National Landcare Program Smart Farming Partnerships – Round 2

1 | Community Grants Hub

National Landcare Program Smart Farming Partnerships – Round 2

General feedback for applicants

Overview

As part of our commitment to sharing information with the sector and as an acknowledgement of the time and effort the applicants have put into developing applications, the Department of Agriculture is pleased to share this feedback on applications for the National Landcare Program’s Smart Farming Partnerships Round 2. This second funding round under Smart Farming Partnerships opened on 19 March 2019 and closed on 17 May 2019. The grant opportunity received 199 applications of which 178 were eligible. The Minister for Agriculture awarded funding to 11 projects to a value of just over $30 million (GST excl.). The list of successful applications can be found here. It was excellent to see the interest shown by stakeholders in the program and successful applications were of a very high standard. The applications were assessed according to the procedure detailed in the Grant Opportunity Guidelines and outlined below.

This feedback is provided to assist grant applicants to understand what generally comprised a strong application and the content of quality responses to the assessment criteria for this grant round.

Program background

The Australian Government’s National Landcare Program aims to protect, conserve and provide for the productive use of Australia’s water, soil, plants and animals and the ecosystems in which they live and interact, in partnership with industry, communities and other governments.

Smart Farming Partnerships is a sustainable agriculture element of the National Landcare Program. It is an open, competitive grants opportunity offering over $57 million over six years (2017-18 to 2022-23) to fund projects to support organisations working in partnership to develop, trial and implement innovative technologies and practices that protect natural resources and support sustainable production across primary industries. The first round opened for applications in October 2017 and successful applications were announced in June 2018 by the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. This is the second round.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/natural-resources/landcare/national-landcare-program/australian-government-investment-in-landcare

2 Community Grants Hub

Selection process

An open competitive selection process was undertaken to select a range of quality projects from a

variety of organisations.

Applications were screened for eligibility and compliance against the requirements outlined in the

Grant Opportunity Guidelines, including that:

the applicant was an eligible entity type

at least one of the consortium members was identified as a knowledge partner

each application included a mandatory budget attachment.

All eligible and compliant applications were assessed and moderated by the

Department of Agriculture and the Hub against the following five-equally-weighted assessment

criteria:

Criterion 1 - Suitability and relevance of the project objective and project activities to

Smart Farming Partnerships

Criterion 2 - Effectiveness of the project to achieve the Smart Farming Partnerships

program purpose and outcome(s)

Criterion 3 - The suitability and contribution of innovation in the project

Criterion 4 - Project suitability for public funding and value for money

Criterion 5 - Applicant and partnership consortium suitability.

From this initial assessment, applications were ranked. Top ranking applications were shortlisted for further consideration by the Selection Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP comprised of industry experts with a mix of relevant policy, program delivery and industry expertise, further considered the applications on the shortlist and made funding recommendations to the decision maker. To do this, the Selection Advisory Panel considered:

how well applications scored against the assessment criteria

the relative merit of an application compared to other applications focussed on the same

Smart Farming Partnerships outcome(s), including overall value for money

the primary industries represented (such as dryland and irrigated cropping, livestock

production, dairy, horticulture, mixed farming, forestry, farm forestry, fishing and

aquaculture) relative to the size of the industries and the extent of their natural resource

use

the distribution of projects across Australia and across the range of agro-ecological zones

the range of eligible applicant types.

Final approval of projects was made by the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Bridget McKenzie MP.


General feedback

Successful applicants proposed activities that were eligible, appropriate and considered effective

for achieving the program objectives. They demonstrated their suitability for public funding, value

for money and met the requirements outlined in the Grant Opportunity Guidelines. Applications

included strong responses to all of the assessment criteria.

General themes in the feedback for each selection criteria include:

Criterion 1. Demonstrating the suitability and relevance of the project objective and project

activities — strong applications thoroughly explained the proposed project objectives and

project activities and demonstrated that they would contribute well to the program outcomes

and objectives.

Criterion 2. Demonstrating that the proposed project would be effective to achieve the

program purpose and outcome — strong applications explained in detail how specific

activities would achieve the program’s purpose and demonstrated how they would

contribute to the program’s outcomes.

Criterion 3. Demonstrating the suitability and contribution of innovation — strong

applications clearly defined the problem that the proposed project would address and

demonstrated that the project was innovative providing good scientific evidence of the

validity of claims of the project outcomes.

Criterion 4. Ensuring the project suitability for public funding and value for money — strong

applications demonstrated that the proposed project was value for money and suitable for

public funding. They also articulated any private benefit and included a suitably sized co-

contribution to the project budget.

