Africa business model

The material is already there. Nobody has joined it up.

Hemp stalk, sisal waste and sawmill residue exist across eastern and southern Africa in volumes that would keep our line running for a decade, and in almost every case the grower currently pays to get rid of it. What does not exist, anywhere on the continent, is an integrated fibre to composite-pellet line. Pulp capacity, decortication and compounding all exist separately. Joined together, at origin, under a grower-owned arm, they turn a disposal cost into a processed export and give us a landed material price no virgin polymer line can approach. This page shows the partners, the cost of every stage, and the three prices we will not invent.

Biochar JV Circular materials Manchester line

£469/t

Pellets landed in Manchester at the current model settings

Estimated

£29

Compound cost inside one bench deck

Estimated

405

Direct jobs across origin and Manchester at this volume

Estimated

Integrated lines in Africa today

Verified

Fibre to certified composite pellet, joined up

Pellet bulk density gain

Estimated

~4x

Against baled biomass, per container

Reclaimed panel price

Estimated

£5

Per module, against £78 new

Prices marked quote required

Assumed

Farmgate, decortication, freight

Partner map

Named candidates, with the contact status stated.

Not one of these is a signed supplier and the status column says so on every row. They are here because each one holds a specific stage we need: licensed volume, decortication labour, cellulose chemistry to a specification, or the capital that makes a line at origin financeable rather than aspirational.

Grower or aggregator

Hemp Solutions South Africa^[1]

Country: South Africa
Stage held: Residue supply and first-stage decortication
Why them: Licensed hemp production and processing under the South African permit regime, with existing hurd and shiv volumes that currently go to animal bedding and construction blocks at low value.
Status: Approach drafted

Agricultural Hemp Council of South Africa^[1]

Country: South Africa
Stage held: Grower aggregation and standards
Why them: Sector body rather than a single farm, which is the fastest route to an aggregated tonnage commitment across many smallholdings instead of one estate.
Status: Approach drafted

Capa Bokone

Country: South Africa, Limpopo
Stage held: Residue supply and solar drying
Why them: Community-scale cultivation in a province with strong solar resource, so the same site can host drying without a fuel bill.
Status: Not contacted

Lesotho National Development Corporation^[2]

Country: Lesotho
Stage held: Licensed feedstock and industrial siting
Why them: Lesotho issued cannabis and hemp cultivation licences early and the LNDC exists to place industrial offtake against them, which is exactly our shape of deal.
Status: Approach drafted

Cannabis Research Association, Malawi^[3]

Country: Malawi
Stage held: Residue supply
Why them: Malawi legalised industrial hemp in 2020 and the association coordinates growers who currently have fibre but no fibre buyer.
Status: Not contacted

Canhem and Willowmead

Country: Zimbabwe
Stage held: Residue supply and decortication
Why them: Two of the small number of Zimbabwean operators with actual harvest history rather than announcements, in a country with cheap decortication labour.
Status: Not contacted

Tanzania Sisal Board^[4]

Country: Tanzania
Stage held: Alternative fibre and residue supply
Why them: Sisal is the fallback fibre when a hemp harvest fails. The board sits on tens of thousands of tonnes of decortication waste a year, which is currently a disposal problem.
Status: Not contacted

Mananasi Fibre

Country: Kenya
Stage held: Alternative fibre supply
Why them: Pineapple leaf fibre from crop residue, already proven as a textile feedstock. Useful as a third fibre in the recipe and a signal that residue-to-fibre supply chains work commercially in East Africa.
Status: Not contacted

