However, Environment The The

‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 101  photographs were to be included with each mid‐year and annual report from photo‐points that had been determined at the project planMERI plan stage to demonstrate progress for example, weeds cleared, seedlings planted, increase in vegetation andor condition;  the mid‐year and annual reports also required maps of the individual project site boundaries which could be used by Environment to compile satellite imagery; and  audited financial statements were required at the conclusion of each financial year, which would provide additional assurance regarding the appropriate expenditure of project funds. 146

6.59 Under

the compliance arrangements established for the Biodiversity Fund program, individual grant managers are responsible for identifying and escalating to their supervisors potential compliance and non‐performance issues in funded projects. However, the implementation of a number of the compliance activities that had been foreshadowed in the Fraud Control Plan and associated documents has not occurred. For example, while there had been a risk assessment matrix completed for ‘management of Round 1 Biodiversity Fund program projects’, this was generic across all projects, and there was no risk profiling of all individual projects against a set of risk factors, as had been foreshadowed in the Fraud Control Plan.

6.60 While

Environment has undertaken site visits to a number of its Biodiversity Fund program projects, a central listing of site visits has not been established. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the total number of site visits undertaken to date without examining all of the individual project files. 147 While the Fraud Control Plan referred to 100 per cent of high‐ risk projects being subject to a site visit every 12 months, the records retained by the department did not demonstrate that this had occurred and as discussed earlier, high‐risk projects had not been formally identified. There was also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that case managers visited a minimum of 10 per cent of the projects for which they are responsible, as foreshadowed in the site visits guidance document. While Environment 146 As previously discussed, there may be scope for Environment to tailor this requirement based on the assessed risk and size of the project, or to require other documentation to demonstrate project expenditure. 147 In September 2014, Environment informed the ANAO that it had recently implemented changes to its