Criterion 5. Demonstrating Applicant and partnership consortium suitability — strong

applications clearly explained the suitability, capability and capacity of the applicant and the

relevant consortium partners and that collectively they had the skill to manage, conduct and

report on the project.

Unsuccessful applicants could have generally strengthened their application by:

Ensuring all aspects of the assessment criteria were addressed, including using the

character count available to provide sufficient detail when responding.

Supporting claims with relevant, reliable and current evidence.

Linking claims made the project activities to be delivered and to the policy objectives.

Not proposing projects that duplicated projects already offered through state or

commonwealth government programs.

Not proposing activities that are currently funded through another source.

Clearly demonstrating the appropriateness and suitability of the project and its activities.


Ensuring that any private benefit that was expected to result from the project was balanced

with a suitably sized co-contribution to ensure value for money and suitability for public

funding.

Providing evidence that the relevant skills and expertise of the applicant and the consortium

members would ensure successful project delivery.

Writing and providing details

Applications should clearly and concisely address the selection criteria. It is difficult to assess poorly written and verbose applications, so careful editing is advised. The use of sub-headings and dot points can also assist to improve the readability of applications.

A number of applicants did not effectively utilise the word limits in their applications, providing too much background information but not enough detail on the proposed project. Low scoring applications often lacked sufficient detail to describe the:

project activities – applications that provided limited or no details about the project activities generally did not score well. From what is written, assessors need to be able to determine what the project will do, how this will directly contribute towards the program outcomes, deliver public benefits and provide value for money. Higher scoring applications clearly articulated the project activities, what they would achieve and how this would contribute to program outcomes.

project risk – applications that did not clearly identify or sufficiently demonstrate how they would mitigate significant project risks did not score well.

public benefit – applications needed to clearly demonstrate that their proposal would result

in a significant public benefit and was therefore suitable for public funding.

Contribution towards program outcomes

Applications need to clearly demonstrate how the projects would deliver the program objectives.

Smart Farming Partnership projects are to develop, trial and implement new and innovative tools that support uptake of sustainable agriculture practices across our agricultural, fishing, aquaculture and farm forestry industries. These projects allow new ideas and technologies to be shared and tested across industries and regions, which will subsequently benefit the nation.

In general, many unsuccessful applications did not sufficiently demonstrate how their project would contribute to program outcomes, with many projects seeming to have limited relevance to the program. In particular, to improve an application’s alignment with the program, applicants should consider:

checking the Grant Opportunity Guidelines to ensure that the proposed project is a good fit for the program

ensuring that the application clearly demonstrates how the proposed project meets one or more of the program’s outcomes and linking project activities to the outcomes described

identifying the problem and demonstrating how it would be addressed, therefore articulating the need for the project to the target industry and/or geographic area

justifying the delivery approach and why it is the best way to tackle the problem that the proposal addresses


describing how the innovation is feasible for adoption and suitable mechanisms by which the information can be to extended to famers and stakeholders

how the project is innovative.

Capacity to deliver

Unsuccessful applicants commonly did not strongly demonstrate that they have the capacity to deliver the project. To rank highly applicants needed to:

demonstrate their ability to deliver projects of this size and complexity

ensure that appropriate governance structures are in place

clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of different organisations involved in the project (including project partners or co-contributors) and that collectively they have the skills to manage the project and its finances, deliver all elements of the project, manage risks report on the project progress and finances

clearly articulate how the project will be delivered, including that it will take a scientifically rigorous and evidence-based approach

include a strong focus on the monitoring and evaluation elements of a project.

Demonstration of public benefit

These Australian Government grants are funded by public money and suitable projects are selected on the basis that they will deliver a public benefit that is in the national interest. However, as projects are commonly undertaken on farm land, some degree of private gain can also be derived.

The two most common situations where project proposals would be expected to result in a material private gain is when the project is carried out on private land (e.g. a demonstration of a new practice) and/or when it involves the use of a specific commercial product or machine. In this case, or any other situation where it is anticipated that there will be a private benefit, the provision of funds for a project is guided by a set of principles for public and private benefit, this includes the need for applications to:

clearly demonstrate the expected public benefits of project activities, if possible including quantitative measurements of:

o expected community involvement, such as number of farmers, groups etc. o anticipated changes to natural resources (e.g. benefits to soil health, or area of land

rehabilitated) o the value of the private benefit

provide details about how private benefits resulting from the project would be counter balanced with a suitably sized cash or in-kind co-contribution

include a clear extension pathway to promote the project outcomes to other landholders and the broader community (this could involve a local Landcare or farming systems group or similar)

include a robust monitoring and evaluation component.

