3.2 Scoping and Resourcing¶
| Status: | Draft roadmap; primary research not commenced |
|---|---|
| Source files: | Program opportunity validation working set |
| Sensitivity review: | Completed |
| Purpose: | Scoping and Resourcing converts Initial Primary Research into a realistic project design. It should determine whether larger funded parallel research can be justified, governed, resourced and communicated without implying that industrial hemp is being promoted. This stage sits between initial primary research and any larger funded project. It is the point where program opportunity validation material should be tested against the evidence from 3.1 Initial Primary Research. The aim is to decide whether GBLC has a defensible role in seeking, partnering in or convening funding for independent hemp feasibility, economics and extension work. This page translates usable working material into the Phase 3 roadmap so it can be reviewed as part of project scoping. |
Inputs¶
| Input | Use |
|---|---|
| Initial Primary Research findings | Identify which evidence gaps, product pathways and stakeholder questions are worth carrying forward. |
| Phase 2 Gaps and Risks | Keep the project focused on decision-critical gaps and known risks. |
| Partner and funder intelligence | Test which funders, universities, agencies, industry bodies or Landcare partners could support delivery. |
| GBLC capacity review | Clarify whether GBLC should lead, partner, convene, support, monitor or take no role. |
Scoping Hypothesis¶
The working hypothesis for 3.2 is:
Granite Borders Landcare may have a strategic role in seeking or partnering in funding for independent industrial hemp feasibility, economics and extension work, but that role depends on funding fit, organisational capacity, partner appetite, member support and continued separation of evidence-based education from promotion.
This hypothesis must be tested. It does not assume industrial hemp is viable, environmentally beneficial, regionally suitable or strategically appropriate for GBLC.
Scope Design Streams¶
| Stream | Scoping task | Required output |
|---|---|---|
| Funding opportunity validation | Check whether current or recurring funding programs could support neutral feasibility, producer decision-support, drought resilience, sustainable agriculture, natural resource management or regional innovation activity. | Funding shortlist with eligibility questions, timing, likely applicant model and exclusion logic. |
| Partner and stakeholder validation | Identify credible delivery, research, government, industry, training and Landcare-network partners without assuming participation. | Partner role map, engagement priorities and risks. |
| Organisational capacity validation | Test whether GBLC can lead, partner, convene, host, auspice, support, monitor or take no active role. | Capacity assessment and preferred delivery model. |
| Research program design | Convert evidence gaps into research streams that can be delivered and governed. | Research brief covering producers, supply chains, agronomy, economics, environment, community and GBLC role. |
| Extension and decision-support design | Define non-promotional education products that help producers and stakeholders interpret evidence. | Extension plan and communications risk controls. |
| Product pathway validation | Keep seed, food, oil, fibre, textile, hurd, bedding, building-material and excluded cannabinoid pathways separate. | Product-pathway validation matrix and pathway-specific evidence thresholds. |
Decision Gates¶
| Gate | Test | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Funding gate | Is there at least one realistic funding pathway? | A current or recurring program plausibly supports feasibility, extension, producer decision-support, drought resilience, sustainable agriculture, natural resource management or regional innovation activities. |
| Partner gate | Are credible partners identifiable? | At least one credible delivery, research, industry, government, training or Landcare-network partner category can be linked to a clear role. |
| Capacity gate | Can GBLC or a GBLC/NELN model manage the work? | Governance, staff time, administration, data handling and communications needs are identified, with risks capable of mitigation. |
| Research value gate | Does the project close decision-critical evidence gaps? | Activities directly address unresolved questions on economics, supply chains, agronomy, environment and GBLC role. |
| Extension integrity gate | Can education avoid premature promotion? | Outputs are framed as evidence-based decision support and include risks, uncertainty and no-adoption options. |
| Product pathway gate | Are product pathways separated? | Product pathways are assessed separately where evidence, markets, processing, economics or environmental claims differ. |
Funding Shortlist For Detailed Checking¶
This shortlist is for scoping only. A pathway listed here is not a confirmed grant opportunity, and does not mean GBLC is eligible or should apply.
