Skip to content

UK’s Much Vaunted “Climate Aid” Is Just Recycled Aid.

January 7, 2019
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Dennis Ambler

 

image

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-10-18/181257/

 

We hear a lot about all of the “climate aid” money the UK is handing out to developing countries. And, of course, it is all totted up towards the global target of $100bn a year, which is supposed to be due by 2020.

For instance, Harriet Baldwin, Minister of State at the Dept for International Development (DFID) provided the above answer to a question in Parliament last October.

£5.8bn sounds a lot of money. But when I checked it out with DFID, it turns out that this money is simply allocated from the existing Overseas Development Assistance Budget. In turn, the ODA is fixed by law at 0.7% of GDP.

image

 

BEIS and DEFRA, who are responsible for some of the payments, gave similar answers.

 

We may recall that the Copenhagen Accord was quite specific, that this $100bn had to be new and additional money:

 “Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries……

The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Green_Climate_Fund

 

It is true that Britain’s overseas aid spending has increased in real terms since 2009, because of the new statutory requirement to spend 0.7% of GDP. However, this requirement was not introduced to facilitate climate funding.

What is absolutely clear is that every penny now spent on climate aid has to be funded by cuts in other aid areas. It certainly cannot therefore be regarded as “new and additional”.

Whether the money could have been better spent elsewhere is debatable!

Maybe Chris Law would have been better advised to ask “What areas of overseas aid have been cut to finance climate aid?”

 

Burkino Faso

And what about how this money is spent?

Harriet Baldwin gave the example of Burkino Faso, who she said need to prepare for heavy rains.

According to the World Bank:

 Located between the Sahara Desert to the north and coastal rainforests to the south, Burkina Faso is prone to chronic drought, flash floods, wind storms, and disease outbreaks.

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/countryprofile/home.cfm?page=country_profile&CCode=BFA

 

 

And according to KNMI, monthly extremes of rainfall were higher prior to 1960:

 time series

http://climexp.knmi.nl/getprcpall.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=65503&STATION=OUAGADOUGOU_AERO&extraargs=

 

In other words, the country already suffers from the problem of floods. What Baldwin is really funding is building resilience against bad weather, not climate change. A highly commended activity, I have no doubt, but nothing to do with climate.

I also have little doubt that similar, weather related projects have been funded in the past, without being rebadged as “climate”.

 

As for overall rainfall, the current 10-year average is bang on the long term mean. The Sahel drought, which coincided with global cooling, is evident in the 1970s and 80s. Also there was a much wetter period between the 1930s and 60s.

However, rainfall levels in recent decades have been little different to the early 20thC.

 

image

 http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=downscaled_data_download&menu=historical

 

It’s not clear that much is happening with temperatures either:

 

time series

 http://climexp.knmi.nl/gettempall.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=65503&STATION=OUAGADOUGOU&extraargs=

 

As for the aid money, it is questionable how much Burkino Faso will actually see. As Harriet Baldwin pointed out, the aid is channelled via the Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters programme (BRACED).

Their website notes that:

BRACED is helping people become more resilient to climate extremes in South and Southeast Asia and in the African Sahel and its neighbouring countries. To improve the integration of disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation methods into development approaches, BRACED seeks to influence policies and practices at the local, national and international level.

DFID funding for BRACED has been awarded as 3-year grants to 15 projects. Project summaries and contact details can be found below. These grants are managed by a Fund Manager, led by KPMG, who oversee the contract and financial management of the grants, monitor project progress, and manage due diligence and compliance. DFID have also appointed a Knowledge Manager, led by ODI, who are working to generate new knowledge, evidence and learning on resilience and adaptation in partnership with the BRACED projects and resilience community. Information about the Fund Manager and Knowledge Manager consortiums can be found below.

http://www.braced.org/about/about-the-projects/

 

The fat cats at KPMG and ODI will doubtlessly cream off a nice slice of the funding. Back in 2016, the Public Accounts Committee that the DFID shelled out £98m in the previous year to the Big Four accountancy companies.

21 Comments
  1. Chilli permalink
    January 7, 2019 10:06 pm

    Still unclear why the British government is spending 0.7% of GDP (= 4% of all income tax collected) on these fraud-prone dubious aid schemes in far-off places when:

    a) the UK is in deficit so this aid money is being borrowed on the credit card of future generations

    and

    b) polls indicate the British people would far prefer that money to be returned to them as tax cuts so they can spend it on their own priorities.

    It’s the worst kind of virtue signalling by the political elite at taxpayer’s expense.

