Once Establishment and Management of Funding Agreements

ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 88 actions in this matter would have better positioned the department to explain the basis on which decisions were taken. Timing and budget profiles for Round 1 funding agreements

6.14 In

the ANAO’s stakeholder interviews and survey, Biodiversity Fund program grant recipients who were funded through Round 1 noted that the timing of execution of their funding agreements, and changes to their project’s proposed budget profile the funding agreement set out differing budget profiles than those requested in project applications, had resulted in challenges in project delivery. Timing of execution of Round 1 funding agreements

6.15 The

majority of funding agreements for successful Round 1 projects were executed in May or June 2012. However, the financial year 2011–12 was to be counted as ‘year one’ for Round 1 Biodiversity Fund program projects. 124 The execution of the funding agreements late in the financial year meant that the timeline for projects was, in effect, reduced by one year. For example, applicants who had planned a six‐year project were required to deliver the project in five years, as the end date of June 2017 was not extended.

6.16 This

issue caused considerable confusion and concern for a number of Round 1 grant recipients. The impact on shorter‐term projects three years or less was significant, with grant recipients placed under considerable pressure to complete their project within the required timeframe. Budget profiles

6.17 The

Biodiversity Fund program’s initial funding of 946.2 million, outlined in the 2011–12 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements PAES, was allocated across the six years from 2011–12 to 2016–17, with relatively small amounts around 30 million in the first two years, and a large proportion of the total funding 500 million to be expended in 2013–14 and 2014–15. As outlined in Chapter 3, the grant guidelines for Round 1 outlined the total Biodiversity Fund program funding, but did not provide further guidance to applicants about the department’s preferred budget profile for example, if the 124 The Round 1 grant guidelines and application form did not clearly state that 2011–12 was to be ‘Year 1’ of the proposed project, but rather asked applicants to outline their requested funding for Year 1, Year 2, and so on. The application forms in subsequent rounds were clearer on this issue. The funding agreements for all rounds clearly set out the proposed funding profile per financial year not as Year 1, Year 2 and so on. ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 89 department had a preference for 10 per cent of the project’s total to be expended in year one, 20 per cent in year two, and so on. The draft funding agreement, which was published on Environment’s website, also did not