Many unsuccessful applications did not demonstrate this information clearly enough.


Specific feedback

Further detail about what constituted a strong response to each criterion and what could have been improved are discussed below. Criterion 1 - Suitability and relevance of the project objective and project activities to Smart

Farming Partnerships

Strength Example — Strong responses clearly described:

Strong applications clearly described what the proposed project wants to achieve and what the project objective is.

how the project protects or improves the condition of eligible natural resources and improves food and fibre business productivity and profitability

how the project improves land managers ability to adapt to significant changes in climate, weather and markets

how the project increases the awareness of land managers of reasons to sustainably manage eligible natural resources

how the project will improve the capacity of groups to sustainably manage eligible natural resources and in-turn help land managers to do the same

how the project improves knowledge and capacity of Australian farmers to demonstrate the adoption of sustainable resource management practices and the sustainability of their operations through the traceability of their products.

Strong applications clearly explained the importance of the project, why the project is needed and the impact of not undertaking the project.

the importance and need for the project. Enough information was provided in the application to convince the reader of the justification and evidence for the project, such as alignment with Australian Government priorities, incorporating previous research results, quoting demographic information, research or reports

how the project will deliver benefits to the broader community

the impact if the project did not go ahead.

Strong applications clearly described the project activities—what activities will be performed, when and who will deliver them.

the project activities, including: o how the activities will be undertaken i.e. clearly

outlined the methodology of the activities o demonstrating that the activities utilise best

available knowledge, science, established research results or best practice

o how they will contribute to the project objectives

the timing of each of the activities to be conducted and details of who will deliver them.


Areas for improvement

Generally, applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 by providing:

further detail about how the proposed activity delivers clear and measurable achievements

against the Smart Farming Partnership outcomes

evidence of how the project will contribute to protect and/or improve the condition of

Australia’s natural resource base and biodiversity

more detailed information about how the activity delivers benefits to the broader community

further details about the type of the activities, project methodology and how they will deliver

the program’s outcomes.

Criterion 2 - Effectiveness of the project to achieve the Smart Farming Partnerships program purpose and outcomes


Strong applications clearly described the effectiveness of the project to achieve the program outcomes.

how project activities will achieve the project objectives

that there will be mechanisms in place to measure these benefits

Proposals addressing Outcome 1 (including those also addressing Outcome 2):

Strong applications clearly described how, how much, and when the project will increase the number and area of Australia’s farming, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry entities and land managers that have trialled, developed and/or implemented innovative technologies or methods for protecting or improving Australia’s soil, water and vegetation resources and sustainable use of biodiversity.

the impact of the project, including metrics such as the number of farming entities and area that will be impacted by the project

how the condition of the natural resources would be improved or protected by the project

the expected impact of the project on food and fibre business productivity and profitability

when the benefits would be realised.



Projects addressing Outcome 2 (including those also addressing Outcome 1):

Strong applications clearly described how, how much, and when the project will increase the number and area of Australia’s farming, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry entities and land managers that have trialled, developed and/or implemented innovative technologies or methods for improving knowledge about, capacity for, and the ability to demonstrate adoption of, sustainable natural resource management practices.

the expected number of land managers, agribusiness or industry leaders that would be impacted by the project, including those who will increase their capacity through trialling, developing and/or implementing innovative technologies

the expected number of farmers whose awareness, knowledge and skills in sustainable resource management would be increased

the expected number of groups of farmers whose capacity to demonstrate the adoption of sustainable natural resource management practices would be improved

when the benefits would be realised.


Generally, applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 2 by providing:

further detail about how the proposed activity delivers clear and measurable achievements

against the project outcomes

a clear description of how the proposed activity will increase the number of farming, fishing

and forestry entities to improve their implementation of innovative technologies or practices

that improve the sustainable use of Australia’s natural resources

a clear description of how the proposed activity will increase the knowledge of farming,

fishing and forestry entities about improving their capacity and ability to adopt innovative

technologies or practices that improve the sustainable use of Australia’s natural resources.

Criterion 3 - The suitability and contribution of innovation in the project


Strong applications clearly described the genuinely innovative practices, methods or tools the project will develop, trial or implement.

how the project is innovative when delivering the Smart Farming Partnerships outcomes

how the proposed innovation differs from standard practice

how the innovation will meet the identified need

how the innovation is underpinned by scientific research, including evidence of usefulness and proof of concept for the project

how the project is technically feasible including any risks and how they would be mitigated.



