Disaster Ready Fund - Round Two 2024-2025

Established by the Commonwealth Government, the DRF is a funding program developed to help communities protect themselves against the impacts of natural hazards across Australia. The Commonwealth Government, via the DRF, has committed to provide up to $1 billion over a period of five years, from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2028.

In Queensland, the DRF Round One 2024-25 is administered by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) on behalf of the Australian Government.

Applications for Round Two of the DRF opened on 22 January 2024 and closed on 20 March 2024. The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) convened a panel to undertake a robust assessment of the applications in accordance with the DRF Round Two Guidelines and provided recommendations to the Minister for Emergency Management for approval on successful projects.

The Hon Jenny McAllister, Minister for Emergency Management announced the successful projects on 28 August 2024.

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:

• Once submitted by QRA, NEMA undertook an initial eligibility check against the eligibility criteria. Any applications that do not meet all the eligibility criteria were excluded from further consideration in accordance with section 3.3. of the Guidelines. The Program Delegate will be the final decision maker on determining eligibility
• NEMA established and chaired a DRF Assessment Panel/s, comprising members agreed by the Program Delegate. 
• The Panel/s considered eligible responses (refer section 3) in two stages, as outlined below. 
  1. The Panel/s assessed each project proposal individually against the three selection criteria (section 7), culminating with each proposal receiving an overall rating in accordance with the Table below. 
     • As part of this process, the Panel/s will also consider requests for waivers or partial waivers of the co-contribution requirement in the context of value with relevant money as part of Criterion 3; 
  2. Proposals were then ranked. The Panel/s may apply Investment Principle 4 (‘diverse and equitable’, section 2.4) by giving consideration to equity with respect to the types of projects, the appropriateness of the geographic and thematic split of projects, and relative benefit per capita (population impact), in acknowledgement that the DRF is national in scope with a variety of project activity types. ‘Equity’ does not mean an equal split of funding.
     • the Panel/s may give specific consideration to any national interest, financial, legal, regulatory, governance or other issue or risk that is identified during any due diligence processes conducted in respect of each project; 
     • the Panel/s may also take into account (but is not bound by) the project categorisation (‘Highly Suitable’ or ‘Suitable’) assigned by Lead Agencies.

Application rating matrix

In accordance with the DRF Act, the Minister for Emergency Management is responsible for deciding which projects to fund. In making these decisions, the Minister may take into account the findings of the Panel/s, in conjunction with any other advice or recommendations provided by NEMA.

Queensland outcomes

In Queensland, 29 projects have been approved receiving more than $30.8 million in Commonwealth funding to support disaster risk reduction, including 18 projects for councils, two for state agencies, seven 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 Two of the DRF was highly competitive with over 502 applications submitted by States/Territories.

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

On 28 August 2024, the Minister for Emergency Management announced 165 projects across Australia would share in $200 million of Commonwealth funds under Round Two.

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:

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

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

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: 
info@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.