Disaster Ready Fund - Round One 2023-2024

The Disaster Ready Fund (DRF) is the Australian Government’s flagship disaster resilience and risk reduction initiative. The DRF aims to help communities protect themselves against the devastating impacts of disasters by investing in important disaster resilience and risk reductions projects across Australia. From 2023-24, the DRF will provide up to $200 million per financial year over five years – up to $1 billion in total.

Specific objectives for Round One, 2023-24 of the DRF were:

1. increase the understanding of natural hazard disaster impacts, as a first step towards reducing disaster impacts in the future;
2. increase the resilience, adaptive capacity and/or preparedness of governments, community service organisations and affected communities to minimise the potential impact of natural hazards and avert disasters; and
3. reduce the exposure to risk, harm and/or severity of a natural hazard’s impacts, including reducing the recovery burden for governments and vulnerable and/or affected communities.

The DRF replaces the Emergency Response Fund, which terminates on 30 June 2023, and will complement recovery funding available under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.

In Queensland, the DRF Round One 2023-24 is administered by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) on behalf of the Australian Government.

Applications for Round One of the DRF opened on 10 January 2023 and closed on 6 March 2023. The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) convened a panel to undertake a robust assessment of the applications in accordance with the DRF Round One Guidelines and provided recommendations to the Minister for Emergency Management for approval on successful projects.

The Hon Murray Watt, Minister for Emergency Management announced the successful projects on 7 June 2023.

Summary of the Assessment Process provided by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

Applications were assessed via a robust and transparent process managed by the NEMA, in accordance with the published program Guidelines.

Key steps in the process were as follows:

• NEMA undertook an initial eligibility check against requirements outlined in the Guidelines, and sought advice from relevant Commonwealth agencies on overlap with, or duplication of, other Australian Government-funded projects. Any concerns were referred to the Program Delegate for final decision. Ineligible applications did not proceed to assessment.
• Eligible applications were then provided to an Assessment Panel for scoring. The Panel, chaired by NEMA, comprised independent experts and a probity adviser drawn from the Australian Government and private sector.
• In assessing applications, the Panel considered the merits of each application against the three selection criteria:
  1. Criteria 1. Project Details (weighted 40 per cent – i.e. scored out of 0 to 40)
  2. Criteria 2. The likelihood of project success (weighted 30 per cent – i.e. scored out of 0 to 30)
  3. Criteria 3. Alignment with existing plans and strategies (weighted 30 per cent – i.e. scored out of 0 to 30)
• This included specific consideration of:
  • how well the project delivers against the DRF’s objectives;
  • whether the project provides value with relevant money, including but not limited to whether the project will prevent or mitigate the degree of impacts relating to cascading and systemic risks.
  • the extent to which the project aligns with the intent of the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework’s (NDRRF);
  • the relative priority of the project for the Applicant (i.e. the ranking applied to the project by the state or territory government);
  • whether the project can commence quickly and is of tangible benefit to the community
  • the extent to which Applicants have consulted with, and have buy-in from, affected community stakeholders including relevant local government/s and First Nations communities; and
  • any national interest, financial, legal, regulatory, governance or other issue or risk that is identified during any due diligence processes conducted in respect of the project
• The Panel also considered:
  • advice from relevant Commonwealth agencies
  • baseline funding allocations in accordance with section 7.1 of the Guidelines, and
  • equity with respect to the types of projects and the appropriateness of the geographic and thematic split of projects, in acknowledgement of the program’s national scope and its overall objectives in accordance with section 10.3 of the Guidelines.

This culminated in each application receiving an overall rating in accordance with the published rating matrix.

• The Deputy Coordinator-General (by delegation from the Coordinator-General) endorsed funding recommendations to the responsible Minister, based on advice from the Assessment Panel. The responsible Minister for the DRF is Senator the Hon Murray Watt, Minister for Emergency Management.
• The Minister accepted the Panel’s recommendations in full.

Queensland outcomes

In Queensland, 50 projects have been approved receiving more than $84 million in Commonwealth funding to support disaster risk reduction, including 40 projects for councils, three for state agencies, five for non-government organisations and two for universities.

A full list of successful projects can be found on the QRA website.

Summary of the outcomes provided by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

Round One of the DRF was highly competitive with over 300 applications submitted and over $460 million in Commonwealth funding requested.

The quality and number of applications meant that unfortunately not every project was able to be funded from the Round One pool of $200 million.

On 7 June 2023, the Minister for Emergency Management announced 187 projects across Australia would share in $200 million of Commonwealth funds under Round One.

This funding will support a variety of projects aimed at reducing disaster risk and improving the resilience of Australian communities against a range of natural hazards such as bushfires, floods and tropical cyclones, and includes:

• almost $65 million of Commonwealth investment for 74 infrastructure projects;
• almost $84 million of Commonwealth investment for 74 systemic risk reduction projects; and
• over $51 million of Commonwealth investment for 39 projects that will deliver both infrastructure and systemic risk reduction outcomes.