| Funding pathway | Current scoping relevance | 3.2 checks required |
|---|---|---|
| Climate-Smart Agriculture or similar NHT-derived sustainable agriculture streams | Possible fit for climate-smart decision-support, sustainable agriculture, producer risk reduction, natural resource management and extension if a suitable future round opens. | Confirm round status, applicant eligibility, eligible activities, co-contribution, timing and whether neutral hemp feasibility can be framed without crop promotion. |
| Queensland Regional Drought Resilience Planning Scheme | Potentially relevant for the Stanthorpe/Southern Downs component if activity aligns with an eligible regional drought resilience plan. | Confirm eligible applicant arrangements, plan alignment, co-contribution and whether hemp validation is an eligible drought-resilience activity. |
| Future Drought Fund Communities Program | Possible fit for modest extension, network building, producer decision-support or drought-preparedness engagement. | Confirm Granite Borders LGA eligibility, current stream guidelines and whether the activity can support decision-making rather than promotion. |
| Future Drought Fund Hubs | Possible route through a hub, university or regional partner rather than a direct GBLC grant. | Identify relevant hub or lead applicant pathway and test whether GBLC/NELN could deliver a local work package. |
| NSW Landcare Enabling or successor Landcare innovation pathways | Not a current hemp research funding pathway unless a future round, variation, underspend or specific allocation becomes available. | Treat as context only unless NELN or LLS confirms a specific usable pathway for this work. |
Funding pathways that cannot realistically be used for Granite Borders / New England primary research, economics validation or evidence-based extension should be recorded as screened out, not silently dropped.
Partner And Role Checks¶
No organisation or stakeholder should be treated as committed until direct engagement confirms interest and role.
| Partner category | Possible role in a larger project | Main 3.2 check |
|---|---|---|
| Granite Borders Landcare | Convenor, local legitimacy, member engagement, sponsor or partner. | Test leadership appetite, member value, decision rights and reputational risk. |
| New England Landcare Network member organisations | Regional collaboration, producer engagement, local delivery and shared capacity. | Test whether a network model is useful, governed and resourced. |
| Local Land Services and state NRM delivery bodies | Sustainable agriculture, extension and regional priority alignment. | Check policy fit, staff capacity and whether there is a realistic delivery or funding role. |
| NSW DPI / Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development | NSW regulatory, agronomic and industry-development evidence. | Prepare targeted questions on licensing, trials, crop management and industry settings. |
| Queensland DAF / Biosecurity Queensland | Queensland regulatory and agronomic evidence for the historic Stanthorpe component. | Clarify cross-border licensing, compliance and technical advice needs. |
| Universities and researchers | Trial design, economics, environmental methods, agronomy, supply-chain analysis and independent review. | Identify relevant expertise and likely cost, timing and role. |
| AgriFutures and RD&E bodies | Existing hemp evidence, national research priorities and possible research alignment. | Clarify current industrial hemp RD&E priorities and relevant knowledge gaps. |
| Local governments | Regional development, planning, land-use and community context. | Check planning considerations and regional-development relevance without treating council interest as market proof. |
| Growers, potential growers and non-adopters | Producer economics, risk, adoption barriers and no-adoption logic. | Protect contact details and raw notes; seek decision-useful evidence. |
| Processors and buyers | Demand, specifications, prices, volumes, intake terms and market depth. | Use confidential engagement and publish only aggregated or redacted findings. |
| Freight, contractors, seed suppliers and service providers | Practical operating costs and bottlenecks. | Seek cost ranges, service availability and constraints without publishing sensitive quotes. |
| Environmental and NRM organisations | Comparator framework, soil, water, biodiversity and landscape outcomes. | Test environmental claims against realistic alternatives. |
| Industry bodies and hemp associations | Product-pathway contacts, industry assumptions, policy context and technical leads. | Use as stakeholder sources, not independent proof; triangulate claims. |
| TAFE NSW and TAFE Queensland | Producer workshops, practical agriculture skills, agribusiness training or extension delivery. | Check whether existing training channels can support neutral decision-support or whether custom content would require funding and approval. |
Research leads already identified for checking include University of Sydney for Stanthorpe trial interpretation, UNE / Food Agility-linked supply-chain work, Southern Cross University's current AgriFutures industrial hemp research program, University of Queensland / QAAFI historical value-adding work and La Trobe University industry forum links. These are leads only, not confirmed partners.