Partner	Country	Stage held	Why them	Status
Hemp Solutions South Africa^[1]	South Africa	Residue supply and first-stage decortication	Licensed hemp production and processing under the South African permit regime, with existing hurd and shiv volumes that currently go to animal bedding and construction blocks at low value.	Approach drafted
Agricultural Hemp Council of South Africa^[1]	South Africa	Grower aggregation and standards	Sector body rather than a single farm, which is the fastest route to an aggregated tonnage commitment across many smallholdings instead of one estate.	Approach drafted
Capa Bokone	South Africa, Limpopo	Residue supply and solar drying	Community-scale cultivation in a province with strong solar resource, so the same site can host drying without a fuel bill.	Not contacted
Lesotho National Development Corporation^[2]	Lesotho	Licensed feedstock and industrial siting	Lesotho issued cannabis and hemp cultivation licences early and the LNDC exists to place industrial offtake against them, which is exactly our shape of deal.	Approach drafted
Cannabis Research Association, Malawi^[3]	Malawi	Residue supply	Malawi legalised industrial hemp in 2020 and the association coordinates growers who currently have fibre but no fibre buyer.	Not contacted
Canhem and Willowmead	Zimbabwe	Residue supply and decortication	Two of the small number of Zimbabwean operators with actual harvest history rather than announcements, in a country with cheap decortication labour.	Not contacted
Tanzania Sisal Board^[4]	Tanzania	Alternative fibre and residue supply	Sisal is the fallback fibre when a hemp harvest fails. The board sits on tens of thousands of tonnes of decortication waste a year, which is currently a disposal problem.	Not contacted
Mananasi Fibre	Kenya	Alternative fibre supply	Pineapple leaf fibre from crop residue, already proven as a textile feedstock. Useful as a third fibre in the recipe and a signal that residue-to-fibre supply chains work commercially in East Africa.	Not contacted

Fibre and pulp converter

Sappi^[5]

Country: South Africa
Stage held: Cellulose preparation
Why them: Dissolving pulp at industrial scale with cellulose chemistry in house. The only realistic partner if we want cellulose prepared to a specification rather than to a farmer's best effort.
Status: Approach drafted

Mondi^[6]

Country: South Africa
Stage held: Cellulose preparation and export logistics
Why them: Packaging and pulp operations with existing export logistics from Durban and Richards Bay, which is the freight leg we need solved as much as the chemistry.
Status: Not contacted

Sao Hill Industries

Country: Tanzania
Stage held: Pine residue and milling
Why them: Large sawmill complex producing pine residue as a by-product, which is the other half of our seasonal recipe and lets one origin serve both feedstocks.
Status: Not contacted

Partner	Country	Stage held	Why them	Status
Sappi^[5]	South Africa	Cellulose preparation	Dissolving pulp at industrial scale with cellulose chemistry in house. The only realistic partner if we want cellulose prepared to a specification rather than to a farmer's best effort.	Approach drafted
Mondi^[6]	South Africa	Cellulose preparation and export logistics	Packaging and pulp operations with existing export logistics from Durban and Richards Bay, which is the freight leg we need solved as much as the chemistry.	Not contacted
Sao Hill Industries	Tanzania	Pine residue and milling	Large sawmill complex producing pine residue as a by-product, which is the other half of our seasonal recipe and lets one origin serve both feedstocks.	Not contacted

Finance or programme vehicle

GIZ^[7]

Country: Multi-country
Stage held: Capital for the pellet line and grower training
Why them: German development cooperation funds value-addition-at-origin projects, which is precisely the argument for pelletising in Africa rather than baling and exporting raw.
Status: Not contacted

IFAD^[8]

Country: Multi-country
Stage held: Grower-owned processing arm
Why them: Smallholder income is IFAD's mandate. A grower-owned processing arm that raises income from what is currently waste fits their instruments better than a plain offtake.
Status: Not contacted

African Development Bank^[9]

Country: Multi-country
Stage held: Processing zone siting and debt
Why them: AfDB lends into agro-industrial processing zones. A pellet line inside an existing zone avoids us funding power, water and road access ourselves.
Status: Not contacted

Partner	Country	Stage held	Why them	Status
GIZ^[7]	Multi-country	Capital for the pellet line and grower training	German development cooperation funds value-addition-at-origin projects, which is precisely the argument for pelletising in Africa rather than baling and exporting raw.	Not contacted
IFAD^[8]	Multi-country	Grower-owned processing arm	Smallholder income is IFAD's mandate. A grower-owned processing arm that raises income from what is currently waste fits their instruments better than a plain offtake.	Not contacted
African Development Bank^[9]	Multi-country	Processing zone siting and debt	AfDB lends into agro-industrial processing zones. A pellet line inside an existing zone avoids us funding power, water and road access ourselves.	Not contacted

Partner carbon rights

The same partners feed the kiln. Here is who owns the carbon.

