Home / Scoping / Phase 1 Summary Report

Phase 1 Summary Report

Status:

Draft

Source file:

01 Scoping/phase-1-summary-report.md

Created:

2026-06-09

Last updated:

2026-08-05

Sensitivity review:

Completed

Purpose:

This report summarises Phase 1 Scoping for the Industrial Hemp Environmental and Economic Assessment. No secondary research, primary research, evidence collection or business case conclusions are included. Phase 1 originally used Granite Borders Landcare and the Granite Borders region as a deliberately limited starting frame.

Purpose

This report summarises Phase 1 Scoping for the Industrial Hemp Environmental and Economic Assessment.

No secondary research, primary research, evidence collection or business case conclusions are included.

Phase 1 originally used Granite Borders Landcare and the Granite Borders region as a deliberately limited starting frame. The scoping foundation has now been updated so future work uses the New England Landcare Network member-organisation footprint as the primary geography.

Phase 1 Outputs Completed

Questions That Need Answering

The project must answer:

1. Is there genuine and verifiable market demand for industrial hemp products?
2. Can industrial hemp be produced profitably within Australian supply chains?
3. Is industrial hemp agronomically suitable across the New England Landcare Network member-organisation region?
4. Does industrial hemp provide meaningful environmental benefits relative to existing and realistic alternative land uses?
5. If industrial hemp is commercially viable and environmentally beneficial, what role should New England Landcare Network member organisations play?

Phase 1 added specific design questions about product categories, processor access, buyer terms, scale requirements, opportunity costs, environmental comparators, regulatory obligations and evidence thresholds.

Evidence Required

The most important evidence categories are:

• Product-specific demand, prices, volumes and specifications.
• Producer gross margins, yields, input costs, labour, machinery, water and freight.
• Processing capacity, fees, intake requirements and minimum viable volumes.
• Regulatory and licensing requirements across NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth settings.
• Regional climate, soil, land-use and comparator enterprise data for member areas, with broader regional data clearly labelled.
• Environmental evidence for soil, water, biodiversity, chemical use, emissions and lifecycle impacts.
• Landcare member priorities, organisational risk appetite and strategic role options.

Sources to Use

Phase 2 should prioritise:

• Government sources: ABS, ABARES, DAFF, NSW DPI, Queensland DAF, AgriFutures, CSIRO and relevant local government sources.
• Academic sources: peer-reviewed agronomy, environmental and lifecycle studies.
• Industry sources: processors, buyers, exporters, manufacturers and industry associations, treated with bias controls.
• Market sources: trade statistics, price schedules, purchase terms and market reports where methods are transparent.
• International sources: Canada, United States, Europe and New Zealand, used only with transferability caveats.

Stakeholders to Contact Later

Priority Phase 3 stakeholders should include:

• Existing hemp growers.
• Non-hemp producers and potential adopters.
• Hemp processors.
• Buyers, manufacturers and exporters.
• Agronomists and researchers.
• NSW and Queensland government/regulatory contacts.
• Freight, machinery and contractor providers.
• Landcare members and local community stakeholders across member organisations.

Assumptions Requiring Testing

Key assumptions include:

• Demand exists and is commercially accessible to regional producers.
• Hemp can be profitable at realistic yields and prices.
• Processing infrastructure exists or can be accessed economically.
• Local climate, soil and water conditions are suitable across relevant member areas.
• Environmental benefits are measurable and exceed realistic alternatives.
• Hemp aligns with Landcare objectives and member-organisation risk appetite.
• Legal and licensing requirements are manageable.
• Benefits and risks are not evenly distributed across stakeholders.

Information Gaps

The main information gaps at the end of Phase 1 are:

• Verified buyer demand and transaction evidence.
• Local or comparable production economics.
• Product-specific processor access and cost.
• Freight and logistics economics.
• Environmental evidence transferable to member-area contexts.
• Comparator land-use baselines.
• Member and leadership views on organisational involvement.

Evidence Classification Approach

All significant findings in later phases should be classified by:

• Assessment perspective: Producer, Supply Chain, NELN / Member Organisations and Environment.
• Evidence strength: High, Medium, Low or Unknown.
• Confidence level: High, Medium, Low or Unknown.
• Geography: Direct, Comparable, Background or Not applicable.
• Product category.
• Source type and independence.
• Follow-up required.

Formal Readiness Review

Is the project ready for the next Phase 2 update?

Yes, subject to evidence controls. The re-scoped research design is ready to guide the next Phase 2 Secondary Research update.

Conditions for Readiness

• Phase 2 must remain evidence collection and evidence assessment, not recommendation writing.
• The evidence register should be updated from the first source reviewed.
• Sources must be tagged by geography, product category and assessment perspective.
• Promotional or advocacy claims should be logged as claims requiring verification, not accepted as findings.
• Difficult evidence areas should be tackled early to avoid building the project around easy but low-value material.

Unresolved Issues

• Member-area geography mapping must be handled carefully, especially where datasets use broader statistical geographies.
• Existing Phase 2 evidence may over-represent the original Granite Borders starting scope.
• Product categories must be separated before market conclusions are attempted.
• Environmental comparators need to be prioritised.
• Primary research targets cannot be finalised until Phase 2 evidence gaps are clearer.

Evidence Categories Likely to Be Most Difficult

• Actual prices, purchase volumes and contract terms.
• Processor economics and capacity.
• Local grower gross margins and failed-case evidence.
• Comparable environmental and lifecycle evidence.
• Transferable soil carbon and biodiversity evidence.

Primary Research Activities to Prioritise Later

1. Processor and buyer interviews.
2. Existing grower interviews.
3. Non-adopter and comparator enterprise interviews.
4. Agronomist, researcher and government interviews.
5. Landcare member and community engagement.
6. Contractor, machinery and freight interviews.

Phase 1 Conclusion

Phase 1 Scoping is complete and has been re-scoped to the New England Landcare Network member-organisation region. The next step is to update secondary research against this wider foundation without treating earlier Granite Borders-specific evidence as representative of the full region unless transferability is demonstrated.