ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
70
department did not indicate that these comments were followed‐up and,
ultimately, no applications were assessed as ineligible against this criterion.
98
4.33 Overall,
Environment’s assessment of each eligibility criterion as outlined
in the Biodiversity Fund program’s grant guidelines was not sufficiently
robust or transparent. In particular, there was a need to: clearly define
all eligibility criteria in the published guidelines; improve guidance for departmental
staff on conducting eligibility assessment; and sufficiently document
the assessment of each eligibility criterion for each recommended application.
Recommendation No.1
4.34 To
strengthen the assessment of applicant eligibility under its grants programs,
the ANAO recommends that the Department of the Environment:
provides clear guidance in its grants framework regarding the need to
design eligibility criteria for grants programs that are clearly expressed
and able to be readily assessed;
emphasises
the importance of assessing all eligibility criteria in all grants
rounds conducted; and
retains sufficient documentation to evidence eligibility assessments.
4.35 Environment’s
response: Agreed. 4.36
The Department notes the need for eligibility criteria for grants programmes to
be clearly expressed and easily assessed by the Department and acknowledges that,
particularly in the early rounds of the Biodiversity Fund, this could have been improved.
4.37 The
Department has better articulated eligibility requirements in its current grants
rounds for example for the 25
th
Anniversary of Landcare Small Grants and the first
round of the 20 Million Trees competitive grants and has provided greater guidance
for departmental staff in assessing and documenting its consideration of eligibility.
98 Other elements of eligibility assessment relied on declarations by the applicant for example, that they
had written consent of proposed project partners. In such cases, it is important that these undertakings are confirmed in funding agreements andor reporting and compliance mechanisms.
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
71
Finalising the grant assessment and selection process
Report to the decision-maker
4.38 Once
the agreement of the Moderation Group on a group of recommended
projects for funding had been reached, the Chair of the Moderation
Panel prepared a report outlining the Group’s deliberations and recommendations.
99
Environment then prepared a briefing for the Minister in support
of his role as funding decision‐maker for the Biodiversity Fund program,
which outlined the Moderation Group’s recommendations. For each of the
four rounds, the material provided by Environment to the Minister included:
a brief providing background on the funding round under
consideration and an overview of the Minister’s responsibilities as
decision ‐maker approver as required by FMA Regulation 9
100
, and
a
range of supporting documents including:
projects recommended for funding;
a
reserve list of projects not provided for NATI;
the Grant Assessment Plan;
the
Moderation Group’s Grant Assessment and Selection Report;
the Probity Report;
advice
from the LSCBB, which had been separately briefed following
the conclusion of the Moderation Group’s deliberations;
and
a merit ranking that had been compiled by Environment
officers, not the Moderation Group, for the NATI, Round 2 and
Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests rounds.
99 The relevant report for each funding round was provided to the LSCBB for review, given it was the
