Why the agreement matters
Cannabis export routes fail when responsibilities are vague. The farm may own upstream truth, but downstream GMP, testing, import, storage and release responsibilities must be named.
A technical agreement does not make a weak route compliant. It makes ownership visible so feasibility can be judged.
Core responsibility topics
The agreement should clarify operational ownership before material movement or buyer commitments.
- Supplier qualification and farm evidence review.
- Specification, sampling, testing and COA acceptance.
- Deviation, OOS/OOT and batch impact communication.
- Storage, logistics, chain of custody and handover records.
- Document transfer, confidentiality and data integrity expectations.
- Importer, manufacturer, QP-facing or release-relevant responsibilities.
Feasibility consequence
If no party owns a required regulated step, the route is blocked no matter how good the farm deck looks. If ownership is named but contracts are unfinished, the route is conditional.
GACP/GMP feasibility check
Farm responsibilities are clearly separated from downstream regulated responsibilities.
Evidence: Responsibility matrix and evidence transfer list.
Downstream GMP/import/QP responsibilities are named but agreement is still draft.
Evidence: Technical-agreement draft, scope review and partner qualification.
Route requires GMP/import/QP ownership but no responsible party is identified.
Evidence: Missing regulated actor and responsibility map.