Tag: Lord Donoughue

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Donoughue on 2016-02-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Earl of Courtown on 26 January (HL4975), whether there has been an occasion on which they have not been satisfied with the annual performance report of a charity receiving Programme Partnership Arrangement funding; whether financial penalties were imposed as a result; and whether they publish criteria about when such penalties will be imposed.

Baroness Verma

All Programme Partnerships Arrangement are reviewed on an annual basis, providing an assessment of performance, ongoing relevance, value for money and any remedial action required. We have not to date imposed financial penalties on any Programme Partnership Arrangement recipient. All Annual Reviews are published on DFID’s Development Tracker which is available online.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how many new coal-fired plants are planned by China and India over the next decade.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Table 7.2 of the International Energy Agency’s 2015 World Energy Outlook projects the following demand for coal under the Agency’s New Policy Scenario:

	2013	2025
China	2,932	2,957
India	488	812
World	5,613	5,874

Figures in Mtce – million tonnes of coal equivalent.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid by the Department for International Development to green energy campaign groups between 2010 and 2015 (1) in the UK, and (2) internationally, both as a total and as a percentage of the Department for International Development’s development expenditure.

Earl of Courtown

DFID does not fund any green energy campaign groups in the UK. DFID’s Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) funding to Civil Society enables organisations to achieve international development outcomes. Some organisations may choose to use DFID funding for advocacy efforts, including on climate, within the countries in which they work

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been spent on the International Climate Fund in each financial year from 2011–12 to 2014–15.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Spend under the International Climate Fund by the Department for International Development, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is as follows:

2011-12 – £427m

2012-13 – £548m

2013-14 – £788m

2014-15 – £911m

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in 2014, what percentage of the International Climate Fund was spent on (1) low carbon development, compared to the original target of 30 per cent, and (2) adaptation, compared to the original intention of 50 per cent.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The original thematic splits for the International Climate Fund (ICF) were revised in 2013 as part of a strategic review of the Fund. The revised goals are for a 50:50 split over the 2011/12 – 2015/16 Spending Review period between low carbon development and adaptation, with forestry contributing equally to both themes.

As reported in the International Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) report in 2014, at the end of the 2013/14 financial year, the ICF had spent 45% of its budget (£1.75bn), with 56% going towards mitigation, 28% on adaptation and 16% on forestry. In 2014 the International Climate Fund spent a total of £880m, with 41.8% on low carbon development and 42.3% on adaptation. The remaining spend was mainly directed at forestry programmes, with a small amount categorised as cross-cutting.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Clean Technology Funds financial eligibility threshold of $200 per tonne of CO2 equivalent abated represents good value for UK taxpayers in the context of global mitigation effects.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

In order to ensure value for money, the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Investment Criteria (2009) has six objectives, of which cost-effectiveness is one. The other objectives are Potential for GHG Emissions Savings, Demonstration Potential at Scale, Development Impact, Implementation Potential and Additional Costs and Risk Premium.

The financial eligibility threshold of $200 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent is in place to safeguard value for money. This threshold was based on the International Energy Agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 Report, as the lower-end estimate of the marginal incentive needed to achieve a reduction of global GHG emissions to 50% by 2050. The average total investment cost per tonne achieved in the CTF is $39.60 (£26.40), which is significantly below this threshold.

More information is available in the document Climate Investment Funds (2009), Clean Technology Fund Investment Criteria for public sector operations.

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).