While Environment Grant Assessment and Selection

ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 72

4.39 The

briefs provided to the Minister did not, however, clearly indicate that the moderation process had resulted in the exclusion of some highly ‐ranked applications in favour of other highly‐ranked applications with a lower merit assessment score although the moderation process had been outlined in supporting materials provided to the Minister, such as the Moderation Group’s report. In addition, the brief for Round 1 did not specify that the recommended group included 18 projects that had initially been identified as ‘reserve’, and that those reserve projects now included in the recommended list were in preference to a number of other higher‐ranked ’reserve’ projects. The provision of this information would have better positioned the Minister to discharge his role as decision‐maker. Approval of grant funding

4.40 In

the case of Round 1, Round 2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round, the Minister accepted the recommendations of the Moderation Group.

4.41 For

the NATI round, the Moderation Group had made several recommendations based on different levels of expenditure as requested by the department during deliberations. The Minister considered these recommendations, but did not approve them. In response to a reduced Biodiversity Fund program budget through the re‐phasing of funds, the Minister requested that Environment prepare a revised brief outlining funding for one applicant the highest‐ranked from each of four regions that had been targeted by the funding round. The department prepared a brief in response to the Minister’s request. As a result, the applications that were originally ranked as 1, 2, 5 and 10 by the department following the moderation process, were then recommended for funding. The Minister approved the four projects for funding to a value of 9.9 million. Notification and feedback on assessment outcome

4.42 In

general, Environment notified applicants within one month of the funding decision via a letter from the Minister if successful and by email from the department if unsuccessful. In Round 1, unsuccessful applicants were informed of the grant outcome prior to successful applicants. In the NATI and Round 2 funding rounds, the department took considerably longer around one month to notify unsuccessful applicants of the funding decision, than it did for successful applicants.