ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
18
Investment NATI funding rounds, and conducted surveys of funding applicants
after the rounds were completed. The department subsequently used appropriate
channels to inform potential applicants about the opportunity to apply for
funding, including newspaper advertisements, a dedicated website, email
newsletters, and use of existing networks with relevant stakeholders.
20. The
grant guidelines for the four rounds of the Biodiversity Fund program
appropriately outlined the scope, objectives and intended outcomes of
the program. The quality of the guidelines for the three later rounds improved
when compared to the Round 1 guidelines, and were more clearly expressed
and logically structured. There were, however, areas for improvement
across all four sets of guidelines, particularly in relation to the role
of the Moderation Group and the potential impact of the moderation process
on the competitive, merit‐based assessment process, the clarity of eligibility
criteria, the discretionary grants available under the program, and information
regarding available funding in each round and Environment’s preferred
budget profile for funded projects.
21. Environment
established generally appropriate arrangements to support
the grant assessment and selection process, having developed grant assessment
plans for each round that outlined key internal procedures. There was,
however, a need for clearer guidance for departmental staff undertaking and
documenting the eligibility assessments. As was the case with the program’s
grant guidelines, there was a general improvement in the quality of the
grant assessment plans for the three later rounds when compared to Round
1, indicating that Environment had incorporated the lessons learned over
the life of the program. In addition, the probity arrangements established and
implemented for the Biodiversity Fund program’s competitive funding rounds
were generally proportionate to the risks of the program, and provided the
department with assurance that probity and conflict of interest matters had been
adequately managed.
Grant assessment and selection Chapter 4
22. The
grant assessment and selection process was broadly consistent across
all four funding rounds. Environment established suitable arrangements for
receiving applications and providing confirmation to applicants, primarily through
an online application system. While difficulties were experienced with the
online lodgement system for Round 1 applications, Environment managed these
issues appropriately.
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
19
23. The
merit assessments prepared by departmental and external assessors
were undertaken broadly in accordance with the published guidelines
and internal grant assessment plan, although for Round 1, in around
one‐third of the assessments reviewed by the ANAO the assessors had not
provided written comments in support of the scores awarded. The ‘normalisation’
process for applications where the assessor scores varied by more
than 30 per cent was also appropriately undertaken and documented, although
the basis for decisions to amend merit scores could have been better communicated
to the decision‐maker.
24. The
role of the Moderation Group was to review the merit‐assessed applications
and recommend projects considered suitable for funding, including
ensuring: appropriate geographic distribution of projects across Australia;
a balance of funding across program themes and project types; large and
small scale projects; and appropriate representation of Indigenous groups. The
moderation process was undertaken to help ensure the achievement of the Biodiversity
Fund program’s overall objectives. While recognising the appropriate
steps taken by the department to administer the moderation process,
including probity oversight, the provision of additional information on
the process in the grant guidelines for all funding rounds would have contributed
to a more transparent assessment and selection process for applicants.
25. The
transparency of the decision‐making process in each funding round
would have been enhanced had the Moderation Group ranked recommended
applications in order of merit, rather than grouping them into ‘recommended’
and ‘reserve’ projects.
16
In addition, the department did not retain
sufficient documentation to clearly explain the basis for its selection of 18
projects from the Round 1 ‘reserve’ list to be recommended for funding, in preference
to other more highly‐ranked ‘reserve’ projects.
26. Applications
that were recommended for funding at the conclusion of the
moderation process were then assessed for eligibility. As ‘threshold’ criteria,
it is particularly important that eligibility criteria are clearly expressed in
the grant guidelines, for agencies to have planned how eligibility assessments
are to be undertaken, and for each assessment to be well documented.
In this regard, Environment’s assessment of all the eligibility
