Home / Business Case / Phase 2 Interim Case / Handout
Presentation Handout
- Status:
- Draft
- Source file:
05 Business Case/Phase 2 Interim Case/presentation-handout.md
- Created:
- 2026-06-11
- Last updated:
- 2026-08-05
- Sensitivity review:
- Completed
- Purpose:
- Participant handout following the Phase 2 interim presentation flow and summarising the evidence, analysis and discussion questions.
Session Purpose
This session is not intended to promote or oppose industrial hemp. It is intended to support a careful discussion about what is known, what remains uncertain and what role, if any, Granite Borders Landcare should consider.
The current evidence base is Phase 2 secondary research only. No primary interviews have been completed and no final business-case recommendation has been made.
Session Flow
| Slide | Topic | Slide | Topic |
|---|
| 1 | Title | 11 | Interim Porter's Five Forces: what it added |
| 2 | Welcome | 12 | Interim SWOT overview |
| 3 | Purpose of the session | 13 | Strengths |
| 4 | Session flow | 14 | Weaknesses |
| 5 | Who is in the room? | 15 | Opportunities |
| 6 | Industrial Hemp 101 by John Muir | 16 | Threats |
| 7 | Phase 2 secondary research: what was done | 17 | Key gaps |
| 8 | From evidence to analysis | 18 | Phase 2 interim position |
| 9 | Phase 2 secondary research: what it covered | 19 | Potential roles for Granite Borders Landcare |
| 10 | Interim PESTLE: what it added | 20 | Discussion and questions |
| 21 | End / thank you | | |
Phase 2 Secondary Research
Phase 2 was a desktop evidence project using government, research, industry and market material. It was decision-focused, neutral and evidence-led. Evidence was assessed from four perspectives:
| Perspective | Decision focus |
|---|
| Producer | Whether a reasonable local producer would choose to grow hemp. |
| Supply Chain | Whether the industry can operate beyond the farm gate. |
| GBLC | Whether GBLC should invest time, resources or reputation. |
| Environment | Whether hemp creates net benefit against realistic local alternatives. |
Analysis Chain
The presentation moves from secondary research into interim analysis, then into the SWOT summary, unresolved gaps and possible GBLC role options.
| Step | Output | What it contains |
|---|
| 1 | Secondary research | Desktop evidence on regulation, markets, economics, supply chain, regional suitability, environmental claims, stakeholder evidence, gaps and source traceability. |
| 2 | PESTLE and Five Forces | Operating-context and industry-structure analysis, including regulation, economics, stigma, infrastructure, buyer power, processor access and substitutes. |
| 3 | SWOT | Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats drawn from the secondary research, PESTLE and Five Forces analysis. |
| 4 | Gaps and interim position | Decision-critical uncertainties and the current cautious position: targeted research is justified, but grower recommendation is not. |
| 5 | GBLC roles | A role spectrum from monitor-only through to leading funded research and extension, subject to capacity, funding and risk appetite. |
What Phase 2 Covered
Use the QR code beside the table to open the live Secondary Research section. It contains the detailed Phase 2 pages summarised in the table.
| Section covered | One-line description |
| Regulatory and Definitional Scan | Defines lawful industrial hemp pathways, licensing requirements and compliance constraints. |
| Market Demand and Product Categories | Separates industrial hemp markets and tests early demand signals without treating interest as proof. |
| Senate Inquiry Submissions | Captures stakeholder evidence, repeated barriers, validation leads and lived-experience themes. |
| Economic Confidence Review | Tests whether secondary economic evidence justifies targeted primary validation. |
| International Industry Context | Compares Australian industry maturity with larger overseas industries and identifies transferability limits. |
| Producer Economics | Records farm-level cost categories, gross-margin scaffolds and local profitability gaps. |
| Product Pathway Economic Rough Guide | Lists pathway-specific budget fields and scenario inputs for later financial modelling. |
| Regional Suitability | Screens climate, agronomy and local transferability issues for Tenterfield and historic Stanthorpe contexts. |
| Supply Chain | Tests processor access, buyer requirements, logistics and beyond-farm-gate viability. |
| Environmental Evidence | Separates field-level environmental claims from product-pathway and substitution claims. |
| Phase 2 Gaps and Risks | Records unresolved evidence gaps, decision risks and controls for the next stage. |
| Phase 2 Summary Report | Synthesises what Phase 2 has established, what remains unresolved and why targeted primary research is justified. |
SWOT Summary
| Category | Summary |
|---|
| Strengths | Lawful pathways, research attention, Stanthorpe evidence lead and GBLC's neutral convening role. |
| Weaknesses | Commercial proof, buyer terms, processing access, local gross margins and environmental comparators remain unresolved. |
| Opportunities | Independent validation, decision support, supply-chain mapping, economics templates and environmental comparison. |
| Threats | Premature investment, optimistic claims, hidden costs, overstated benefits and reputation risk. |
Key Gaps
| Buyer demand, prices, specifications and volumes | Processor access, capacity, fees and intake terms |
| Freight-adjusted farm-gate returns | Local gross margins and agronomic suitability |
| Environmental comparison | GBLC leadership, member and partner appetite |
Phase 2 Interim Position
Industrial hemp is lawful and plausible, but Phase 2 does not prove local commercial viability or local net environmental benefit.
The evidence is strong enough to justify targeted primary research. It is not strong enough to justify grower recommendation or public advocacy.
Potential GBLC Roles
| Role option | Current interpretation |
|---|
| Monitor | Lowest organisational risk. |
| Publish | Shares neutral decision-support material without promoting adoption. |
| Partner | Reduces technical and delivery risk if partners align. |
| Convene | Could test evidence gaps and member interest. |
| Lead | Only appropriate if capacity, funding and risk appetite are proven. |
Discussion Questions
- Does industrial hemp align with Landcare objectives?
- Are there useful opportunities for members?
- What risks should be considered?
- What information is still needed?
- Is further investigation warranted?
Registers
