regional policy: Resolving the problem of rapid growth in Pilbara, Western Australia. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 9(1), 72-86. Clayton, H., Dovers, S. & Harris, P. (2011). NRM literature review. HC Coombs Policy Forum –Fenner School of Environment and Society NRM Initiative, Australian National University. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrawford.anu.edu.au%2Fpublic_policy_community%2Fresearch%2Fnrm%2FNRM_Ref_Group_Combined.pdf&ei=SEYdVNa2MuPiywOU_YHwCA&usg=AFQjCNGe61HnVyati5uB1GDrNp_jdw4tYA&sig2=iAYpTe9rnlugCyEDV8sWFA&bvm=bv.75775273,d.bGQ Du Toit, A. (2012). Making sense of evidence: Notes on the discursive politics of research and pro-poor policy making. PLAAS Working Paper 21. Bellville: PLAAS, UWC. Ennis, G., Finlayson, M., & Speering, G. (2013). Expecting a boomtown? Exploring potential housing related impacts of large scale resource developments in Darwin. Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 7(1), 33-42. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (2003). Science, society and power: Environmental knowledge and policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamin, E.M., & Gurran, N. (2009). Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International, 33, 238-245. Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012). A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: Implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 23-40. Hunt, J. (2013). Engaging in indigenous Australia – exploring the conditions for effective relationships with aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities. Issue Paper No. 5 Produced For The Closing The Gap Clearing House. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aihw.gov.au%2FuploadedFiles%2FClosingTheGap%2FContent%2FPublications%2F2013%2Fctgc-ip5.pdf&ei=hf8aVIqfCYn8ygOdmICwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFxFg-xU4kNlnUE2Nzu1HTD4jfOGA&sig2=aI0EEkd2IchHAvNO27PuXA Liebman, J. B. (2013). Building on recent advances in evidence-based policy making. A paper jointly released by Results for America and the Hamilton Project. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fresearch%2Ffiles%2Fpapers%2F2013%2F04%2F17-liebman-evidence-based-policy%2Fthp_liebmanf2_413.pdf&ei=894WVK_vNqmJ7AbI4IGQDw&usg=AFQjCNG7uOBXWVBdAQDeUwrDC8UQHWpIuA&sig2=DVuO06MlCLvs2NUs7B2Zpw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.bGQ Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., & Haddad, B. (2001). Ecology, conservation and public policy. Ecological Systems, 32, 482-517. Mensah, A.M., & Castro, L.C. (2004). Sustainable resource use and sustainable development: A contradiction? Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zef.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fdownloads%2Fforum%2Fdocprog%2FTermpapers%2F2004_3b_Mensah_Castro.pdf&ei=fEMbVL28LousyATVpIDgDg&usg=AFQjCNFG6svETW0ec7ITQyfZqYO1LOGsPA&sig2=Y14o1ATMpHmj1F3Xe_yuYg&bvm=bv.75774317,d.aWw Moser, S.C., & Dilling, L. (2011). Communicating climate change: Closing the science-action gap. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 161-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norse, D., & Tschirley, J.B. (2000). Links between science and policy making. Science, Ecosystems and Environment, 82, 15-26. Nutley, S., Powell, S., & Davies, H. (2013). What counts as good evidence? Provocation Paper for the Alliance for Useful Evidence. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alliance4usefulevidence.org%2Fassets%2FWhat-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf&ei=rj0XVKX9CfT57AbQvoDYBA&usg=AFQjCNGdueUw8u8xVilMWdwOoHM9j31QEA&sig2=VM_b89Cghkd41vlYh6YCjA&bvm=bv.75097201,d.ZGU Rutter, J. (2013). Evidence and evaluation in policy making: A problem of supply or demand? Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.instituteforgovernment.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fevidence%2520and%2520evaluation%2520in%2520template_final_0.pdf&ei=qOIWVIPoM7Db7AbBl4A4&usg=AFQjCNEabZihuiKKaY0Sadij-1oXvvbJug&sig2=m8XfGN1E7l0FTZIcKDrbcA&bvm=bv.75097201,d.bGQ Sedlacko, M., Reisch, L., & Scholl, G. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: When evidence based policy making meets policy-minded research – introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 9(2), 1-6. Shaxon, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy, 1, 101-11. Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468, 1029-1031. Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M., & Knight, T.M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(6), 305-308. Tisdell, C. A. (2014). Human values and biodiversity conservation: The survival of wild species. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Tonts, M., & Plummer, P. (2012). Natural resource exploitation and regional development: A view from the west. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fapo.org.au%2Ffiles%2FResource%2Fnatural_resource_exploitation_and_regional_development-_a_view_from_the_west.pdf&ei=B2cdVIz9FYLvaoilgZgE&usg=AFQjCNGRlYPlsoKJG9u3Mu7pBTeCSyHNKg&sig2=lROuNxblekmUzHDCW9i7KA Western Australia Planning Commission (2003). Statement of planning policy no. 2: environment and natural resources policy. Retrieved from www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/SPP_2_0.pdf Wolfgang, J. (2014). Improve outcomes in decision making. Decision & Innovation, 21(3), 1-10. Read More

