Educational Extension Program Outline
Status: Draft
Date: 2026-06-10
Purpose: Define what a neutral educational extension program could look like if funding, capacity and partner validation support it.
Extension Principle
The extension program should help producers and stakeholders make better decisions. It should not promote industrial hemp or imply that adoption is recommended before evidence supports that conclusion.
Preferred framing:
Testing industrial hemp as a possible regional enterprise: evidence, risks, economics and environmental comparison.
Avoid framing:
Promoting industrial hemp as a new opportunity for the region.
Target Audiences
| Audience | Information need |
|---|---|
| Producers and landholders | Enterprise economics, risks, agronomy, compliance, buyer access and alternatives. |
| Landcare members | Environmental evidence, strategic fit, reputational risk and member value. |
| Local government and regional development stakeholders | Regional opportunity, infrastructure, land-use and planning implications. |
| Researchers and advisers | Evidence gaps, trial design, transferability and measurement priorities. |
| Buyers and processors | Regional supply potential, quality constraints and producer readiness. |
| Funders | Public value, risk controls, producer benefit and decision-support outcomes. |
Possible Extension Products
| 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 | Do not publish confidential buyer prices or contract terms.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. |
Communications Risk Assessment
| Risk | Why it matters | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of endorsement | GBLC may be seen as promoting hemp before viability is proven. | Use neutral research language and publish limitations prominently. |
| Overclaiming environmental benefits | Generic sustainability claims may not hold locally. | Use comparator-based explanations and confidence ratings. |
| Commercial sensitivity | Buyers or processors may provide confidential data. | Publish aggregated findings only. |
| Producer financial risk | Poorly framed material could encourage premature adoption. | Include no-adoption and wait-for-evidence pathways. |
| Cannabis confusion | Industrial hemp may be misunderstood by some audiences. | Explain lawful low-THC industrial hemp boundaries clearly. |
| Network capacity strain | Extension may require more staff time than available. | Match activities to confirmed funding and delivery capacity. |
Extension Integrity Rules
All extension material should:
- distinguish evidence from opinion;
- show confidence levels;
- separate product pathways;
- identify unresolved gaps;
- include risks and limitations;
- avoid promotional language;
- explain that a viable program may conclude some pathways are not suitable.
Draft Extension Sequence
| Stage | Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Publish neutral background and evidence-gap material. | Project explainer and evidence-gap note. |
| Stage 2 | Conduct targeted workshops or interviews to test producer questions. | Anonymised themes and updated research questions. |
| Stage 3 | Release draft decision-support tools for review. | Gross-margin template, comparator explainer and pathway briefs. |
| Stage 4 | Hold findings workshops with clear caveats. | Reviewed feedback and revised materials. |
| Stage 5 | Integrate outcomes into the business case. | Strategic options and recommendations, if later authorised. |