Biodiversity Fund Program Monitoring Evaluation, Reporting and
Improvement (MERI) Plan
1. About this document
This Biodiversity Fund Program Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Plan has been
developed as part of the Australian Government’s responsibilities set out in the Monitoring Evaluation Reporting
and Improvement Strategy – Caring for our Country and Biodiversity Fund. This plan details how the success of the
program will be determined, through a range of MERI approaches. The plan has been developed to reflect the
principles and processes established in the MERI Strategy. The purpose of this plan is to:

Establish a set of Key Performance Indicators and Key Evaluation Questions that frame how program
outputs and outcomes will be measured.

Establish a basis for the design and implementation of ‘fit-for-purpose’ monitoring and evaluation activities
to garner evidence of program progress and achievements.

Outline public reporting processes.
The plan contains the following:

A simple Program Logic, providing a succinct depiction of the program and the elements which will be
monitored.

A set of high level assumptions and a corresponding set of Key Performance Indicators which will frame
monitoring and evaluation activities;

Key Evaluation Questions, which will be answered in order to assess progress and achievements against the
Five Year Outcomes

A set of Standard Project Measures that will be reported by Funding Recipients
This Program MERI Plan is for the Biodiversity Fund only. Similar plans have also been prepared for the Sustainable
Agriculture Steam of Caring for our Country.
2. Background
The Biodiversity Fund is part of the $1.7 billion Land Sector Package established under the Australian Government’s
Clean Energy Future plan. It is designed to help land managers establish, manage and improve the condition of
native vegetation on their land as well as reduce the effects of climate change by improving landscape resilience,
increasing stores of carbon and reducing greenhouse gases. The Biodiversity Fund:

Is an ongoing program that will provide $946.2 million over its first six years to support land managers to
undertake projects that establish, restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon stores;

Creates an unprecedented opportunity to establish and manage biodiversity throughout Australia’s unique
landscapes and in the process develop new market opportunities for ecosystem services;

Will improve the resilience of Australia’s unique species to the impacts of climate change, enhance the
environmental outcomes of carbon farming projects, and help land managers protect carbon and biodiversity
values on their land; and

Will support projects that reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and improve the resilience of our ecosystems to
the impacts of climate change.
The Government will do this by investing in activities that establish, restore and manage biodiverse carbon stores
throughout Australia.
The MERI Strategy – Caring for our Country and Biodiversity Fund reaffirms the Australian Government’s
commitment to monitoring evaluating and reporting on the progress and outcomes of its Natural Resource
Management and Biodiversity Conservation investments. Specifically it commits the Australian Government. The
schematic below depict how this Program MERI Plan aligns with Project MERI plans developed by Funding
Recipients:
Project MERI Plans
Ensures funding recipients collect and
report data about their project
Project
Data & Info
Program MERI Plans
Ensures the Australian Government collects
and report data about the program
Program
Data & Info
Publicly available data and information about individual projects and program
outcomes (including against five year outcomes
3. Program Logic
As set out in the MERI Strategy, a Program Logic is a useful way to depict the structure and logic of a project or program.
The program logic describes the overall linkages between funded activities, project outputs, medium-term project outcomes and long term program outcomes. It therefore shows the anticipated cause-and-effect relationships between program
activities and outcomes.
Based on the Program Logic, a set of high level assumptions about the project have been identified. See 4 below
SEWPaC Outcome 1
Conservation and protection of Australia’s biodiversity and ecosystems
Landsector package goal
Ensure carbon vegetation is biodiverse
Biodiversity Fund goals
Program long-term outcomes
Project long-term
outcomes
Project mediumterm outcomes
The extent of native
habitats in fragmented
landscapes is expanded
Carbon is biosequestered and stored
Invasive species are
managed in a
connected landscape
Biodiverse carbon plantings
and vegetation survive and
exist in the landscape
Activities
Existing carbon stores
in high value areas are
managed
Improved connections between
remnant vegetation in a
fragmented landscape
Stakeholder capacity
improved
Sites link up remnant vegetation
(including wetlands
Vegetation planted is still alive
Existing pressures (invasive species)
are reduced
are reduced
Vegetation planted is alive
Vegetation is planted
Invasive species are managed/removed
Site preparation
Improved availability
of seedlings, seed and
storage
Well functioning native
ecosystems established
Invasive species are reduced
Restoration activities
Existing native vegetation condition
that has high conservation value is
protected, managed and enhanced
Connections between remnant
vegetation in fragmented
landscape improved
Well functioning native
ecosystems connected
Well functioning native ecosystems
protected, managed, enhanced
New invasive species restricted
Project short-term
outcomes
Build connectivity and resilience in the landscape
Restoration and management of biodiverse carbon stores
Revegetation activities
Risk management
Invasive species
management activities
Fire management activities
Project administration
Enabling technologies and
systems established (eg
creation of reliable seed source
and seedling stock)
Support land managers to
protect carbon and
biodiversity values, and
control the spread of invasive
species through connected
landscapes
4. Assumptions
The program logic and achievement of the Land Sector Package Goal, Biodiversity Fund Goals and Landscape scale
long-term outcomes is underpinned by a number of assumptions. The table below identifies some key, high level
assumptions which will help inform monitoring and evaluation approaches.
Table 1: Program logic assumptions
#
Assumption
Confidence it is
correct
Achievement of the program goals will
result in improvement in biodiversity
Moderate
1
The program has public and political
support
Moderate
2
3
Achievement of program activities will
result in increased resilience of ecosystems
to climate change
Moderate
Evidence