Every fibre partner also produces the fines fraction the biochar joint venture runs on, so each one carries a carbon position whether or not we discuss it. The volume column is ours, modelled from hectares. The MRV column below separates what a partner has actually told us from what we are estimating in the absence of a document, because that distinction is the whole difference between a claim and a credit.

Hemp Solutions South Africa

South Africa · Jointly owned unit

50% of MRV inputs documented

Residue at the yard

Estimated

4,200 t/yr

32 per cent of it goes to the kiln

To the kiln

Estimated

1,344 t/yr

Fines and short fibre a certified deck cannot use

Char produced

Estimated

403 t/yr

At the char yield stated on the biochar page

Net removal

Estimated

869 t CO2/yr

After kiln emissions and the drying heat displaced

Carbon rights

Jointly owned unit, split 50/50 at the registry account. Licensed operator with existing volume, so the first kiln goes here and the operating standard matters more than the ownership optics. Rights registered once to the JV entity, split written in before the first batch.

Feedstock mass pyrolysed

Claimed by partner: Weighbridge already on site for the bedding trade
What we model instead: 4,200 t a year residue, 1,344 t to the kiln
Source: Claimed by partner
Basis: Weighbridge existence is claimed and plausible for a licensed operation. Tonnage is our figure from hectares, not their ticket data.

Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 0.42 H/Corg at 500 degrees, continuous retort
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Literature range for hemp hurd char at that temperature. No sample has been tested.

Kiln and handling energy

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 42 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Self-sustaining pyrolysis plus diesel handling. No kiln exists to meter.

Where the char physically went

Claimed by partner: Own land available for application
What we model instead: 35 per cent of char retained for own soil, balance sold locally
Source: Claimed by partner
Basis: Land availability is claimed. No application record format is agreed yet.

MRV input	Claimed by partner	What we model instead	Source	Basis
Feedstock mass pyrolysed	Weighbridge already on site for the bedding trade	4,200 t a year residue, 1,344 t to the kiln	Claimed by partner	Weighbridge existence is claimed and plausible for a licensed operation. Tonnage is our figure from hectares, not their ticket data.
Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio	Nothing claimed	0.42 H/Corg at 500 degrees, continuous retort	Estimated by us	Literature range for hemp hurd char at that temperature. No sample has been tested.
Kiln and handling energy	Nothing claimed	42 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock	Estimated by us	Self-sustaining pyrolysis plus diesel handling. No kiln exists to meter.
Where the char physically went	Own land available for application	35 per cent of char retained for own soil, balance sold locally	Claimed by partner	Land availability is claimed. No application record format is agreed yet.

Lesotho National Development Corporation

Lesotho · Grower-owned kiln, Canopei offtake

0% of MRV inputs documented

Residue at the yard

Estimated

2,600 t/yr

30 per cent of it goes to the kiln

To the kiln

Estimated

780 t/yr

Fines and short fibre a certified deck cannot use

Char produced

Estimated

234 t/yr

At the char yield stated on the biochar page

Net removal

Estimated

504 t CO2/yr

After kiln emissions and the drying heat displaced

Carbon rights

Grower cooperative, financed against our offtake. Rights stay with the cooperative. We buy removal tonnes at an agreed price and retire nothing on their behalf without written instruction, which is the condition the LNDC development mandate makes easiest to satisfy.

Feedstock mass pyrolysed

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 2,600 t a year residue, 780 t to the kiln
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Modelled from licensed hectares, not from a weighbridge. No scale is installed.

Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 0.45 H/Corg
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Same literature basis, with a small penalty for a colder highland operating window.

Kiln and handling energy

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 48 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Uplift on the base figure for longer haulage between fields and the yard.

Where the char physically went

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: Local application through cooperative members
Source: Not available
Basis: There is no member list, no field register and no signature route, so this input cannot be evidenced today at any confidence.

