Tag: Lord Donoughue

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to ensure that civil servants respond to comments in the 2014 report on the UK’s International Climate Fund (ICF) by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact that pressure to spend ICF funds quickly has not always been conducive to effective delivery.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The Government’s response to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s review is available online. We accepted or partially accepted all of ICAI’s recommendations and we are on track to implement or have already implemented the actions set out in this response.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much the Department of Energy and Climate Change plans to spend on the Green Climate Fund in each financial year from 2015–16 to 2017–18.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The Department of Energy and Climate Change contributed £80 million to the Green Climate Fund during the 2015-2016 financial year. DECC plans to contribute £80 million in FY 2016-2017 and £80 million in FY 2017-2018, dependent on the financial needs of the Green Climate Fund.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that cost-effectiveness in spending improves as the International Climate Fund scheme expands.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) report published in December last year assessed the ICF as Green-Amber, meaning that it “performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money”, noting that it “built up significant momentum and is now well placed to deliver on its ambitious objectives”.

The Government’s response to the report was published in November 2014 and sets out the steps that we are taking to improve further the impact and cost-effectiveness of the International Climate Fund (link attached).

We will continue to learn from and improve the robust approach to programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation within the ICF to ensure continued cost-effectiveness as the ICF expands in the next Spending Review period.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the total investment costs per tonne of CO2 equivalent abated by the Clean Technology Fund has increased from £21.40 to £26.40 according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s additional business case and intervention summary 2015; and what is being done to address rising costs.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Clean Technology Fund (CTF) approval decisions are based on six CTF Investment Criteria, of which cost-effectiveness is one. The total investment cost per tonne is estimated based on the portfolio of CTF projects that have been approved by the Trust Fund Committee. The original appraisal relied on the assessment of 30 individual projects approved by 2013, whereas the latest analysis is based on 57 projects approved by 2015. The total cost per tonne across the portfolio has changed as more projects have been approved, and will be expected to continue to change as the CTF portfolio increases, reflecting the range of projects included in the portfolio. As an example, sectors such as transport and energy efficiency typically have a higher cost per tonne than renewable energy projects. All projects deliver good value for money and wider benefits, such as private finance leveraged, jobs created, and increased numbers of people with access to energy.

In order to guarantee the continued value for money of the CTF, there is a robust project approval process ensuring compliance with the standards set out in the CTF investment criteria. As a contributor country the UK approves the allocation of CTF resources for programmes, projects, and administrative budgets; assessing new proposals to ensure continued the value for money (see attachment with further detail on the CTF governance structure).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the £361,446,114 spent on DfID’s Programme Partnership Arrangements in the 2011–14 round was spent: (1) overseas, and (2) on UK staff and advocacy efforts in the UK

Baroness Verma

DFID does not hold details of the proportion of funding spent through the Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) overseas and on UK staff. PPAs are not used for any campaigning or advocacy efforts in the UK.

The PPAs are strategic level arrangements with Civil Society Organisations based around mutually agreed outcomes. Organisations have individual performance frameworks against which they formally report against on an annual basis. Funding is flexible and not tied to specific interventions or initiatives.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2016-06-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of world atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions China and India contributed in the latest period for which records are available.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

There are no official emissions estimates available for recent years for many developing countries, including India and China. One widely used 3^rd party estimate is however available from the World Resources Institute CAIT dataset.

This data suggests that in 2012, the latest available year, China’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions (including land use, land use change and forestry, but excluding international aviation and shipping ) accounted for around 22% of the global total (25% for CO₂ only).

India’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions (including land use, land use change and forestry, but excluding international aviation and shipping) accounted for around 6% of the global total (5% for CO₂ only).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the average proportion of spending on DfID’s Programme Partnership Arrangements was on salaries for UK staff and advocacy work in the UK, broken down by the charities receiving that funding.

Baroness Verma

DFID does not hold details of the average proportion of spending through the Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) on salaries for UK staff.

PPAs are not used for any campaigning or advocacy efforts in the UK.

The PPAs are strategic level arrangements with Civil Society Organisations based around mutually agreed outcomes. Organisations have individual performance frameworks against which they formally report against on an annual basis. Funding is flexible and not tied to specific interventions or initiatives.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the overall cost was of the 2014–16 extension to the 2011–14 round of DfID’s Programme Partnership Arrangements.

Baroness Verma

The total cost of the 2014-16 extension to DFID’s Programme Partnership Arrangements was £240,000,074.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of DfID’s Programme Partnership Arrangements funding was spent by recipients on environmental and climate-related projects.

Baroness Verma

DFID does not hold details of the proportion of funding spent through the Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) on environmental and climate-related projects.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2016-01-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the £240,000,074 cost of the Department for International Development’s 2014–16 Programme Partnership Arrangement extension is to be allocated on the basis of tangible results achieved by charities during the 2011–14 round.

Earl of Courtown

Funding was allocated where organisations achieved significant results in the 2011-14 round of Programme Partnership Arrangement funding and also demonstrated clear alignment with key DFID objectives.