| Q1 | Is there verifiable market demand for industrial hemp products relevant to Australian producers? | Transaction evidence, buyer specifications, market volumes, prices, import/export data and purchase terms by product category. | Industry reports, buyer interviews, trade articles or association estimates without transaction detail. | Promotional claims, forecast-only market growth figures, unverified buyer interest. | Producer, Supply Chain |
| Q2 | Which hemp product categories are most relevant to the member-organisation region? | Product-specific demand, price, processing, agronomy and logistics evidence. | National or international category summaries with clear transferability caveats. | General statements about "hemp" without product separation. | Producer, Supply Chain, Environment |
| Q3 | Can producers achieve positive gross margins under realistic regional conditions? | Enterprise budgets using local or comparable yield, input, labour, machinery, water, transport and price data. | Budgets from other Australian regions adjusted with stated assumptions. | Headline price or yield claims without cost structure. | Producer |
| Q4 | What scale of production is required for viable production and market access? | Evidence of minimum contract volumes, processing thresholds, freight economics and machinery requirements. | Interview estimates or processor guidance requiring confirmation. | Anecdotal views without volume or cost detail. | Producer, Supply Chain |
| Q5 | What agronomic conditions determine suitability across the member-organisation region? | Climate, soil, rainfall, irrigation, frost, heat, variety, sowing window, pest, disease and harvest data from member areas or comparable regions. | Broader Australian agronomic guidance with local comparison. | Generic crop suitability statements. | Producer, Environment |
| Q6 | How does hemp compare economically with existing or realistic alternative enterprises? | Comparative gross margins and risk profiles for grazing, mixed farming, lucerne, oats, sorghum, forestry, restoration or other regional enterprises. | Partial comparisons for selected enterprises. | Hemp-only profitability analysis. | Producer, NELN / Member Organisations, Environment |
| Q7 | Does processing infrastructure exist at the scale, quality and location required? | Processor capacity, location, fees, specifications, intake windows, contracts and logistics costs. | Processor lists or industry maps without capacity verification. | Assumption that infrastructure exists because processors operate somewhere in Australia. | Supply Chain, Producer |
| Q8 | Are supply chain participants economically viable and reliable counterparties? | Processor, buyer and exporter business model evidence, operating history, capacity utilisation, payment terms and market channels. | Interviews and public profiles requiring corroboration. | Unverified claims of future facilities or intended demand. | Supply Chain, Producer |
| Q9 | What regulatory requirements affect production, processing, movement and sale? | Current NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth legal requirements, licensing rules, THC thresholds, transport, food/fibre rules and compliance costs. | Government guidance requiring legal interpretation. | Informal views or outdated regulations. | Producer, Supply Chain, NELN / Member Organisations |
| Q10 | What environmental outcomes could change under hemp production? | Measured evidence for soil cover, soil carbon, biodiversity, water, chemical use, emissions and lifecycle impacts by production system. | Studies from comparable climates or systems with transferability caveats. | Broad sustainability claims without measured outcomes. | Environment, NELN / Member Organisations |
| Q11 | What is the realistic environmental comparator? | Regional land use and enterprise data identifying plausible alternatives and baseline practices across member areas. | Regional agricultural profiles that need refinement. | Comparing hemp with an unrealistic or undefined baseline. | Environment, Producer |
| Q12 | Could hemp support regional development or community outcomes? | Evidence of jobs, value adding, processing, local spend and skills under realistic scale assumptions. | Case studies from other regions with caveats. | Multipliers or claims without scale and causality. | NELN / Member Organisations, Supply Chain |
| Q13 | What role could New England Landcare Network member organisations play without compromising independence? | Options analysis comparing education, convening, demonstration, partnership, advocacy, monitor-only or no-action roles against mission fit and risk. | Stakeholder views and comparable Landcare activities. | Assuming involvement is justified by crop potential alone. | NELN / Member Organisations |
| Q14 | What are the main risks, uncertainties and failure modes? | Evidence register gaps, sensitivity analysis, stakeholder disagreement, market volatility and regulatory risk assessment. | Risk lists from comparable industries. | Optimistic scenario only. | All |
| Q15 | What minimum evidence threshold is required before recommending any action? | Predefined decision rules covering evidence strength, confidence level, stakeholder perspective and unresolved gaps. | Qualitative judgement with transparent caveats. | Recommendation based on interest, novelty or single-source claims. | All |
