| Q1 |
Is there verifiable market demand for industrial hemp products relevant to Australian producers? |
Transaction evidence, buyer specifications, market volumes, prices, import/export data and purchase terms by product category. |
Industry reports, buyer interviews, trade articles or association estimates without transaction detail. |
Promotional claims, forecast-only market growth figures, unverified buyer interest. |
Producer, Supply Chain |
| Q2 |
Which hemp product categories are most relevant to the region? |
Product-specific demand, price, processing, agronomy and logistics evidence. |
National or international category summaries with clear transferability caveats. |
General statements about "hemp" without product separation. |
Producer, Supply Chain, Environment |
| Q3 |
Can producers achieve positive gross margins under realistic regional conditions? |
Enterprise budgets using local or comparable yield, input, labour, machinery, water, transport and price data. |
Budgets from other Australian regions adjusted with stated assumptions. |
Headline price or yield claims without cost structure. |
Producer |
| Q4 |
What scale of production is required for viable production and market access? |
Evidence of minimum contract volumes, processing thresholds, freight economics and machinery requirements. |
Interview estimates or processor guidance requiring confirmation. |
Anecdotal views without volume or cost detail. |
Producer, Supply Chain |
| Q5 |
What agronomic conditions determine suitability in the Granite Borders region? |
Climate, soil, rainfall, irrigation, frost, heat, variety, sowing window, pest, disease and harvest data from comparable regions. |
Broader Australian agronomic guidance with local comparison. |
Generic crop suitability statements. |
Producer, Environment |
| Q6 |
How does hemp compare economically with existing or realistic alternative enterprises? |
Comparative gross margins and risk profiles for grazing, mixed farming, lucerne, oats, sorghum, forestry, restoration or other regional enterprises. |
Partial comparisons for selected enterprises. |
Hemp-only profitability analysis. |
Producer, GBLC, Environment |
| Q7 |
Does processing infrastructure exist at the scale, quality and location required? |
Processor capacity, location, fees, specifications, intake windows, contracts and logistics costs. |
Processor lists or industry maps without capacity verification. |
Assumption that infrastructure exists because processors operate somewhere in Australia. |
Supply Chain, Producer |
| Q8 |
Are supply chain participants economically viable and reliable counterparties? |
Processor, buyer and exporter business model evidence, operating history, capacity utilisation, payment terms and market channels. |
Interviews and public profiles requiring corroboration. |
Unverified claims of future facilities or intended demand. |
Supply Chain, Producer |
| Q9 |
What regulatory requirements affect production, processing, movement and sale? |
Current state and Commonwealth legal requirements, licensing rules, THC thresholds, transport, food/fibre rules and compliance costs. |
Government guidance requiring legal interpretation. |
Informal views or outdated regulations. |
Producer, Supply Chain, GBLC |
| Q10 |
What environmental outcomes could change under hemp production? |
Measured evidence for soil cover, soil carbon, biodiversity, water, chemical use, emissions and lifecycle impacts by production system. |
Studies from comparable climates or systems with transferability caveats. |
Broad sustainability claims without measured outcomes. |
Environment, GBLC |
| Q11 |
What is the realistic environmental comparator? |
Regional land use and enterprise data identifying plausible alternatives and baseline practices. |
Regional agricultural profiles that need refinement. |
Comparing hemp with an unrealistic or undefined baseline. |
Environment, Producer |
| Q12 |
Could hemp support regional development or community outcomes? |
Evidence of jobs, value adding, processing, local spend and skills under realistic scale assumptions. |
Case studies from other regions with caveats. |
Multipliers or claims without scale and causality. |
GBLC, Supply Chain |
| Q13 |
What role could Granite Borders Landcare play without compromising independence? |
Options analysis comparing education, convening, demonstration, partnership, advocacy or no-action roles against mission fit and risk. |
Stakeholder views and comparable Landcare activities. |
Assuming involvement is justified by crop potential alone. |
GBLC |
| Q14 |
What are the main risks, uncertainties and failure modes? |
Evidence register gaps, sensitivity analysis, stakeholder disagreement, market volatility and regulatory risk assessment. |
Risk lists from comparable industries. |
Optimistic scenario only. |
All |
| Q15 |
What minimum evidence threshold is required before recommending any action? |
Predefined decision rules covering evidence strength, confidence level, stakeholder perspective and unresolved gaps. |
Qualitative judgement with transparent caveats. |
Recommendation based on interest, novelty or single-source claims. |
All |