MRV input	Claimed by partner	What we model instead	Source	Basis
Feedstock mass pyrolysed	Nothing claimed	2,600 t a year residue, 780 t to the kiln	Estimated by us	Modelled from licensed hectares, not from a weighbridge. No scale is installed.
Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio	Nothing claimed	0.45 H/Corg	Estimated by us	Same literature basis, with a small penalty for a colder highland operating window.
Kiln and handling energy	Nothing claimed	48 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock	Estimated by us	Uplift on the base figure for longer haulage between fields and the yard.
Where the char physically went	Nothing claimed	Local application through cooperative members	Not available	There is no member list, no field register and no signature route, so this input cannot be evidenced today at any confidence.

Cannabis Research Association, Malawi

Malawi · Grower-owned kiln, Canopei offtake

25% of MRV inputs documented

Residue at the yard

Estimated

1,900 t/yr

34 per cent of it goes to the kiln

To the kiln

Estimated

646 t/yr

Fines and short fibre a certified deck cannot use

Char produced

Estimated

194 t/yr

At the char yield stated on the biochar page

Net removal

Estimated

418 t CO2/yr

After kiln emissions and the drying heat displaced

Carbon rights

Grower association, held on behalf of member farms. An association holding rights for many smallholdings needs a member level allocation rule before issuance, otherwise a single registry account quietly absorbs value that belongs to individual farms.

Feedstock mass pyrolysed

Claimed by partner: Aggregation points already used for fibre collection
What we model instead: 1,900 t a year residue, 646 t to the kiln
Source: Claimed by partner
Basis: Collection points are claimed. Weighing at those points is not established.

Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 0.44 H/Corg
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Literature range. Untested.

Kiln and handling energy

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 44 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Base figure with a short haulage assumption.

Where the char physically went

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: Member field application, unrecorded
Source: Not available
Basis: Many small fields is the hardest fate case to evidence and the one most likely to fail audit first.

MRV input	Claimed by partner	What we model instead	Source	Basis
Feedstock mass pyrolysed	Aggregation points already used for fibre collection	1,900 t a year residue, 646 t to the kiln	Claimed by partner	Collection points are claimed. Weighing at those points is not established.
Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio	Nothing claimed	0.44 H/Corg	Estimated by us	Literature range. Untested.
Kiln and handling energy	Nothing claimed	44 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock	Estimated by us	Base figure with a short haulage assumption.
Where the char physically went	Nothing claimed	Member field application, unrecorded	Not available	Many small fields is the hardest fate case to evidence and the one most likely to fail audit first.

Canhem and Willowmead

Zimbabwe · Grower-owned kiln, Canopei offtake

0% of MRV inputs documented

Residue at the yard

Estimated

1,400 t/yr

36 per cent of it goes to the kiln

To the kiln

Estimated

504 t/yr

Fines and short fibre a certified deck cannot use

Char produced

Estimated

151 t/yr

At the char yield stated on the biochar page

Net removal

Estimated

326 t CO2/yr

After kiln emissions and the drying heat displaced

Carbon rights

Operator companies, individually. Two separate companies, so two separate rights conversations and two registry accounts. No pooled claim until both agree an identical measurement protocol.

Feedstock mass pyrolysed

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 1,400 t a year residue, 504 t to the kiln
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: From harvest history rather than announcements, but still our estimate.

Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 0.46 H/Corg
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Literature range, penalised for likely batch variability on a smaller unit.

Kiln and handling energy

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 52 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Higher, because grid backup here is more likely to be a diesel generator.

Where the char physically went

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: Sold to local growers, buyer reference retained
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: A sale record is easier to hold than a field record, so this is the more evidenceable route.

MRV input	Claimed by partner	What we model instead	Source	Basis
Feedstock mass pyrolysed	Nothing claimed	1,400 t a year residue, 504 t to the kiln	Estimated by us	From harvest history rather than announcements, but still our estimate.
Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio	Nothing claimed	0.46 H/Corg	Estimated by us	Literature range, penalised for likely batch variability on a smaller unit.
Kiln and handling energy	Nothing claimed	52 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock	Estimated by us	Higher, because grid backup here is more likely to be a diesel generator.
Where the char physically went	Nothing claimed	Sold to local growers, buyer reference retained	Estimated by us	A sale record is easier to hold than a field record, so this is the more evidenceable route.

