Primary Research Program Outline
Status: Draft
Date: 2026-06-10
Purpose: Outline a practical primary research program that would close decision-critical evidence gaps identified during Phase 2.
Program Aim
Design a neutral primary research program to test whether industrial hemp has any commercially viable, environmentally defensible and regionally useful role in the Granite Borders region.
The program should support producer and organisational decision-making. It should not promote hemp adoption before viability is tested.
Core Research Questions
| Question | Perspective | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Are there credible buyers for Granite Borders-relevant hemp products? | Supply Chain, Producer | Buyer specifications, volumes, indicative prices, contract terms and substitute products. |
| Can processors accept product from Granite Borders producers? | Supply Chain, Producer | Processor locations, capacity, fees, intake windows, minimum volumes and quality requirements. |
| Can producers make acceptable margins after freight, compliance, drying, storage and risk? | Producer | Gross-margin inputs, realistic yields, costs, machinery, labour, water and logistics. |
| Is hemp agronomically suitable for Tenterfield and historic Stanthorpe conditions? | Producer, Environment | Local and comparable trial data, climate baseline, soils, water, frost, heat and sowing windows. |
| Does hemp create net environmental benefit compared with realistic alternatives? | Environment, GBLC | Comparator enterprises, soil, water, biodiversity, chemical use, emissions and product pathway evidence. |
| What role, if any, should GBLC or a broader Landcare network play? | GBLC | Member appetite, partner capacity, funding fit, extension value and reputational risk. |
Research Streams
| Stream | Participants or sources | Topics |
|---|---|---|
| Producer interviews | Existing hemp growers, former growers, potential growers and non-adopters. | Costs, yields, adoption barriers, buyer access, risk, opportunity cost and extension needs. |
| Supply-chain interviews | Processors, buyers, manufacturers, exporters and distributors. | Demand, specifications, prices, volumes, capacity, terms, freight and quality constraints. |
| Technical interviews | Agronomists, researchers, regulators and compliance advisers. | Agronomy, licensing, chemical use, trial interpretation, water, soils and regulatory burden. |
| Comparator interviews | Mixed farmers, graziers and other local producers. | Alternative enterprise returns, labour, risk, water use and environmental baselines. |
| Landcare and community engagement | GBLC leadership, members, NELN/member organisations and relevant community stakeholders. | Strategic fit, extension value, governance, communications risk and partnership appetite. |
Evidence Products
| Product | 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. |
| GBLC role options paper | Test no role, monitor, inform, partner, convene and lead options. |
Minimum Evidence Thresholds
Before any product pathway is treated as a serious business-case option, the program should seek:
- at least one credible buyer or processor evidence source for that product category;
- documented or interview-supported specifications;
- indicative price or price-range evidence, even if confidential and publishable only in aggregated form;
- realistic freight and logistics assumptions;
- regional or comparable agronomic evidence;
- gross-margin scenarios with sensitivity testing;
- explicit environmental comparator logic;
- confidence rating and unresolved risks.
Data Handling
Raw interview notes, contact details and commercially sensitive material must remain in private working files. Published outputs should use:
- anonymised themes;
- aggregated ranges;
- source categories rather than individual names;
- redactions where needed;
- confidence levels.
Program Sequence
| Stage | Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Confirm research questions, partners, ethics/privacy approach and funding fit. | Research protocol and delivery plan. |
| Stage 2 | Conduct targeted interviews and document requests. | Private interview records and evidence extracts. |
| Stage 3 | Build economics, supply-chain and environmental comparator tools. | Draft models and evidence tables. |
| Stage 4 | Validate findings with technical and stakeholder review. | Revised confidence ratings and risk assessment. |
| Stage 5 | Publish reviewed summaries and update business-case options. | Anonymised findings and strategic options assessment. |