Delivery Model Options¶
| Option | Description | When it may be suitable |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor only | GBLC does not seek funding or lead work; it monitors industry and publishes decision-support updates. | Use if evidence gaps remain important but funding, partner appetite or organisational capacity is weak. |
| Publish decision-support material | GBLC produces neutral resources from existing evidence and limited primary research. | Use if a larger program is not justified but members would benefit from evidence summaries and risk guidance. |
| Partner in funded research | GBLC contributes local context and engagement while another body leads research or grant administration. | Strong option where technical and administrative demands exceed GBLC capacity. |
| Convene a GBLC/NELN regional validation program | GBLC and network partners coordinate a broader regional validation effort. | Use only if partner appetite, governance, funding and coordination capacity are confirmed. |
| Lead funded primary research and extension | GBLC is lead applicant and program manager. | Highest-control but highest-risk option; only suitable if capacity, governance, funding and privacy controls are proven. |
The likely strongest position to test is not whether GBLC should immediately lead a large technical research program alone. The more defensible option may be to convene or co-design work, bring producer and Landcare perspectives into the research, support extension and partner with organisations that have technical and administrative capacity.
Research And Extension Package To Scope¶
| Component | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Product-pathway map | Separate seed, food, oil, fibre, hurd, bedding, building materials and excluded cannabinoid pathways. |
| Processor and buyer map | Test whether supply-chain access is real. |
| Buyer specification register | Record quality, volume, testing, certification and delivery requirements. |
| Freight-adjusted gross-margin templates | Test whether returns survive real costs. |
| Compliance cost checklist | Capture licence, reporting, testing, audit and timing burdens. |
| Regional suitability assessment | Test climate, soil, water, sowing and harvest constraints. |
| Environmental comparator framework | Compare hemp with realistic local alternatives. |
| Producer decision guide | Translate evidence into practical decision support, including no-adoption logic. |
| GBLC role options paper | Test no role, monitor, inform, partner, convene and lead options. |
Extension material should be framed as:
Testing industrial hemp as a possible regional enterprise: evidence, risks, economics and environmental comparison.
It should not be framed as:
Promoting industrial hemp as a new opportunity for the region.
Product Pathway Evidence Thresholds¶
No product pathway should be presented as viable at the scoping stage. Each pathway should be tested against the same minimum evidence threshold.
| Test | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Legal pathway | Regulatory source or written clarification. |
| Buyer demand | Buyer interview, documented specification, purchase history or public procurement signal. |
| Processor access | Processor interview, location, intake terms, fees or capacity evidence. |
| Producer economics | Gross-margin scenario with yield, costs, freight, compliance and sensitivity analysis. |
| Regional suitability | Trial data, climate and soil fit, water requirements and agronomic risk. |
| Environmental comparison | Production and product-pathway evidence compared with realistic alternatives. |
| GBLC relevance | Clear link to member value, Landcare objectives or regional decision-support. |
The current pathway priority for validation should remain evidence-led. Phase 2 currently suggests grain / seed food is the strongest candidate for targeted primary validation, while fibre, hurd, dual-purpose and biomass pathways require named processor or buyer tests before they should be resourced heavily.
