ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
50
delivering the desired outcomes of the program’.
67
However, the guidelines did not
outline the basis upon which applications for a discretionary grant would be assessed
and recommended for funding. The guidelines for the subsequent three rounds
did not outline the availability of discretionary grants under the program.
In the interests of transparency, there would have been merit in including
advice to grant applicants on the availability of discretionary grants, and
the basis on which they would be made, in the guidelines for all funding rounds.
The selection and administration of discretionary grants under the Biodiversity
Fund program is discussed further in Chapter 5. Budget information
3.22 While
the initial total funding 946.2 million for the Biodiversity Fund program
across the years 2011–12 to 2016–17 was outlined in the Round 1 guidelines,
only the NATI guidelines clearly stated the total allocated budget 50
million for that particular round.
68
The guidelines for the other three rounds did
not specify the total funding envelope available. Providing information about the
total funding available for a granting activity helps to promote transparent and
equitable access to grants, enabling potential applicants to better assess whether
it is worthwhile applying for funding.
69
On this matter, a stakeholder commented
to the ANAO that: The
government need[s] to be explicit with the amount of dollars allocated to a funding
round. Then applicants can make a choice if it is worth applying for funds
if they are outside of a priority area.
3.23 Environment
informed the ANAO that, in relation to Round 1, the information
was not included in the guidelines because the budgetary environment
was uncertain at the time of the release of the guidelines. The department
has, however, acknowledged that it is normal practice to include available
funding in grant guidelines.
3.24 The
grant guidelines andor other materials also did not provide guidance
to applicants about Environment’s preferred funding profile for individual
project budgets for example, if the department had a preference for 10
per cent of the project’s total to be expended in year one, 20 per cent in
67 Biodiversity Fund program Round 1 Grant Guidelines, December 2011, p. 9.
68 This funding envelope was reduced during the funding round, and a total of 9.9 million was ultimately
approved for funding. 69
ANAO Better Practice Guide—Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration, op. cit., p. 45.
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
51
year two, and so on. This had particular consequences for projects funded
through Round 1 this issue is discussed in Chapter 6.
Preparing for the assessment and selection process
3.25 To
prepare for the assessment and selection process, Environment developed
grant assessment plans, and recruited assessors and delivered assessor
training.
Grant assessment plans
3.26 Environment
prepared a grant assessment plan for each round of the Biodiversity
Fund program to provide guidance to departmental officers and assessors
involved in the assessment process, as required by its internal grants administration
guide.
70
3.27 Overall,
the grant assessment plans provided a useful outline of the assessment
process for each round. While the Round 1 grant assessment plan generally
contained less detail on certain aspects of the grant assessment process,
the plans for the NATI, Round 2 and Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests
rounds included additional information in relation to the procedures for:
the
receipt and handling of applications, including electronic, hard
‐copy and handwritten applications;
handling late applications;
responding
to the failure of the online application form;
allocation of applications to external and internal assessors and
re ‐allocation, if necessary; and
notification
and feedback, including the appeals process.
3.28 The
additional detail in these later plans demonstrates that Environment
had responded to the lessons learned from Round 1. However, there
was scope for improvement in the plans for all rounds in relation to eligibility
assessment, with information on eligibility assessment varying across
the plans for each of the four rounds. While the plans covered eligibility
70 As part of its overall grants administration framework, Environment issues guidance materials which
set out procedures for the establishment, administration and management of grant programs. These documents have been revised on four occasions between 2011 and 2013.