Scientific research

Past programs

Past programs

Different political opinions

Conflicting land use

Scientific research

Past programs

Adaptive management

Can be difficult to detect

Measureable

Theory correct
Consequence if the
assumption is wrong
Low
Very high
Low
Achievement of program activities will
result in increased carbon stored
High
4
High
Planting vegetation contributes to selfsustaining vegetation communities
Moderate
5

Different for different
vegetation communities
and landscape conditions
We can measure program goals (extent,
condition, connectivity, carbon) enough to
tell a good story
High
6

Past studies

Appropriate program
design based on principles
There is a shared and agreed view of what
a connected landscape is
High

BF program design team
working closely with M&R
team
Moderate
7
8
Managing invasive species will directly
assist / lead to vegetation condition
improvement
High (project scale)

Past projects and programs
Low
Connectivity between habitats allows
species to have resilience to climate
change
Moderate

Moderate
Past projects and programs
Low
10
The program considers and manages risks,
including those associated with climate
change


Varies according to
species
Research
Low
9
Biodiversity Fund will lead to positive
carbon farming initiatives
Low
Low
12
Other land management does not limit the
biodiversity outcomes desired through the
fund
Never been done before
Untested, untried
Limited research
Different levels of
confidence in different
rainfall areas
Past experience
High
11
Low
Very high
L (landscape scale)





Low – Moderate
5. Monitoring
Biodiversity Fund monitoring will focus on four elements common across the Biodiversity Fund and related policies,
programs and agendas. These are: habitat extent; condition; connectivity; and, management of threats.
There are three complementary monitoring components:

Monitoring by funding recipients

Targeted on-ground scientific monitoring managed by the Department

Broad scale monitoring using remote sensing technology managed by the Department
Data collected will, where possible, be publicly available and link to other national policies, programs, agendas and
reporting.
Monitoring by funding recipients
Funding recipients are responsible for monitoring at the project level and their requirements are identified in their
contractual agreements with the Australian Government. Their monitoring will move beyond compliance to include
information about outcomes and on-ground change resulting from project activities as this becomes evident over
time. Monitoring and reporting tools, templates and guidance will be provided by the Department including the
NRM MERI framework1, Program Logic user guide2, MERI plan template3 and an Ecological Monitoring Guide4.
Table 1 outlines simple questions that recipients’ will address through their monitoring. These questions are linked
to the project-scale, long-term outcomes in the program logic and relate specifically to each of the program logic
landscape-scale, long-term outcomes and Biodiversity Fund Themes.
Funding recipients will only answer questions related to the Biodiversity Fund Themes against which they are
funded. The amount and intensity of on-ground monitoring will depend on project value. Projects are divided into
($500,000 and less) and (more than $500,000). All projects, with the exception of Biodiversity Fund Round 1
projects, with approved Funds greater than or equal to $500,000 (GST exclusive) are required to collect ecological
monitoring data and report the data collected to the department. This data can be collected using one of the
following recognised methods, the department may add additional methodologies to this list:






