Phase 2 Gaps and Risks

Status:	Draft
Source file:	02 Secondary Research/phase-2-summary-report.md
Sensitivity review:	Completed
Purpose:	This review separates the main Phase 2 evidence gaps and risks from the Phase 2 Summary Report. It identifies which gaps are ready for primary research, which need targeted secondary work, which should not delay Phase 3 planning, and which risks should be controlled in later analysis. This page does not make final recommendations about whether industrial hemp is commercially viable, environmentally beneficial or strategically appropriate for Granite Borders Landcare.

Overall Assessment

Phase 2 has clarified the structure of the evidence problem. The project now has enough secondary evidence to stop broad desktop scanning and move toward targeted gap closure, but not enough evidence to make final business-case conclusions.

The highest-risk unresolved areas are buyer demand, processor access, product specifications, freight-adjusted farm-gate returns, local gross margins, local agronomic suitability, environmental comparator evidence and Granite Borders Landcare's strategic role.

Gaps Ready For Phase 3 Primary Research

Gap	Why secondary research is insufficient	Primary research target
Buyer demand, prices and volumes	Public sources do not provide bankable purchase terms.	Buyers, processors, exporters, manufacturers.
Product specifications	Product requirements are commercial and product-specific.	Processors, buyers, food manufacturers, fibre users.
Processor access and intake terms	Capacity, fees, minimum volumes and timing are not transparent enough in public sources.	Processors, machinery suppliers, industry bodies.
Freight-adjusted farm-gate returns	Requires known processor/buyer locations, product density and contract terms.	Processors, freight providers, growers.
Producer compliance burden	Government documents list obligations, but not actual time and friction experienced.	Current or former growers, advisers, regulators.
Local gross margins	Public budgets are not sufficiently local or product-specific.	Growers, agronomists, economists, processor-linked budgets.
Failed cases and non-adoption	Public industry material tends to underrepresent negative experience.	Former growers, non-adopters, agronomists, processors.
GBLC strategic fit	Cannot be inferred from environmental claims alone.	GBLC board, staff, members and partners.

Gaps Requiring Targeted Secondary Work

These gaps should be addressed before or alongside Phase 3 primary research.

Gap	Targeted secondary action
Stanthorpe IHVT results	Extract detailed yield, biomass, water-use efficiency, root depth, grain quality, sowing-time and management results from the final and seasonal reports.
Climate baseline	Extract BoM long-term rainfall, temperature, frost, heat and growing-season water indicators for Tenterfield, Stanthorpe, Applethorpe and relevant nearby stations.
Soil and land capability baseline	Use NSW eSPADE/SEED and Queensland Globe/soil data once the historic Stanthorpe boundary layer is finalised.
Land-use and comparator baseline	Use ABARES/ACLUMP and regional sources to identify realistic local comparators.
Processor map	Build a product-category processor and buyer map with distance from the Granite Borders region.
Current Queensland industry data	Seek current Queensland planted area, licence and production indicators if available.
Trade-code verification	Verify hemp-specific import data where codes are narrow enough, especially HS 5302 fibre categories.

Gaps That Should Not Delay Phase 3

Some gaps are useful but should not hold the project in secondary research:

• exact EU-wide cause of the 2023 hemp production decline;
• complete China production statistics;
• perfect global hemp market-size estimates;
• exhaustive environmental literature beyond decision-relevant indicators;
• complete national state-by-state Australian production data where public sources remain incomplete.

These topics can be revisited if they become decision-critical, but they are not the main blockers for the Granite Borders business case.

Risk Review

Risk	Why it matters	Control
Treating hemp as one market	Evidence for seed food, fibre, hurd, building materials and biomass may not transfer between pathways.	Keep all evidence and economics product-specific.
Confusing market interest with verified demand	Public submissions, industry claims and import-replacement signals do not prove bankable demand.	Require buyer prices, volumes, specifications, contract terms or transaction evidence before viability conclusions.
Assuming processor access	Farm production could be stranded if processors are too distant, unavailable, too small or commercially weak.	Verify capacity, intake terms, fees, minimum volumes, product density and freight-adjusted returns.
Overstating producer economics	National or historic budget figures may not represent Granite Borders costs, yields, water, freight or compliance burden.	Build conservative, base and upside local scenarios after primary validation.
Over-transferring Stanthorpe or broader regional evidence	Historic Stanthorpe, Tenterfield, Southern Downs and broader Australian evidence differ in transferability.	Record geography and transferability for every significant source.
Overstating environmental benefit	Product-pathway evidence, such as hempcrete carbon storage, may be confused with field-level environmental benefit.	Separate crop-production, product-substitution and product carbon-storage claims and compare against realistic local alternatives.
Underweighting regulatory and planning burden	Published licence fees may understate actual time, advice, records, testing, monitoring and proposal-specific planning risks.	Include compliance time, documentation, testing coordination, renewals and site-specific approvals in later scenarios.
Assuming a GBLC role too early	Organisational involvement could create reputational, governance or resource risks if evidence remains weak.	Treat no involvement, monitor-only, education, research coordination and partnership roles as live options until Phase 3 evidence is reviewed.
Missing negative cases	Successful or active industry participants may understate failure modes and adoption barriers.	Include former growers, non-adopters, sceptical producers and agronomists in primary research.

Readiness Implication

The project is ready to plan Phase 3 primary research, but only as targeted verification of the gaps that secondary research cannot close. The next phase should focus on buyer and processor evidence, grower and agronomist validation, local economics, regional suitability, environmental comparators and GBLC risk appetite.