The The The Establishment and Management of Funding Agreements

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 97 the delays had not impacted their organisation’s cash‐flow, it could be an issue for smaller proponents. Stakeholder views on Biodiversity Fund program reporting requirements

6.44 The

majority of respondents to the ANAO survey considered that their project reporting requirements were appropriate for the amount of funding that they were receiving through the Biodiversity Fund program. 142 However, the ANAO noted during its review of a selection of funded projects that the six ‐monthly reporting framework had placed pressure on some recipients, particularly those that had received funding for more than one project. Similarly, several respondents to the ANAO’s survey commented that they had found the reporting requirements too onerous, such as: In the first two years we received a very small amount of funding yet the project reports required were very onerous and had to be submitted a number of times with slightly different requirements each time, for example how the photographs were saved. Each reporting period saw different requirements.

6.45 A

number of grant recipients interviewed during the audit also commented on the requirement to provide an audited financial statement for every project year. 143 For smaller projects in particular, it had proved challenging to find a qualified accountant with capacity to undertake the work within the timeframe stipulated in the funding agreement. The cost of the financial audit was also considered to be quite high in the context of the project’s overall allocation for administrative costs. Accordingly, there would be benefit in Environment considering alternative methods of gaining assurance over project expenditure, based on a risk assessment of grant recipients and the project.

6.46 Overall,

feedback to the ANAO from grant recipients on the intended use of an online reporting tool such as MERIT was positive. In particular, respondents acknowledged the long‐term benefits of collating natural resource management information in a single location to allow for outcome‐based analysis and reporting. 142 Of the respondents to the survey question, 20 60 per cent considered that the reporting requirements were ‘appropriate’ or ‘very appropriate’. Seven considered that the reporting requirements were ‘somewhat burdensome’, and six considered them to be ‘very burdensome’ 40 per cent in total. 143 Requiring grant recipients to provide audited financial statements can be an effective compliance tool, particularly for large-scale, complex and costly projects. However, compliance and verification procedures should be proportionate to the nature of the project and its assessed risks. ANAO Better Practice Guide—Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration, December 2013, pp. 86–87. ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 98

6.47 However,

a range of issues were encountered by grant recipients in the transition to MERIT for the first reporting period, including:  unexpected questions that were not included in the previous report templates for the Round 1 recipients who had already submitted two reports via the ‘old’ system;  difficulty in entering information for projects with multiple sites and uploading maps or satellite images; and  basic issues with functionality for example, drop‐down boxes and the ‘submit’ button did not work.

6.48 Environment