ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 21), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 6) · Report

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                         9 JUNE 2026


Risk of misallocation or               Funding
misuse of grant funding                agreements;
caused by inadequate Financial /       acquittal
financial controls within Legal /      requirements;    Unlikely     MediumMedium Yes
recipient organisations, Reputation    staged payments;
resulting in financial loss            monitoring and
or reputational impact                 reporting
Risk that funded projects
do not achieve intended               Assessment
environmental or climate              against outcomes
                          Environment
outcomes due to poor                  and feasibility;
                          / Service                     Possible     MediumMedium Yes
project design or                     officer guidance;
                          Delivery
external factors,                     monitoring and
resulting in reduced                  reporting
program effectiveness
                                       Formal
Risk of perceived lack of              assessment
transparency or fairness               criteria; panel
in grant allocation       Reputation / assessment;
                                                          Unlikely   MediumMedium Yes
process resulting in      Governance conflict of interest
reputational impacts and               declarations;
reduced community trust                documentation of
                                       decisions
Risk of conflicts of                  Mandatory COI
interest not being                    declarations;
                         Legal /
adequately identified or              exclusion of
                         Governance                        Rare      High   Medium Yes
managed, resulting in                 conflicted officers;
                         / Reputation
governance breach and                 governance
reputational damage                   oversight
Risk that high demand                   Transparent
for funding exceeds                     guidelines; clear
available budget,          Reputation / communication of
resulting in unsuccessful Service       limited funding; Likely      MediumHigh    Yes
applicants and potential Delivery       competitive
dissatisfaction within the              assessment
community                               process
Risk that funded climate
                                     Alignment criteria;
initiatives do not align
                                     officer
with broader Council
                          Governance engagement prior
strategies due to
                          / Service  to submission;      Unlikely    MediumMedium Yes
inconsistent
                          Delivery   panel review
interpretation, resulting
                                     against strategic
in reduced strategic
                                     documents
value
Risk that projects are                 Funding
delayed or not                         agreements;
completed within agreed                project
timeframes due to       Service        timeframes;
                                                         Possible    MediumMedium Yes
external factors        Delivery       progress
(weather, approvals,                   reporting;
staffing), impacting                   extension
delivery timelines                     provisions