ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
46
3.8
Additional support tools were made available to potential applicants during
application periods, including: online frequently asked questions; the department’s
Community Information Unit 1800 number; the Biodiversity Fund
program website; and direct emails to the Biodiversity Fund program inbox.
Feedback to the department from Round 1 participants indicated that this
supporting information was, in most cases, useful to potential applicants. Timing of Round 1 application period
3.9 A
key concern raised by applicants that had participated in Round 1 was
the timing of the application period 9 December 2011 to 31 January 2012. A
number of applicants commented to the ANAO that conducting an application
round over the ChristmasNew Year period created additional difficulties.
For example, some applicants experienced problems in negotiating with
project partners due to the absence of personnel and a general lack of resources
over the holiday period to complete applications. These concerns were
also expressed in responses to Environment’s post‐Round 1 survey, with some
applicants stating that the timing of the application period caused considerable
stress.
Stakeholder consultation after funding rounds—surveys
3.10 Environment
conducted a number of stakeholder surveys after the completion
of funding rounds to seek feedback from both applicants and grant assessors
about the implementation process and policy settings for the Biodiversity
Fund program.
59
In Round 1, these surveys formed part of Environment’s
internal review of implementation. In response to the survey results,
Environment improved implementation arrangements for later rounds—for
example, in relation to the clarity of grant guidelines and the alignment
of application forms and assessor scoring tools.
Grant guidelines
3.11 Agencies
are required to develop guidelines for new grant programs and
to make them publicly available, to allow eligible persons andor entities to
apply for a grant under the program. The ANAO reviewed the development
59 Surveys of grant applicants were conducted for Round 1, Round 2 and Investing in Tasmania’s Native
Forests rounds, but not the NATI round. Assessors in Round 1 were surveyed, and assessors who had participated in a number of Environment’s grant assessments, including the Biodiversity Fund
program, in 2013–14 were also surveyed.
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
47
of the Biodiversity Fund program grant guidelines for each funding round to
assess the appropriateness of the information provided to potential applicants.
3.12 The
program area with responsibility for developing the guidelines consulted
appropriately with key internal stakeholders including Environment’s legal
area
60
, other government agencies involved in the LSP, the LSCBB and the
Minister’s Office on the content of the guidelines for all four rounds.
3.13 While
the department conducted a stakeholder roundtable shortly before
the release of the Round 1 guidelines and also held meetings with stakeholders
prior the NATI round as outlined earlier, draft guidelines were not
made available to external stakeholders for comment prior to their publication
for any of the funding rounds.
61
Releasing draft guidelines to potential
applicants for feedback, as Environment has done for other recent grants
programs
62
, would have provided greater assurance regarding the
clarity and completeness of the guidelines.
Content of the grant guidelines
3.14 The
guidelines for each of the four rounds clearly outlined the scope, objectives
and intended outcomes of the Biodiversity Fund program, as well as the
merit selection criteria for each round. Over the course of the four rounds, the guideline
documents generally improved in clarity. When compared to Round 1, the
guidelines for the three later rounds were more clearly expressed and logically
structured. For example, key information for applicants was given prominence
in the guidelines for later rounds such as information about important
dates and a summary of key issues for potential applicants to consider prior
to applying, while background and general information received less prominence.
60 Environment’s review of Round 1 acknowledged that the Biodiversity Fund program area sought
advice from the legal area on the guidelines at a very late stage in the process and that early engagement with the legal area for future rounds would be preferable.
61 A High Level Land Sector Stakeholder Consultation Group provided advice on the development of
guidelines for programs under the LSP. However, the department did not retain evidence to indicate that this group was provided with draft guidelines for the Biodiversity Fund program rounds for
comment. 62
For example, see ANAO Audit Report No. 17 2013–14, Administration of the Strengthening Basin Communities Program, pp. 44–47 and ANAO Audit Report No. 16. 2013–14, Administration of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program, p. 49.
