‐ ‐
‐
‐ ‐
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
39
delivery of the Biodiversity Fund program, and risks related directly to
forthcoming grants funding rounds. The plan was updated over time, with
additional risks identified and mitigation strategies planned, as the program
progressed. The Project Board subsequently considered risks over the course of
the Biodiversity Fund program’s implementation.
Funding round risk assessments
2.15 Environment
also developed a risk assessment for each funding round with
the risk in each case determined to be ‘low’.
43
However, the ANAO noted
that, overall, the risk assessments prepared by Environment outlined higher
‐level program risks, rather than risks related more directly to the implementation
of the funding round subject to the assessment.
44
The assessment
provided to the Minister for Round 1 replicated the Biodiversity Fund
Risk Plan with its nine risks as outlined earlier. The risk plans for the Round
2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round were also identical,
despite these rounds targeting substantially different geographical areas
and potential applicants.
2.16 To
help ensure that risks are sufficiently addressed, risk plans developed
for each funding round and mitigation strategies should take into account
the risks specific to the effective conduct of each round, accepting that there
are likely to be risks that are common to each round. In relation to the Biodiversity
Fund program, some risks that commonly occur during the implementation
of grants programs were realised, such as problems with the application
lodgement system and over‐subscription of the program—which led
to amendments to the planned assessment process and additional time pressures.
Environment would have been better placed to plan for, and address,
these risks if the risk plans had more closely reflected the changing and
emerging risks specific to each funding round.
43 Under the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines CGGs that were applicable during the Biodiversity Fund
program funding rounds, public sector agencies were required to develop a risk assessment for any new or revised grant activity and associated guidelines, in consultation with the Department of Finance
and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Following the passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the CGGs have been updated now titled the
Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines to align with the new financial framework. The requirement for risk assessments for new or revised grant activities remains.
44 The extent to which risk plans effectively addressed the risks arising from each funding round was also
raised in a February 2012 Environment internal audit report. This report commented that the Round 1 risk plan had a high-level program risk focus, rather than a more detailed focus on round-related
risks. The department’s approach to risk management did not, however, change for subsequent funding rounds.
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
40
Performance measurement and reporting
2.17 The
Government’s Outcomes and Programs Framework, which was in place
at the time of the establishment of the Biodiversity Fund program and during
the audit fieldwork
45
, requires agencies to report on the extent to which
the programs they administer contribute to established outcomes. A central
feature of this approach is the development of clearly specified outcomes,
program objectives, deliverables and appropriate key performance indicators
KPIs.
Performance monitoring
2.18 Performance
information relating to the Biodiversity Fund program was first
included in Environment’s Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement 2011–12
under the department’s Outcome 1, and has been included in the subsequent
Portfolio Budget Statements PBS.
46
Environment has reported against
the Biodiversity Fund program KPIs in its annual reports from 2011–12 to 2013–14.
2.19 In
the 2012–13 PBS, Environment acknowledged that the KPIs measured business
processes such as conducting funding rounds, and stated that ongoing outcome
KPIs were being developed.
47
While deliverables and KPIs outlined in the
PBS for the subsequent years continued to focus on implementation activities, indicators
that would assist stakeholders to determine progress towards achievement
of environmental outcomes were also included. For example, the following
KPI was included in the 2013–14 PBS: Establishing,
restoring andor protecting biodiverse carbon stores by:
supporting revegetation;
45 The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and
Companies Act 1997 were repealed on 30 June 2014 and replaced by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 PGPA Act from 1 July 2014. The PGPA Act includes a
new whole-of-government Performance Framework which comes into effect on 1 July 2015. Performance reporting for the 2014–15 financial year is to follow the existing Outcomes and Programs
Framework. Available from:
http:www.finance.gov.aufinancial-frameworkfinancial-management- policy-guidanceperformance-information-and-indicators.html
[accessed 24 November 2014]. 46
Outcome 1 has remained substantially the same over the following years to 2014–15. In 2011–12 Outcome 1 was ‘The conservation and protection of Australia’s terrestrial and marine biodiversity and
ecosystems through supporting research, developing information, supporting natural resource management, and establishing and managing Commonwealth protected areas’.
47 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Portfolio Budget
Statements 2012–13, Program 1.3, Key Performance Indicators—Biodiversity Fund program, p. 45.