Habitat Hectares
BioMetric: Terrestrial Biodiversity Tool
BioCondition
TasVeg: Tasmanian Vegetation Condition Assessment Method
Bushland Condition Monitoring
Native Vegetation Condition Assessment & Monitoring for WA
If you do not intend to use one of these listed monitoring methods, you must then collect and report ecological
monitoring data to the department in accordance with the department’s Biodiversity Fund Ecological Monitoring
Guide4.
1
Commonwealth of Australia 2009. Australian Government Natural Resource Management Monitoring Evaluation Reporting and Improvement
Framework.
2
Commonwealth of Australia 2009. Developing and Using Program Logic in Natural Resource Management
3
Commonwealth of Australia MERI plan template for Caring for our Country Projects.
4
Developed by the Department using the Ecological Australia 2012. Abridged Field Guide for Assessing Vegetation Change: A Guide for Caring for our Country
Projects.
Ecological Australia 2012. Standard Field Guide for Assessing Vegetation Change: A Guide for Caring for our Country Projects.
Targeted on-ground scientific monitoring
The Department will select a sample of projects for on-ground scientific monitoring over the life of the Biodiversity
Fund.
External experts will be engaged to measure trend changes in vegetation condition and connectivity resulting from
Biodiversity Fund investments in the selected projects.
The data collected will support project monitoring data, provide credible scientific data and help the Department
monitor, evaluate and report progress and achievements against landscape-scale, long-term outcomes and relate
specifically to the Program’s long-term goals.
A comprehensive methodology, developed by the Australian Government for Measuring Change in Vegetation
Condition will guide Biodiversity Fund on-ground scientific monitoring5.
Remote sensing monitoring
The Department will organise and manage broad, landscape-scale monitoring using remote sensing technologies to
support project and on-ground scientific monitoring over the life of the Biodiversity Fund.
The Department’s Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) will develop and manage the remote
sensing component mainly to measure trend changes in vegetation extent and connectivity against the Program’s
long term outcomes and goals.
Data storage and management
Responsibility for data storage and management lies with the Department.
Biodiversity Fund Project Case Managers will collect and store compliance data from project financial and
performance reporting against contractual agreements with the Australian Government in the Department’s Grant
Management System (GMS).
Department work areas responsible for Biodiversity Fund monitoring and reporting will collect and store in a data
base separate from but linked to the GMS, data from:



5
project monitoring of on-ground change resulting from project activities;
targeted on-ground scientific monitoring; and
remote sensing monitoring.
Ecological Australia 2012. Measuring Change in Vegetation Condition: A Nationally Consistent Methodology for
Caring for our Country Projects
6. Evaluation
Unlike monitoring, evaluation will happen at specific times during the life of the program and the Department will
organise a mid-term evaluation and end-of-program review.
Table 1 below shows Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Key Evaluation Questions (KEQs) that have been
developed to guide evaluation and provide structure for the scope of enquiry through the framework. The KEQs
intend to address three broad categories.
Impact:
The evaluation of the contribution the Biodiversity Fund to its expected long term outcomes.
This includes an evaluation of unanticipated outcomes.
Appropriateness:
The evaluation of whether the activities or actions of the Biodiversity Fund were the best
activities to achieve the outcomes. This may include analysis of whether there were other
options that could have been more effective.
Efficiency:
An assessment of the value of the Biodiversity Fund in terms of cost, time and effectiveness
of processes. It may include what could be done to improve the implementation of the Fund.
Note: Effectiveness is not a separate evaluation category because no targets have been specified for the Biodiversity
fund against which to measure effectiveness.
Table 1: Key Performance Indicators and Outcome Evaluation Questions
Objective(s)
Key evaluation questions
Key performance indicators
Administration (Annual)
Administration (Annual)
Annual
To efficiently and effectively develop
and implement the Biodiversity Fund in
line with best practice government
policy and administrative processes
How are requirements of CCA Act being met in terms of LSCBB
reporting on Land Sector Package implementation?
 LSCBB Annual Report tabled annually in
Parliament.
Were the guidelines developed and implemented in
accordance with government policy and administrative
governance requirements?
 Grant guidelines approved by Minister.
 Central governmental agency consultation on
and approval of guidelines.
KPI source data
 Report to be tabled by 30
October each year.
 Biodiversity Fund program
data
 Program risks identified and being managed.
Have payments of funds been managed in accordance with
government and departmental administrative requirements?
 Program - grant management and finance
system data and project files up to date.
 Per cent of projects on track against deed.
 Payments made within 30 days of receipt of
correctly rendered invoice.
 Round successful with allocated budget fully
committed and projects funded for each of the
specified priorities
Did the promotion of the round reach the intended audiences
as defined in the program guidelines?
 Analysis of application numbers, funding
sought, regional coverage and types against
intended audiences per grant round.
 The number /per cent of recipients reporting
satisfaction with the program.
Has an ecological monitoring and analysis methodological
framework, been developed and agreed by the Department?