Strong applications clearly explained how the innovation would support industry practice change leading to maintaining or improving Australia’s soil, water and vegetation resources and sustainable use of biodiversity.

the suitability of the innovation for adoption by farmers, fishers, land managers and associated groups involved in natural resource management

how the proposal would encourage, expand or advance the current level of adoption of innovative technology and/or practice

the likely level of adoption of the innovation into the future, including past the life of the project.


Generally, applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 3 by:

demonstrating that the project is underpinned by scientific research and evidence and

demonstrating proof of concept for the project

clearly describing the proposed innovation differs from standard practice and meets the

identified need.

demonstrating the technical feasibility of the project

providing evidence that they had considered project risks and had the capacity to develop a

comprehensive risk management plan.

Criterion 4 - Project suitability for public funding and value for money


Strong applications clearly described the budget for the project and the project activities.

the budget and the amount of grant requested for each of the project activities

who would contribute to the cost of each project activity and the extent of the contribution (cash and in-kind co-contributions)

who would benefit from the project and by how much.

Strong applications clearly explained how the grant amount requested is proportionate to the outcomes the project will achieve.

how the grant amount requested for each of the project activities is appropriate considering the scale of the project and that the grant requested was proportionate, considering the project outcomes.

Strong applications clearly described the public benefits that will occur because of the project.

the degree to which the project will deliver public benefits

the impact of the project on relevant communities that will benefit from the project

how the public benefits of the project are additional to those would otherwise be achieved

how the value of public benefits will exceed the amount of grant requested.



Strong applications clearly described the private benefits from the project and the relevant beneficiaries (if the project will have private benefits).

the value of the private benefits

who will gain the private benefits from the project

whether the private benefits exceed any private contributions to the cost of the project

how the private benefits resulting from the project would be counter balanced with a suitably sized cash or in-kind co-contribution

How any proposed in-kind private contributions are reasonable and well justified in the budget?



demonstrating that the project will deliver significant public benefits that exceed the grant

value and are additional to those that would otherwise be achieved

clearly describing any private benefits and how they may be counter balanced with a suitably

sized cash and/or in-kind contribution

demonstrating that overall the project is value for money.


Criterion 5 - Applicant and partnership consortium suitability

Strength Example — Strong responses clearly described

Strong applications clearly described how the applicant established the consortium partnership and how the project was developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

how the applicant identified and engaged with relevant stakeholders and established effective partnerships to ensure that they could successfully achieve the full, end-to-end delivery of the proposed project

the role of each of the consortium partners in undertaking the activities and when they will be performed.

Strong applications clearly described the applicant’s experience, and the experience of the consortium members with projects of comparable objectives, activities, scope and budget.

how the applicant demonstrated that they are capable of implementing the project including having appropriate governance structures in place

that the applicant and consortium members have the required skills, relevant experience and appropriate processes in place to ensure that the project will be well managed; timelines are met; staff are in place; outcomes and finances monitored and project reported on

the project risks have been considered and the consortium has the ability to identify and manage project risks.

Strong applications clearly described how the applicant would engage with relevant stakeholders including, where relevant, Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse groups and communities in project activities.

that the applicant has demonstrated they have appropriate skills to engage with relevant stakeholders and communities to implement the project activities

that the applicant is able to manage the partnership to ensure efficient project delivery

if relevant, how the applicant will address cultural issues when engaging with people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Strong applications clearly described how the applicant would promote the project’s outcomes to land managers and the broader community.

that the applicant has a clear plan of the pathway to adoption of the project outcomes to the broader community

how the applicant will extend information to famers and stakeholders and contribute to the uptake of new practices.

Strong applications clearly described how the applicant would maintain project outcomes into the future.

that the applicant has processes in place to maintain the project outcomes into the future to create a legacy.




providing detailed evidence that the proposed project will identify and engage with relevant stakeholders and provide benefit to a wide range of community and interest groups outside of the immediate project personnel and/or organisations

clearly demonstrating that the applicant and consortium members have the required skills, relevant experience, governance and appropriate processes in place to ensure that the project will be well managed

providing a clear plan of how the project would successfully promote the project outcomes to

the broader community.

Individual feedback

Individual feedback is available to applicants by contacting the Community Grants Hub

(phone - 1800 020 083 (option 1) or [email protected]) within 30 business days of

having received your outcome notification letter. Please include in the request your legal entity

name, application ID and the project activity title. The Hub will endeavour to respond to your

request within 30 business days from the date of the request for feedback.

National Landcare Program Smart Farming Partnerships – Round 2

Documents

Transcript of National Landcare Program Smart Farming Partnerships – Round 2