Tanzania Sisal Board

Tanzania · Jointly owned unit

25% of MRV inputs documented

Residue at the yard

Estimated

9,800 t/yr

28 per cent of it goes to the kiln

To the kiln

Estimated

2,744 t/yr

Fines and short fibre a certified deck cannot use

Char produced

Estimated

823 t/yr

At the char yield stated on the biochar page

Net removal

Estimated

1,774 t CO2/yr

After kiln emissions and the drying heat displaced

Carbon rights

Board and Canopei, jointly, per estate. Sisal decortication waste is already concentrated at estate scale with existing industrial records, which makes it the strongest MRV candidate on this list despite being the newest feedstock to the recipe.

Feedstock mass pyrolysed

Claimed by partner: Estate scale production records exist for the primary fibre
What we model instead: 9,800 t a year residue, 2,744 t to the kiln
Source: Claimed by partner
Basis: Primary fibre records are documented industrially. Residue mass is not separately weighed today, so our figure is derived.

Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 0.4 H/Corg
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Sisal residue chars slightly cleaner than hurd in the literature. Untested here.

Kiln and handling energy

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: 40 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: Lowest of the set, because feedstock and kiln would sit in the same yard.

Where the char physically went

Claimed by partner: Nothing claimed
What we model instead: Applied on estate, single land holding
Source: Estimated by us
Basis: One landowner and one field register is the easiest fate case to audit, once a register exists.

MRV input	Claimed by partner	What we model instead	Source	Basis
Feedstock mass pyrolysed	Estate scale production records exist for the primary fibre	9,800 t a year residue, 2,744 t to the kiln	Claimed by partner	Primary fibre records are documented industrially. Residue mass is not separately weighed today, so our figure is derived.
Hydrogen to organic carbon ratio	Nothing claimed	0.4 H/Corg	Estimated by us	Sisal residue chars slightly cleaner than hurd in the literature. Untested here.
Kiln and handling energy	Nothing claimed	40 kg CO2e per tonne feedstock	Estimated by us	Lowest of the set, because feedstock and kiln would sit in the same yard.
Where the char physically went	Nothing claimed	Applied on estate, single land holding	Estimated by us	One landowner and one field register is the easiest fate case to audit, once a register exists.

The JV structures and custody chain How this becomes an issuable credit

Decortication machinery separating fibre from woody stalk

The chain, costed

Every stage carries a cost, a yield loss and a headcount.

The split is deliberate. Everything that benefits from sunshine, cheap labour and proximity to the crop happens at origin. Everything that has to be certified, tooled and accountable to a UK buyer happens in Greater Manchester. Pellets are the handover point because they are the densest, driest, most inspectable form the material takes.

Yield loss is where the honesty lives. A tonne of stalk in the field is not a tonne of compound in a deck. Roughly a third leaves at decortication as fines and short fibre, and that fraction is exactly the feedstock the biochar venture runs on, which is why the two models are siblings rather than a bolt-on.

1. Field residue collected

Where: Origin, at the farm
What happens: Stalk left after the primary crop is taken. Today it is burned, ploughed in or paid to be moved, so the starting price is low and in some cases negative.
Cost per tonne: £6
Yield loss: 4.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 9
Basis: Quote required

2. Decortication

Where: Origin, village or cooperative scale
What happens: Stalk separated into bast fibre and woody hurd. We want the hurd; the bast has a higher-value textile market that stays with the grower.
Cost per tonne: £74
Yield loss: 32.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 14
Basis: Quote required

3. Solar drying and milling

Where: Origin
What happens: Moisture out under the sun rather than under a gas burner, then milled to a particle size the compounder can meter. This is where the origin choice pays for itself.
Cost per tonne: £28
Yield loss: 11.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 6
Basis: Estimated

