Environment A Establishment and Management of Funding Agreements

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

informed the ANAO that stakeholder feedback provided directly to the department had raised similar concerns and that the department had implemented a process of reviewing and upgrading MERIT in response to the feedback received. In addition, a MERIT reference group comprising a range of users who had provided constructive feedback to the department, was established in April 2014 to assist in refining the system. Milestone payments

6.49 The

Biodiversity Fund program funding agreement linked payments to the grant recipient’s achievement of all relevant milestones as set out in the agreement and the department’s acceptance of the mid‐year and annual progress reports. Such an approach gives greater control over the project’s progress to the funding provider, and can help to ensure the delivery of project activities to a satisfactory standard before the release of payments. Initial payments

6.50 The

funding agreement included a payment upon execution of the funding agreement, recognising the need for recipients to have access to funds to launch their projects.

6.51 In

the case of Round 1 projects, Environment’s planned approach was that no more than 15 per cent of the total project budget would be paid as an up ‐front payment or 30 per cent for stateterritory government‐owned entities, such as government departments or natural resource management organisations. In the ANAO’s review of 64 Round 1 funded projects, 19 non‐government entities or 30 per cent of the sample had received up‐front    ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 99 payments exceeding 15 per cent of their project’s total budget and the set limit. 144 These payments ranged from 16 to 30 per cent of the project’s total budget,