It is based on the realisation that the region in particular is endowed with a rich and diverse heritage of natural resources in the form of different ecological resources, species of fauna and flora and different forms of natural landscapes (Western Australia Planning Commission, 2003). It is upon such natural resources that the economic and social lives of the human population within the region are based. Further, the region has a high concentration of natural resources which, incidentally, are located within remote areas that are populated by other forms of natural resources.

Yet, as a result of the need for rapid development, the natural resources and the environment of the region is in constant danger of being degraded. It is the need to resolve this dilemma that gave rise to the development of the recommendations which are contained in this policy. Therefore, this policy seeks to resolve the conflict that exists between overall land use and protection of natural resources with special focus on the impact of all these practices on the environment. It is important to point out that in this process of sustainable management and use of natural resources in Western Australia, initiatives undertaken by different actors, the roles, duties and responsibilities done by the different actors have been interrelated in a complex manner.

The interrelatedness has been as a result of two factors: the fact that all the initiatives share one overarching goal of integrating natural resource management decision making in the land use planning and the clear separation of responsibilities between different actors which is best seen in the manner in which the national government only makes policy recommendations while leaving matters of legislation and regulation to regional and local governments (Clayton, Dovers & Harris, 2011). There are several unique features of the State Planning Policy 2 that need to be emphasised at this point.

The first one regards the nature of the policy in terms of the evidence that has been used to draw up the specific recommendations. Basically, there has been a huge emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for drawing up the policy, as has been the case for similar policies in Australia (Clayton, Dovers & Harris, 2011). Another feature regards what exactly the policy seeks to achieve and how this is supposed to be done. Interestingly, the policy takes into consideration a number of trends that are common at the national level with regard to sustainable use of natural resources.

One way in which this is evident is the manner in which this policy factors in issues to do with sustainable use of natural resources by taking into account the effects of climate change in planning for use of such resources. This is important since climate change has gained prominence in different policies (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). Interestingly, the national government, through its broad and long-term frameworks for natural resource management operations, seeks to achieve similar objectives.

Problem areas in the policy One of the problem areas that are evident in the State Planning Policy 2 is lack of appropriate mechanisms to address what Ludwig, Mangel and Haddad (2001) call uncertainties that exist in scientific evidence. That it is common and standard practice for the policy formulation process to be heavily based on evidence is a matter over which there is wide consensus (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013; Fairhead & Leach, 2003 & Nutley, Powell & Davies, 2013; Norse & Tschirley, 2000).

What remains problematic though is how well the policy formulation process makes good use of the evidence, bearing in mind the fact that in most cases, evidence (scientific evidence for that matter) is presented in different opinions that are complex, far-reaching and contradictory in nature (Moser & Dilling, 2011; Stirling, 2010). In general, evidence-based policy in issues to do with sustainable use of natural resources is developed in relation to how well the policy uses the right kind of information that is counted as evidence and accesses the right sources that contain such information (Sedlacko, Reisch & Scholl, 2013).

Read More