Agencies Access to the Biodiversity Fund Program

    ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 49

3.18 The

inclusion of information in the grant guidelines on the moderation process for all rounds, including the impact of the process on the outcomes of the assessment and selection process 65 , would have assisted potential applicants to make informed decisions regarding whether to apply, and the number and type of applications that they would lodge. Eligibility criteria

3.19 Eligibility

or ‘threshold’ criteria are those that must be satisfied in order for an application to be considered for funding. Grant guidelines should clearly identify eligibility criteria so that potential applicants can make an informed decision as to whether to invest resources in developing an application. 66 The guidelines for each of the four rounds included a section outlining who was eligible to apply for funding, as well as the project activities that would be considered ineligible. Eligibility requirements varied from round ‐to‐round, although certain key eligibility criteria were required to be met in all four rounds.

3.20 When

compared to Round 1, the guidelines for the NATI, Round 2 and Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round presented the eligibility criteria more clearly. In these later rounds, the addition of glossaries to define key terms such as ‘business as usual’ and ‘in‐kind contributions’ also helped to inform potential applicants about eligibility requirements. Notwithstanding the inclusion of this additional information in later rounds, some eligibility criteria were broad and difficult for applicants to interpret and the department to assess—for example, ‘a project not representing “business as usual” activities’. There was scope for Environment to have more clearly outlined requirements to potential applicants and to assist assessors to more easily determine eligibility. This matter is discussed in further detail in Chapter 4, from paragraphs 4.28 to 4.33. Discretionary grants

3.21 The

grant guidelines for Round 1 of the Biodiversity Fund program had outlined to potential applicants the possibility that discretionary grants would be available ‘where a competitive approach would not be effective or feasible in 65 As a result of the moderation process, there was the potential for highly-ranked applications to be excluded: in favour of other highly-ranked applications, but with a lower merit assessment score; andor where the applicant had another projects recommended for funding. The role and activities of the Moderation Group are discussed further in Chapter 4 paragraphs 4.16 to 4.27. 66 ANAO Better Practice Guide—Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration, op. cit., p. 49. ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 50 delivering the desired outcomes of the program’. 67 However, the guidelines did not outline the basis upon which applications for a discretionary grant would be assessed and recommended for funding. The guidelines for the subsequent three rounds