activities that are regarded as new research with limited application in the foreseeable future for practices and /or technologies that are already well-established as best practice. ‘trials’ To score well, items and activities that are ineligible or as usual’ should not be included ‘business under the grant funding component of a project. This does not mean that private funding (as a project co-contribution) cannot be used for these items or activities as part of the project if the applicant considers that this will augment the project, but details of this are required in the budget justification. Specific feedback Tier 1 – Please note that the selection criteria for 2 may be slightly different from these round 1 selection criteria. Criterion 1 - Explain how the development and implementation of the proposed grant activity is informed by evidence and will achieve the Smart Farms Small Grants outcome. Quality applications: Example Quality responses clearly described: – a detailed understanding of how the activity increases demonstrated an the knowledge and capacity of farmers and fishers and understanding of how the facilitates the adoption of tools, technologies to improve proposed activity aligns with land management practices the Smart Farms Small Grants how the activity assists to effectively, sustainably and Outcome. productively manage Australia’s natural resources and adapt to significant changes in climate, weather and markets. provided justifications of the from what is written, the need for the activity and how the need for the activity, especially project aligns with the Grant Opportunity Guidelines how this will deliver benefits to should be clear the broader community. how the activity will deliver benefits to the broader community. explained how the activity is that the activity aligns fully with best available informed by evidence and knowledge, science, established research results, and contemporary best practice. best practice. for improvement Generally, unsuccessful applicants have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 by: providing further detail about how the proposed activity aligns with the program outcomes, providing clearer justifications and evidence of the need for the activity, providing more detailed information about how the activity delivers benefits to the broader farming community.
activities that are regarded as new research with limited application in the foreseeable future ‘trials’ for practices and /or technologies that are already well-established as best practice. To score well, items and activities that are ineligible or ‘business as usual’ should not be included under the grant funding component of a project. This does not mean that private funding (as a project co-contribution) cannot be used for these items or activities as part of the project if the applicant considers that this will augment the project, but details of this are required in the budget justification. Specific feedback – Tier 1 Please note that the selection criteria for 2 may be slightly different from these round 1 selection criteria. Criterion 1 - Explain how the development and implementation of the proposed grant activity is informed by evidence and will achieve the Smart Farms Small Grants outcome. Quality applications: Example – Quality responses clearly described: demonstrated an understanding of how the proposed activity aligns with the Smart Farms Small Grants Outcome. a detailed understanding of how the activity increases the knowledge and capacity of farmers and fishers and facilitates the adoption of tools, technologies to improve land management practices how the activity assists to effectively, sustainably and productively manage Australia’s natural resources and adapt to significant changes in climate, weather and markets. provided justifications of the need for the activity, especially how this will deliver benefits to the broader community. from what is written, the need for the activity and how the project aligns with the Grant Opportunity Guidelines should be clear how the activity will deliver benefits to the broader community. explained how the activity is informed by evidence and contemporary best practice. that the activity aligns fully with best available knowledge, science, established research results, and best practice. for improvement Generally, unsuccessful applicants have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 by: providing further detail about how the proposed activity aligns with the program outcomes, providing clearer justifications and evidence of the need for the activity, providing more detailed information about how the activity delivers benefits to the broader farming community.
smart-farms-small-grants-2017-general-feedback-191118_0.docx