4. Cellulose preparation

Where: Origin, converter partner
What happens: Cleaning and sizing to a stated cellulose content and ash limit, so the compound behaves the same batch to batch. Without this stage the mechanical envelope cannot be certified.
Cost per tonne: £96
Yield loss: 8.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 5
Basis: Estimated

5. Compounding to pellets

Where: Origin, new line
What happens: Cellulose plus recycled polymer and coupling agent, extruded and pelletised. This is the step nobody in Africa currently runs joined up to a fibre supply.
Cost per tonne: £118
Yield loss: 3.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 11
Basis: Estimated

6. Freight to Manchester

Where: Sea, then inland
What happens: Pellets are dense dry cargo at roughly four times the bulk density of bales, so the same container carries four times the usable compound.
Cost per tonne: £82
Yield loss: 0.5%
Jobs per kt/yr: 2
Basis: Quote required

7. Injection moulding

Where: Greater Manchester
What happens: Deck slats, end caps and housings moulded on UK tooling. Scrap is reground on site and fed back in the same shift.
Cost per tonne: £214
Yield loss: 2.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 18
Basis: Estimated

8. Assembly and test

Where: Greater Manchester
What happens: Frame, reclaimed array, storage, power electronics, connectivity module and sensor head fitted, then electrically and mechanically tested before dispatch.
Cost per tonne: £168
Yield loss: 0.0%
Jobs per kt/yr: 26
Basis: Estimated

Stage	Where	What happens	Cost per tonne	Yield loss	Jobs per kt/yr	Basis
1. Field residue collected	Origin, at the farm	Stalk left after the primary crop is taken. Today it is burned, ploughed in or paid to be moved, so the starting price is low and in some cases negative.	£6	4.0%	9	Quote required
2. Decortication	Origin, village or cooperative scale	Stalk separated into bast fibre and woody hurd. We want the hurd; the bast has a higher-value textile market that stays with the grower.	£74	32.0%	14	Quote required
3. Solar drying and milling	Origin	Moisture out under the sun rather than under a gas burner, then milled to a particle size the compounder can meter. This is where the origin choice pays for itself.	£28	11.0%	6	Estimated
4. Cellulose preparation	Origin, converter partner	Cleaning and sizing to a stated cellulose content and ash limit, so the compound behaves the same batch to batch. Without this stage the mechanical envelope cannot be certified.	£96	8.0%	5	Estimated
5. Compounding to pellets	Origin, new line	Cellulose plus recycled polymer and coupling agent, extruded and pelletised. This is the step nobody in Africa currently runs joined up to a fibre supply.	£118	3.0%	11	Estimated
6. Freight to Manchester	Sea, then inland	Pellets are dense dry cargo at roughly four times the bulk density of bales, so the same container carries four times the usable compound.	£82	0.5%	2	Quote required
7. Injection moulding	Greater Manchester	Deck slats, end caps and housings moulded on UK tooling. Scrap is reground on site and fed back in the same shift.	£214	2.0%	18	Estimated
8. Assembly and test	Greater Manchester	Frame, reclaimed array, storage, power electronics, connectivity module and sensor head fitted, then electrically and mechanically tested before dispatch.	£168	0.0%	26	Estimated

Quote required

Three prices nobody publishes, so we are not going to pretend.

Each of these moves the landed cost materially, each is genuinely unavailable from any index we could cite in good conscience, and each has a named party who can turn it into a quotation. Until then, the model runs on the value shown and the range is on the page rather than in a footnote.

Farmgate hurd price

Used: £6/t
Range: £-10 to £24
Why it is not published: There is no exchange or index for hemp hurd anywhere in Africa, because there is no volume buyer to set a price. Negative values are realistic where the grower currently pays to clear the field.
Who can quote it: Hemp Solutions SA, AHCSA members, LNDC, CRA Malawi

Decortication cost per tonne

Used: £74/t
Range: £42 to £130
Why it is not published: The spread is a machine question, not a market question. Hand-fed village units and a single imported line differ by three times per tonne, and neither publishes rates.
Who can quote it: Cooperative operators, Canhem, Willowmead, Tanzania Sisal Board

