3.3 Funded Parallel Research

Status:	Draft roadmap; primary research not commenced
Source file:	05 Business Case/Program Opportunity Validation/04-primary-research-program-outline.md; 05 Business Case/Program Opportunity Validation/05-educational-extension-program-outline.md
Sensitivity review:	Completed
Purpose:	Funded Parallel Research is the possible larger project that would follow Scoping and Resourcing. It would run coordinated research streams so that agronomy, agri-business, market, environment and community questions are tested together rather than in isolation. This project should only proceed if earlier stages show that it is useful, resourced, fundable and non-promotional.

Parallel Streams

Stream	Research focus	Engagement and education focus	Public or industry communication
Agronomy	Regional suitability, trial design, soils, water, climate, sowing windows, crop management, pest and weed issues, harvest and field-learning activities.	Engage agronomists, researchers, producers and field-day hosts to test what local or comparable evidence means.	Explain what is known and unknown about growing conditions, not whether producers should adopt hemp.
Agri-business	Gross margins, compliance burden, freight, processing costs, drying, storage, machinery, labour, risk and producer decision tools.	Work with producers, economists, advisers and service providers to test practical enterprise assumptions.	Publish scenario tools or guidance only with caveats, ranges and no confidential prices or contract terms.
Market	Buyer demand, processor capacity, product specifications, contract terms, product pathways, industry roundtables and supply-chain engagement.	Engage processors, buyers, manufacturers, distributors and industry bodies.	Communicate market structure and verification needs without presenting market interest as guaranteed demand.
Environment	Soil, water, biodiversity, chemical use, emissions, product-pathway claims and comparison against realistic local alternatives.	Engage environmental specialists, NRM groups, producers and technical reviewers to test comparator methods.	Separate field-level outcomes from product-substitution claims and show confidence levels.
Community	Member views, social licence, communications risk, education needs, regional appetite, no-adoption views and GBLC role options.	Engage GBLC members, community stakeholders, local organisations and possible delivery partners.	Explain the project as evidence-based decision support and include reasons not to proceed where relevant.

Integrated Outputs

Output	Purpose
Regional suitability assessment	Combine agronomy, climate, soil, water and crop-management evidence.
Producer decision-support package	Bring together economics, compliance, risk and product-pathway guidance.
Supply-chain validation report	Record processor, buyer, specification and logistics evidence at an aggregated level.
Environmental comparator report	Compare hemp pathways against realistic local alternatives.
Community and GBLC role options paper	Test monitor, inform, partner, convene, lead and no-role options.
Public learning program	Provide workshops, briefings or field-learning outputs that explain evidence and uncertainty.

Delivery Principle

The streams should run in parallel because their evidence affects each other. For example, a crop may be agronomically possible but commercially weak, or a product pathway may have environmental promise but no accessible buyer. The project should integrate these findings before any later business-case recommendation is made.