Indicative Budget Structure¶
3.2 should not invent a total budget before the scope is settled. It should prepare a budget structure that can be populated during funding checks.
| Budget line | Items to define |
|---|---|
| Coordination and administration | Project coordination, finance support, reporting, meeting administration and acquittal time. |
| Research design and technical advice | Agronomy, agricultural economics, environmental methods, supply-chain analysis and independent review. |
| Primary research delivery | Interview time, stakeholder engagement, consent processes, transcription or note synthesis and data management. |
| Travel and field activity | Site visits, workshops, field days, demonstration design and partner meetings. |
| Extension and communications | Producer decision guides, pathway briefings, workshop materials, web content and communications review. |
| Data, privacy and publication controls | Secure storage, access control, redaction, sensitivity review and publication preparation. |
| Evaluation | Monitoring, evaluation, learning, participant feedback and final reporting. |
Information Required Before Any Funding Application¶
| Information need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Applicant eligibility | GBLC, NELN, a university, LLS, local government or another delivery entity may need to be the lead applicant depending on the program. |
| Eligible activities | Some programs may fund extension but not market testing, crop trials or commercial feasibility. |
| Co-contribution | Cash or in-kind requirements may determine whether an application is realistic. |
| Timing | Some funding windows may close before the business case is ready. |
| Conflict and endorsement risk | A grant application must avoid implying GBLC has endorsed hemp before evidence is tested. |
| Data and privacy rules | Primary research data, partner discussions and commercial information require careful handling. |
| Governance and approval pathway | GBLC and any partners need clear decision rights before public commitments are made. |
Outputs¶
| Output | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Detailed project scope | Define what the larger project will and will not test. |
| Partner roles | Identify lead, delivery, research, extension, industry and advisory roles. |
| Resource model | Estimate staff time, technical expertise, administration, governance and communications needs. |
| Draft budget structure | Separate staffing, research, travel, workshops, technical advice, communications, data management and evaluation costs. |
| Grant and funding shortlist | Identify realistic funding pathways and eligibility questions. |
| Governance model | Define decision rights, review points, risk escalation and approval gates. |
| Privacy and data controls | Keep contacts, raw notes and confidential commercial information out of the publishing layer. |
| Risk register | Record delivery, reputational, legal, commercial, privacy and evidence-quality risks. |
| Engagement plan | Define who should be engaged, why, when and with what non-promotional framing. |
Possible Extension Products To Scope¶
These products should be scoped only as decision-support and learning outputs. They should not imply that industrial hemp adoption is recommended.
| Product | Purpose | Sensitivity considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Producer decision guide | Help producers decide whether hemp warrants further investigation. | Must include risks, no-adoption logic and confidence levels. |
| Product pathway briefings | Explain seed, oil, fibre, hurd and building-material pathways separately. | Avoid implying all hemp products share the same viability. |
| Gross-margin tool or template | Allow scenario testing for costs, yields, freight and prices. | Do not publish confidential buyer prices or contract terms. |
| Supply-chain briefing | Explain buyer, processor and logistics requirements. | Aggregate or redact commercially sensitive information. |
| Environmental comparator explainer | Compare hemp claims with realistic local alternatives. | Avoid broad environmental benefit claims without local evidence. |
| Field day or demonstration design | Show research methods, not adoption endorsement. | Site details and participants may require privacy controls. |
| Workshop series | Support evidence interpretation and producer questions. | Manage advocacy or promotional framing carefully. |
| Funder and partner briefing | Explain the evidence gap and proposed public value. | Do not overstate findings or promise outcomes. |
Publication And Sensitivity Controls¶
The published version of 3.2 and any later public materials must exclude:
- names of individuals unless consent is recorded;
- phone numbers, email addresses and private contact details;
- raw interview notes or raw meeting notes;
- confidential partner views;
- commercially sensitive buyer, processor, grower, price, volume, margin or contract information;
- unconfirmed willingness by any organisation to participate.
Published material should use partner categories, aggregated findings and redacted summaries where necessary.
Decision Gate¶
Proceed to a funded parallel research project only if the evidence shows that the larger project is:
- useful to producers, supply-chain actors, GBLC or regional decision-makers;
- fundable through a realistic program or partner model;
- resourced with adequate staff, technical and governance capacity;
- capable of protecting confidential information;
- framed as neutral evidence-building rather than hemp promotion.
If those conditions are not met, valid outcomes include pausing, monitoring the industry, publishing a limited decision-support note or narrowing the project to one product pathway.