Africa to UK freight, this lane

Used: £82/t
Range: £48 to £145
Why it is not published: Container rates on southern and eastern African lanes move faster than any published index we could cite honestly, and a bulk pellet booking is priced individually.
Who can quote it: Freight forwarders at Durban, Mombasa and Dar es Salaam

Line	Used	Range	Why it is not published	Who can quote it
Farmgate hurd price	£6/t	£-10 to £24	There is no exchange or index for hemp hurd anywhere in Africa, because there is no volume buyer to set a price. Negative values are realistic where the grower currently pays to clear the field.	Hemp Solutions SA, AHCSA members, LNDC, CRA Malawi
Decortication cost per tonne	£74/t	£42 to £130	The spread is a machine question, not a market question. Hand-fed village units and a single imported line differ by three times per tonne, and neither publishes rates.	Cooperative operators, Canhem, Willowmead, Tanzania Sisal Board
Africa to UK freight, this lane	£82/t	£48 to £145	Container rates on southern and eastern African lanes move faster than any published index we could cite honestly, and a bulk pellet booking is priced individually.	Freight forwarders at Durban, Mombasa and Dar es Salaam

The model

Hectares in, benches and grower income out.

Farmgate price and decortication are paid on residue mass, freight and everything after is paid on the mass that survives, so the conversion share does more damage to the landed cost than any single price on the page. Move it first.

Assumptions

Hectares under contract

1,800

Usable residue per hectare

4.6 t

Residue that becomes compound

55 per cent

Farmgate residue price

£6/t

Decortication

£74/t

Freight to Manchester

£82/t

Residue collected

Estimated

8,280 t

A year, across the contracted area

Pellets produced

Estimated

4,554 t

Dense dry cargo leaving origin

Benches supportable

Estimated

73,452

At 62 kg of compound per deck

Landed pellet cost

Estimated

£469/t

£29 of material per bench

Paid to growers

Estimated

£49,680

A year, for material they pay to clear today

Origin processing spend

Estimated

£1,439,064

Wages, power and consumables at origin

Origin jobs

Estimated

205

Collection through pelletising

Manchester jobs

Estimated

200

Moulding, assembly and test

3,726 tonnes a year never makes a deck.

Fines, dust and short fibre are screened out before compounding. Burned in the open, that carbon is back in the air within a season. Pyrolysed, most of it becomes a stable solid and the waste heat dries the fibre we do want. That is the biochar joint venture, and it runs on this number.

See the biochar JV

Estimated

Composite pellets in a hand, ready for injection moulding

Grower-owned business arm

The better deal for us is also the better deal for them.

The obvious model is to buy stalk at the field edge and own everything after it. It is cheap per tonne and it makes us an industrial operator in a country we do not live in, carrying every operating risk in a plant we cannot see.

The alternative is to help the cooperative own decortication and pelletising as a new business arm, and to commit to a multi-year offtake at an agreed margin over their verified cost. That commitment is what makes the equipment financeable. Grower income per tonne rises roughly seven times, the bast fibre and the biochar lines stay in their hands, and we buy a finished product to a specification instead of running a factory by correspondence.

We pay more per tonne for that. Above roughly 12,875 tonnes of pellets a year, not carrying the origin plant ourselves repays the premium, which is well inside the volume a single deployment programme needs.

We buy the residue

How it works: Simplest deal. The grower sells raw stalk at the field edge and walks away. We own decortication, drying, cellulose prep and the pellet line, and we carry all of the capital.
Grower receives: £6/t
Grower capital: £0
We pay per pellet tonne: £320
Their upside: A payment for something that costs them money today, with no equipment to buy and no new skill to learn.
Our risk: We fund and run industrial plant in a country we do not live in, and we own every operating risk in it.

Growers process, we buy pellets

How it works: The grower cooperative owns decortication and pelletising as a new business arm. We commit to a multi-year offtake at an agreed margin over their verified cost, which is what makes the equipment financeable.
Grower receives: £41/t
Grower capital: £178,000
We pay per pellet tonne: £352
Their upside: Waste becomes a processed product with a contracted buyer. Income per tonne rises roughly seven times, and the bast fibre and biochar lines stay in their hands too.
Our risk: We pay more per tonne and depend on someone else's quality control, so the specification and the audit have to be contractual rather than trusting.