Agreed ecological monitoring and analysis
framework in place.
 Biodiversity Fund program
and monitoring information

Project and program data has been used to
evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness,
efficiency, and impact of the program

To complete a program evaluation in
line with Commonwealth grant
requirements
Has an evaluation of the appropriateness, effectiveness,
efficiency, and impact of the Biodiversity Fund been
undertaken in line with Commonwealth grant guidelines and
ANAO ‘Implementing Better Practice Grants Administration’
guidelines?
Biodiversity Fund program
and monitoring
information

Data and lessons learned are publicly reported
Annual
Annual
Annual reporting

Annual project reporting
Biodiversity Fund invests in restoration,
revegetation and management of
invasive species
How many hectares of restoration, revegetation and
management of invasive species has the biodiversity fund
invested in?

Administration (Year 2 of program)
An ecological monitoring and analysis
framework is agreed by the Department
Administration (End of program)
The number of hectares of investment in
— Restoration
— Revegetation
— Management of invasive species
Program implementation objectives
(Year 1-10)

The restoration and management of
biodiverse carbon stores, and increasing
the connectivity and resilience of the
landscape through the following subobjectives
Enhancing and protecting biodiverse
carbon stores
Annual (every year the fund operates)
Annual
How many Biodiversity Fund projects are also participating in
the CFI?

Number of projects

Carbon amount of newly planted areas
How many Biodiversity Fund projects have indicated they may
participate in the CFI?
How much carbon has been newly sequestered through
Biodiversity Fund plantings?
For the land under management through Biodiversity Fund
projects what is the total carbon preserved?
 Biodiversity Fund program
and monitoring
information
 CFI information
Increasing the extent of native
vegetation
Improving connectivity between native
vegetation remnants
Enhancing and protecting the condition
of native vegetation
Managing invasive species threat to
biodiversity in a connected landscape
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
What is the baseline extent of native vegetation on
Biodiversity Fund project sites?

Medium to long-term (2-10 years)
Medium to long-term
What is the net increase in native vegetation extent
through Biodiversity Fund projects?

Number of hectares of vegetation extent
increased through Biodiversity Fund projects.

Average survivability of tube stock

Average survivability of seed stock
Number of hectares of native vegetation
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
How many projects have identified increased
connectivity as an aim of their projects?

Medium to long-term (2- 10 years)
Medium to long-term
How many projects (that identified increased
connectivity as an aim) have succeeded in
increasing connectivity between native vegetation
remnants?

Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment

Number of projects
Number of revegetation projects conducted
on sites adjoining remnant vegetation,
particularly conservation assets such as parks,
reserves or wetlands.
Successful Applications

Audit of successful applications

Recipient reporting

Biodiversity Fund scientific
monitoring

Remote sensing

Successful Applications

Biodiversity Fund Scientific
Monitoring

Remote sensing

Recipient reporting

Spatial connectivity index (using
NVIS, National Carbon Accounting
System etc)

Biodiversity Fund Scientific
Monitoring

Recipient reporting

Application form

Biodiversity Fund Scientific
Monitoring

Recipient reporting

Successful applications

Biodiversity Fund Scientific
monitoring

Project reports
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
What is the baseline condition of the project area?
[category or other classification of condition to be
determined through recipient reporting or scientific
monitoring]

Medium to long-term (2- 10 years)
Medium to long-term
How many projects have succeeded in enhancing
and protecting the condition of native vegetation?

The percentage of projects that improved
condition.

The percentage of projects that maintained
condition.

The percentage of projects that lost condition.
The number of hectares or sites within
Vegetation Assets, States, and Transitions
(VAST) condition category (or other
classification scheme).
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
Baseline reporting – Year 1 of investment
How many projects are managing invasive species?

Medium to long-term (2- 10 years)
Medium to long-term

Have the projects been successful in managing
invasive species?

The number of projects that are managing
invasive species
The percentage of identified projects that
have been successful in managing invasive
species.
7. Reporting and Improvement
The data and information collected and analysed for each outcome (investment) area of the program will be reported publicly. Data and information will be made available
online, as it becomes available. This will include individual and aggregated project data, and any other data collected by SEWPaC. To determine the effectiveness, impact,
efficiency and appropriateness of the program, SEWPaC will coordinate two broad evaluations (a mid-term and end of program evaluation), which will collate and assess all
available data. As data and information on individual projects and the program as a whole becomes available, including through mid-term evaluations, the department will
consider areas where improvements to investments can be made, and modify priorities and program delivery accordingly.
The table below outlines the key reports to be delivered as part of this MERI plan.
Table 2: Program Reporting
Report type
Online Reporting
Purpose
To provide comprehensive
and searchable data and
information about individual
projects and the program as a
whole.