    • The Man at the Back permalink
      January 7, 2019 10:25 pm

      +1

      b) is open to debate depending on your on your point-of-view, BUT

      a) is an absolute fact that is just ignored. Mind you many who give to Children in Need (a worth cause) just stick it on their credit card debt.

      Surely the total debt problem has to come to a head at some point? But it just keeps rolling along – government and personal.

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 8, 2019 3:01 pm

      The 0.7% of GDP is from the UN wish list and was a “feel good” from David Cameron. Nick Clegg claimed the credit for making it a legal requirement in the UK.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677297/Clegg-forces-Cameron-foreign-aid-law-PM-support-plans-spend-0-7-GDP-despite-likely-cause-split-Tories.html

      https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03714
      The UK Government has met the 0.7% aid target since 2013. Since 2015, the target has been legally binding. The UK Government says that meeting the target is in the national interest. However, in recent months, opponents of the target — and of foreign aid spending more broadly — have waged a campaign against it.

      The 0.7% aid target is a target for donor countries to contribute 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) as Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). It was adopted as a target by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1970.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-aid-commitment-reform-risk-fraud-nao-report-says-a7570301.html

      “Reforms introduced by David Cameron to plough billions more into overseas support and change the way it is targeted could increase the risk of wrongdoing, according to the National Audit Office.

      It warned that it was “particularly challenging” to detect fraud in more than half of DfID’s spending because the money was routed through other international organisations such as the United Nations or World Bank.
      Read more

      Financial crimes in UN organisations are believed to be under-reported and the problem could be “significant and endemic”, the NAO’s report said.

      (It is: UNlimited Corruption – http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/10/unlimited-corruption/)

      Nearly 40 per cent of DfID’s fraud cases between 2003 and 2016 involved non-governmental organisations (NGOs) while governments accounted for 6.5 per cent and radical groups 0.3 per cent, according to the report.

      Under Mr Cameron, the Government committed to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on international aid, which came to around £12 billion last year.”

      He was very pleased with himself:

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10107766/David-Cameron-aid-spending-makes-me-proud-to-be-British.html

      “David Cameron has defended the amount of money that the government spends on foreign aid and said it made him “proud to be British”.

      Britain was “out in front” in reaching the target to give 0.7% of GDP because of the “kind of people we are”, he insisted.

      The government has faced heavy criticism in recent months after it emerged that British aid was going to relatively wealthy countries.

      A sixth of the Department for International Developments budget is also diverted to the EU for its own schemes, which have included £800,000 being spent on building a water park in Morocco while Iceland received £20 million.

      Around £5 million was spent in Bangladesh setting up a Question Time style television programme.”

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/09/britain-one-five-countries-meet-un-foreign-aid-target/

      “Britain is now one of only five countries to meet the UN’s foreign aid target, as even Germany failed to give 0.7 per cent of its national income on overseas aid last year.”

  2. A C Osborn permalink
    January 7, 2019 10:10 pm

    It is the pea under the shell game.
    And then as you say, the NGOs, Banks and Accountants get their hands on it anyway.

  3. MrGrimNasty permalink
    January 7, 2019 10:27 pm

    All this money sloshing around and we still get endless adverts on TV from UN offshoots and other charities guilt tripping us for £3 for a meal, a blanket, £25 for a tent for yet another emergency somewhere.

  4. January 7, 2019 10:39 pm

    Breaking news…

    World Bank President Jim Yong-kim unexpectedly resigns amid differences with Trump administration

    Jim Yong-kim, a Korean-American, was nominated by former US President Barack Obama for two five-year terms

    He had pushed financing for green energy projects and largely dropped support for coal power investments

    https://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2181093/world-bank-president-jim-yong-kim-unexpectedly-resigns-amid

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 7, 2019 11:14 pm

      Very interesting, good spot.

    • Bitter@twisted permalink
      January 8, 2019 8:13 am

      This sounds like good news. As long as they don’t replace this green fanatic with another.
      Meanwhile the parasite has gone private to line his pockets even more🤮

  5. bobn permalink
    January 8, 2019 1:03 am

    Paul. You say £3.6m of the £5.8m in overseas aid is coming from DFID (who consume .7% of GDP). So that implies an additional £2.2m (at least) is being spent by Govt on aid in addition to DFIDs 0.7% of GDP. Where is it coming from exactly? The UK public already thinks 0.7% is too much to give away when UK services are crumbling, but it appears the overseas waste is greater than 0.7%!!! Exactly how much taxpayers money is being tossed away? Of course there’s the foreign aid given via defence services and the foreign office, and I note 2 ‘home office’ coastguard boats were giving aid in the Med. It seems 0.7% is just the tip of the iceberg of political ripoff of taxpayers. Taxpayers Alliance may want to chase this down.

