Eligibility Access to the Biodiversity Fund Program

ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 52 assessment to some extent, the NATI plan provided additional guidance in relation to the eligibility assessment process. Further, not all eligibility criteria, as described in the guidelines for each round, were listed in the relevant grant assessment plans. Conversely, some eligibility criteria were described in the grant assessment plan that had not been set out in the relevant guidelines document. 71 The alignment of the grant guidelines and the assessment plans helps to ensure that the assessment process is conducted in a transparent and accountable manner. 72 Assessor recruitment and training

3.29 In

accordance with the grant assessment plans for each round, each application was to be assessed by a community or external assessor and a departmental or internal assessor. Environment recruited community assessors to participate in each of the four rounds, with selection made on the basis of their skills, experience andor technical knowledge in natural resource management, as well as their local knowledge. These assessors were selected from Environment’s existing panel of community assessors.

3.30 Both

internal and external assessors were provided with training prior to the assessment period for each round, which consisted of one day of training in Canberra, an assessor information pack, presentations and opportunities for discussion and questions, as well as mock assessments. Environment’s surveys of its assessors indicated that most assessors considered they had been well ‐prepared for the assessment task and were well‐supported by the department during the assessment phase. Managing probity and conflicts of interest

3.31 The

use of experts can add value to grant assessment and selection processes, particularly where the grants relate to specialised activities such as environmental projects. 73 However, such involvement, particularly if there are links between the experts and the pool of potential applicants, can present a higher probity risk in relation to the potential for actual or perceived conflicts 71 The following eligibility criteria were described in grant assessment plans, but not in the guidelines: proposed on-ground activities being within the target area for the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round; further checks on non-disclosure of any relevant information for all rounds; and agreement to any recommendations regarding refinement to budget or scope of proposals for Round 2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round. 72 The conduct of eligibility assessment is further discussed in Chapter 4. 73 ANAO Better Practice Guide—Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration, op. cit., p. 22.