Native botanicals / bush-tucker foraging
Dossier 3. Testing whether native botanicals foraging (pepperberry, kunzea etc.) to Huon restaurants and distilleries survives evidence as a zero- capital income line.
Evidence base
FACT (panel record) — the botanicals idea comes from printworks-coop
docs/research/land-income-51123-1.md (agy best pick). Parcel facts in
docs/research/parcel-facts-51123-1-native.md. Cite, do not duplicate.
Claim table
| Claim | Bucket | Source / note |
|---|---|---|
| $0 capital, monetises the PVA directly | ASSUMPTION | land-income-51123-1.md round-2 (agy); unverified |
| Pepperberry, kunzea etc. present on parcel | TODO | species presence survey required — unverified |
| Wild-harvest licensing framework identified (three-layer: species status → tenure → export) | FACT | docs/research/wild-harvest-licensing-tas-2026-07-09.md (Nature Conservation Act 2002; NRE flora-permits page; DCCEEW WTO docs) |
| On private freehold, non-threatened/non-protected native species appear to need only landowner consent for the flora “take” (no separate NRE take-licence cited) | ASSUMPTION | Stated by DCCEEW for specific species, not a blanket rule; needs written NRE confirmation for this parcel — wild-harvest note claim 14 |
| Tasmannia lanceolata (pepperberry, a target species) is already commercially wild-harvested under an approved WTO and not state-listed as threatened | FACT | DCCEEW “Diemen Pepper 2025–2028” — wild-harvest note claim 8 |
| Wild-harvest of the named target species is legal on 51123/1 | TODO | Blocked on: species-status check vs current TSPA/2021 protected-plant list, written NRE confirmation, Forest Practices Act check, LCZ/covenant check — never assert legality until these clear |
| Buyer interest from Huon restaurants and distilleries | ASSUMPTION | panel rationale; unverified demand |
| Native-tubestock provenance micro-nursery under home-based-business class | CHOICE | NEW adjacency (codex round-3); contingent on dwelling keystone landing — TODO on nursery permitting and market |
Kill tests
- TODO — species presence survey on parcel (cheapest; walk the parcel in flowering / fruiting season). What would kill it: target species (pepperberry, kunzea etc.) are not present in commercially useful density.
- PARTLY CLOSED — NRE wild-harvest licensing framework now mapped
(
docs/research/wild-harvest-licensing-tas-2026-07-09.md): the pivot is species status. If a target species is threatened (TSPA 1995) or a declared protected plant (NC Wildlife Regs 2021), a permit to “take” is required even on the founder’s own freehold; if not, private-freehold harvest appears to need only owner consent for the flora take. Tasmannia lanceolata (pepperberry) is already commercially harvested under a WTO and is not state-listed. Residual TODO to fully close: per-species status check, a written NRE confirmation, a Forest Practices Act check, and the LCZ/covenant check. What would still kill it: a target species turns out protected and the permit is refused/uneconomic, or the Forest Practices Act bites at scale. - TODO — buyer interest probe (Huon restaurants / distilleries). What would kill it: no buyer will pay prices that justify the labour of harvest and delivery.
Path to live
- Greenlight threshold — CHOICE — species presence survey finds target species (pepperberry, kunzea etc.) in commercially useful density (kill test #1) AND NRE wild-harvest licensing allows hand-harvest (kill test #2) AND a buyer (Huon restaurant / distillery) will pay prices that justify the labour (kill test #3). All three are TODO.
- Minimum viable version — TODO — one sample box accepted by one chef or distiller. That is the smallest real transaction that proves the income line. $0 capital for foraging; the proof is a buyer accepting a sample.
- First move + trigger — TODO — the first concrete action is kill test #1 (species presence survey, walk the parcel in flowering / fruiting season). Who: founder. Trigger: flowering / fruiting season. No commitment is implied.
- Stacking synergies — ASSUMPTION — botanicals feeds nature-repair (species presence survey data supports a threatened-community case) and is cheapened by 00-dwelling-keystone (provenance micro-nursery under home-based-business class, codex round-3). CHOICE — the micro- nursery adjacency is contingent on the dwelling keystone landing.
- RISK mitigations — ASSUMPTION — the wild-harvest licensing RISK can be mitigated by the provenance micro-nursery (codex round-3): propagated tubestock from legally harvested seed avoids ongoing wild-harvest permitting — needs nursery permitting check. RISK — $0 capital claim is unverified if the micro-nursery path is taken (tubestock capital needed).
Gates
- Capital: ASSUMPTION — $0 for foraging; CHOICE — provenance micro-nursery (codex round-3) would need tubestock capital, contingent on dwelling keystone.
- Permit: TODO — wild-harvest licensing unverified; TODO — micro-nursery under home-based-business class if dwelling keystone lands (codex round-3).
- Insurance: TODO — public liability for a foraging operation is unverified.
Verdict
OPEN — blocked on species presence survey (kill test #1), NRE wild-harvest licensing (kill test #2), and buyer interest (kill test #3). CHOICE — the provenance micro-nursery adjacency (codex round-3) is contingent on the dwelling keystone and is TODO on nursery permitting and market.