    • Gray permalink
      January 8, 2019 6:16 am

      Have you confused million with billion?

    • January 8, 2019 9:07 am

      Sorry it is not clear.

      The balance of £2.2bn comes from BEIS and DEFRA, but all counts towards the Overseas Aid Budget, and therefore the 0.7%.

  6. January 8, 2019 5:54 am

    Rebranding “disaster relief” as “climate change aid” is pretty cynical, no doubt lapped up by the patsies in the media and Parliament, but there may be another issue here. A lot of money is being spent on solar lights for areas without a grid, nothing at all wrong with that, but this could be part of a conspiracy to deprive Africa in particular of proper power stations, apparently one of the cuddly green goals of the World Bank.

    • Bitter@twisted permalink
      January 8, 2019 8:11 am

      At least it’s not throwing yet more money away.

    • The Man at the Back permalink
      January 8, 2019 11:37 am

      That’s OK – the Africans won’t need the coal then, so the Chinese will burn it – they seem to have bought up a good bit of African coal already.

      It is only western politicians who don’t seem to spot that their virtue signaling policies will drive us to economic suicide, while achieving nothing? OR is that the point? – are they part of the Globalist UN Agenda 21 place-people?

      I have always preferred the cock-up theory to the Conspiracy theory of government, but the shape of abuse of our populations is quite persuasive. While on holiday in the USA last year one Virginian said to me – “50 years ago we were hunting down Commies, now they are in our government – whatever party is in power” It is a situation mirrored throughout Western Europe and the English speaking world.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 8, 2019 1:42 pm

      Luckily, the Chinese are keen to buy influence in Africa – oh, and their commodities – so will step forward to build power stations. Even the Japanese are going to help – a nation not noted for natural resources. I bet they can’t believe their luck that western governments are so stupid.

  7. daveR permalink
    January 8, 2019 6:56 am

    It should be time that folks got a grip. Here’s what Scottish Government proposes;

    ‘Scotland’s long term climate change targets will require the near complete decarbonisation of our energy system by 2050, with renewable energy meeting a significant share of our needs.

    Reaching 50% in 13 years will be challenging, particularly in more uncertain market conditions compared to those in the preceding decade, and due to the fact that not all the relevant policy levers are devolved to the Scottish Government. But the target demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to a low carbon energy system and to the continued growth of the renewable energy sector in Scotland. It also underlines our belief in the sector’s ability to build on its huge achievements and progress thus far.’

    No – I couldn’t have scripted that if I’d been paid for it.

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-energy-strategy-future-energy-scotland-9781788515276/pages/5/

    There’s been a bigger sell-out than this proposed p”sh. Hunterston A and B loomingly kanackered. Kincardine and Longannet foreclosed and shipped off to f’n Germany, zero nuclear renewal policy and hydro a joke.Yet here and within parliaments (?), these wanke*s collude in dictating energy policy ‘directives’.

    Scottish energy security deliberately sold out within a generation with kapital towards increasing EU inclusion. Really, what’s a simple bloke with a wife and family to think?

    Nah, Nicky. Zilcho, bebe OWTFYMWCI.

    • January 8, 2019 10:42 am

      New Zealand has trumped that, they plan ZERO carbon by 2050, and the sheep (not the real ones) are going along with it, probably because that nasty capitalist word COST is nowhere to be seen. They are already a wet dream for greenies, with extensive hydro and geothermal power, and they could certainly meet the target … by shutting down their agricultural sector, but the snowflakes will be in for some grief as they worry about the carbon and methane footprints of their food imports.

      Scottish snowflakes seem to be of hardier stock, with no worries at all about the carbon footprint of their backup power.

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    January 8, 2019 1:46 pm

    I suppose it is a minor bonus that the cash is being recycled and we are not being forced to shell out more. If only there was a way to reduce the overall amount by reducing GDP – oh, yes, easy – a No Deal Brexit. The chaos at the ports – responsible for 52% of EU exports – should do it nicely with capacity down to 20% that’s a £100bn hit to the economy in the first few months.

    • Jules permalink
      January 8, 2019 6:14 pm

      Dont tell me, lets have a ‘people’s’ vote.

  9. Gamecock permalink
    January 8, 2019 8:06 pm

    Time’s up.

    These “developing countries” have had decades to develop, and haven’t. Time to give up and cut them off.

  10. avro607 permalink
    January 9, 2019 8:06 pm

    To DaveR above:I take it that you mean the generators are sent to be used in the German coal fired power stations.Do they also ship the boilers etc.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: