Phase 3A Program Opportunity Validation Framework
Status: Draft
Date: 2026-06-10
Purpose: Define a structured method for validating whether Granite Borders Landcare, potentially with New England Landcare Network member organisations, could seek funding and coordinate primary research, economics validation and educational extension to close industrial hemp knowledge gaps.
Central Hypothesis
Granite Borders Landcare, potentially with New England Landcare Network member organisations, may have a viable role in securing funding and coordinating primary research, economics validation and educational extension to close industrial hemp knowledge gaps.
This hypothesis does not assume industrial hemp is commercially viable, environmentally beneficial or strategically appropriate. It tests whether a funded research and extension program is itself a defensible opportunity.
Relationship To The Business Case
This stream supports the final business case by testing one strategic opportunity:
Can Granite Borders Landcare help determine whether any lawful industrial hemp pathway is commercially viable, environmentally defensible and regionally useful under real Granite Borders conditions?
It should feed into:
- Strategic Relevance to Granite Borders Landcare;
- Opportunities Assessment;
- Strategic Options for Granite Borders Landcare;
- Risk Assessment;
- Recommendations, if later authorised.
Validation Streams
| Stream | Purpose | Primary output |
|---|---|---|
| Funding opportunity validation | Identify current, genuine funding pathways and test fit with a hemp feasibility, economics and extension program. | Funding opportunity register and shortlist. |
| Partner and stakeholder validation | Identify credible organisations that could provide delivery capacity, evidence, legitimacy or market access. | Partner role map and engagement priorities. |
| Organisational capacity validation | Test whether GBLC can lead, partner, host, auspice or support a program without excessive organisational risk. | Capacity and delivery model assessment. |
| Primary research program design | Design a research program that fills Phase 2 evidence gaps. | Primary research and evidence validation program outline. |
| Educational extension program design | Define non-promotional education and decision-support outputs. | Extension model and communications risk assessment. |
| Product pathway validation | Keep seed, fibre, hurd and other lawful pathways separate. | Product pathway validation briefs. |
Decision Gates
The program opportunity should only advance if the following gates are passed.
| Gate | Test | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Funding Gate | Is there at least one realistic funding pathway? | A current or recurring funding 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 or Landcare-network partner category can be linked to a clear role. |
| Capacity Gate | Can GBLC or a GBLC/NELN model manage the work? | The delivery model identifies governance, staff time, administration, data handling and communications needs, with risks capable of mitigation. |
| Research Value Gate | Does the program close decision-critical evidence gaps? | Activities directly address unresolved Phase 2 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? | Seed, food, oil, fibre, textile, hurd, bedding and building-material pathways are assessed separately where evidence differs. |
Required Evidence Discipline
Every significant claim should identify:
- source;
- geography;
- assessment perspective;
- product pathway, where relevant;
- evidence strength;
- confidence level;
- follow-up required.
Funding claims must be linked to official funder pages or grant guidelines wherever possible.
Partner claims must distinguish:
- identified organisation type;
- possible role;
- confirmed interest, if later obtained;
- unverified assumption.
No contact details or private partner comments should be placed in publishable material.
Program Opportunity Register Template
| Field | Use |
|---|---|
| Opportunity ID | Stable identifier for each proposed program opportunity. |
| Opportunity name | Short descriptive name. |
| Stream | Funding, partner, capacity, research, extension or product pathway. |
| Hypothesis | What is being tested. |
| Assessment perspective | Producer, Supply Chain, GBLC, Environment or multiple. |
| Current evidence | Existing evidence supporting the test. |
| Evidence gap | What still needs to be validated. |
| Sensitivity risk | Low, medium or high sensitivity. |
| Confidence level | High, Medium, Low or Unknown. |
| Gate result | Advance, Hold, Reject or More evidence required. |
| Next action | Practical next validation action. |
Outputs
The Phase 3A stream should produce:
- funding opportunity register;
- partner and stakeholder role map;
- organisational capacity assessment;
- primary research program outline;
- educational extension program outline;
- product pathway validation plan;
- program opportunity summary.
Boundary Conditions
This stream must not:
- commit GBLC to applying for funding;
- imply New England Landcare Network member organisations have agreed to participate;
- promote industrial hemp adoption;
- present product pathway viability as proven;
- publish raw funder conversations, contact details, confidential partner views or commercially sensitive information.