Results
Program highlights
Case studies
Status of monitoring and evaluation activities
Department annual
reports for the Land
Sector Carbon and
Biodiversity Board
(LSCBB) and SEWPaC
To demonstrate
accountability and report
progress, outcomes and
achievements.




Annual results in dot point format
Annual program highlights in dot point format
Case studies
Status of monitoring and evaluation activities.
Department program
updates
Brief updates in the form of
newsletters following to
improve transparency and
communication.




Information about activities funded
Program progress and achievements
Highlights and case studies
What is coming up in the program
Department MidTerm Evaluation
report
To report on progress towards
the impact, efficiency,
appropriateness and lessons
learned of the program.
To report on the impact,
efficiency, appropriateness
and lessons learned of the
program.



Findings against the Key Evaluation Questions
Recommendations
Lessons learned
Department End-ofProgram Review
report
Content
 Findings against the Key Evaluation Questions
 Recommendations
 Lessons learned
Attachment 1: Standard Project Measures related to the Biodiversity Fund Program Logic
Outcome level
Activity / outcome
Indicative measures
Scale
Data source
Biodiversity Fund
activities
Site preparation
Area of site
Project
Project recipients
Enabling technologies
and systems
Number of new technologies
and systems developed
Project
Project plan
Project
Project recipients
Project
Project recipients
Number of people engaged
Fire management
Hectares burnt
Hectares managed through
fire
Invasive species
management
Hectares targeted for
invasive weed treatment
Project Plans
Mid-Year Reports
Annual Reports
Project finalisation reports
Revegetation
Area revegetated
Project
Project recipients
Number of plants planted
Project Plans
Diversity of species planted
Mid-Year Reports
Annual Reports
Project finalisation reports
Restoration
Area restored
Project
Project recipients
Number of plants planted
Project Plans
Diversity of species planted
Mid-Year Reports
Annual Reports
Project finalisation reports
Support land managers
to protect carbon and
biodiversity values
Number of grant recipients
Number of grant recipients
that have not previously
received NRM funding
Project
Project recipients
Project Plans
Mid-Year Reports
Annual Reports
Project finalisation reports
Biodiversity Fund
project scale
short term
outcomes
Invasive species are
managed
Amount of invasive plant
material removed/destroyed
Project
Project reports
Project
Project reports
Number of pest animals
removed/destroyed
Number of invasive species
targeted
Invasive species are
reduced
Area of land effectively
managed for invasives
Number of invasive species
recruited at target area
Biodiversity Fund
project scale
medium term
outcomes
Vegetation is planted
Number of plants planted
Project
Project reports
Vegetation planted is
alive
Survival rate of plantings
Project
Project reports
Partnerships facilitated
to deliver large scale
biodiverse plantings
Number of grant recipients
Project
Vegetation planted is still
alive
Survival rate of plantings
Project
Project reports
Existing pressures
(invasive species) are
reduced
Area
Project
Project reports
New invasives are
restricted
Area
Project
Project reports
Sites link up remnant
vegetation (including
wetlands)
Area
Project
Project reports
Well-functioning native
ecosystems established
Condition indicator
Project
Project reports
Well-functioning native
ecosystems connected
Connectivity indicator
Project
Project reports
Number of grant recipients
that have not previously
received NRM funding
Number of new species
Connectivity indicator
GIS
Remote sensing
GIS
Remote sensing
Biodiversity Fund
project scale long
term outcomes
Well-functioning native
ecosystems protected,
managed enhanced
Condition indicator
Improved connections
between remnant
vegetation in a
fragmented landscape
Connectivity indicator
Improved availability of
seedlings, seeds and
storage
Number of projects with
nursery/production
component
Project
Project reports
Project
Project reports
Agreed ongoing management
GIS
Remote sensing
Project
Project reports
Seed/seedling outputs
Existing biodiverse
carbon stores in high
value areas are managed
Agreed ongoing management
Project
Project reports
Biodiverse carbon
plantings and
revegetation survive and
exist in the landscape
Survival rate of plantings
Project
Project reports
Invasive species are
managed in a connected
landscape
Area
Project
Project reports
Stakeholder capacity
improved
Number of grant recipients
Condition
Number of new species
GIS
Remote sensing
Number of grant recipients
that have not previously
received NRM funding