Assumptions Register
This register identifies assumptions that must be tested. Assumptions are not findings.
Phase 1 originally tested assumptions against a Granite Borders starting scope. This register now applies those assumptions to the New England Landcare Network member-organisation region.
| ID | Assumption | Why it exists | Evidence required | Perspective affected | Risk if incorrect | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | There is genuine demand for Australian industrial hemp products. | Public commentary often presents hemp as a growing market. | Product-specific prices, volumes, buyers, contracts, import/export data and quality specifications. | Producer, Supply Chain | Producers may grow into shallow or inaccessible markets. | High |
| A2 | Demand is relevant to the member-organisation region. | Demand may exist elsewhere but not be accessible locally. | Freight economics, processor access, buyer location, regional scale requirements and member-area logistics. | Producer, Supply Chain | Market demand may not translate into viable regional opportunity. | High |
| A3 | Hemp can be profitable for producers. | Profitability is central to adoption. | Enterprise budgets, realistic yields, input costs, labour, compliance, harvest and transport costs. | Producer | Farmers may face negative margins despite positive headline prices. | High |
| A4 | Hemp can compete with existing enterprises. | Opportunity cost matters for land-use decisions. | Comparative gross margins and risk profiles for existing and alternative land uses. | Producer, Environment | A crop may be viable in isolation but inferior to alternatives. | High |
| A5 | Processing infrastructure exists or can be accessed. | Hemp often requires processing before sale. | Processor capacity, fees, intake terms, location, quality specs and minimum volumes. | Producer, Supply Chain | Production may be stranded without viable processing. | High |
| A6 | Processors and buyers are commercially reliable. | Supply chain failure can transfer risk to growers. | Counterparty history, contract terms, capacity utilisation, payment terms and market channels. | Producer, Supply Chain | Growers may carry risk from weak downstream businesses. | High |
| A7 | Regional climate and soils are suitable. | Suitability cannot be assumed from broader Australian experience. | Climate, soil, water, variety, sowing window, frost, heat, pest and disease evidence by member area where possible. | Producer, Environment | Poor suitability could undermine yield and environmental outcomes. | High |
| A8 | Hemp has environmental benefits. | Hemp is frequently associated with sustainability claims. | Measured soil, water, biodiversity, chemical-use, carbon and lifecycle evidence. | Environment, NELN / Member Organisations | Member organisations could endorse weak or context-dependent environmental claims. | High |
| A9 | Environmental benefits exceed realistic alternatives. | Benefits only matter relative to actual land-use choices. | Comparator land-use data and comparative environmental indicators. | Environment, NELN / Member Organisations, Producer | Analysis may overstate benefits by using an unfair baseline. | High |
| A10 | Hemp aligns with Landcare objectives. | Potential environmental and regional-development fit is plausible but untested. | NELN/member-organisation objectives, member priorities, environmental evidence and role options. | NELN / Member Organisations | Organisational time or reputation may be misallocated. | High |
| A11 | Community perceptions will not materially constrain the project. | Hemp may be misunderstood or politically sensitive. | Stakeholder views, communications risk assessment, regulatory context. | NELN / Member Organisations, Producer | Confusion with cannabis may create reputational or adoption barriers. | Medium |
| A12 | Legal and licensing requirements are manageable. | Compliance is essential for production and supply chains. | Current NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth requirements, costs and obligations. | Producer, Supply Chain, NELN / Member Organisations | Non-compliance risk or administrative burden may reduce viability. | High |
| A13 | Sufficient data will be publicly available. | Some market and cost data may be proprietary. | Source availability review and primary research plan. | All | Weak evidence base may limit confidence. | High |
| A14 | International evidence is transferable. | Some hemp evidence may come from Canada, the United States, Europe or New Zealand. | Climate, system, regulation, scale and market-comparability assessment. | Producer, Supply Chain, Environment | Imported evidence may mislead regional decisions. | Medium |
| A15 | A demonstration or extension role would be low risk. | Landcare organisations often facilitate trials and education. | Risk assessment, partner due diligence, evidence thresholds, member appetite and governance requirements. | NELN / Member Organisations | Demonstration activities could be interpreted as endorsement. | Medium |
| A16 | Benefits and risks are evenly distributed. | Regional-development projects can imply shared benefit. | Perspective-specific analysis by producers, processors, buyers, member organisations and environment. | All | One stakeholder group may benefit while another carries costs. | High |
| A17 | Crop establishment and harvesting services are available. | Specialised equipment may be required. | Machinery availability, contractor access, harvest timing and cost data. | Producer | Production may be technically possible but operationally impractical. | Medium |
| A18 | Water requirements are compatible with regional systems. | Water use can determine both economics and environmental impact. | Rainfall, irrigation, crop water-use and water access evidence. | Producer, Environment | Water constraints could undermine suitability or environmental claims. | High |