‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
65
reviewing
applications from particular types of applicants for example,
Indigenous groups to ensure high‐quality applications were adequately
considered for funding.
4.20 The
Moderation Group’s process to select recommended projects in Biodiversity
Fund program Round 2 is illustrated in the case study at Table
4.1 on the following page.
4.21 Overall,
the Moderation Group’s deliberations and decisions for each funding
round were appropriately administered and documented, with documentation
including meeting notes taken by an Environment staff member,
the Moderation Panel Report that was prepared by the independent chairs
with support from the department and circulated to Moderation Group members,
and the Probity Report that was prepared by the probity adviser. The
Probity Report included a statement that the adviser considered the processes
undertaken had been in accordance with the round’s Grant Assessment
Plan and was defensible from a probity perspective.
4.22 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
as discussed in Chapter 3 at paragraphs 3.17 to 3.18 would have contributed
to a more transparent assessment and selection process for applicants.
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
66
Table 4.1: Case study—Moderation Group decision-making process in
Biodiversity Fund program Round 2 The Moderation Group selected recommended projects for Biodiversity Fund
program Round 2 using the following process:
The Group initially considered the top 21-ranked applications, which would expend the full 40 million in available funding for the round. However, the
Group noted that this selection resulted in an over-representation of projects in South Australia SA.
The Group then considered selecting the two highest-ranked applications from
each of the round’s target areas. This resulted in 16 projects to a value of 30 million. However, it was noted that the second-ranked application in one
of the target areas had scored significantly lower than the other 15 and it was agreed that it would be excluded.
The Moderation Group then decided to provisionally allocate the remainder of
funding to the highest-ranked applications, regardless of location. This resulted in a total of 21 projects to a value of 40 million. However, SA and
the target areas within SA were still considered to be over-represented.
The Group then reviewed the 21 provisionally-recommended applications, in
particular applications from the same applicant including possible duplication of project activities and an assessment of the applicant’s capacity to deliver,
and projects that appeared to be very similar in location andor project scope. As a result of this process, two applications both from SA, scoring over 9
were removed. The next non-SA application on the merit list was added to the list of provisionally-recommended applications. There remained, however, a
high number of SA applications on the list of recommended projects.
The Group agreed to remove the three lowest-ranked SA applications on the
provisionally-recommended list, and replace them with three lower-scoring, but meritorious, in the Group’s view applications from other statesterritories.
This resulted in a list of 21 selected applications, to a total of just under 40 million.
The Moderation Group reviewed each of the highest-ranked SA applications
that had been excluded, to verify whether they had greater overall merit than the selected applications from other states, and was satisfied with its decisions.
The Moderation Group conducted a final consideration of its recommended
list of 21 projects to a value of 40 million and confirmed the selection.
1
Source: ANAO review of Environment information. Note 1: On request from the department, the Moderation Group subsequently considered creating a
second recommended list with a higher budget allocation of 50 million. Many of the processes outlined above were repeated in creating this secondary list. Ultimately, the Minister approved
funding for projects to the value of 40 million.
Recommended applications
4.23 In
each of the four funding rounds, the Moderation Groups did not provide
a ranked listing of recommended applications. Rather, they were grouped as
‘recommended’ and ‘reserve’ applications. The department subsequently
