Tag: Lord Donoughue

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.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are arrangements in place to prevent funding from the Department for International Development’s 2014–16 Programme Partnership Arrangement indirectly subsidising other elements of charities’ expenditure.

Earl of Courtown

Programme Partnership Arrangement funding is provided to organisations to meet objectives set out in robust performance frameworks, agreed between the organisation and DFID, but it is not tied to specific initiatives or interventions. Organisations formally report against these performance frameworks on an annual basis.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are aware of any intermittency issues concerning renewable generating capacity installed using finance from the UK International Climate Fund.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Through the International Climate Fund (ICF) we support a number of renewable energy projects in developing countries, with the aim to increase the availability of affordable, reliable and sustainable energy. On the grid, we support a diverse portfolio of renewable energies which are planned to contribute to generation diversity and system stability; we also support off-grid renewable energy systems, which are integrated with storage technologies. ICF support not only keeps the lights on, but also improves health and education, spurs economic growth and creates jobs. Our work is aligned with the new Global Goals, particularly Goal 7, to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all by 2030.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any changes in agricultural yields due to sustainable agricultural projects funded, in whole or in part, by the UK International Climate Fund.

Earl of Courtown

Agriculture projects receiving ICF support are assessed against a number of performance indicators, including improvement in people’s resilience to climate change, and how they help improve farmers’ incomes and yields. While the evidence on effective climate change actions is still growing, the DFID funded CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security has reviewed in 2015 the impact of 19 climate smart case studies on agriculture productivity, people’s resilience to climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It found that climate smart approaches clearly have the potential to meet our development expectations: all of the 19 case studies contributed towards sustainably increasing agricultural productivity, and related increases in farm incomes, food security and development. 18 cases helped build resilience of agricultural and food security systems to climate change, and 15 cases clearly contributed to reducing greenhouse gases from agriculture.