Organisational Capacity Assessment
Status: Draft
Date: 2026-06-10
Purpose: Test whether Granite Borders Landcare can lead, partner, host, auspice or support a Phase 3A industrial hemp validation program directly or through a broader New England Landcare Network model.
Assessment Position
This is not an assessment of whether GBLC should promote industrial hemp. It is an assessment of whether GBLC could responsibly support a neutral evidence-generation and extension program.
The default risk position is conservative: do not assume capacity, mandate or member support until tested.
Capacity Assessment Register
| Function | GBLC capacity | NELN/member organisation capacity | Capacity gap | Risk level | Mitigation | Resource requirement | Preferred delivery model | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance | Unknown until leadership views are tested. | Unknown. Network governance may provide broader oversight but may also add complexity. | Decision rights, risk appetite and approval pathway need clarification. | High | Establish steering group terms of reference before applying for funding. | Leadership time, governance support, conflict management. | Partner or network model if scale grows. | Low |
| Grant management | Unknown. | Unknown. Some member organisations may have relevant experience. | Financial administration, reporting and acquittal requirements may be material. | Medium to High | Match lead applicant to administrative capability; budget for coordination. | Project coordinator, finance/admin support. | Lead only if capacity is confirmed; otherwise partner/auspice model. | Low |
| Research design | Limited internal capacity assumed unless technical expertise is identified. | Unknown. | Agronomy, economics and environmental methods require specialist input. | High | Partner with researchers, government technical staff or consultants. | Technical design budget. | Partner model. | Medium |
| Primary research delivery | Not commenced. | Unknown. Landcare networks may help reach producers. | Interview protocols, consent, privacy and data management required. | High | Use semi-structured interview protocols and anonymised reporting. | Research coordinator, data storage, interview time. | GBLC/NELN with technical support. | Medium |
| Producer engagement | Plausible through Landcare networks, but untested. | Potentially stronger at network scale. | Member appetite and producer interest unknown. | Medium | Test interest before public program launch. | Workshops, field days, communications. | Network-supported model. | Medium |
| Commercial engagement | Limited unless buyer/processor contacts are identified. | Unknown. | Commercial confidentiality and market access evidence are difficult. | High | Use confidential interviews, aggregate reporting and redaction. | Skilled interviewer, confidentiality controls. | Specialist-supported model. | Low |
| Environmental assessment | Landcare alignment is plausible, but evidence methods need rigour. | Potential support through NRM partners. | Comparator selection and measurement design unresolved. | Medium | Use an environmental comparator framework and independent review. | Technical input, baseline data. | Partner model. | Medium |
| Communications | GBLC can likely communicate with members, but message risk is material. | Network communications could broaden reach. | Risk of being seen as endorsing hemp before evidence supports it. | High | Use neutral language: test, validate, compare, assess. Avoid promotional language. | Communications plan and review process. | GBLC/NELN with approval controls. | Medium |
| Data handling | Unknown. | Unknown. | Contact details, raw notes and commercial information require controls. | High | Separate private working files from publishable summaries. | Secure storage, access rules, data retention decisions. | Any model must meet agreed privacy rules. | Medium |
Delivery Model Options
| Option | Description | Strengths | Risks | Interim suitability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBLC monitor only | GBLC does not seek funding or lead work; it monitors industry and publishes decision-support updates. | Low risk and low resource burden. | Does not close major evidence gaps. | Useful fallback. |
| GBLC publishes decision-support material | GBLC produces neutral resources from existing evidence. | Moderate value and manageable scope. | Still limited by unresolved commercial and local evidence gaps. | Plausible interim step. |
| GBLC partners in funded research | GBLC contributes local context and engagement while another body leads research. | Reduces delivery risk and improves technical rigour. | Less control over scope and timing. | Strong option to test. |
| GBLC/NELN convenes regional validation program | GBLC and network partners coordinate a broader program. | Strong regional fit, better scale and shared capacity. | Governance and coordination complexity. | Promising if partner appetite and funding align. |
| GBLC leads funded primary research and extension | GBLC is lead applicant and program manager. | High local ownership. | Highest administrative, reputational and delivery risk. | Only suitable if capacity, funding and governance are confirmed. |
Preliminary Capacity Interpretation
The likely strongest position is not for GBLC to immediately lead a large technical research program alone. The more defensible opportunity is to:
- convene or co-design a program;
- bring producer and Landcare perspectives into the research;
- help define practical evidence gaps;
- support extension and decision-support;
- partner with organisations that have technical and administrative capacity.
Key Questions To Resolve
- Does GBLC leadership want this opportunity tested?
- Do GBLC members see value in a neutral hemp feasibility and decision-support program?
- Would New England Landcare Network member organisations see this as useful or distracting?
- Which organisation is best placed to be lead applicant for any grant?
- What minimum staffing and administrative support would be required?
- What reputational controls would be needed before public communication?
- What information can be published and what must remain confidential?