Joint venture line

How it works: A shared entity: growers contribute land, residue and labour, we contribute tooling, specification and the offtake. Profit split on the pellet line, with grower buy-out rights over time.
Grower receives: £28/t
Grower capital: £46,000
We pay per pellet tonne: £336
Their upside: Income now plus a share of the processing margin and a route to owning the line outright, without funding it alone up front.
Our risk: Governance. A shared entity across borders needs real reporting, and buy-out mechanics have to be written before the first tonne moves, not after.

Model	How it works	Grower receives	Grower capital	We pay per pellet tonne	Their upside	Our risk
We buy the residue	Simplest deal. The grower sells raw stalk at the field edge and walks away. We own decortication, drying, cellulose prep and the pellet line, and we carry all of the capital.	£6/t	£0	£320	A payment for something that costs them money today, with no equipment to buy and no new skill to learn.	We fund and run industrial plant in a country we do not live in, and we own every operating risk in it.
Growers process, we buy pellets	The grower cooperative owns decortication and pelletising as a new business arm. We commit to a multi-year offtake at an agreed margin over their verified cost, which is what makes the equipment financeable.	£41/t	£178,000	£352	Waste becomes a processed product with a contracted buyer. Income per tonne rises roughly seven times, and the bast fibre and biochar lines stay in their hands too.	We pay more per tonne and depend on someone else's quality control, so the specification and the audit have to be contractual rather than trusting.
Joint venture line	A shared entity: growers contribute land, residue and labour, we contribute tooling, specification and the offtake. Profit split on the pellet line, with grower buy-out rights over time.	£28/t	£46,000	£336	Income now plus a share of the processing margin and a route to owning the line outright, without funding it alone up front.	Governance. A shared entity across borders needs real reporting, and buy-out mechanics have to be written before the first tonne moves, not after.

What this page is not

A researched model, not a supply chain.

No tonne has moved. Every partner above is a researched candidate at the contact status shown, not a signed supplier, and nothing on this page should be read as an agreement.

The three Quote required lines are the difference between a model and a quotation. Until they are firm, the landed cost carries a range and not a number.

Nobody in Africa currently runs an integrated fibre to composite-pellet line. That is our opening, and it is also the reason the first line will take longer and cost more than the steady-state figures here.

References

Every partner claim, back to a public source.

[1]
Hemp cultivation permits and the hemp regulatory framework · Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, South Africa
That licensed industrial hemp cultivation exists at commercial scale in South Africa, which is what makes an aggregated residue contract possible there.
Verified
[2]
Investment and industrial development in Lesotho · Lesotho National Development Corporation
That Lesotho has an industrial development body mandated to place offtake and siting deals against licensed cultivation.
Verified
[3]
Cannabis Regulation Act 2020, industrial hemp provisions · Government of Malawi
That industrial hemp cultivation was legalised in Malawi in 2020.
Verified
[4]
Sisal production and processing in Tanzania · Tanzania Sisal Board
That Tanzania produces sisal at national scale, generating decortication residue that is currently a disposal problem rather than a product.
Verified
[5]
Dissolving pulp and speciality cellulose operations · Sappi
That industrial cellulose preparation capacity exists in South Africa to a stated specification.
Verified
[6]
Pulp and packaging operations, South Africa · Mondi Group
Existing pulp capacity and established export logistics from South African ports.
Verified
[7]
Agricultural value chains and value addition at origin · GIZ
That development finance instruments exist specifically for adding processing value in the producing country.
Verified
[8]
Smallholder agribusiness and rural enterprise financing · IFAD
That smallholder-owned processing enterprises are a funded category, which is the basis of the grower-owned business arm.
Verified
[9]
Special agro-industrial processing zones · African Development Bank
That serviced agro-industrial processing zones exist and can host a pellet line without us funding power, water and road access.
Verified