Home / Primary Research / 3.3 Funded Parallel Research
3.3 Funded Parallel Research
- Status:
- Draft roadmap; primary research not commenced
- Source file:
03 Primary Research/3.3 Funded Parallel Research/funded-parallel-research-project.md
- Created:
- 2026-06-11
- Last updated:
- 2026-08-05
- Sensitivity review:
- Completed
- Purpose:
- Describe the possible larger research project that would run coordinated agronomy, agri-business, market, environment and community research streams.
Parallel Streams
| Stream | Research focus | Engagement and education focus | Public or industry communication |
|---|
| Agronomy | Regional suitability, trial design, soils, water, climate, sowing windows, crop management, pest and weed issues, harvest and field-learning activities. | Engage agronomists, researchers, producers and field-day hosts to test what local or comparable evidence means. | Explain what is known and unknown about growing conditions, not whether producers should adopt hemp. |
| Agri-business | Gross margins, compliance burden, freight, processing costs, drying, storage, machinery, labour, risk and producer decision tools. | Work with producers, economists, advisers and service providers to test practical enterprise assumptions. | Publish scenario tools or guidance only with caveats, ranges and no confidential prices or contract terms. |
| Market | Buyer demand, processor capacity, product specifications, contract terms, product pathways, industry roundtables and supply-chain engagement. | Engage processors, buyers, manufacturers, distributors and industry bodies. | Communicate market structure and verification needs without presenting market interest as guaranteed demand. |
| Environment | Soil, water, biodiversity, chemical use, emissions, product-pathway claims and comparison against realistic local alternatives. | Engage environmental specialists, NRM groups, producers and technical reviewers to test comparator methods. | Separate field-level outcomes from product-substitution claims and show confidence levels. |
| Community | Member views, social licence, communications risk, education needs, regional appetite, no-adoption views and GBLC role options. | Engage GBLC members, community stakeholders, local organisations and possible delivery partners. | Explain the project as evidence-based decision support and include reasons not to proceed where relevant. |
Integrated Outputs
| Output | Purpose |
|---|
| Regional suitability assessment | Combine agronomy, climate, soil, water and crop-management evidence. |
| Producer decision-support package | Bring together economics, compliance, risk and product-pathway guidance. |
| Supply-chain validation report | Record processor, buyer, specification and logistics evidence at an aggregated level. |
| Environmental comparator report | Compare hemp pathways against realistic local alternatives. |
| Community and GBLC role options paper | Test monitor, inform, partner, convene, lead and no-role options. |
| Public learning program | Provide workshops, briefings or field-learning outputs that explain evidence and uncertainty. |
Delivery Principle
The streams should run in parallel because their evidence affects each other. For example, a crop may be agronomically possible but commercially weak, or a product pathway may have environmental promise but no accessible buyer. The project should integrate these findings before any later business-case recommendation is made.