ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
38
2.11 In
light of Biodiversity Round 1 being considered a ‘development round’
ahead of more targeted funding rounds, there would have been merit in
the department developing an overarching implementation plan to address high
‐level implementation issues such as: timeframes; roles and responsibilities;
resourcing; risk management; and monitoring and reporting. Lower
‐level, funding‐round specific tasks could have been addressed in individual
project plans, if considered necessary. Such an approach would have
enabled Environment to address issues, such as program overlaps, and adequately
plan to mitigate program level risks.
Communication plans
2.12 Environment
developed two communication plans during the implementation
of the Biodiversity Fund program, in conjunction with the project
plans developed for Round 1 and the NATI round outlined earlier. The communications
plans outlined: the aim of the plan; key messages to be conveyed;
target audiences; timelines for communication activities; sensitivities; and
potential stakeholder concerns. Communication plans were not, however, prepared
for Round 2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round. The establishment
of fit‐for‐purpose plans for each round would have helped to ensure
that stakeholders were appropriately informed of the program parameters
specific to each round.
41
Risk management
2.13 Environment
developed a Land Sector Package Risk Plan in August 2011, which
identified three high level LSP risks: ineffective stakeholder consultations; ineffective
governance arrangements; and ineffective administrative arrangements.
These identified risks were subsequently used to inform the development
of the Biodiversity Fund Risk Plan.
Biodiversity Fund Risk Plan
2.14 The
Biodiversity Fund Risk Plan
42
identified nine risks in relation to planning
and implementation, and outlined existing and planned mitigation controls.
These risks comprised a ‘mix’ of higher‐level, longer term risks to the
41 In the ANAO’s survey of 72 funding recipients, respondents did not raise specific concerns regarding
the department’s communications outlining the opportunity to apply for funding. 42
The Biodiversity Fund Risk Plan was endorsed as part of the Biodiversity Fund program Round 1 Project Plan.
‐ ‐
‐
‐ ‐
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
39
delivery of the Biodiversity Fund program, and risks related directly to
forthcoming grants funding rounds. The plan was updated over time, with
additional risks identified and mitigation strategies planned, as the program
progressed. The Project Board subsequently considered risks over the course of
the Biodiversity Fund program’s implementation.
Funding round risk assessments
2.15 Environment
also developed a risk assessment for each funding round with
the risk in each case determined to be ‘low’.
43
However, the ANAO noted
that, overall, the risk assessments prepared by Environment outlined higher
‐level program risks, rather than risks related more directly to the implementation
of the funding round subject to the assessment.
44
The assessment
provided to the Minister for Round 1 replicated the Biodiversity Fund
Risk Plan with its nine risks as outlined earlier. The risk plans for the Round
2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round were also identical,
despite these rounds targeting substantially different geographical areas
and potential applicants.
2.16 To
help ensure that risks are sufficiently addressed, risk plans developed
for each funding round and mitigation strategies should take into account
the risks specific to the effective conduct of each round, accepting that there
are likely to be risks that are common to each round. In relation to the Biodiversity
Fund program, some risks that commonly occur during the implementation
of grants programs were realised, such as problems with the application
lodgement system and over‐subscription of the program—which led
to amendments to the planned assessment process and additional time pressures.
Environment would have been better placed to plan for, and address,
these risks if the risk plans had more closely reflected the changing and
emerging risks specific to each funding round.
43 Under the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines CGGs that were applicable during the Biodiversity Fund
program funding rounds, public sector agencies were required to develop a risk assessment for any new or revised grant activity and associated guidelines, in consultation with the Department of Finance
and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Following the passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the CGGs have been updated now titled the
Kategori