A complete list of awarded projects is published on NEMA’s website.

Proponents who were unsuccessful in Round One may wish to consider re-applying in Round Two.

Overarching feedback provided by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

This feedback is provided to assist applicants and delivery partners to understand what, generally, comprised a strong application and the content of quality responses to the assessment criteria for Round One.

Successful applicants provided strong responses to the selection criteria and demonstrated their ability to meet the eligibility requirements outlined in the Guidelines.

Scores took into account the applicant’s responses, any supporting documentation provided, and the project size, complexity and amount of funding sought (e.g. larger, more complex projects were generally expected to provide more detail against each of criterion).

Further detail about what constituted a strong response to each criterion is provided below.

Criterion 1 - Project details (40%)

When addressing this criterion, strong applications clearly described the project, including how it would reduce the level(s) of disaster risk (exposure or vulnerability), deliver lasting benefits and enable adaptation to future climate and disaster impacts, and avoid and manage the potential for maladaptation (including any potentially negative social, environmental or economic outcomes).

Characteristics of strong responses to this criterion included:

• well-defined and relevant project objectives (problem and solution), inputs (resources), outputs (activities) and outcomes (short, medium and long-term).
• a detailed outline and comparison of level(s) of exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards in the geographic area that the project relates to, both prior to and upon conclusion of the project.

• a clearly articulated and well-reasoned case that showed the potential impact of the project on the identified target area or group/s in terms of: (i) increased understanding of natural hazard disaster 

  impacts, (ii) increased resilience, adaptive capacity and/or preparedness, and/or (iii) reduced exposure to risk, harm and/or severity of a natural hazard’s impacts.

• multiple sources of evidence (e.g. anecdotal reports combined with references to research data and/or expert advice) to support claims related to levels of disaster risk and expected project benefits.
• a strong commitment to maintain the project benefits beyond the duration of program funding, and a credible explanation of how they would do this.
• well-developed strategies for avoiding and managing potential maladaptation.

Criterion 2 - The likelihood of project success (30%)

When addressing this criterion, strong applications clearly demonstrated that the applicant team has the capacity, capability and resources to successfully deliver the project outcomes, including evidence of: capacity to complete the project in adherence with relevant industry and legislative standards; capability (including previous experience in undertaking similar scale projects) and confirmation of the ability to deliver the project within the agreed maximum three (3) year timeframe; and value for money.

Characteristics of strong responses to this criterion included:

• a track record that demonstrated experience successfully managing a project of a similar size and scope.
• a team (applicant and delivery partners) that possesses all the required skills and expertise to successfully achieve the target outcomes.
• assumptions that were relevant, clear and reasonably detailed.
• some risks, however none that weren’t relatively minor and which couldn’t be managed.
• a Project Logic (plan) that was feasible and likely to achieve the intended outcomes taking into account the project inputs, outputs, duration, assumptions and risks, with only minor weaknesses.
• a timeline/schedule for the project that provided a high level of confidence that the project could commence quickly and be completed within the project duration (3 years maximum).
• an indicative budget that was appropriate for the size and scope of the project; any concerns (e.g. excessive claims) or gaps were minor.
• a confirmed or in principle co-contribution of 50% (or strong case for a waiver).
• a clear description of how project funds would be used to deliver the project outcomes.

Criterion 3 - Alignment with existing plans and strategies (30%)

When addressing this criterion, strong applications clearly demonstrated how the project aligns with existing plans and strategies.

Characteristics of strong responses to this criterion included:

• a convincing explanation including key details regarding how and to what extent the project activities and intended outcome/s address one or more of the DRF’s objectives.
• for projects with a place-based focus, a detailed description of stakeholder engagement activities that showed a reasonable breadth of consultation and support from relevant stakeholders such as local government and First Nations communities and how that support will be maintained throughout the project, together with at least one source of reliable evidence (e.g. endorsement from community group(s) or local council; outcomes from a community survey; community contributions to the project such as cash or in kind contributions; collaboration with other organisations within the area; or community participation in the project).
• specific references to how the project is consistent with or supports relevant Commonwealth (e.g. National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework), state, territory or local government disaster risk reduction policies and/or risk assessments.
• reasons for seeking funds through the DRF and not other potentially more appropriate sources (e.g. other relevant Commonwealth, state and territory grant programs, partnerships, investors, etc.).

Individual feedback

Applicants and partners should refer to the Rating Matrix and general feedback provided above when interpreting these scores.

In the first instance, please contact your Regional Liaison Officer who can provide further information on your application and provide guidance on strengthening the application for future rounds.

Alternatively, you can also send an email to: 
submission@qra.qld.gov.au
 

QRA is awaiting further advice from NEMA on when the next round of the DRF is scheduled to open. In the meantime, we encourage you to keep an eye out for available funding programs on the QRA website.