Overall, Access to the Biodiversity Fund Program

ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 54  provided advice on requests for extensions for submitting applications, and on other matters, such as procedures for distributing applications to assessors;  provided advice in Round 1 on the design and implementation of the ‘normalisation’ process which is described in Chapter 4 at paragraph 4.14;  attended all meetings of the Normalisation Panels and Moderation Groups, and provided advice where requested; and  prepared a probity report that provided an overview of the processes undertaken for each round and the probity adviser’s certification that these processes were defensible from a probity perspective.

3.35 Given

the complex grant assessment and selection process that was implemented for the Biodiversity Fund program, including the involvement of a Moderation Group discussed further in Chapter 4, having an independent probity adviser in each funding round helped to provide the department with additional assurance regarding the equity, accountability and transparency of the assessment and selection processes. Management of conflicts of interest Grant assessors

3.36 Environment

sought the involvement of external or ‘community’ assessors in the grant assessment process for each funding round because of their broad community and local knowledge, as well as their technical or scientific understanding of the complex issues involved in natural resource management. A risk in this approach was that assessors may have professional andor personal relationships with applicants that they are required to assess particularly as Environment intended to allocate applications to external assessors from their regions to draw on their local experience.

3.37 Environment

sought to manage these risks by providing appropriate training and documented guidance to assessors in relation to conflicts of interest. The department also put in place the following procedures, which were